Talk:World War II/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Battle of Imphal and Kohima Image

I would recommend that we change the Monte Casino image to that of Battle of Imphal and Kohima, (also mentioned in the text). This battle is very significant to the war in the Pacific, and is sometimes referred to as the "Stalingrad of Asia". So, the battle is much more important in the overall context than Monte Casino (which has a bit of cult status among historians, but is not very significant to the actual outcome of the war). Also, the new image would help to diversify the article by showing troops of the two million strong Indian-British Commonwealth Army. Current image [1] Proposed image [2] --Factor01 (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right, the battle is mentioned in the text (I just overlooked it). Regardless, I still feel the Monte Cassino image is better than the image you selected, since it shows the result of the battle and not just soldiers joking around. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 18:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, there are a few images of combat during the Burma Campaign, that potentially may be a better choice. But, for now we'll stay with Monte Cassino. --Factor01 (talk) 19:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I do think you raise a very valid point about the lack of any images from that theater of the war and we should probably look to include a couple at least. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 21:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

There are some pretty dramatic images from I&K in commons I believe. I will have a look round. It is certainly arguably a hugely more decisive battle than Cassino. I&K was the largest Allied land battle with the IJA and decisely broke the Japanese hold on Burma and crippled the Japanese defence potential of holding Malaya. I think it is of stellar notability, I would support a photographic representation. Irondome (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit in section new occupations and agreements.

I have replaced "bold" with "..more confident in the effectiveness of aggressive action.." I think this is more discriptive and is economical with bytes. Bold is a bit shallow and rather understates the reality:/ Happy to discuss Irondome (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that wording is an improvement: 'bolder' says pretty much the same thing in one word, and this wording is in the passive voice (I think). I'd suggest going back to the previous wording Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Bold it is :) Irondome (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Belligerents of World War II

In my opinion, France should be split into two separate belligerents. The source that's currently attached to France under the Allied powers of World War II's home page would support this edit. Free France should fall under the Allied powers, and of course Vichy France the Axis. It should also be noted that Free France was eventually recognized officially by the Allied powers as being the legitimate French government. It makes sense to me but feel free to disagree and explain.UnbiasedVictory (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

You may have something there. I do not know if this or a variation of it has been discussed in past archieved TP's though. It raises some interesting possibilities, but I need to get my head around the pro's and cons of it. Irondome (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The status of Vichy France has been discussed several times before and admittedly it is a thorny issue. (See the Archive for past discussions.) Vichy was never an active belligerent for either side. It did give some support to Germany, but so did neutrals like Spain and Sweden. Vichy France and Free France fought what was essentially a civil war for the duration; however there was never any declaration of war by Vichy against the Allies, or by the Allies against Vichy. In the end it was Germany that conquered Vichy, not the Allies. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2014

On the belligerents list, these following combatants should be added: Allies = Venezuela and Viet Minh Axis Puppet States = Vichy France 68.209.168.216 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not done The status of France has been agreed by consensus in past discussion, and is marked by a note. Venezuela and the Viet Minh, with respect, were not major players. There is no room for all potential actors to be included. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Casulties numbers cleanup

The casualties numbers need a bit of a clean up. An earlier paragraph lists Russin, Ukrainian war casualties, and is followed by a number that includes Polish, Ukrainin, and Belorussian casualties. That is a bit confusing, and redundant. That's why it would be a good idea so separate the Poles and Soviet casualties, possibly restructure the description altogether. --Factor01 (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

What text (and new supporting references?) do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I would suggest that we move the Belorussian casualty numbers (2,230,000) [3] to the first paragraph that describes the Soviet loses. In the second paragraph we would maintain the Jewish holocaust figure of (6,000,000), and clarify the previous entry of Polish casualties of 2.5 million [4] [5]. Finally, include the general number of (2,000,000) to include Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups supported by the current reference #309. --Factor01 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that those websites are reliable sources? I'd use anything published by the government of Belarus with very great caution given that it's basically a dictatorship (and what set of borders are they using here given that some of pre-war Poland ended up in Belarus?), Project InPosterum doesn't provide any details on itself and the credentials of Witold J. Lukaszewski aren't specified. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, in comparison... a book published by the Polish National Institute of Remembrance, titled: Poland from 1939 to 1945. Personal losses and victims of repression under two occupations lists the Polish ethnic casualties at around 2.7 million [6]. So, I think the numbers presented are legitimate. As for the Belorussian causlatiy numbers I'm looking for a another source to back them up. --Factor01 (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The original source of the Belorussian figures is the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission. This information appears in the book by Pavel Polian Жертвы двух диктатурVictims of Two Dictatorships This is the same Commission that claimed that the Germans were responsible for Katyn. Sources I can cite from the Russian internet are critical of the official figures. Viktor Zemskov believes these Soviet figures are overstated and need to be corrected Ясно, что эти данные завышены и нуждаются в существенной корректировке [7] and [8] --Woogie10w (talk) 20:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The casualty statistics of the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission are poorly understood outside of the former Soviet Union. Let's take Latvia for example. According to the League of Nations Yearbook 1942-44 the population of Latvia was 1,951,000. Martin Gilbert in his Atlas of the Holocaust puts Jewish dead at 80,000. The folks at the Extraordinary State Commission in 1946 claimed total civilian and POW dead in Latvia at 892,703 (313,798 killed; 330,032 POW and 248,873 forced laborers in Germany). Put that in your pipe and smoke it. --Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's go back to Belarus. The official Belorussian figure is 2.2 million civilian war dead. German historian Dieter Pohl puts the number of Belorussian civilians massacred in the partisan war at 300-350,000. Lucy Dawidowicz puts the number of Jews murdered in Belarus( in 1939 borders) at 245,000. Soviet losses can only be understood globally, millions were evacuated to the east and never returned to the devastated western regions, also ethnic Poles became refugees in Poland after the war, official Soviet statistics understated the number in Poland and included them with Soviet war dead. I suspect the folks at the the folks at the Extraordinary State Commission included these missing migrants as dead. --Woogie10w (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Completely uninformed text revert by the page admin

Ugh, Nick-D I can't believe that you actually had the audacity to state "collaborationist govts usually handled this". First off… let me be the first one to inform you that Poland did not have a collaborationist government, nothing even close to it. Also, here is a picture form Wiki Commons depicting German soldiers kidnaping a child in Zamość County, the very same place where that girl came from.

Kidnapping of Polish children during the Nazi-German resettlement operation in Zamość county

Also, if you are still skeptical; here is an excerpt from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [9]

In late 1942 and in 1943, the SS also carried out massive expulsions in the General Government, uprooting 110,000 Poles from 300 villages in the Zamosc-Lublin region. Families were torn apart as able-bodied teens and adults were taken for forced labor and elderly, young, and disabled persons were moved to other localities. Tens of thousands were also imprisoned in Auschwitz or Majdanek concentration camps.

Notice, how the statement distinctly mentioned the SS-Schutzstaffel as being the perpetrators for this war crime. At this point, I will like to re-add the text that you removed form the image caption, for the very reason why you removed it in the first place… to ensure that an ignorant person does not come to an asinine conclusion that a collaborationist government sent the people to concentration camps. --Factor01 (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. There's no such thing as a "page admin". Rwenonah (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok sorry… but there is a "person" who continually takes upon themself to police the page, and is quite authoritative in removing what they think should or should not be on the page. --Factor01 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an "editor". Rwenonah (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Concerning you comment that "there is a "person" who continually takes upon themself to police the page...": I am DEEPLY offended by that remark, there isn't a "person" who patrols the article, there are PEOPLE who patrol the article. We're here too, you know, and just because we are not all that active doesn't mean we don't do our part as well. Sheesh... TomStar81 (Talk) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am also offended by the dismissive and factually erroneous remark that was posted by Nick-D, and his automatic revert of the text in question. The whole point of having a descriptive statement is to ensure that ignorant people do not confuse who was truly responsible for what during the course of WWII, and unfortunately it happens to be the same user who continually opposes detailed descriptions of the events in question, this is the same editor, who opposed the use of the word "Genocide" in the section title, opting for a more ambitious term of "mass killings". --Factor01 (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

My advice to you is to let it go. This is one of a number of articles on here that can not be edited except by those who have the gift of diplomacy because every letter in this article is fought and paid for by editors just like you who take offense to some such thing. If it bugs that much fork it out to a different article and explore the issue there, just no that the harder you try and work with the WWII article the more people will rally to both sides of the issue to fight it on you and Nick's behalf. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you in that this is a difficult issue to write about, but as you noticed my intent was to properly document the events, so no one comes to the false conclusion that some collaborators sent many of the victims to the concentration camps, this was a German undertaking. At this point I would like to re-add the disputed text in the image caption, if there are no other objections. Because, this minor dispute showed just how uninformed many of the people are, and it is extremely important to properly state what happened. --Factor01 (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, the above source offers no proof that the specific girl in the caption was kidnapped by Nazis. In fact, I'd say that would be virtually impossible to confirm. Unless you have an eyewitness account specifying that the specific person in the photograph was kidnapped by the SS, saying such is an assumption which might well be false. Rwenonah (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is deeply cynical, the girl was form Zamość county, and was taken in December 1943, all this is documented; the source confirms that the German SS carried out the operation in late 1943 in Zamość county, to say that we don't know is just plain wrong, we know who this was, when they were taken, and by who. --Factor01 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia works according to a policy called verifiability. Not only is the kidnapper of the picture's subject unverifiable, but it is also unnecessary. We really don't need that much detail in a picture caption, especially if it isn't backed up by a source.Rwenonah (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Not only that, but the picture says December 1942 (i.e. a year too early for the operation you're discussing) and doesn't specify the person's origin beyond Polish. Rwenonah (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, first of all its a typo is should say 1942. Also, the image description does say "photo taken by the SS in Nazi-occupied Poland" So, I'll note that in the text. --Factor01 (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)It's all about finding sources and their quality. An interesting parallel is Josef Schultz, a German soldier that choose to stand besides partisans about to be shot. Photos of his action survived the war, and became a bit of an iconic image for resistance against nazism, refusal to abide wrongful orders, selfless sacrifice for higher ideals, etc. Do check the sources in this article, and how they and the article evolved from a stub over the course of an AfD nomination.

Now if wp:rs and wp:v sources can be found telling the story of those children, their names, age etc, where and when they were abducted, the identity of the other people in the picture, and so on, it could should at the very least be featured prominently in the aryanization article. However, the sourcing here is lacking. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

@Factor01: I'm well aware that Poland didn't have a collaborationist government, and am unsure why you're ranting about me claiming this given that my edit summary read the image citation doesn't say that the SS transported her, and I don't think that they normally did: other elements of the German Govt (and collaborationist govts) usually handled this, and not just the bit you cherry picked. My understanding is that in Poland the German security forces and public servants generally handled the logistics of arresting and transporting Jewish Holocaust victims , and the SS was not usually involved in this (though they ran the death and concentration camps). Some Poles, including some members of the "Blue Police" were involved in arresting Jews, however. In countries with collaborationist governments local security forces and public servants often handled the majority of the logistics of the Holocaust, which is what I was referring to - we can't assume that the SS was directly involved in transporting Jews to be murdered. In this specific case, I made the change as the caption you'd provided stated that the SS transported Czesława Kwoka, when this wasn't wasn't supported by a reference or even the image's caption at Commons. We don't do our readers a service (or help improve awareness of the way in which the Holocaust operated) by including incorrect or unverifiable claims. My personal view is that we need to be careful to not blame the SS for all of the Holocaust given that many other German and non-German institutions were also responsible, and this has important implications for preventing it from happening again. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Polish railroads during the war were under the control of the (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn administered by General Government under Hans Frank. The Polish railways worked under the supervision of German (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn personnel. The employees of the Polish railways continued maintain and operate the system. The SS operated in Poland independently of the General Government, and for the most part ignored the authority of Hans Frank. In the case of Czesława Kwoka, SS units rounded up the people in her town. The SS commander in Zamosc county called the Deutsche Reichsbahn officials in Krakow and requested a transport for Auschwitz. The (DR) Deutsche Reichsbahn officials in Krakow ordered the Polish railroad employees to schedule the train. The train staffed by employees of the Polish railways transported Czesława Kwoka to Auschwitz. If questioned after the war the railway employees from both Germany and Poland would say I was just following orders and did my job. --Woogie10w (talk) 17:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand that there were cases where German Police units were deployed to occupied countries, and the SS forced local police to arrest people. But, I have an issue with your interpretation of the events in general Nick-D. Even when local authorities were forced to arrest civilians, there was always an SS or Gestapo officer directing the operation, (and the local authorities were threatened with arrest or execution if they did not comply). So, it was still the SS responsible for what was happening, and for sending people to concentration camps. But, in the case of Zamość where this girl game from, it was the SS-men that actually carried out the operation, there is even a picture on Wiki Commons showing them [10] expelling people in December 1942, the same month when the girl was sent to the concentration camp. So, that's what I have an issue with... the watering down of responsibility, and going off on tangents. Even if hypothetically she was taken in by some police officer who was stuck between a rock and a hard place, it was the SS that authorized the operation and ordered the girl to be sent to a concentration camp. So, the SS sent her to Auschwitz. Any other argument that's based on some cynical technicality can be viewed as a way to divert blame away from the true perpetrators. --Factor01 (talk) 17:22, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The question as to the start of the war

World War II was several wars that merged, we all know that, but the whole thing as to when it started. most of the books I've read say that in the Pacific it began in 1931 with the Mukaden incident and in Europe with the Invasion of Poland, merging into that great unholy mess on Pearl Harbor Day.

So what I did was to put the European stuff together and the East Asian stuff together, that is the stuff before Sept.1, 1939. It works better, it looks better, and yes, there was fighting between 1931 and 1937 in China.Ericl (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2014

The first sentence contains a grammatical error: "[...]though global related conflicts begun earlier."

It should read, "[...]though global related conflicts began earlier."

Additionally, "global related" is clumsy. I suggest "[...]though global conflicts began earlier," or "[...]though related conflicts began earlier." Casey Gibbs (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 14:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Who evacuated at Dunkirk?

