Talk:World War II/Archive 62

Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

The Big Three

I think this is quite constructive edit. It is in accordance with the recent changes in the Allies of World War II article, and the arguments presented at that talk page are equally applicable to the WWII article. In connection to that, I propose to bring the leaders order in accordance with the order of the Big Three, and make it chronological: Churchill goes first, Stalin the second, Roosevelt - the third. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Agree the Main Allied leaders in the Infobox should be the Big Three, per World History, Duiker and Spielvogel (2018). [1] But I think the current order is best left as is, Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill in the Infobox for this article. There's no requirement to be consistent with the Allies of World War II article, which is discussing the development and composition of the Allies, for which chronological order makes sense as discussed at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Big Four in the infobox. Whizz40 (talk) 20:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the consensus at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Big Four in the infobox of listing Stalin then FDR, then Churchill, and Chiang Kai-shek does not belong on the list of the "Main Allied leaders". DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy my proposal is for 1) the Infobox of the World War II article to retain the current order for the Main Allied leaders (Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill) and restrict the list to the Big Three leaders; and 2) the Infobox of the Allies of World War II article to retain its current order for the Big Three allied countries (UK, Soviet Union, US) in chronological order because that article is about the development and composition of the allied nations (and the ordering of these two components of the two Infoboxes on separate articles does not need to be consistent). Whizz40 (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm not an expert on World War II, and I don't have a strong opinion, except that I'm strongly opposed to bashing the USSR and denigrating their contributions to the Allied victory in that war. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• If we are going to go with such a drastic change, then I think that Roosevelt should also be first, up to this point no one was able to produce a reliable reference source that said that Stalin was the leader of the alliance (just SYNTH). Here are sources which directly say Roosevelt was the main allied leader: 1.) Encyclopedia Britannica[2]: "From the start of American involvement in World War II, Roosevelt took the lead in establishing a grand alliance among all countries fighting the Axis powers." 2.) Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum[3]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942." What sources directly state and call Stalin by name as the leader the grand alliance? --E-960 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, I can't help but noticed that the source cited by Whizz40 is called — full title: The Allies: Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, and the Unlikely Alliance That Won World War II [4]. How does that even work? You cite a reference source that lists Roosevelt first, but based on an opinion you put Stalin in the lead? --E-960 (talk) 11:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Peacemaker67 look here, and pls see the above title — first cited as reference. Opinions is not how you create a Wikipedia article, you should know that. --E-960 (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The CLEAR consensus in the above discussion is for Stalin first, not FDR. I concur, BTW. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you not understand that Wikipedia is based on RELIABLE REFERENCE SOURCES not OPINIONS, so just stop with your blatant POV pushing and policing. That's not how Wikipedia works! You can't push unsourced facts just cause you build a false "consensus" based on arbitrary opinions, consensus can only be build if you present reliable sources to back your position. --E-960 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960 The change in the order of the main Allied Leaders is not supported by consensus in the discussions on this Talk page in the sections above. Further, the title of a book is for marketing purposes. We have to reference the contents of the source. Please find below a survey the literature:

Quoting from How the War Was Won by Phillips Payson O'Brien (2015), pages 6-7:[5]

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

Quoting from The Western Allies and Soviet Potential in World War II by Martin Khan (2017), pages 1-2: [6]

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

As discussed at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Big Four in the infobox:

1. Wikipedia should be consistent with reliable secondary and tertiary sources;
2. sources attribute the decisive strategic decisions and outcomes to the "Big Three" rather than the "Big Four";
3. however, sources do not support calling out the US/FDR above the USSR/Stalin, we should be consistent with this on Wikipedia.

-- Whizz40 (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I support mentioning Stalin first. World War II casualties reports between 8.7 and 11.4 million Soviet soldiers killed in World War II vs. approximately 410,000 and 380,000 for the US and the UK, respectively. These numbers suggest that World War II was primarily a Russian-German war.