"Allied troops were forced to evacuate the continent at Dunkirk, abandoning their heavy equipment by early June." (Needs a comma after "equipment".) The way it currently reads it suggests that all Allied troops evacuated the continent in early June which is obviously (I hope) not what is intended. Not to mention that far more Allied combatants were captured than were evacuated. I would suggest joining this sentence to the previous paragraph and changing it to read: "The majority were taken prisoner, whilst over 300,000 were evacuated from the continent at Dunkirk by early June, although abandoning almost all of their equipment." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammar and dating system

Can we please use '1 September, 1939' instead of '1 September 1939'? I know it's pedantic, but it is important to remember the commas! 129.234.0.30 (talk) 08:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the commas are only correct in North American usage - in "rest of the world" usage they aren't correct. 195.171.114.69 (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing changes.

I have made the Blitz and Dunkirk changes mentioned above, There are a number of other areas where I feel that things could be tidied up, stated more accurately or referenced. I shall just edit where I think that it is relatively uncontentious.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and happy to be educated if I mess up in any way in these efforts. If any of my edits are felt to be incorrect or otherwise unacceptable I assume/hope that this will be brought up here. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Battle of the River Plate

I've just removed a one sentence paragraph on the 1939 Battle of the River Plate. While this was considered a big deal at the time, it was only one of dozens of similarly-sized battles between cruiser warships during the war, and had few long term consequences (it didn't stop the German surface raiders, much less the much more potent submarine force). As such, I don't think that it's worth noting. I hope this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, that seems sensible to me. And with your reasoning so well explained, how could anyone disagree? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Some material on Allied war crimes removed

I've also removed material which implied that justice was somehow cheated because American soldiers weren't brought before international tribunals for committing rape during the occupation of Germany (was referenced to a book review, seems an over-statement, and is dubious given that the western Allied armies did generally prosecute rapes which were reported), as well as the misplacement of the Vietnamese famine in a para on Allied war crimes: Vietnam was under Japanese occupation at the time. I also removed some sensationalist editorialising which was being hidden in references. As with the above, I think that this should be uncontroversial, and I hope the removal of this material is OK. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this material was problematic at the least. Anotherclown (talk) 12:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I dont think it was trying to say justice was cheated because there were no prosecutions for the rapes agianst Germans, we could reword it to take out the "Example of such" part if that's the only problem with it. Also wouldn't call it "sensationalist" as it was sourced, unless the problem was it being hidden in the references, in which case we can make it part of the main article to fix that. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The para starts with "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals, incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include...". It's simply not correct to place the rapes committed by western Allied troops in this context: the Allied armies could have done a better job in preventing rape from occurring and prosecuting suspected rapists, but it was generally taken very seriously by the military justice systems and the incidence isn't considered particularly notable by historians. I don't see how some historians problems getting a book published are relevant to the topic of this article, and the disingenuous note implying that it was common for American soldiers to mutilate the bodies of Japanese troops and that FDR wasn't particularly concerned about this is simply bad history. This material was added to multiple articles by a POV pusher a few years ago, and has largely been removed. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your original edit to remove the info in question. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why I got rid the "Examples of such..." part, unless the sentence still implies that it has anything to do with prosecutions, or some other problem. I still feel its kinda neccessary to maintain a neutral point of view though. And the notes were literally from and part of the source, it wasn't part of the main text. If the info is still problematic though, I'll be glad to revert myself. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the comparisons here are neutral: I don't think that it's reasonable to compare the not-huge (though, of course, still entirely unacceptable) incidence of rape and the response of the Western Allied militaries to this to the major war crimes of the war. I debunked the nonsense on American soldiers a few years ago as part of improving the American mutilation of Japanese war dead article, and the note hidden in the reference was probably added by the editor who added all sorts of wild claims to that article. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, the note in the reference was citing from the source. I wouldn't really say that the paragraph was trying to compare to the Axis crimes, and considering the Allied crimes were not-huge and a lot less than the Axis, I dont see what the problem with mentioning it is. In this case, it might be best to remove that little paragraph on Allied crimes altogether. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't follow your logic when you say that you believe no comparison is meant here. The wording is an explicit (and skewed) attempt to compare in my opinion: "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals,[323] incidents caused by the Allies were not". The construction of this sentence is clearly Axis vs Allied situation, uses a definite wording which implies no exeception, and neglects (deliberately ignores?) the fact that many Western Allied soldiers were held accountable through their nation's respective military justice systems for their individual crimes which were at any rate hardly comparable to the scale of the Axis crimes that were prosecuted at Nuremburg and elsewhere (i.e. systematic crimes against humanity). The implication then is that whilst Axis war criminals were brought to justice Allied soldiers that also committed crimes were not. Whilst it is doubtless true that a number of incidents that occurred on the Eastern Front in particular fell into this category and are rightly covered in this paragraph, to include the incidents of rape by Western Allied soldiers during the occupation of Germany does not seem appropriate to me. If you intend on keeping this material I think it needs clarification, otherwise it should be removed per Nick's original edit. Anotherclown (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, so lets clarify by putting the rapes agianst Germans at the end of paragraph to make it clear no comparison to the Axis crimes are meant there. I think its notable considering its cited by 2 history professors. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know most allied war crimes were those of individual soldiers. Sadly all conquering armies exhibit such war crimes (and have probably done so all over history). In my view these I am pretty sure these war crimes would compare to those of individual soldiers in the Axis armies during their 1939-1943 conquests. In the larger scale of the state organized crimes against humanity of the Nazis these tend not to be reported; and Nazi military police may not have persecuted or even recorded these. To give this whole thing due emphasis I would suggest to spend about as much space on both German/Japanese individual soldier war crimes and Allied individual war crimes. This reasoning does support the removal of material by Nick-D. Arnoutf (talk) 10:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

In that case, that whole little paragraph should be removed, and problem solved. All the Allied war crimes weren't really much. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The main allegation of war crimes during the war which is made against the Allied forces is the bombing of cities, and that has a separate para. Much of the current para is about post-war events, which is outside the scope of this article. Add, by the way I appreciate what you were doing with your last edit Supersaiyen312, but I think that it would be going on thin ice for this article to discuss the views of individual historians in that way - it would open the door to it becoming massively large! Hope this is OK. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I removed the problematic paragraph in question. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 11:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D did leave government incited/sanctioned war crimes which are not crimes that can be fully blamed on individual soldiers in the field. This makes sense following my arguments above. Arnoutf (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Order of countries in Belligerents' list Comment

How is the order determined? I understand that the Soviet Union, UK, and USA should be at the top but by which criteria are the others ordered? It's a bit strange to see New Zealand and Australia so far away from each other. DJAMP4444 (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But it might be noted that Canada is next to Australia and South Africa next to New Zealand. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Reasons for postponing the Invasion of France?

In "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" it states: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but his generals persuaded him to wait until May of next year." This is the first time I have come across the idea, having read in a number of sources that the (only) reason why the earlier dates for executing Fall Gelb were repeatedly postponed were bad weather (and, arguably, the capture by the Belgians of some of the plans for the original operation). The first four sources I checked this in all agree - with different weights being given to the Malines Incident. (The more recent accounts seem to give it least weight.) One source states that the start date was postponed 29 times, ie that 10 May was the 30th 'firm' date for the invasion to commence.

I would suggest amending the sentence to read: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but bad weather forced repeated postponements with the attack finally being launched in spring 1940." Or, for brevity: "After this rejection Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France, but bad weather forced repeated postponements until the spring of 1940."

Thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point. I would suggest that it in fact was a combination of several factors. My library is in storage at the mo, so I am going to have to work on memory to some extent. Weather, the Mechlin incident and he extensive subsequent replanning, and there is an undercurrent of ambivelance in Hitler's attitude. I believe that aspect is covered in Horne, To Lose a Battle, and a couple of others. Manstein appears to have been a dominant force also. We could accomodate a brief sumnation of the points above, in a condensed, sourced passage. Irondome (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

One could certainly make an argument that factors other than the weather contributed. But most of the delays, especially up to the end of January, were due to the weather.

Mechlin: Deighton (Blitzkrieg) writes: “It is tempting to see this incident as the reason for the German changeover to the Manstein plan, but this was not the way it happened.” He then explains why not over two pages.

Manstein: there was a lot of argument in the German high command over whether this was a useful concept, and if so just how to execute it. Eg of the second detailed war gaming of it, in Mayen on 14 February (the first was in Koblenz on the 7th), Guderian, one of the participants, comments: “the whole tone grew more and more depressing”; “no confidence in the leadership of the operation”; “endless discussion and worry” (Panzer Leader). Deighton: “the meeting ended with bad feeling on all sides”.

Hitler’s attitude: see Hitler’s strategic directive issued in early October (Nuremberg Documents C-62/GB86) which concludes: “The attack [on France] is to be launched this Autumn if conditions are at all possible.” He did slowly warm to the Manstein plan each time it was brought to his attention. Liddell Hart: “Warlimont brought Manstein’s idea to the notice of Hitler’s headquarters ... in mid-December. ... Jodl ... passed it on to Hitler. But it was only after the air accident of 10 January, when Hitler was looking for a new plan [sic], that Manstein’s proposal ... began to get a hold. Even then a month passed before he swung definitely in favour of it.” (History of the Second World War.)

Back to my initial point, certainly “Hitler ordered an immediate offensive against France” but is it agreed that the delays were not because “his generals persuaded him to wait until May of next year”? In which case I would suggest its replacement with “but bad weather forced repeated postponements until the spring of 1940". I could reference with Guderian, Liddell Hart and Deighton until someone comes along with better ones.

“We could accomodate a brief sumnation of the points above”. Possibly add: “These delays gave Hitler and his Generals time to review the original, relatively conventional and cautious, invasion plan and to replace it with a more audacious plan, based on a concept by Manstein, to completely destroy a major part of the Allied armies.” This does leave out Mechlin, but it is unclear how influential this was and I am loath to get into that sort of detail in what is meant to be a brief overview. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have made the first edit and referenced both parts of the sentence. I am reluctant to add a new area and extra words to include Manstein's Sichelschnitt without others agreeing that the additional information is worth the extra wordage. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have done it yet,- just got on to talk- would fully concur with wording..."These delays gave H and his generals...". Mechlin indeed may be over-weighted in some sources, whereas in fact, major problems with the original unimaginative attack plan of the autumn led to decisive changes irrespective of that incident. Irondome (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of removing the simplistic "blame hitler for all the mistakes" narrative. Ideally, it should reflect that it was both a natural evolution of military planning, and influenced by external factors. Perhaps if possible an allusion that Hitler had non-military reasons for as swift a war as possible could be included, though I'm uncertain if this level of detail is warranted here. ^walk victor falk ^talk 08:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This whole paragraph is pretty bad. The implication that Hitler ordered the invasion of France only because an attempt to negotiate peace was rejected is dubious. As I understand it, the invasion of France was intended for late 1939 (which suggests by itself that Hitler wasn't genuine about offering peace given the massive logistical effort involved in redeploying the Army from Poland), and was cancelled until the Spring mainly as the invasion plans were compromised and the winter was unusually severe. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Nick-D:, @Gog the Mild:, @Irondome:, what do you think of the following sentence?

While these exchanges were going on, the Wehrmacht shifted its weight to the western front to be ready for an eventual offensive as soon as logistical, meteorological and planning constraints permitted; this didn't happen until the spring 1940.

^walk victor falk ^talk 12:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Victor, I am biased, as I wrote half of the sentence you are proposing to replace, but it seems to me that the suggestion has so many elements in it, expressed it broad terms, that whilst accurate I fear that for the average reader it may obfuscate more than it illuminates.

I like the existing sentence. Hitler did order a comprehensive strategic review as soon as Chamberlain refused his 'peace offer'. It did end as quoted in the reference and he did sign it. The only reason why the attack didn't start before 17 January 1940 was because of postponements solely due to the weather - I have given 3 detailed references on this and could easily give more. I have not come across any sources suggesting that any delays were due to logistical constraints; could you give references? With hindsight the original plan may not have been a good one, but it was firm and I don't see that there was any "constraint". After the Mechlin incident one could argue that there was a planning issue, in that the Germans feared that the Allies knew some of their plans; although the totality of the documents missing contained limited information: the Luftwaffe operation orders for one airborne division.. Admittedly, for various reasons, the Wehrmacht plan did evolve into a fundamentally different approach after mid-February; but that is different from a planning constraint being in place which only ceased to block the start of the offensive until Spring.

It may be that an additional sentence noting the evolution of the German plan is warrented. One has been proposed, although I feel that it either needs work or replacing with something better.

In short the existing sentence seems accurate, succinct, accessible and well referenced; but as I started, I'm biased. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Effects of the Blitz?

"However, the air attacks largely failed to either disrupt the British war effort or convince them to sue for peace." This seems to conflate two separate issues. And I am not sure how one can be 'largely convinced' of something. Perhaps: "However, the air attacks largely failed to disrupt the British war effort and did not convince them to sue for peace." Gog the Mild (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• More streamlined: However, the air attacks failed to disrupt the British war effort and morale enough to convince them to sue for peace." ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is more succinct. However, does it not again conflate the two, separate, issues? Ie it leaves open the question of how much the British war effort was disrupted. The original version states, accurately in my view, that "the air attacks largely failed to either disrupt the British war effort". Your suggestion is unquantifiable (eg Barbarossa hugely disrupted the Russian war effort, but not enough to convince them to sue for peace) and so, it seems to me, provides the reader with less information than the sentence you are proposing to replace. One almost needs two separate sentences to do the two topics justice. I note that your more streamlined suggestion does not reduce the word count. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

How about: However, the air attacks failed in both disrupting the British war effort significantly and making them sue for peace ? ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

"However, the air attacks failed on two levels. British armaments production was largely uneffected, and civilian public opinion became more supportive of a strategic bombing campaign on German area targets" Think about it. It makes a far more compelling point in terms of the effects on civilian attitudes to gradual widespread acceptance of the bombing campaigns of 1943-45. No party seriously believed that Britain would collapse under the 1940 level of bombing power that the Luftwaffe could deliver. Hitler, maybe Goering, and then it was part of an attritional U-boat, surface raider and bombing strategy. I believe this argument to be redundant in terms of the strategic reality. British public opinion however, was increasingly radicalised into an increasingly ruthless acceptance and vocal support for the climax of the area bombing campaigns up to Dresden. I think this can be sourced. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I like that a lot, it provides a much more nuanced and informative view of the strategic bombing. The only problem is the increased word count; to provide contrast, here's an even more streamlined (shorter and simpler) version: "However, the air attacks did not disrupt the British war effort significantly nor made them sue for peace." So, what's the balance in information vs conciseness? ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the whole sue for peace bit should go. The Blitz article needs attention too, if we are to some extent linking to that. Irondome (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that half of the sentence provides almost no information that the reader can't deduce for themselves (obviously Britain did not surrender). I would support including your version, the much descriptive part about the escalation of the air war is worth it. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree with leaving things at "However, the air attacks did not disrupt the British war effort significantly". I don't think that the Germans expected the British to sue for peace as as result of the Blitz, and I've never seen any suggestion by historians that this was a realistic potential outcome from the raids. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it was part of the first generation "Blame it all on hitler" tendency popularised by Manstein's Verlorene Siege and similar self-exusing works. I have not seen it seriously mentioned except in a dismissive sense, or mentioned at all by recent mainstream historians. I would still advocate adding "but hardened popular resolve for retaliation" Irondome (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Done I have removed the sueing for peace clause of that sentence, which leaves room for something maybe more relevant and accepted by mainstream sources. I am suspecting we all, including User:Gog the Mild can agree that we reached a consensus on this. Cheers Irondome (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Russian weather in 1941.

It seems a little odd that the weather is not mentioned, at least in passing, as a factor in the German offensive against Moscow stalling in late 1941. I understood that it was widely accepted that this was an important contributory factor. Off the top of my head, can I suggest that "After two months of fierce battles, the German army almost reached ... " be changed to "After two months of fierce battles, during which the weather deteriorated badly as the Russian winter set in, the German army almost reached ... "

Thoughts? Alternative suggestions? Anyone think that the weather wasn't a significant factor? Or, at least, not significant enough to be worth mentioning? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild:, how about "After two months of fierce battles in increasingly worse weather, the German army almost reached ... ", as this would include the autumn mud, which was a more of a hinder than the cold, which actually was helpful in some ways such as providing firm ground. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

@^walk victor falk ^talk Good point re the mud. I prefer your version. I am not sure that it really conveys just how bad the weather got though. Thoughts on: "By October Axis operational objectives in Ukraine and the Baltic region were achieved, with only the sieges of Leningrad and Sevastopol continuing. A major offensive against Moscow was renewed. This was initially successful, but was then hampered by severe mud followed by steadily worsening winter weather which the Germans were not equipped to deal with. After two months of fierce battles, the German army almost reached the outer suburbs of Moscow, where the exhausted troops were forced to suspend their offensive."? I or we would need to add some references about the weather, which shouldn't be difficult. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Main issue with this concept is that it has an element of the already known about it. Every Russian winter is a bastard. I would limit it to "in increasingly harsh weather". A possible issue with labouring this idea in too much detail is that may attract some unreasonable revisionists who may latch on to the idea of the weather being the major factor behind the Heer's failiure. It was much more to do with flawed strategic decisions, a consistently ferocious opposition from the Red Army, which is spoken of in numerous German contemporary sources, and the often unrecognised fact that the Ostheer had been almost fatally wounded by its huge losses, consisting of the cream of the German infantry and tank crew of 1939-spring 41, even prior to operation Typhoon. An exhausted, largely unmotorised infantry at the end of its strength, with imposssibly ambitious objectives and a fundamentally doomed overall invasion plan due to its logistical impossibilities makes the weather almost irrelevant, I would say. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

@Victor falk:. Hi Victor :) An unrelated issue, but thought it would be ok to raise here. Im ok with the recent edit on the Katyn massacre re-insertion, but the revised death figures that are part of the same edit may be problematic. you have rounded down the figures, which does not reflect the given source, I believe. I think it would be wise to revert to the original version, at least until NickD gets back, so we can get an expert opinion. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Irondome, you must have confused me with someone else, I haven't made any edit on Katyn or indeed anywhere in the article in quite a while now. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. strange. You must have been on my mind :). I meant @Factor01: Irondome (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

As there seems to be agreement that it deserves at least a mention I have added a reference to it using Irondome's suggested phraseology. I have also pulled all reference to Operation Typhoon into one sentence; it seemed odd to have the opening phrase hanging on the end of the previous sentence.

Irondome, I was nodding along to your list of failure factors, in full agreement, until I got to "makes the weather almost irrelevant". It may be that I am mis-read or out of date, but can you reference that? A cursory browse got me seven sources that, to a greater or lesser extent, disagree. The Causes of Failure: Weather section of Operation Barbarossa goes into this, although I would agree that it is poorly referenced. (I may have a look at that.)

Well, yes, [e]very Russian winter is a bastard; but why should this be already known? It is not being suggested that the winter of '41-'42 was more of a bastard than usual; just informing the reader that the weather was bad and that the Germans were not equipped for it. A number of sources support this. I would be happy to have them corrected by any of a different opinion. I am also unhappy with the idea that we self censor because a reader might willfully misinterpret what we write. If we are both clear and well referenced, why should we care that idiots may mis-read us? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was being rhetorical :) I am not suggesting that any sources support such as a statement, it was my personal observation, reeking of OR/SYNTH. As to your second point, I am aware of the points you make, fully. However if a link to operation typhoon is added, (dont recall if its in para) the weather reference beyond your last edit is superfluous. I would not call your last point "censorship" entirely fair, merely the concern that any expansion of this may attract a disruption to the stability of the article, which is crucial. Basically this may attract editing which may be disruptive. A nice response. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ALLIED COUNTRIES

I was curious to know the reason behind the Allies order of countries on WW2 page. It clearly is not in Alphabetical order. Or in order of contributions as Soviet Union would not be first as they were not in the whole war or did not . IF IT WAS IN ORDER OF CONTRIBUTIONS, THE ORDER WOULD BE:

• United Kingdom
• France
• Soviet Union
• United States
• Poland etc.

Please let me no any reason you are aware of. If there is none then WW2 page should be edited. WARNER one 9999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talk • contribs) 18:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

It is in chronological order, to help following the narrative thread of the article. (I agree this a thin thread indeed at the moment, and it's more of a cobbled-together list of WWII allies right now, but theoretically this should be a prose article with the different parts tied up together as part of a discourse, and until someone {{sofixit}}s, this will have to do.) ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Axis Leaders?

I am not an english native speaker, so i hope you can understand me. I think that the infobox should display only the major and true leaders (Hitler,Mussolini and Hiroito) and not Antonescu and Horthy. If we indicate all the leaders of the axis power we should indicate also ALL the leaders of the allies, but it is very innapriopriate for an infobox in my view. barjimoa (talk) 1.50, 23 June 2014 (UTC+1) — Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point: Antonescu and Horthy were added without any discussion I can see. As the consensus in previous discussions was to list only the leaders of the Allied 'big 4' and the three main Axis countries I've just reverted this. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust responsibility

I would like to expand the following phrase in the Concentration camps, slave labour, and genocide section:

• The German Nazis along with segments of the German civilian population were responsible for the Holocaust.

The reason for this change is as historian Michael Berenbaum stated that Germany became a "a genocidal state"… "Every arm of the country's sophisticated bureaucracy was involved in the killing process. Parish churches and the Interior Ministry supplied birth records showing who was Jewish; the Post Office delivered the deportation and denaturalization orders; the Finance Ministry confiscated Jewish property; German firms fired Jewish workers and disenfranchised Jewish stockholders." Also, in the book The Death Marches: The Final Phase of Nazi Genocide the author writes of numerous incidents where German civilians hunted down concentration camp inmates, or murdered groups of them as they passed through their villages in forced marches. In conclusion, the current statement is incomplete, only placing blame on the political establishment, ignoring the fact that significant elements of the German society supported such fanatical ideas. References: Berenbaum, Michael (2005). The World Must Know: The History of the Holocaust. United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Blatman, Daniel (2011). The Death Marches: The Final Phase of Nazi Genocide. Harvard University Press --Factor01 (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that I see where you are coming from, and broadly I think that your suggestion improves the article. But it seems to suggest equality of culpability, which I don't think is what you intend. How about something like: The German Nazis, supported by segments of the German civilian population, were responsible for the Holocaust. Someone might have a better word than "supported". Of course, it could be argued that virtually all of the civilians involved were members of the Nazi Party, and so that your expansion is redundant. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure this would be ok. If we are talking about Nazis and the certain segments being Nazis anyway, I would agree this would be redundant. However, if we include also non-Nazi Germans than I think the addition is too narrow. Many collaborators in occupied countries willingly (even happily) helped Nazis to round up and deport Jewish victims to their death. So if you want to expand the following would probably be more accurate :The German Nazis along with segments of the civilian population in Germany and occupied countries were responsible for the Holocaust. Arnoutf (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Arnoutf I think this approach is a bit of a "red herring" to try and lump "occupied countries" together with Germany... key word "occupied" (exceptions to the rule, are not the rule), most obvious example is that many were not "willing" participants in the process. Also, Germany/Prussia has a long history of "genocidal" thinking that goes back to Frederick the Great who was quoted as saying that he wants to get rid of the Poles like the Iroquois in Canada. In the end, you have to remember what was happening was being done in their name (the German people), and for their ultimate benefit. So, I would agree with Gog the Mild version, after all many Germans voted for the Nazis (not party members), and read or heard of Mein Kampf, and thus indirectly were responsible for what happened; German businesses benefited from slave labor, and German colonists moved into lands there were cleansed of other undesirable people. BTW, the holocaust is not just about Jewish victims, the subject covers a wide range of plans and acts committed against an entire list of undesirable peoples. --Factor01 (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The current text ("The German Nazis were responsible for the Holocaust") is about responsibility for initiating and conducting the Holocaust, and is broadly correct. Some of the above is getting into the since-discredited views put forward in Hitler's Willing Executioners: while there seems to have been widespread awareness of the Holocaust, many Germans opposed it but fairly few dared to act given the terrible consequences this attracted. In regards to attributing responsibility, I'd prefer 'The German government was responsible' for a discussion of policy given that not everyone involved was necessarily a 'Nazi', and it was government agencies (including the military) and not the Nazi Party who planned and enacted the Holocaust. If there's a preference for rewording this to discuss the on-the-ground responsibility, the role of collaborationists (for want of a better word) in the occupied countries does need to be acknowledged: for instance, the main reason so few Dutch Jews survived the war is that the local government authorities and police essentially delivered them into the hands of their murderers (something which is stressed in Dutch museums on the war). In some parts of eastern Europe the local warlords (again, for want of a better term) who were running the place for the Germans were at least as murderously anti-Semitic as the German Government, and in some cases more so. Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would actually agree with Nick-D, and his line of thinking… the statement The German government was responsible is actually ideal, because as noted it does not limit the level of responsibility to just the Nazis, but does exclude elements of the German civilian population that were opposed to the ideology. As for collaborators, they may have been part of the problem, but not responsible for it, its creation and implementation. I don't want to see the statement go off on a tangent and start listing every possible level of collaboration that existed, especially as an example: you may collaborate with the invaders, but you are not responsible for the invasion. --Factor01 (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with German government. I think the difference between collaborators (as listed by Nick above) and German (non-Nazi) civilians is a very thin line. It should be noted that in many (later occupied) European countries anti-Semitic pro Nazi parties existed even before the war and many of their members happily embraced responsible for finding jews after occupation (e.g. NSB in the Netherlands). Arnoutf (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the displays in the Verzetsmuseum in Amsterdam, it was the Dutch police and civil servants who enacted much of the Holocaust in that country: they generally weren't aware that they were sending the Jews to their deaths and weren't anti-Semites, but followed instructions from the German occupation authorities (who were few in number) to arrest Jews and concentrate them in transit camps. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We don't need this woolly, POV serving sentence at all. What does it tell us that we cannot add up from the facts? Britmax (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

We can perhaps tighten the meaning of the statement sentence saying The German Government led by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party was responsible this way we do note that it was the Nazi ideology that drove the agenda, and used the apparatus of the German State to plan and initiate the actions. Just to bolster the legitimacy of the statement, the Federal Republic of Germany has always claimed to be the sole legal successor to the German Reich and therefore accepts Germany's responsibility for the Holocaust. --Factor01 (talk) 09:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, at this point if there are not other objections I would like to go ahead and include the "German Government" statement. --Factor01 (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Can we realistically assign blame to the entire government? For example, saying that the German authorities responsible for food safety or sewer maintenance are responsible for the Holocaust is both absurd and unnecessary. Far better to specify the Government agencies involved. Also, I feel collaborators should get a mention, since they made an important if detestable contribution. Furthermore, this sentence might create the idea that the Germans forced the Holocaust on the more moral populations of other countries, when in large part these countries helped carry it out.Rwenonah (talk) 21:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's standard to attribute the actions of governments to just the 'X Government'. No-one seems likely to draw the conclusion you suggest IMO here (much as statement that "The Australian Government is deregulating the university sector" will be understood to be an action by the government as a whole which will be enacted by the Department of Education, and not something which is going to necessarily involve customs inspectors or park rangers). In regards to your other comments, what wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

"The Nazi Party, using the apparatus of the German Government, and assisted by collaborators in many occupied states, were responsible." A little wordy, admittedly, but definitely better then simply assigning blame to the government and ignoring collaborators. Rwenonah (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The first half seems redundant to me, and is incorrect given that the Nazi Party was the German Government (with the bureaucracy, military, etc, doing as instructed in more or less the usual way a government runs - albeit with an utter lack of morality and appalling consequences). We wouldn't talk about "The Australian Labor Party, using the apparatus of the Australian Government, reformed the tax system in 2009" given that the ALP was in power at the national level and obviously had the ability to enact its policies. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

@ Rwenonah We need to have a focus here, and not go off on tangents with collaborators, etc… As noted earlier, a quote by a historian that Germany became a "genocidal state" with every branch of the government contributing to the final solution. Today, the Federal German Republic holds responsibility for the Holocaust as the sole legal successor to the German Reich. We need to stop presenting the German Nazis as some stateless entity with collaborators throughout Europe, like some modern day terrorist group. Also, please stop perpetuating myths that other countries were happy and willing participants to the German Holocaust. As noted by Nick-D, most Dutch officials were forced to comply with German orders to round-up Jews, otherwise they would have been sent to a concentration camp themselves, in other countries like Croatia or Slovakia a Fascist puppet government was installed after a German takeover, and in some counteres like Poland no official or organized collaboration ever took place!