By the way, Russia withdrew from World War I. The Russian language article on World War II lists the USSR first followed by the UK, then the US. The German language article does not include an infobox like this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960, you clearly need to revert yourself here. This has been discussed ad nauseum over many months now and you have repeatedly failed to get consensus for FDR first. There have been dozens of reliable sources produced that support Stalin first, and all we’re getting from you is IDHT. You need to drop the stick, this is getting really tendentious. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 16:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960's edit warring is a leading contender for being worst edit warring I've seen in 15 years on Wikipedia. Re: the proposal to exclude China for some reason, I've reverted to the previous version of the infobox until there is a consensus to do so. What sources support this? What do other sources say? Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

O'Brien (2015) provides a survey of the literature in the introduction (pages 6-8) that discusses only the Big Three, selected quotes provided above.[7] Khan (2017) also provides a summary (pgs 1-2), quoted above, which does the same,[8] along with Groom (2017),[9] and Duiker and Spielvogel (2018) pg 755.[10] The Four Powers/Four Policemen was FDR's idea for maintaining peace after the war, per Gaddis (1972), pgs 24-27, to precede the formation of a new international organization which, at the time, FDR envisaged would happen several years after the war.[11] Whizz40 (talk) 09:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Those links don't work I'm afraid - Google Books links often don't translate across countries - please provide quotes. I've started a sub-thread below. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Get of your high horse Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging and Peacemaker67. The reason no admin up to this points closed the RfC is because it's so obvious your "rationales" for Stalin first are nothing more than opinions and synthesis. How would an admin summarize that conclusion — a few sources presented by Nick-D talk about the Soviet Unions on the Eastern Front these statements are then equated with Stalin and the wider war. Also, several editors voiced their personal opinion that Stalin should be first. However, no source was ever presented that actually says Stalin lead the alliance. --E-960 (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

What's the rationale for the order? Who led the alliance or who made the biggest contribution to the victory?

The Wikipedia article giving a "List of Allied World War II conferences" says, "In total Churchill attended 16.5 meetings, Roosevelt 12, Stalin 7." This includes two attended by all three: The Tehran Conference in 1943 and the Yalta Conference in February 1945. The "0.5" for Churchill was the Potsdam Conference in July and August of 1945 between Stalin, Truman and Churchill until Churchill's electoral defeat on July 28; after that Churchill was replaced by Clement Attlee. One meeting on this list included Chiang Kai-shek.

This is consistent with my memory of that history: Churchill was for a time the primary effective leader opposing the Axis, when Stalin was till allied with the Nazis. However Churchill knew he didn't have the resources to defeat the Axis himself. He therefore worked very effectively to involve Franklin Roosevelt.

One reference on the largest contribution to the war effort is the Wikipedia article on "World War II casualties": Four countries had military death tolls over a million: The USSR had 9-11 million. Germany had 4-5 million. China 3-4 million and Japan 2.1-2.3 million. Total deaths have the USSR first and China second followed by Germany, then Poland, the Dutch East Indies, and Japan.

To me, this suggests that Stalin should go first, then Roosevelt, then Churchill, but to place Roosevelt before Churchill, you need also to agree that the US provided a substantial portion of the weapons used by Allies including the USSR and Britain. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale for putting Stalin first seems to always rest more on Russia's suffering than on any argument that Stalin's was an especially astute and inspirational leader. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the point that DavidMCEddy was making above is that the Soviet Union both suffered and inflicted the largest number of military casualties in the course of trapping the bulk of the German army in a war of attrition. China suffered about as many civilian casualties as the Soviet Union, possibly more, but DavidMCEddy was not factoring that into his analysis because China's military losses were comparatively small and the Chinese military was relatively ineffectual at inflicting casualties on the Japanese army.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Stalin and the USSR could have chosen not to fight and to sue for peace, as other countries did. The decision to fight and how that fighting was done and all the consequences that came with it are enormous. Whizz40 (talk) 07:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy and TheTimesAreAChanging stop and think for a minute before writing more pointless facts. What you wrote above is just YOUR opinion based on facts YOU chose for your rationale. That's not how Wikipedia articles are sources. Wikipedia guidelines state that you need to provide a reference source that exactly says what you want to put in the article, in other words you need to present a reliable reference source which says something to the effect that "STALIN WAS THE MAIN ALLIED LEADER", you saying: I think Stalin should be first because bla... bla... bla... is nothing more then your OPINION. Can you finally figure that out??? You along with Nick-D and Peacemaker67 (who should know this, after all Peacemaker67 displays all those ribbons on their user page) are injecting POV and your own personal opinions without providing a source that say what you are claiming. --E-960 (talk) 09:45, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• EXAMPLE: Encyclopedia Britannica[12]: "From the start of American involvement in World War II, Roosevelt took the lead in establishing a grand alliance among all countries fighting the Axis powers." Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum[13]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942." That's why FDR should be first... my sources, what are your sources??? --E-960 (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