“Hitler exterminated the Jews of Europe. But he did not do so alone. The task was so enormous, complex, time-consuming, and mentally and economically demanding that it took the best efforts of millions of Germans… All spheres of life in Germany actively participated: Businessmen, policemen, bankers, doctors, lawyers, soldiers, railroad and factory workers, chemists, pharmacists, foremen, production managers, economists, manufacturers, jewelers, diplomats, civil servants, propagandists, film makers and film stars, professors, teachers, politicians, mayors, party members, construction experts, art dealers, architects, landlords, janitors, truck drivers, clerks, industrialists, scientists, generals, and even shopkeepers—all were essential cogs in the machinery that accomplished the final solution.” - Konnilyn G. Feig

--Factor01 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Babi Yar, to give one example. Also, even in Poland or the Netherlands, elements of the population happily participated. Rwenonah (talk) 19:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, please stop losing objectivity, we are talking about the people who created the ideology of industrial mass murder, and organized the whole undertaking using all functions of the German state… not some criminals that got recruited to do a bit of the dirty work. Do you actually think that those two elements carry equal weight in history, and should be mentioned side by side in a statement?

Also, those "elements of the population" in Poland and Netherlands were called traitors, and in most cases were executed by the resistance, and did not see the end of the war, not sure how happy they really were. --Factor01 (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be losing objectivity. The "ideology of mass murder" was created by a very small group at the ruling level of the Nazi Party (indeed, it could be restricted to solely Hitler by some definitions). The remainder - including the vast majority of the participants - all fall into to your definition of "criminals recruited to do a bit of dirty work" (although that seems to be playing things down). I feel that this group also needs to be mentioned, because they played an important role in doing most of the legwork and the Holocaust would have been impossible without them, and thus collaborators should be included. Really, though, I don't feel that strongly about it, so feel free to add the original sentence. Rwenonah (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the quote I included above? Also, I'm not playing down the local collaborators… in case of Ukraine, they really were recruited from the underclasses, and given fancy police or para-military uniforms. There is a place in this article for them in the Occupation section… not right next to the engineers of the world's first industrialized mass murder operation, who created and used them (the collaborators) as a simple tool in their undertaking.

Also, I just looked at the Babi Yar page, and the article lists Einsatzgruppen, Ordnungspolizei, and SS Police Battalions. That's a lot of German stuff, battalions of it… and yes, they do say that about 300 local auxiliary policemen were also took part. Big difference in German vs. Ukrainian ratio. Also, the Ordnungspolizei was the regular German police force, I mention that just to highlight my point that all functions of the German government participated. --Factor01 (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that it may help to distinguish between 'responsible for' and 'complicit in'. I understand 'responsible for' to mean the main initiator(s) of and/or perpetuator(s) of, whilst 'complicit in' is more assists or goes along with. So 'responsible for' should stick to those mainly responsible; which IMO is the German/Nazi state and we can debate how we want to describe it. If there is consensus about including something on collaborators in this article (which is mean to be a brief overview of the entire war) then perhaps a separate sentence, or at least clause, would be appropriate; making it clear that whatever level of guilt their complicity involved they were not the main initiators or perpetrators. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Single Source tag

Can we review the validity of the Single Source tag in the Occupation section of the article, I'm not sure if I correctly interpreted the reason for the tag, but I do see several different reference soucres cited with in the section, so I'm not sure the tag was properly applied in this case, and if so it should be removed. --Factor01 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I make it seven different sources for eight sentences. I agree that the tag should be removed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've just removed it Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Iwo Jima picture

How come the Iwo Jima picture isn't in the body of the article? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 12:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Why and where should it be in your opinion? Arnoutf (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I would put it in the "Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45)" section since the battle took place in 1945. I would put it in due to its fame. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a non-free photo, and can only be used where a strong fair use claim can be sustained (which basically requires editors to establish that the photo is essential to readers' understanding of the topic). I don't think that's the case here. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

" the Weimar Republic's legitimacy was challenged by right-wing elements such the Freikorps and " to " the Weimar Republic's legitimacy was challenged by right-wing elements such as the Freikorps and ". thanks 162.235.78.42 (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Order

This topic most likely has been discussed but I can not find it in the archives so I must ask again. The flag order should be USSR, USA, UK like it has been for some time. I haven't had the t,me to edit wikipedia for a few months and now I see that that order has changed. I will revert it back unless someone objects and has a valid reason or if this topic has already been discussed. Thank you. (Central Data Bank (talk))

You need to put Poland UP FRONT because they were the initial victims to a landwar which soon went global AND they -- along with Russian forces -- where the soldiers who took down Berlin, sealing Germany's defeat in continental Europe.

POLAND -- USA -- UK -- RUSSIA -- CHINA or alphabetically CHINA -- POLAND -- RUSSIA -- UK -- USA (line break issues) 71.230.180.227 (talk) 08:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC) 71.230.180.227 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It has been discussed ad-nauseum before. See Archive #40 for one example. The current order is by consensus and should be left as it is unless you can provide a valid justification for change. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the order should be USSR, UK, USA. Because although it is very close to choose between the UK and USA for second place I think that since the UK did some more in the African, Atlantic, Italian, Mediterranean, Bombing Campaign, and in the early phases of Operation Overlord not to mention all actions since the beginning of the war in France and Greece that it should be placed before the USA. I'm not trying to be biassed towards the UK and let it be known that it is very close but i think the edge goes to the UK. — 06:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe the US should be listed above the UK. We all know the Americans didn't enter the war until after it already began, but the Soviets didn't either. In addition, the US was the chief belligerent in the war against Japan. Plus, US generals and admirals (Ike, Nimitz, Mccarthur) were the allied commanders in all but one theater of the war (India/Burma). Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 13:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom has participated in the most stages of the war. They should be put in front of US and Soviet Union NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WARNER one 9999 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talk • contribs) 17:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I think it was a mistake writing "United Kingdom", when in fact the much larger British Commonwealth/Empire went to war. Through Australia, India and the African colonies the "empire/commonwealth" made a significant contribution to the Pacific Theatre and incurred colossal losses. Australia was basically the US right-hand man and for its tiny size (5 million back then) contributed way beyond its stature in a David vs Goliath mould. In Europe, Canada and British Empire territories such as Malta, made an extraordinary effort in all theatres such as in the Mediterranean Theatre. In the Battle of the Atlantic the Empire, this time the Royal Navy, again led the way. The dominions may have had an independent foreign policy and self-government but they were still part of the British Empire/Commonwealth. The WW1 article therefore has it right in placing them together as a unit. I think it corresponds more to modern sensibilities to view the countries of the British Empire, including the self-governing Dominions, as "separate". It was a worldwide legal, political and cultural entity that acted in concert and mutual support. If we put NATO down as a collective in articles such as the Gulf War, why on earth is the British Empire not on here???? NATO was a military pact, the British Empire meant much more and consisted far closer links.

Overall I am of the mind that either the British Empire/Commonwealth (not the UK) or the United States should top the list. The Soviets lost the most people (circa. 20 million) and tied down the largest number of Germans, however the US played the most significant role against Japan. It seems an unhealthily Euro-centric bias to place the Soviet Union first when the article is discussing a 'world war'.

I think it is odd that the alliance essentially began with the UK, the Dominions and France, yet a country that hindered that alliance and helped the Axis until they invaded in 1941 is ranked first, merely because of what occurred later.

The US or the British Empire (I reiterate not the UK!) should be ranked first. However if we persist with the "UK" (even though I don't agree we should) then the US should come first, then the Soviets (because of their brief but decisive 1945 campaign against Japan) and then the UK in my humble opinion.

The US, if we do not treat the "British Commonwealth/empire" as an entity, clearly had the most universal distribution of labors throughout all theatres. It was critical, even if not as critical as the Soviets, to the outcome of the European Theatre and absolutely critical, equivalent I would say to the Soviets victory in the West, to the outcome of the Pacific Theatre.

A natural order would be:

US British Empire (list with UK, Dominions and possibly other entities as constitutive parts) Soviet Union

or

British Empire (list with UK, Dominions and possibly other entities as constitutive parts) US Soviet Union

Placing the Soviets first in the "World" context, rather than just the European Theatre, makes utterly no sense to me.

We owe a massive debt to the Soviets but in the world context, if we are all being honest, they did not perform the same universal distribution of military labor as the US or British Empire. They were the deciders in one half of the war and critical to the very end of the other, whereas the US was critical in both and the British Empire was critical in both (ie Australia in the Pacific, massive loss of life from all across the empire etc.) - Unsigned Opinionated Person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.28.35.19 (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

How come USA is before UK, when it has been USSR, UK then USA for ages and even agreed. Can I please restore it? WARNER one--9999 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• The status of the British empire in WWII is a subtle question. On the one hand, Unsigned Opinionated Person is quite correct in their assessment that it was still a very real supra-national entity, whatever the finer legal points, and that viewing the UK, Canada, Australia, et al., as entirely separate countries is an ahistorical (or recentist in wikispeak) point of view. Dominions can be viewed as very formalised and official sort of state clientship, which is usually an informal and implicit relation. On the other hand, I think everybody agrees that it would be jarring and misleading to include them in the client & puppet category of the infobox. On the third hand, the Statute of Westminster 1931 clearly established legal equality between the UK and the dominions, and this has been the ground for not including the empire in a bullet-point list of combatants like in the World War I infobox, or at times in the infobox of this article. On the fourth hand, if the UK & dominions are deemed sufficiently integrated, and the Westminster statute not a watershed but just another step in a gradual process beginning before the First World War and continuing as part of the general British decolonisation in the post-war decades, to justify putting the UK ahead of the US, as is reasonable as I say in the discussion below, then a fortiori this should be done transparently and not in effect by counting the dominions' importance twice, once to justify their position in the combatant list as independent states and once again to push the UK above the US.

Grouping them together also has a layout/encyclopedic/didactic advantage, as shown by this question above, in that it provides the reader with a more natural and easier to parse overview by putting them in a logical group. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

For clarification on the consequences of my comment above:

1. Option a: UK ahead of US. Not acceptable. It pushes "punching above its weight" way too far, and uses double accounting.
2. Option b: US ahead of UK. Acceptable.
3. Option c: UK + dominions as sub-bullets ahead of US. Acceptable. Though no doubt some will object to Canada, Australia, et al being presented as subordinate states to the UK. But that's the heart of our conundrum, if Option c misrepresents the relations between the commonwealth nations, Option b entirely obfuscates and ignores the de facto political and military supra-national entity that they constituted together.
   ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Belligerent Primary Nation Order Criteria Concern (and concern of potential wider POV issue related to role of US in daughter articles)

I know from editing in my own area of expertise that these things can get very heated and very specific in the minutiae of detail involved in making the case. Since, D-Day, I have returned to my roots as a trained historian (classically trained in an American public university, with specific training by a British historian who is an expert in WWII). When I told him that the Wikipedia had placed both the USSR and UK in a position greater than the US, he chuckled. The discussion continued as he asked me to elaborate why., especially with regard to the UK. So I looked at your Archive 40, etc. But first, I want to re-visit the criteria referred to related to guidance on the template page. There it lists Order of Importance to the Conflict related to Military Contribution, Political Clout, or a recognized chain of command. In discussing early presence in the War, Britain is there, of course. Then, continuing on, there are other details in the discussion where nations like SA and Poland are mentioned, etc. related to criteria discussed. What I would like to know what is the exact criteria for determining order here, if you have achieved formal consensus as to how this is laid out here (and in other articles related to the war). In terms of Political Clout, the US decided much, with the benefit of giving Churchill the ability to change its mind. But putting Eisenhower in charge of Operation Overlord wasn't so Democratic, was it? Militarily, while specific early events default to other players, after mid 1942 ( or earlier, depending on the exact event in a couple cases) EVERY military victory the Allies had OR the timeliness of when they had it was the result of the US and its production (and supply lines to both the USSR and the UK. By 1944, the US was producing at least 1/2, if not far more, of all WAR material on Earth (not even mentioned in any article I have seen on the topic). In the various conferences with Stalin ( and in events involving Churchill and Roosevelt before that), the power resided in Washington, and by extension in Roosevelt, since before the ink on Lend/Lease was dry. In Archive 40, someone mentions a contribution in Burma by the UK. Really? What about the ENTIRE Pacific Theater and every campaign leading from the "surprise" at Pearl all the way to Okinawa? The argument in Archive 40 seems (oddly) myopic and Eastern Theater oriented, which as many know was a goal of Churchill that had him up to all hours in the Whitehouse drinking himself sober until FDR agreed to absolutely continue the "Germany First" campaign ( after Pearl). Another aspect of this is sheer military size. I know...I know...Britain had the largest Navy on the seas through 1942, but then what happened? The point is that by the time the WINNING came about, the US had, by far, the largest Navy. I won't suggest that the USSR was second fiddle until I see what the EXACT CRITERIA for the list IS, but how much material did the US send to Moscow to stabilize Stalin's machine while Hitler was devastating the west of his vast Eurasion world (remember-most of the industrial capacity of the USSR was in the West of that "nation" before Hitler's mechanized forces either destroyed it or forced it to be moved east (that move took precious time). So, even where the SU was concerned, the question was always, "Are the Americans going to help...and how much (and how soon)?" With the US responsible for these bazillion dolor questions throughout the war, the question of political power and clout (which is absent in what I read here in your archive) is a moot point at the point in the conflict when it mattered-the point of do or die...the point of Will Fascism win or lose. Another concern I have about placement is of country in the "Belligerents" list is this: The US had a military of over 12,000,000 in the field compared to the UK's 3 million PLUS. Also, it was the US ALONE that checked the expansion of Japan in the Far East, where, sadly, the UK lost two capital ships attempting to do so. In fact, it was the US focusing FIRST, in the Far East, that may have saved Australia, while the UK was unable to help at all. And, finally, whether we like it or not, those two atomic bombs seal the deal on the US' hegemony OVER the UK at the least, if not the USSR, but I'm still not as sure about the USSR because I still could NOT find any criteria defined as to the way Belligerents are laid out in the box. Because I have not entered into this "Frey" before, please excuse me for missing clear "Belligerent List Criteria" if I did. But I also want to mention that fresh eyes can be helpful for those who have been involved closely on a topic for a long time. Btw, though it's not this specific article, I am concerned this MAY be a POV matter across several articles at least. Here's why: In a couple major daughter articles related to Normandy, I see the US not only in a secondary role in the "Belligerent" area of the box (which, again, maybe ok, depending upon criteria used), I also see it listed third here and there (after the UK and Canada) where it is the primary player as in total number of paratroopers deployed. So, I'm hoping there is no SYSTEMATIC issue where an overbearing editor or editors has/ have an unrecognized POV agenda, even a subtle one. It is these types of issues that can affect the overall quality of an article or articles and lead to credibility issues. We ALL have bias that must be confronted. If we don't, these issues surface. Regards,Norcalal (talk) 02:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Norcalal, your iPad edits[11] seem to have eaten up the thread where the discussion on whether to put Britain's flag ahead was going on, and I can't for the life of me finding it in the archives, so I'd be grateful if someone could find it and WP:REFACTOR into this thread or vice-versa; you might also wish to write to Steve Jobs' ghost to develop an Apple app that could separate a text into overviewable chunks of text . But seriously, a refactoring at your earliest possible convenience would be appreciated and I broadly agree with you from what I can skim from your outgush. I was just about to respond to the aforementioned thread when you pre-empted me, and it would have gone something like this:

The arguments of [ {{u|X}}'s and {{u|Y}}'s arguments in the disapeared thread ] fail on two of the following grounds:

a) It completely ignores the Pacific War.

b) Even while I could consider that putting the British Empire ahead of the US might be a not entirely unreasonable proposition, countering a) with that the ETO was the primary threat to the Allies and the Pacific theatre secondary what with all the "Germany first!" slogans and the pre-destined doom of the empire of the Rising Sun, doing so with the United Kingdom misses a lot of other belligerents' impact and could be a slight tad too much "plucky old Blighty".

While the US might not be the as obvious #1 in this two-contender race that some might think, an overall view of all the ranking contributing factors result in favour of the states.

On the other hand, ranking China above France is due more to general misconceptions than actual facts (apart from "quantity having a quality of its own"). While in recent years China has been returning to a more natural place of influence in world affairs, it should be remembered that the second world war was the very low ebb in status in the latest couple of centuries, what with the warlord era, the century of humiliation, and stuff like that. In contrast, interwar France was at an apogee of influence unseen since Napoleonic (perhaps not the Ist, but definitely the IIIrd) times after the WWI victory and the Versailles new order, being central and almost hegemonic in continental relations. Just as with Britain, France importance during the war was bolstered by its colonial empire, providing a base for Free France to be far more than a government-in-exile and some volunteers, and an actual belligerent national entity. By similar arguments to those that would place Britain ahead of the US, France could be placed ahead of Britain in the 1939-1940 period, providing 90% of the forces standing against Germany.

There are also tendencies to discount France's importance later in the war, not so much after 1940 but after 1944, where the narrative of non-French language sources often covers it with a perfunctory "...and after the Liberation the war for France ended." By many's coverage, you wouldn't believe than by 1945 France fielded almost 1,500,000 men and was the fourth largest allied army, far ahead of Canada, instead of the commonly held picture of the plucky but still small army of the 1940-1943 years. France was also of central strategic importance and arguably the schwerpunkt of the war in 1940 and 1944 with Fall Gelb and Overlord, while China was always a secondary theatre even for the Japanese but especially so for the Allies, nothing but a possibilty to attrit the IJA a little bit more. The actual bulk and the best of the Japanese troops in China was the Manchuria Army, to guard against the Soviet threat; and whatever troops that wouldn't have been binded by Chiang and Mao would have been of marginal use to Japan, as shipping and logistics not manpower were the real bottlenecks in its struggle against the Allies.

Finally, taking a broader view of the list, grouping Britain and France has several encyclopedic and educational bonus advantages, and it makes sense doing so for chronological (started the war simulteaneously), historical (of similar relative importance in 1939-1940 and 1944-45), political (perhaps the most under-appreciated factor, of how close the Entente Cordiale was before the Special Relationship replaced the US with France after the fall of the latter in 1940, and proved by the desperate propositions of a Franco-British Union in those tumultuous June days), geograhical (self-explanatory), and layout (readers expect seeing them together, both in WWII and more general contexts, having two European flags next to each other is natural, etc.) reasons.

^walk victor falk ^talk 16:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• I can't believe I didn't mention linked to the Entente Cordiale. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Britain and her Empire was the only combatant who could have ended World War II without any other allies's involvement - in 1940. In addition, of the two other main combatants, the USSR, and US, neither went into World War II by their own choice, both had war thrust upon them by Hitler, and Hirohito, and again, while the Soviets are to be acknowledged for their horrendous sacrifice in life during the period, they were only doing it to save their own country, which had been invaded by Nazi Germany. As far as the war against Japan is concerned, the biggest losses the IJA suffered was actually in Burma, far above those losses in all the US pacific island campaigns combined.

Britain and France went to war in 1939 of their own volition to try and save another country - Poland - from Nazi aggression. No other 'allied' countries entered the war for this (or similar) reason. They entered the war because they by then had no choice.

BTW, the US built around 2,000 Liberty ships and is rightly credited with this great contribution to winning the war, however when Britain entered the war in 1939 she had the world's biggest Merchant Navy, amounting to some 12,000 sea-going ships - the next biggest was Norway with around 2,000 ships. When the war ended the British had lost 4,000 ships sunk or lost, leaving them with a 'mere' 8,000 ships, which means that whatever anyone else likes to think, they provided by far the largest part of ALL the transport shipping used in WW II. They also provided most - if not all - of the Allied Naval forces in every ocean other than the Pacific. BTW, the Royal and other Empire navies and air forces sank more U-boats than all the other navies and air forces combined. They also sank or destroyed most of the German and Italian surface fleets.

The simple fact is that without Britain and her Empire World War II would have been lost. None of the other combatants can say this about themselves.

Oh, and one more thing - it only became World War II when Britain and France entered the war in 1939. Both these countries had world-wide empires that immediately on them declaring war changed it from a 'local' confrontation into a de facto World War. Oh, and of all the so-called 'Allies' only Britain and her Empire were fighting in 1939, and were still fighting in 1945. And if you really think that Britain and her Empire were only a minor partner after the US and USSR try telling that to the average German citizen who was by 1944-45 living amidst piles of rubble that had been Germany's cities and towns. As Molotov said to von Ribbentrop one night during a 1941 diplomatic visit to Berlin before the subsequent invasion of the Soviet Union the same year, after von Ribbbentrop had stated that 'the British are finished', Molotov had replied; "If the British are losing, then why are we all now in an air raid shelter?".

And if you don't believe me then just try imagining the USSR and the US fighting Germany, Italy, and Japan without the 'help' of Britain and her Empire. See where that gets you. You see, the latter was the only combatant that was literally indispensable. All the territories around the world, all the bases, the ports, the harbours, the airfields, the shipping, the technological advances, such as modern radar, sonar, jet engines, a myriad other things that Britain developed for war, none would have been available to the 'allies'. Imagine having to use B-36s to bomb Germany from the US East Coast, in a round trip of over 6,000 miles that would take twenty-four hours non-stop, at 300 mph. Imagine planning an invasion of Europe that needs all of its shipping to come direct from the US rather than just a minority of it. And then try imagining how you are going to prevent U-boats from sinking them before they even get within sight of wherever the landings are planned to take place.

So while all the Allies were important to the eventual winning of World War II, and should be acknowledged, the position Britain and her Empire held in winning it was unique. Without them the war would not have ended the way it did. In fact, it's possible it would have been lost, from the point of view of the democracies. No other combatant was in that position of being absolutely vital to not letting Nazi Germany and the Axis win. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.205.73 (talk)

A real surprise that this IP comment is from the UK. A real shocker there. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:21, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this thread does seem questionable in value, please "Comment on content, not on the contributor" per WP:NPA. (Hohum ^@) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

results section

WW2 also resulted in the decline of the old European colonial powers( i.e. Britain especially ) should this not be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imperialredcoat (talk • contribs) 09:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That's noted in the 7th paragraph of the aftermath section. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The World War II page would benefit from two additions:

1. A general statement in the "Homefronts and Production" section pointing out the overarching importance of manufacturing capability of the Allies to winning the war. As William S. Knudsen of the National Defense Advisory Commission put it: "We won because we smothered the enemy in an avalanche of production, the like of which he had never seen, nor dreamed possible."

2. A mention in the "Advances in Technology and Warfare" section of the atom bomb and the proximity fuze. The atom bomb eliminated the need to invade Japan (saving, by some estimates a million lives), and the proximity fuze was a game-changer in the ability to shoot down Japanese aircraft (It was at least five times as effective as timed fuzes or contact fuzes), and the ability to kill Germans on land. Gen. George S. Patton said that the proximity fuze "won the Battle of the Bulge for us."

Sound good to you?

DTParker1000 (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Britain and France had already declined because of World War I. (Hls19 (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

Gallery section

Hello,

Through GLAM partnerships, like the German Federal Archives donation, there are very good and historical pictures unused in the WWII article (espicially for the period between May and September 1945) and would deserve to be. Unfortunately, there's not much space left in this section! Anyone objects I start a gallery section? Best regards. Benoit Rochon (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do. WP:Gallery discourages the use of these sections unless they help readers understand the topic of the article. As this is a high level article on a huge topic, I'd suggest that it would be unfeasible to select representative images which help readers understand the war as a whole and maintain this section. IMO the article is already somewhat over-illustrated. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting Holocaust death figures in the lead

I boldly added the following figures (in bold) into the lead: "Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (during which approximately 11 million people were killed[1][2]), the Three Alls Policy, the strategic bombing of enemy industrial and/or population centres, and the first use of nuclear weapons in combat, it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities." I think that giving a reader a sense of the sheer scale of the Holocaust is important.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are three references are needed for the Holocaust figure? I've removed the reference to About.com as it's an unreliable source. Highlighting the 'three alls' policy also seems questionable in the same context given that it was a sub-set of Japan's murderous policies rather than the main policy as was the case for the Holocaust. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Giving a brief explanation of the 'Three Alls' is not highlighting, in my opinion. It is helping the reader to understand what the 'Three Alls' policy was.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The lead refers to the "The Three Alls" policy. I don't think most readers know what the Three Alls Policy is. I think it is helpful for the reader to explain this term, and which side it is associated with. As such, I think we should call it "the Japanese Three Alls Policy (a scorched earth strategy)." Some would argue that the reader can click on the Blue link. Not if the reader has printed out the article at the library, or if they have saved it as a .pdf file.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can also argue that most readers won't know what "a scorched earth strategy" means. Like Nick-D said, it's a sub-set of policies, not a main policy. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I also don't think that the Holocaust figures should go right there, considering it already says the total casualties in the lead altogether (50 million to 85 million fatalities). Should the casualties of how many killed during the "strategic bombing of enemy industrial and/or population centres" be in the lead as well, and so on? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the Holocaust figures are helpful to give the reader a sense of the sheer scale of the Holocaust. Since the list of civilian death incidents is not exhaustive, I don't think there is a need to give all the figures. What about my concern that readers won't know what the Three Alls is? I think "scorched earth" gives a sense of the policy, even if a person doesn't know the exact definition.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Lead sections should be kept as concise as possible (per WP:MOSINTRO), with readers using the link if they want to know more about the topic in this instance. If something in the lead needs to be explained, then it's been badly worded or shouldn't be there. However, I still think that the reference to the 'Three Alls' policy should be removed given that placing it in this context somewhat miss-represents the nature of that policy, and Japan's occupation regimes more generally. As you added this with no discussion and it's attracted no support, I'm going to remove it pending further discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't add the Three Alls policy. I was just advocating for the inclusion of more information about what the 'Three Alls' were. If the 'Three Alls' had been there for some time, it would be a consensus in favour of its' retention.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry about that. Nick-D (talk) 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

That was actually added by User:XXzoonamiXX with no discussion, right here. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The Holocaust should not be mentioned in the lede because the actual numbers are widely disputed. (TimMohoney (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This not the case in mainstream historical circles. Can you give examples of "widely disputed". In any case, disputes as to whether it was 4.5 to 6 million should not disqualify it from mention. Odd reasoning. Irondome (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned because it is important to the subject. But the Holocaust generally refers to the murder of Jews and therefore the most common estimate is 6 million killed. (Possibly an equal number of other people were killed in concentration camps.) TFD (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Many historians say the real figure was about 1.5 million, not 6 million. (JakeMcPherson (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

Indeed. Many Holocaust denial pseudo-historians do. Irondome (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And many serious historians as well. (JakeMcPherson (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

Please cite some that support this figure. Established historical consensus does not. Irondome (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Dr Hutton Gibson says he has proven the 6 million figure is an outright lie. (JakeMcPherson (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

I assume you mean Hutton Gibson. Irondome (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That is the world-famous Professor Gibson. (JakeMcPherson (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

We're not going to accord any weight to fringe views in this article. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust should not be in lede

While it is true that the Holocaust only happened because of World War II, it should not be in the lede as we would then have to mention the millions of people murdered by the Soviet Union. (JakeMcPherson (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC))

No we don't - that didn't occur because of World War II. Histories of World War II commonly include a focus on the Holocaust given that it was a significant element, and result, of the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Millions of people were murdered by the Soviets as a direct result of World War II, no different than the Holocaust. What about all the Poles murdered by the Soviets in 1940 after Britain broke its pact with Poland? (PatrickO'Reilly (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

Date of war's beginning

Britain and France only declared war on Germany, even though the Soviet Union had agreed to invade Poland as well. Therefore 3rd September 1939 should be given as the date on which the world war began. (PatrickO'Reilly (talk) 16:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

This has been discussed to death at this page under the topic Date of WAR query which is still visible. Please read what is already being discussed before starting identical additional topics. Arnoutf (talk) 17:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

All the books I have read say that World War II began when France and the British Empire declared war on Germany. (PatrickO'Reilly (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

Please contribute at the relevant, ongoing thread Talk:World_War_II#Date_of_WAR_query instead of starting a new one. Arnoutf (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Britain bombed Germany first

Shouldn't the article mention the fact that the UK bombed Germany first in 1939? (TylerWentworth (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC))

User:NickD, i'm really thinking talk should be semi protected if we are going to work on the article. Irondome (talk) 22:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - we can't have discussions with someone who is obviously hiding behind sockpuppet accounts to troll. I've semi-protected this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Nice one mate. Now we can work unbugged Irondome (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested in giving the article a spring clean?