No, let's not endlessly rehash the RfC. I'd suggest sticking to a discussion on China given that there's an RfC up the page, and now partially in the archives, on the ordering of the Allied leaders - we don't need yet another thread on the same topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hello, McFly!!! Figure it out already and stop guarding the POV, you did not provide any sources that address Stalin's leadership role, only stuff on the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front, that's SYNTH. Let me spell it out for you again: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." --E-960 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources on China

The sources I own on the significance of China's role in the war provide the following:

• The Oxford Companion to World War II states that the Grand Alliance's main members were "the UK, USA and USSR" (p. 390) but FDR saw China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific (p. 392)
• Gerhard L. Weinberg's A World at Arms states that the US persuaded the UK and USSR to class China as "one of the major powers", though both did so reluctantly (pp. 620, 624)
• Anthony Beevor makes a similar argument in his The Second World War, nothing though that FDR was motivated more by China's likely position in the post-war world than its war effort, though China tied down 1 million Japanese troops (pp. 510-511)
• Max Hastings states in All Hell Let Loose that China's role in the war is under-appreciated in the west as by fighting on, albeit ineffectually, it doomed Japan: "China, and Tokyo's refusal to abandon its ambitions there, were central to Japan's ultimate failure" (p. 192)
• Rana Mitter argues that China was a major player in his book China's War with Japan 1937-1945, stating that it was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" (p. 13), though he notes that "China had less ability to make its own decisions than the other Allies because it was so much weaker than them, both economically and politically" (p. 5) - my understanding is that this is the current standard work on China's role in the war
• Ronald H. Spector states in Eagle Against the Sun that the US sent massive amounts of aid to China "in a vain effort to make China a major contributor to the war against Japan" (p. 325)

As a result, while there isn't a consensus in the sources, I favour continuing to include China as the sources generally note that it was one of the four main countries and made a major contribution to the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

• I OPPOSE including China. I'm not an expert on World War II, but I'm not a novice, either. During World War II, Chiang Kai-shek was fighting Japanese occupation while trying to maintain the power of the existing Chinese elite, whose treatment of the peasants made it relatively easy for (a) the Japanese to invade and control a substantial portion of the country, and (b) Mao Zedong to defeat him after the war. To my knowledge, there never was a meeting of "The Big Four", as previously noted.

Also, is there documentation that Chaing contributed substantively to defeating Japan OUTSIDE China in Korea, Burma, Vietnam, ...? DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you please provide reliable sources? Your personal views carry little weight in this context. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• No to China. Even should China be considered the fourth biggest Allied power (despite virtually nil activity outside of China), there is far more discussion in the sources of the Big Three, who met and discussed strategy. China was not in that league. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you please provide reliable sources? Your personal views carry little weight in this context. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• On balance, I support Paul Siebert's proposal below. The sources discussed above better support the Grand Alliance of the Big Three as the Main Allied leaders who made the strategic decisions of consequence. That is not to discount that China was significantly involved as a country, as well as France. China is listed first as a Main Ally on Pacific War and thus so is Chiang Kai-Shek listed first as a Main leader for that War but Chiang didn't control all Chinese military forces. China's great power status arose after the war when it became a permanent member of the UN Security Council (Great power#Great powers by date). This was a consequence of FDR's wartime Four Powers concept, but it did not become significant until after the war. Anecdotally, the NWWII Museum mentions China as one of the main allies but only the Big Three as the leaders "The main Allied powers were Great Britain, The United States, China, and the Soviet Union. The leaders of the Allies were Franklin Roosevelt (the United States), Winston Churchill (Great Britain), and Joseph Stalin (the Soviet Union)."[14] The question posed below by ThoughtIdRetired does seem to be pertinent (are we including notable leaders, or the leaders of countries that made a notable contribution?) and is solved by the approach proposed by Paul Siebert. Whizz40 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Yet several of the sources I noted, including standard works on this topic, state that China was one of the four main participants in the war. Can you please provide other sources? Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • The sources provided (and others I provided above) don't refer to Chiang Kai-Shek as having the same status as the other three. Nonetheless, China was a significantly involved country. Updated my response above. Whizz40 (talk) 07:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Chiang with Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in Cairo, Egypt, November 1943

• The picture might answer the question as to whether any "big three/four" meetings involving Chaing Kai-Shek. (Stalin wouldn't travel that far from Russia. Churchill and Roosevelt travelled on to Tehran.)