The article has seen a lot of editing over the last six months or so (which is a good thing!), but this may have lead to issues around its coherence, the balance in space accorded to various topics, number and selection of images, the writing style used and referencing. Is anyone else interested in working through the article (large section by large section) to tidy it up? Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ary you trying to open up a can of worms?? How much debate is there around the start date, now we'll have entire sections edited with out a discussion. I'm especially concerned with this statement made by you: "the balance in space accorded to various topics" that's just asking for trouble. You can go through the article right now and fix spelling, grammar and referencing. Thus, improving the article in a significant way without making potentially controversial changes as to content. Also, why don't we fix the issue of possible Sockpuppets that have been plaguing the discussion pages first. --E-960 (talk) 08:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm proposing working through the wording as a group, not by myself - sorry if that was unclear. My reading of the current debate over the start date is that it's being driven by one guy and his multiple sock puppets. It crops up about once a year or so though. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reservations, my take on the issue is that we should focus on fixing spelling, punctuation, grammar and referencing; not to mention standardizing things like format of dates and figures. Just by improving those things we can make the article much better. But, I don't feel comfortable with changing the balance and space of topics and images. Such items have been debated in an exhaustive way over the years, I don't want to change that, that's what Wikipedia is about! Now, I know that some WP articles sound "nice", but that's because someone went in and wrote an entire article or section from scratch (usually you see that in topics like finance or engineering). However, WW2 is a history subject and it follow a different set of customs. I want to respect that process. --E-960 (talk) 09:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would help out with a bit of gnoming, no problem. If we put the article to a raised protection level that may help to keep the bugs off. It would be good to get 4-5 eds working together, and that defo includes you User:E-960 and some of the saner contributors to the Date of war thread. I am assuming User:NickD has some new material up your sleeve you want to introduce? That would be interesting. Can we close Date of war query down now B.T.W? It dead, gone, it is as dead as the parrot in the Dead parrot sketch. Irondome (talk) 21:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't have any material I'm thinking of introducing. My general feeling (pending discussions and careful consideration!) is that the article could be trimmed back a bit. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I can join in… also, I have no issue of making the article a bit shorter and more concise. But, as noted before, I want to keep most statement in. I personally like the detailed approach that includes links to other articles, because it give a novice reader avenues for further research, something that other "standardized" online encyclopedias don't have, thus limiting exposure to more in-depth topics. --E-960 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Date of WAR query

The current date for the beginning of the war is 1st September 1939. This is when Germany invaded Poland. I propose that it should be changed to 3rd September considering that is when UK and France declared war on Germany. This is the date that is widely considered the star of the War. Please talk to me about the proposition below. Don't hate me it's only a proposition. WARNER one--9999 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no good reason for the change to the 3rd: the first act is seen by many reliable sources as being the German invasion on 1st. Just because Britain and France didn't join for two days doesn't mean the war hadn't started before their arrival. - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Also agree with SchroCat, there is a significant amount of reference sources that list September 1st, and the invasion of Poland as the start of WW2. The significant point here is that German aggression started the war, not British and French response to the German invasion of Poland. --Factor01 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I concur with the above, it is indisputable that Germany and Poland were in a state of war from the moment of invasion on the 1st of September. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. --Warner REBORN (talk) 13:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A war involving 2 countries(Poland and Germany)is not a World War, a war involving several countries and their empires is.--92.232.49.38 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a trivial argument. The war had been predicted and prepared for years prior to the invasion of Poland. Hitler knew that attacking Poland inevitably meant war with Britain and France; and this anticipated war was being called a "World War" by both media and official sources long before the first shot was fired. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

True and Prelude to War went as far as to claim WWII started on September 18, 1931 a date repeated in some of the contemporary works of the time. It should be noted that even now a handful of people use that date as the start of WWII. However the key word there is handful; the majority point to September 1, 1939.--67.42.65.212 (talk) 06:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits have moved away from 1 Sep '39, even as far as to say "usually" '31; I toned it down a bit while I'm asking for help here. Ignoring our opinions, do we have source(s) stating what the majority of WP:RSs use as the start date? --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

In the UK, a country that was undoubtedly central to the conflict, September 3rd is regarded as the start. This date is taught in schools and used by the media. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• That is incorrect. Britain's declaration of war on the 3rd Sept is widely marked. Schools universally teach that the outbreak of war causally was on the 1st with the invasion of Poland. The two are distinguished very carefully. Irondome (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

In the Netherlands it is May 10 1940. Every country probably takes it's own date of entry into the war as official starting point; which makes sense from the POV of that country. However, as Wikipedia we do not represent the point of view of a single country but should aim to represent a global POV. (in short - I support sep 1). Arnoutf (talk) 20:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I think many historians would agree that Britain declaring war on Germany made the war global. It brought Britain's allies and colonies into the conflict. Maybe we should list 3 or 4 of the most widely used dates, that's the only way this article can achieve a global POV. --92.232.49.38 (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, we need sources for start date(s); our own observations, thoughts, reasonings, and opinions have no weight in Wikipedia. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These sources were produced way back in May 2012 and ignored:

Prelude to War (May 27, 1942)

Liu Liang-Mo, Letter to the editor LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6

Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific pg 45

Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7

Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307

Spencer C. Tucker (23 December 2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. ABC-CLIO. p. 1850. ISBN 978-1-85109-672-5.

Mike Wright (21 January 2009). What They Didn't Teach You About World War II. Random House Digital, Inc. p. 122. ISBN 978-0-307-54916-7.

We have been here before and it is annoying.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began on 3rd September 1939, when the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany. The German invasion of Poland did not start a world war. (Hls19 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC))

No more unsourced opinions, please.

@BruceGrubb, thank you for the many sources. Can you add what date(s) they specify for the start of WWII? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began when the British Empire declared war on Germany. The UK and France could have ignored the German invasion of Poland, just as they ignored the Soviet invasion on 17th September 1939. (Hls19 (talk) 02:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

This is a nonsense argument. The war had already begun on September 1. When Britain and France declared war on Germany they entered into an existing war, they did not start it. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I quoted several of those above sources back in May 2012 but here are the more quotable ones for those that missed it (and some others as well):

"Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started in the night of Sept. 18, 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese toops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." (The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353)

"You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria." - LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6 letter to the editor

"remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." - Prelude to War (1942)

"He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." - Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific

"World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931,..." - Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 Dover Publications (part of the Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor series) ISBN-13: 978-0394585307

"Chronology September 18, 1931 — Japan invades Manchuria, a region of China. ... Some historians consider the invasion of Manchuria to be the actual start of World War II." - Stein, R. Conrad (1994) World War II in the Pacific: "Remember Pearl Harbor" Enslow Publishers Page 117

"He remembers being transfixed by the idea that 18 September 1931 was the real start of World War II" - Rollins, Peter (2008) Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky Page 246

"A clash between Japanese and Chinese soldiers north of Mukden in Manchuria on the night of September 18, 1931, has come to be perceived as the opening shot of World War II" - Leuchtenburg, William E.; ‎Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., ‎Sean Wilentz (2009) Herbert Hoover: The American Presidents Series: The 31st President, 1929-1933 Macmillan pg 122

Many more examples can be found if one looks far enough. --BruceGrubb (talk) 07:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with this approach at all; these are not authoritative sources, but books and magazine articles that focus on the war in the Pacific. We need well established sources for a high profile article like WW2. Anyone can find a bunch of books or magazine articles written by historians who propose an alternative view of WW2. Here are major English language encyclopedias that generally stick with 1 September 1939 as the start date, so unless someone can produce an academic journal which states that a major shift has taken place in how historians view WW2, the WP article on WW2 should stay as is. Anyone can check these sources online to verify the dates.

• Britannica Encyclopedia: German Invasion of Poland / 1939-1945
• Oxford Companion to Military History: 1939-1945
• Columbia Encyclopedia: September 1st, 1939
• Gale Encyclopedia of the Mideast & N. Africa: September 1st, 1939
• Encyclopedia of the Holocaust: September 1st, 1939
• Gale Encyclopedia of Espionage & Intelligence: Out break of hostilities on September 1st, 1939

--E-960 (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You did note the publishers of my list, right?

Enslow Publishers, - "publishes high-quality educational fiction and nonfiction books for children and young adults in grades Pre-K, and K-12."

University Press of Kentucky - nuff said

Peter Lang - "international academic publisher"

Transaction Publishers - "major independent publisher of social science books and eBooks on political science, economics, history, sociology, psychology..."

ABC-CLIO - "publisher of reference works for the study of history and social studies in academic, secondary school, and public library settings."

Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government (1942) United State Holocaust Memorial Museum (present day)

These are the publishers of the works that present a September 18, 1931 start date for WWII. Please note the quotes did not say "war in the Pacific" they expressly said WWII. And if that wasn't enough here are some more:

"When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, World War II officially began, at leasts in the minds of some historians" - James Stuart Olson (2001) Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940 Greenwood Publishing Group pg 160. "The Greenwood Publishing Group is one of the world's leading publishers of reference titles, academic and general interest books."

"Year later many Asian scholars and civilians pointed to 1931 as the actual start of the Second World War" By Flage, Thomas R. (2012) The History Buff's Guide to World War II pg 9

"World War II Began in Manchuria, 1931" Harry Brinton Henderson, ‎Herman Charles Morris (1942) "War in Our Time: A Comprehensive and Analytical History in Pictures and Text of the First Eleven Years of World War II, Beginning with the Invasion of Manchuria by the Japanese..." 1942-11 is indeed 1931.

Face it, there are as many sources that go for the Sept 18, 1931 date as go for the Sept 1, 1939 one. --BruceGrubb (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point, arguing in favor of a single particular date is just going to sound like a personal POV. Only WP policy is going to resolve this. Here's how I see that applies here.

We have multiple WP:RS sources for different start dates. Even if not all the sources are of "equal", I don't see how we could possibly dismiss all of the sources for any of the proposed dates, or even whittle any down to the point where WP:FRINGE might apply. That means we will never get it down to one date; we must accept and include the fact of the conflicting start dates in the article.

So the question just becomes one of balance; what order and relative prominence do we give to these dates? Like the dates themselves, this cannot be based on our own reasoning. If we state something like "most say WWII started on…", we need a source for that "most say". This means we need a WP:RS source that are a summary of many other WP:RSs – a tertiary source that is derived from secondary sources. A respected tertiary source basically means a general-purpose well-known encyclopedia -- Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book Encyclopedia, Columbia Encyclopedia, Funk & Wagnalls, and such. (We might include a few somewhat specialized military or political encyclopedias or other tertiary sources, but their scope should still cover all of WWII.) If these all agree on a particular date, that's the primary date we must go with. If they don't all agree, we must give the various dates more balance. For any dates not prominent in these, yet still given in several respected secondary sources, those dates must be included, but with lower prominence – "though others say…" or such.

Agreed? --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. This is what I proposed way back in 2012 to address this:

"While the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth,(ref) there have been other dates presented. For example, during the war the United States Government in Prelude to War (released May 27, 1942) presented 18 September 1931 as the stating date (Prelude to War) a date repeated in some contemporary works by civilians and military alike (Liang-Mo) (Clark (1943)) and accepted by handful of modern scholars (Cheng, Ghuhl, Polmar, Tucker Wright). Other sources point to 1937 while accepting September 18, 1931 as the lead in to the conflict."