Also interesting to see Alan Brooke's comments on Chiang Kai-Shek in his war diaries (edited by Danchev and Todman, ISBN0-297-60731-6). (I am aware this is a primary source.) Several pages on this subject 477 - 480, at least. pg 479 "He was certainly very successful in leading the Americans down the garden path. He and his Chinese forces never did much against the Japs during the war....". Also, pg 477, referring to Chiang Kai-Shek again: "Evidently with no grasp of war in its larger aspects..." This raises for me again the issue: are we including notable leaders, or the leaders of countries that made a notable contribution?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I've replied to several editors above on the same theme: personal views simply aren't very relevant here. Given that the sources I found didn't indicate a consensus, it would be very helpful if other sources could be consulted to help guide this decision (per WP:V, WP:NPOV, etc). Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"Offtopic" collapsed

Yes Nick-D, sources not personal views or synthesis, can you also finally provide a source which say Stalin was the main leader of the alliance??? --E-960 (talk) 09:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC) As above, let's not rehash the RfC endlessly as you seem to want to do. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC) The RfC is still open, if I'm not mistaken. --E-960 (talk) 11:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC) I replied and provided sources in the RfC above.[15] Whizz40 (talk) 13:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC) Well, you shouldn't have — cause all the sources you just provided talk about the Soviet Union and the Eastern Front's role in winning the war, however they do not talk about Stalin and his leadership role in the alliance. Seriously, do you even understand what SYNTH is? It's exactly what you did, you found sources about the USSR/Eastern Front and you correlated that to Stalin's leadership, those are two separate issues, don't assume one automatically applies to the other, cause they don't. --E-960 (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC) As mentioned above, I provided quotes from a survey of the literature that address the most significant or critical contribution to the global/overall war effort and they call out the USSR of which Stalin was the leader. The meaning in your quotes is weaker in comparison, referring much more narrowly to effort in alliance building, much of which had occurred before the US entered the war. That however, is not the subject of discussion in this section. Whizz40 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If I understand Nick-D's arguments correctly, they, first, confirm my argument that the role of China was seen differently by Americans and other Allied (USSR and UK). Therefore, inclusion of China would mean leaning to the US viewpoint, which would be not fully neutral). Second, I think we should remember that we are discussing leaders, not countries. Obviously, Soviet Union's contribution to the joint war efforts was enormous, but Stalin's role was less significant. I already presented the analysis of pro et contra arguments for all three leaders, and it is really hard to objectively rank them. However, taking into account that we do not include country's names into infobox, and only leaders are included, they serve as indicators of their country's roles (and that is why Stalin goes first). In that sense, Chinese flag might (conditionally) be included into the infobox, although it would be a US-centric viewpoint. However, I see absolutely no reason to include Chiang, because his role in strategic planning and decision making was incomparable with that of the Big Three leaders. The only meeting (in Cairo) was devoted exclusively to the Chinese role in the war in East Asia, and it lead to virtually no global strategic decision (just take a look at the Cairo declaration). In contrast, Tehran conference lead to a number of global strategic decisions that affected all theatres of war, and, in addition to Tehran, the Big Three met two more times, and each conference (Yalta and Potsdam) lead to tectonic shifts in the world policy. In addition, Chiang even didn't control all Chinese military forces, because Communists were acting semi-independently. Therefore, I still do not understand if Chiang deserves inclusion into the infobox as one of the key Allied leaders.