It was a first shot and would need refinement but it reflects what all the sources say. See Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Conflict_between_sources for some pointers regarding what to do when reliable sources conflict.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

All sources I have say the war began on 3rd September when the British Empire started a global war against Germany. (Hls19 (talk) 22:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC))

And there are other equally reliable sources that say otherwise. As A D Monroe III says, we can't choose one group of sources over the other. Rather we have to reconcile them in a way that is not OR.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

NO. I do not agree with this proposition for the following reasons. First, did user BruceGrubb or anyone else bother to look at the Chronology section. It already lists and acknowledges other possible start dates for WW2... why would we be doing this again?? Also, there is the Diplomatic history of World War II page, which lists all the start dates for every individual country involved in WW2. So, given these facts, what's the argument here from the "date changer" camp? Not only that, user Hls19 argues that the date should be changed because the German invasion of Poland is not a world conflict, yet user BruceGrubb wants the start date to be Japan's invasion of China in 1931, again not a global conflict! Because of a lack of authoritative sources provided by the "date changer" camp, such as Academic journals which clearly define a new academic consensus on the WW2 timeline, such arguments are weak and incoherent, and clearly can not be compromised with, as they lack any true scholarly merit. Major English language encyclopedic sources (as provided above) generally point to 1 September 1939. The article requires no changing on this issue. --E-960 (talk) 09:53, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with E-960. Arnoutf (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

World War II began on 3rd September 1939. The UK and France could have ignored the German invasion of Poland, just as they ignored the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17th September 1939. Britain broke its pact with Poland and chose to only declare war on Germany, pretending there was a secret clause in the pact which actually never existed. (Hls19 (talk) 15:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC))

Hls19, shows the problem with taking one group of sources over the others. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is quite clear on this: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies". The start date for WWII falls under most important points part of that guideline and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section also states "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead." . The start date of WWII varies depending on the source: Sept 18, 1931, Sept 1, 1939, Sept 3, 1939, and even Dec 7, 1941 can be found in a very small handful of sources. WP:Weight allows us to dispense with the Sept 3, 1939 and Dec 7, 1941 dates and possibly the 1937 mentioned above but not the Sept 18, 1931 one. That date simply has too many source both contemporary to the war itself and from modern historians to be anywhere but in the lede but with the proper weight.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The introduction should be changed to say "World War II began on 3rd September 1939 when France and the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany, two days after the German invasion of Poland". (Hls19 (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC))

Every source I have read gives 3rd September 1939 as the date on which World War II began. (2.103.233.70 (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

I propose the date is changed to the 3rd of September. A German invasion of Poland was not a world war, especially as the UK and France completely ignored the Soviet invasion. (PatrickO'Reilly (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Bruce - different reliable sources give different dates for the start of the war. I suspect that there's a bit of sock puppetry going on above. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well looking around I did find a Sept 3, 1939 date in what I think are reliable sources:

"World War II began on September 3, 1939 when France and Britain declared war on Germany" - Marshall Cavendish Corporation (2004) History of World War II - Volume 1 - Page 168

"Attention is confined to events which happened between the beginning of World War II on September 3, 1939 and..." - Sir Henry Knight (1954) Food Administration in India, 1939-47, Issue 4 Stanford University Press pg 3

"The commencement of the Second World War on September 3, 1939, augured ill for the Yishuv." - Leslie Stein (2003) The Hope Fulfilled: The Rise of Modern Israel Greenwood Publishing Group, pg 227

My only question is what weight do these references have compared to the Sept 1, 1939 and Sept 18, 1931 dates? Do we need a source that gives us that?--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The article World War I dates the outbreak of war to the 28th July. This was the declaration of war and assault by Austria-Hungary on Serbia. That sounds like a local war in SE Europe, just as the German invasion of Poland was a seemingly local war in Eastern Europe. However both seemingly localised conflicts were the beginning of an inexorable chain of diplomatic events, and escalating violence and numbers of actors. Should the outbreak of WW1 be dated to 4th August when the final great power entered? Of course not. WW2 began in the early morning of 1st September. Weight of sources seem to support 1st September. I would suggest the above sources quoting the 3rd, while perfectly sound, are seriously outweighed by the others. Irondome (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Germany invaded Poland first is meaningless, since the USSR had also agreed to invade Poland. A world war only started because the UK and France chose to only declare war on Germany, while not even acknowledging the Soviet invasion. In 1914 it was only the entry of the British Empire that began a world war on 4th August. Before that it was just a European conflict. (AlexisVlad (talk) 22:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

• A lot of new users popping up..Irondome (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Remember it wasn't just Britain and France but their empires as well. So the world war began on 3rd September. (AlexisVlad (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC))

This is a long discussion, and maybe not all have the patience to read all of it. I'll try to summarize some at least partial agreements so far.

1. Our own reasoning on when WWII started do not matter here -- only what respectable sources say.
2. There are respected sources for half-a-dozen different dates for the start of WWII.
3. There is no foreseeable way to discredit all conflicting sources to reduce it down to one date.
4. Per WP:DUE and WP:conflict between sources, we are going to have to list several dates.
5. Given this, all that's left to debate is the relative weight of the dates in the list.

Agree? --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think the 1 and 3 Sep 1939 are the vast majority. So my suggestion would be something like: "WWII started on 1 (German invasion of Poland)[ref] or 3 (France and UK declare war on Germany)[ref] September 1939, although other starting dates relating to entry into the war of other countries are also sometimes used[1 or 2 examples refs]." It is a bit lengthy but should solve the matter to some extent. Arnoutf (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the second time... NO. Did you bother to read the Chronology Section it already lists the other potential start dates for WW2. Also, the Diplomatic history of World War II list each individual start date for every country involved. Finally, stop proposing a "poison" compromise solution with potential sockpuppets who's profiles all have been created within the last week or so: User:Hls19, User:AlexisVlad, User:PatrickO'Reilly. If that does not raise the BS flag in your mind than I don't know what will! --E-960 (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we not in need of a compromise?

I am not responding to any editors' opinion on dates – only to stated sources.

The Chronology section is what we're primarily discussing. It is currently in the form I last edited. As such, I'm naturally okay with leaving it as-is, but it's not up to just me; we're trying to come to some consensus on that.

Once we have Chronology wording agreed, maybe the existing link at Date in the infobox to "see Chronology" is acceptable, but that would have to be decided after the Chronology agreement.

This issue has been disputed for years. I'm looking for a path to consensus, so we don't have to keep going through this endlessly. I want to be able to tell new editors "it's been discussed and agreed here".

If there is a suggestion for a different path to consensus, I'm eager to hear it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You only need to look at the Archives to see that this has been discussed ad-nauseum before. As before, the standing consensus is what is currently written. If there was a consensus to change the article by editors who could show a valid reason for change then the article should be changed. However on this point the issue has been thoroughly an repeatedly discussed. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I know this has been discussed, but without resolution. What is currently written is based on my edit in August, which followed different POV changes that were long after all those discussions. If we once again simply let this drop from exhaustion, the cycle will start again. I'd like to have something definite and formal to point to and tell the next cycle-starters "this is consensus".

Saying "just leave it alone" doesn't sound like getting consensus, but if I reinterpret that as implying "the current text fulfills WP policy and consensus", perhaps we are actually very close. Again, I'm certainly fine with current wording.

Is there any disagreement to current text based on WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT, or other WP policy? If not, I think we can formally close this discussion as consensus. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

We are not going to build a consensus with sockpuppets! The WW2 talk page discussions were recently flooded with them including the "Date of WAR query" discussion. Some profiles have already been blocked: User:Hls19, User:AlexisVlad, User:PatrickO'Reilly, User:SteveJessup, User:JakeMcPherson, User:TimMohoney. The premies of this discussion has been rejected by several established users… just go back through the thread. So, we are not going to re-start the debate just cause a potential sockpuppet got in on the act. I'm in favor of closing this discussion, with no changes to the current text.--E-960 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Irondome (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

World War II unquestionably began on 3rd September 1939 when the British Empire declared war on Germany. Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to invade Poland at the same time. If the Soviets had invaded Poland on 1st September then the British Empire would have declared war on the USSR. Germany invading Poland did not in itself cause a world war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

• They do keep your feet warm though Irondome (talk) 16:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I fail to see why there is any dispute about this. Every book I have ever read about World War II says the conflict began on 3rd September 1939 when France and the British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany. Japan invading Manchuria, or Germany invading Poland did not constitute a world war. If the Soviets had invaded Poland before Germany then France and the British Empire would never have declared war. The world war only began because the UK and its empire chose to break its pact with Poland by only declaring war on Germany, and not on the Soviet Union. (RobbieGentry (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC))

Irondome is right, it's getting cold out there. --E-960 (talk) 21:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just reverted edits which added no less than eleven references to support the statement that "The start of the war in Europe is generally held to be 1 September 1939". Aside from making the article look silly, there's no need to provide references to individual histories (some of which were low quality internet and news articles) given that there are a number of well respected works on the historiography around the war which would provide a far superior citation for this statement, which is about when the war is "generally held" to have started, rather than the date itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And I've just done the same for references for the statement that the war is sometimes held to have started on "19 September 1931". I was surprised to see really low quality references there, including wartime news articles and even a letter published in LIFE magazine in 1942! Nick-D (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I am ignoring all comments without sources; sockpuppet or not, they repeat the same biased opinions without referencing any authoritative support. Their entries inserted in this discussion have no bearing or meaning; they're just some clutter to ignore. There is still a discussion, though. We shouldn't allow this irrelevant clutter to get us angry at each other and disrupt this.

Respected sources differ on the start date of WWII; have we presented this properly per WP:DUE? Of the relevant comments in this discussion, while there have been a couple of questions asked, I have not heard any specific objection based on WP policy, or sourced proposals for any specific change.

@Nick-D; thanks for removing the reference mess. I think all that's left to do is add the best two or three refs for our most prominent date, 1 Sep 39. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There should not be any dispute about this. World War II began on 3rd September 1939. Germany invading Poland did not in itself start a world war. The UK and France had separate pacts with Poland, yet they only declared war on Germany - even though the Soviet Union also invaded Poland. It only became a world war because the British Commonwealth and Empire chose to declare war on Germany. One might speculate what right imperial powers like Britain and France had in objecting to Germany invading Poland. (RobbieGentry (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

There is no doubt about the starting date of WWII. It was 31 February 1289; which considering the number of provided sources should be taken as seriously as the last series of suggestions by RobbieGentry. Arnoutf (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Humour is not "trolling". I used rollback because that was damn near vandalism. Irondome (talk) 18:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My grandfather blamed Germany for the Second World War, yet even he agrees the war began on 3rd September when we declared war on Germany (and thus automatically committed all the countries of the Empire that did not have independence in foreign policy). (RobbieGentry (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

I think WW2 started in 22 August 1942 when Brazil formally declared war on Germany. You can't have a World War until South America finally joined the fight, and Brazil was the first country on that continent to do so… that's what my grandfather always said. --E-960 (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

South America was already at war because the Falkland Islands declared war on Germany on 3rd September 1939. (RobbieGentry (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

Unfortunately, the Falkland Islands are part of the Antarctic ecozone, so that would bring the Antarctic into the World War as a continent. --E-960 (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Both South America and Antarctica were at war with Germany from 3rd September 1939, as British Guiana and the British Antarctic Territory were both committed by the King's declaration of war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

But, the British only started the Phoney War. This was a cold war style conflict, not a world war. --E-960 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The RAF bombed Germany on the night of 3rd September 1939 so it was hardly a cold war. (RobbieGentry (talk) 20:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

That was a limited air attack, not an all out world war. NATO is doing the same thing in Syria now and it's hardly a true war, they call it air strikes. --E-960 (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unlimited wars have been impossible since the invention of nuclear weapons in 1945, so any comparison between World War II and the US-led air strikes in Iraq and Syria is meaningless. (RobbieGentry (talk) 21:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC))

This whole date debate has gotten ridiculous. Wikipedia DOES NOT CARE that an editor has a source sample size so small that it only has the September 3, 1939 date; what Wikipedia cares about is what reliable sources as a whole say and for that the majority are Sept 1, 1939 with a few presenting September 18, 1931, and even fewer presenting the Sept 3, 1939 date. There IS debate between sources and claiming there isn't is silly; we need to debate weight and NOT choose once group of sources over the other.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Lead length

I write to suggest that we shorten this article’s lead, which currently consists of five dense paragraphs. This length has two detrimental effects: First, it intimidates the casual the reader (“a lead that is too long is difficult to read and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway” – wp:leadlength). Second, it buries the table of contents, making it more difficult for the reader to access the article’s content.

I also write to propose a simple solution that does not change a word of the current text: put an “Overview” heading just after the first paragraph (as shown here). Your thoughts? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion. While I agree that the lead should be reduced in length (by about a paragraph, or the equivalent), I still don't support this change. There's no reason to cut the lead down to one paragraph, which is much too short for a article of this length and complexity, and as the purpose of the lead is to provide readers with an overview of the article pushing the current lengthy material into an 'overview' section would not solve the problem you've identified, and would probably make it worse by presenting readers with an unusual and duplicative structure. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, cutting the lead down to one paragraph would solve the problem I've identified (and that is a reason to do it). It appears to me that you think the cure is worse than the disease, and that is fine. You don't need to question my reasoning to say that. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see any major issues with the length of the current lead given the size of the article and the voluminous topic that it covers (the largest war in history). The cited policy - WP:LEADLENGTH - indicates the lead for an article this size should be four paragraphs, so a one paragraph lead would be insufficient (although at five it is admittedly one paragraph too long). The lead really should summarise the article so I don't see the value of an "overview" section as the lead should do exactly that. Not too convinced by the "reader losing interest halfway" argument either. The purpose of our articles is to provide information to those that want it, not to entertain. Such concerns may be necessary for commercial media but not Wikipedia. Anotherclown (talk) 09:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, wp:leadlength gives the "suggestion" that the lead for a long article be three to four paragraphs and also provides the "general guideline" that leads not exceed four paragraphs. Articles do not "provide information to those that want it" when they present content in such a fashion as to make that information difficult to access (by, for example, having lead with five dense paragraphs that push the table of contents far from the landing screen). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that we could lose a paragraph at the very maximum. Thinking any changes should be within the context of a general article clean up. See thread above this. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the other users, we can shorten the intro section a bit, but not in such a drastic way. WW2 is a large topic, and readers who go to Wikipedia are looking for information… we don't want to make the article sound like a generic encyclopedia entry. --E-960 (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for starting the discussion below. I write here to wonder why we don't want the article to, as you put it, sound like a generic encyclopedia entry. I think you will agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What is there about leaving the first paragraph "as is" and making that the lead (keeping the information in the next four paragraphs and putting it into a separate section) that would cause the article to become "generic" in a negative sense? Is the first paragraph improperly generic? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be hard pressed to support shortening the lead, regardless of what LEADLENGTH says. The fact is not every article can be properly summarized in a 3-4 paragraph lead. The largest war in history, involving every major country in the world, clearly should be an exception to the guideline. -- Calidum 14:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We could still stick to the 5 paragraphs, but some judicious gnoming would in my guesstimation, having read through them twice, save 100 -200 words or so. Just by making certain statements more concise, without losing the original sense of the sources. It is a pretty good job in terms of summarising such a humungus subject on further inspection. But it can be pruned. I will start on it later tonight. Don't worry, I will not remove anything which may cause any controversy. Its just losing a few words. I do not propose exising any statements that already exist. Irondome (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Specific statements that could be taken out

Just to follow up, on my earlier comment... I read through the the Intro section again, and it's actually rather concise, and does not go off on tangents. Yes, it's one paragraph to long, but that does not make it grossly disproportionate given the subject matter. Rather then just starting a discussion thread for the sake of "shortening" a section, we should propose specific statements that could be taken out, because they cover subject matter that is secondary in nature. --E-960 (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll propose the last sentence: "Political integration, especially in Europe, emerged as an effort to stabilise postwar relations and co-operate more effectively in the Cold War." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this is a legitimate statement, "political integration in Europe" was a very significant event that resulted from WW2, which directly led to the European Union in the decades to follow. So, based on my interpretation of this, I would recommend that the statement should stay. It is definitely not secondary in nature because it had significant implications for the future. --E-960 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Legitimate? Yes. Significant? Yes. Should be in the lead? I would say no. Why? Because it isn't about WWII, it is about post-WWII. But, you might say, it is a direct result of WWII. Well, I would respond, what isn't? Maybe the lead should be longer... Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree we could lose it. It would fit well into the aftermath section. I do tend to rather echo the "what isn't?" concern. But all things considered, the extant lead is a bloody good effort. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with your last sentence. That is why my original proposal did not suggest that we change the text (as opposed to the location of the text) by so much as a comma. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

But it can be improved. Its still a bit bloated. I think we can just trim stuff if it is not disruptive to the "shape" of the original paragraphs. I am going by the idea of the "Spring clean" thread above. Irondome (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gnoming the intro paras. Please comment here if issues emerge

Started some minor gnoming, mostly for brevity. Please yell here if any edits cause issues, and I will of course immediately stop and discuss. Irondome (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you're doing well, however, it may not be a good idea to delete too much. Like what Butwhatdoiknow said, the overall intro is good, especially the first paragraph. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with your reversion B.T.W. My rationale was that total war as a link would suffice. The visceral understanding of the war's human toll I thought was covered in other opening statements in the para. It needs to be emphasised for a myriad of reasons. Cheers Irondome (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Its excellent. I actually think we need 5 paras, but trimmed of unessential stuff. I am obviously comfortable with reverts but I would ask anyone to put a short note here? Some may require consensus. If colleagues are basically comfortable with my approach, I will continue beyond the intro. Then we can all pitch in as per spring clean thread above. Irondome (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The 4 para rule is really just a guideline. Few articles actually need that much. For a topic of this scale and importance a 5 para intro is quite forgivable. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• Finished. You don't take a sledgehammer to a well designed building :) Cheers all for your advice. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 opening. Move to Chronology? Too "controversial" for opening paras?

Do we need a qualifying statement as to Japanese actions prior to 39 in the second para? I would suggest we buff that off and join to the "it is genuinely considered that.." sentence. I think it belongs more comfortably in chronology, where it would actually flesh it out. It may attract socks and dickheads who pick on it as some kind of mea culpa for the Axis, and go on bizarre OR crap. We had experience of that a few weeks ago here. Maybe it is too controversial, too early? I see the first 5 paras as presenting the primary facts. They do a great job. This is the only slightly jarring note. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 00:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, this sentence could be trimmed. Thought, I'm not opposed to it being there, but if we want to trim some excess material this could qualify as secondary information related to pre-war events. --E-960 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

WWII Infobox - bias debate that created a False dilemma

I propose that the debate about the WW2 Infobox should be moved to the WW2 Talk Page, so everyone can notice it, and if they chose to, make their voice heard in this argument. The way this debate was structured in effect posed a False dilemma where a faction of editors decided that there a is "problem" and it will only have 2 possible resolutions. More importantly, I do not agree with the fact that the article was changed, and then a vote was posted on the Talk Page, that is not the order of how things should work. There are users who like the current set-up of the infobox (which allows a for a novice reader to see in a quick glance the many nations that fought in WW2). We do not need a hair splitting debate about the nature of involvement of every country which participated in WW2, and then say "the whole thing is so complicated" so lets just make the article generic where it actually stops informing people about anything. --E-960 (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This IS the World War II article talkpage. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so why was the article changed and then a debate was posted??? --E-960 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very unfortunate that a clear list of the many "small" countries involved in the WW2 was removed from the Infobox, and I can't help but wonder why? Because, when you remove any mention of those small countries you hide the fact that Germany and Japan were the aggressors first. Eventually, this article will sound something like this: Britain and France declared war on Germany... to avoid a war on two fronts, Germany had to invaded the Soviet Union before it allied itself with the Western Powers. Then, Japan was forced to bomb Pearl Harbor, because it was allies with Germany, and it was obvious that the US was preparing to go to war anyway, alongside Britain. The Western Allies went on a counter-offensive, and indiscriminately bombed all those German and Japanese cities, killing hundreds of thousands of civilian. Because if you only make mention of the "Big Five" that's how you could interpret WW2, when you start to omit mention of all the "small" countries that were attacked first by the Axis powers. B.S. ALL THE WAY! --E-960 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And you think, you, me, Nick, Ed, Graeme, etc etc etc would just let that happen? Calm down a bit please. I hear your concerns, and a sense that some of us were slightly "bounced", but this discussion has obviously been going on for years. Relax. WW2 wont turn into some article edited by neo-nazi nutjobs Irondome (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It's also unfortunate that people are being accused of being neo-Nazi nutjobs, however indirectly! As Irondome said, let's all settle down and drop the hyperbole. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

You were in the "etc's" Parsecboy :). It would be a good idea if some of us took time out to read the original discussions. They look interesting. I propose a 24 freeze to any other major edits on this subject while some of us get up to speed on this and can comment intelligently. I like the sound of the links argument at the mo. Can I have 24 hrs to read the history? Irondome (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think you were lumping me in ;) And I don't think anyone would object to pausing to give people time to read up on the archives. I don't remember when the infobox was split off onto its own page, but there are reams of discussions split between the two. Parsecboy (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the archive index might be helpful in finding the old discussions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:World War II/Archive 19 has several threads on this issue from 2007. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy this argument that the World War II Infobox is "too long" is so STUPID, and fake! Look at the World War I or Vietnam War or Korean War Infoboxes… are they also to long? Yes, I'm calling out the editors who initiated this change, because the argument holds no merit when compared to other WP articles that cover similar topic!!! --E-960 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Calling us out as being neo-Nazis? You can't be serious. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please answer the above question regarding the length of other WP Infoboxes, and stop changing the subject that you were called a neo-nazi, because no one called you that, I'm calling you out for bias POV. --E-960 (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the link I posted. And what is my bias, exactly? Parsecboy (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll explain again, the argument that the WWII Infobox is too long, has no precedent because as noted earlier World War I, Vietnam War, Korean War Infoboxes are just as long. So, why is this an issue on the WW2 page? Thus, you're POV is bias, because your argument is incorrect, since other articles have lengthy Infoboxes. Unless, your POV is based on something else and you think that only the "Big Five" matter, in which case you are ignoring a large portion of what happened during WW2. --E-960 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I gather English is not your first language. If by "biased" you mean I have an opinion, your are correct. But then you are also biased. That my opinion is incorrect is not objective fact. As for there being no precedent, I really recommend you read the link I posted above. It's not a long or difficult read. And I didn't post it for my health. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a strong argument to cut down those infoboxes as well. As I noted above, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes says "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Listing every participant is what we have Allies of World War II and Axis powers for. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I have added a section above to express support for a detailed list, as is on virtually every other war page. I don't agree with Ed and Parasecboy's arguement that there was consensus 5 months ago to change. Even if there somehow was consensus (which there was not), it is entirely irrelevant. What matters is what peoples opinions are NOW, not what they were 5 months ago. Consensus can always change, just take a look at the history behind the title of the page Russo-Georgian War for example.XavierGreen (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, that is what option 3 is for...Either way, please explain the benefit to readers to include Cuba in the infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

That is option three. I've corrected the headers above. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

There was never a consensus, and the discussion was months ago. It is very much necessary to at least include the main combatants, this is crucial information. Literally no other war infoboxes fail to include the main combatants, and this is the most important war in history. DylanLacey (talk) 06:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• I will again say that the arguments proposed for changing the Infobox format are highly suspect. Any of the editors who are so "concerned" about the length of the WW2 Infobox are encouraged to tackle the same problem with that beast of an Infobox in the Iraq War article. Anytime when ready… --E-960 (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Cut the crap E-960, and drop the thinly veiled accusations. If it keeps going we're going to have problems. Parsecboy (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Just stop with the accusations Parsecboy, you are the one that sarcastically questioned whether English is my second language, and started to belittle my contributions vs. your "years" of editing WP (not sure what all that had to do with the merits of the debate). Than you, started to play the victim card that you were called a neo-nazi, when no one called you that. So, stop accusing others of misconduct. Finally, let me get this through your head… I am not accusing you of being a neo-nazi, so get it. But, your arguments about the Infobox hold no merit; that it's "too long", or "someone added Cuba, so now we need to get rid of half the Infobox". They don't make any sense! So, possibly there is a different motive, it can be anything… and it does not mean that it's a neo-nazi agenda. In the end, just as an example: this change will not make it easier for some kid doing a school project to quickly understand what happened in WWII. They will need to go through two more WP pages just to understand who was fighting who. The mythical stateless Nazis as the Axis Powers fighting the West as the Allies coalition. --E-960 (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Either English is a second language for you or you're a poor writer - either way, it's difficult to parse what you write. And the comment on the length of time you and I have spent editing was to illustrate my point that you should trust me. I have been around the block on this issue, you have not. That's merely simple statement of fact. And as for the neo-Nazi nonsense, here you basically asserted that Ed (and presumably whoever agrees with him) are attempting to paint Germany and Japan as victims and reiterated it here, with an oh-so accusational "I can't help but wonder why" - it ain't hard to read through the lines, buddy, especially when you comment pointedly on my userpage and accuse me and others of "deliberately...[removing]...information" to "sanitize the article" and litter your posts with scare quotes.

As for the merits of my arguments, that you don't understand them does not mean they are incorrect, only that you have failed to understand them. Here is why the list of a few dozen countries is problematic: most of the countries listed there had a negligible part in the war—Cuba is but one example—for the novice, they might conclude that Cuba or Mexico or Luxembourg had a significant role in the war (why else would they be included in a very short summary, after all!). Including irrelevant information in what should be the boiled down, extreme basic info distracts the reader and obscures the actually important nuggets. That's the bottom line. And of course, preventing the constant, stupid arguments about including country X but not country Y is an added bonus. You are of course invited again to sift through the millions of bytes of hot air spewed in the archives on that issue. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're saying it's better for a kid who wants to understand what happened in WWII to not bother actually reading about it? Sure he'll get great marks on his school project. Utgard Loki got this spot on over six years ago: "A box suggests 'this is the real deal,' and if the real deal could be put in a box, then there would be no need for articles. A box says, 'Here is your PowerPoint bullet point list, so you can find all the world reduced to a reductive summary; please do not strive to understand complexity, for that is for suckers.'" In short, little Sam doing his project does not need to go through two more pages to have a basic understanding of who was fighting who. He can easily look in the lead for an overview of the main combatants. If he's interested in more details he can read the whole World War II article, the Allies and Axis pages, or any of the other pages branching off. If all the complexities of World War II could be contained in a list like this there would be no point in the article. —  Cliftonian (talk)  10:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if someone want to read further and learn more about WW2 by all mean they should go ahead and do so. But, it's an issue of time, and sifting through pages of reading material. This is when an Infobox comes in handy. Albert Einstein said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." in this case you guys want to make the Infobox simpler. --E-960 (talk) 11:05, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox as it stands is simpler than possible. That's why it has explanatory footnotes all over it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2014

Hello, As a professor of French history, I do believe Charles de Gaulle should be named, like in the French article, as one of the "Allied leaders" in the "Commanders and leaders" section. Right now I can only read the names of : Allied leaders Soviet Union Joseph Stalin United States Franklin D. Roosevelt United Kingdom Winston Churchill Republic of China (1912–49) Chiang Kai-shek

Charles de Gaulle should be named for his fundamental part as the leader of the French Resistance and the Free French Forces : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle

Thank you ! Wolfffsss (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree - One sentance should do fine - lets get others to chime in on this before any action taken . -- Moxy (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, de Gaulle certainly didn't have millions of men under his command. They didn't even tell him about the Normandy invasion until the day before, as they didn't trust him. Nor did they seek his opinion. De Gaulle himself, as one of the most famously ungrateful and difficult-to-get-along-with people in history, is responsible for much of this. Such qualities do not a leader make. Perhaps he was a great symbol. But he wasn't in on the planning. SBHarris 01:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. For obvious reasons, until France was liberated the Free French forces were never particularly large (and it wasn't until the last months of the war that the Free French forces became truly substantial, and the war ended before they saw much combat). De Gaulle was not included in the key decision making forums in the war, and I haven't seen it argued that he was one of the key Allied leaders. Wolfffsss, what reliable sources support listing De Gaulle alongside Stalin, FRD, Churchill and Chiang Kai-shek? Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, de Gaulle isn't mentioned once in the article proper (the OP must be talking here about inclusion in the Infobox, as that is the only place with a "Commanders and leaders" section). Dhtwiki (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll be the devil's advocate, De Gaulle is not mentioned because this is a Anglo-American centric article. The changes that appear, or the information that does not appear in this article, very much has an agenda. De Gaulle was important, after all the French had a occupation sector in Germany, and you did have the Free French Colonies. But, in the English speaking world who wants to talk about the French. The Chinese are listed as a "power" due to academic correctness, yet in 8 years they could not defeat the Imperial Army... example: Poland's Air Force at the start of WWII 1,369 aircraft. the Republic of China (with half a billion people) had 645 aircraft. Yet, you have dumb stereotypes that the Poles charged German tanks with cavalry (never happened), But, the Chinese literally fought the Japanese with farm tools. The average person living in the English-speaking world literally lives on misconceptions about the WW2. --E-960 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, its the whole of the world that lives on misconceptions about WWII. We could spend our whole lives studying it and still not have a complete understanding of all the subtle nuances of the conflict. As to the edit request: I'm of the mind to decline it, as you can all see by the above section concerning powers, we are still unsure how to even handle the infobox on this article, let alone something far less trivial as the actual content, so I say we deal with the above crisis first, then concern ourselves with this one. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@E-960:This article probably is attuned to diplomatic niceties, rather than any anti-French mindset (after all, De Gaulle's importance was due in large part to the support of the Anglo-centric, but Franco-philic Churchill). De Gaulle was not a head of state or government. He represented at least a French government in exile, but not with the unity and legitimacy that, say, the Polish, Dutch, or Norwegians had. We shouldn't confuse De Gaulle's importance, or France's, after the war with his role during. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: There does not appear to be sufficient support for the change at this time. Perhaps you could open a separate thread to discuss this with the community. Biblioworm 23:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)