We can think about inclusion of China as a country in the infobox (although that may require inclusion of France too), however, that is a different story. I would prefer to include five countries (USSR, US, UK, China, France, in that order) and three leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, in that order). The chronological order seems to be the most reasonable option, because the personal roles of each of three leaders were comparable, and each of them deserves to be put on the top of the list. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support this approach, perhaps without including France, and perhaps the leaders need to go in the same order as the countries, i.e. same order as they currently are, in order to maintain the consensus. Whizz40 (talk) 07:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support the chronological listing of, in order, just Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt. (This is the same as ordering by number of days in charge during WW2, which is my logic on this.) I am hesitant about the country listing suggested, i.e including China and France, but would certainly not oppose it. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Support if only to stop this tendentious endless bickering. As far as France is concerned, what? Why? I also don't agree with China. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I don't understand why we are not talking about sources. While I like most of the folks in this discussion and respect you very much, our personal views about who the main players in the war were aren't very helpful. The sources I provided were only the ones I own. Surely others can provide more to help here? Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A lot of sources have been consulted and quoted in the extended discussion above and the quotes you provided in this section are probably representative and balanced. If we are going to have an infobox, at some point we need to agree how to best represent the sources in the infobox (and ideally how they will be represented on Allies of World War II as well). The proposal from Paul to list 5 Main Allied countries (or 4, without France) and Three Main Allied leaders seems like an approach that can represent the sources in a way that can gain and maintain consensus. Whizz40 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why we are not talking about sources? Answer: ...there isn't a consensus in the sources.... So, another approach is needed. What is plan B? The options for that appear to be: (i) take a decision on which order to place these leaders in based on an editorial consensus of who was most influential/important or whatever or (ii) list them in an order based on other criteria which are easily verifiable - such as chronological/number of days in charge. Option (i) seems to be particularly difficult (see all discussion above) and relies hugely on editors' opinions which seems less than ideal in a source-based encycopedia. Option (ii) is fact-based, has some relevance to the overall subject (in that if we were starting from scratch, it would seem a reasonable course of action) and should end this interminable discussion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are we adding the allies/axis list back to the infobox? There a big discussion a while back to remove the allies list in order to avoid more debate on the flag order — now we are re-adding the category just to re-start more endless discussions? I don't see the point, next you will start to have endless debates on what other allies/axis powers to include in the infobox list. --E-960 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I have an impression that the debates E-960 refers to are being usually initiated by E-960 himself (and by few other users), and without them there would be no debates on that matter. Therefore this argument is hardly acceptable. In addition, I noticed that the infobox has a link to the Allies of World War II, where E-960 unilaterally changed the order of the Allies. I find all of that counter-productive, and I expect E-960 either to present some arguments or to self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Three in chronological order

The discussion progressed to consensus on Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Four label and weight to present the Big Three in chronological order with a suggestion made to apply the same here for the list of Main Allied leaders. Whizz40 (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I would support this approach, this solution is less contentious than comparing who did what. --E-960 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

First Photo

Why are the Chinese in the first photo as if they won the war?? They received lots of help from the allies!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301B:4:6900:606D:12F8:332:4E03 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronological order? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Romania's Ion Antonescu to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox

Hello, fellow Wikipedians!

I've added Romanian wartime leader Ion Antonescu to the infobox. User:Britmax has removed my edit.

I've added his name along with 4 proper sources (references from books of British historians) to back it up. I don't want to sound biased, but if you take a look at the numbers and events regarding the Eastern Front, you'll clearly see how Romania was definitely Germany's most important ally in the European War. And this becomes even more obvious after 1943, when Italy surrenders. It's not only because of the massive amount of troops Romania sent to the front, but also because without Romanian oil, the invasion of the USSR would have been impossible, which Hitler says himself in the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. My claims are backed up by British historians Dennis Deletant and Mark Axworthy, whom I've both quoted in the aforementioned sources. Axworthy also mentions how Antonescu always had a bigger influence on Hitler during the war than Mussolini did, and how Antonescu was always the first one of Hitler's allies to be told about major upcoming events like Operation Barbarossa. Mussolini found himself under pressure because of this, says Axworthy.

What do you guys think? Please take this thread seriously, as to me it is pretty obvious that Romania deserves more attention than it gets for its WW2 contribution. Please read the sources, as I also wrote the exact quotes that back up my claim.

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem people are taking this seriously, I am going to tag some users who seem to be active on the talk page.

@ThoughtIdRetired @Whizz40 @Nick-D @DavidMCEddy @Peacemaker67, what do you guys think of my proposal? But please take into account the points I made above, as well as the sources I've quoted. I think it's pretty historically incorrect (!) to leave Romania out of the "major Axis powers" just because they weren't an original member of the Tripartite Pact.

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 09:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The sources I'm familiar with state that Germany, Italy and Japan were the key powers in the Axis, with the other members having a secondary status. The Oxford Companion to World War II, for instance, lists Romania alongside Bulgaria and Hungry as "the other principal Axis powers" in its entry on 'Axis Powers' after brief material focused on Germany, Italy and Japan (p. 76), and doesn't mention Romania at all in its entry on "Axis strategy and co-operation" (pp. 76-78). The chapter on Romania in Rolf-Dieter Muller's book The Unknown Eastern Front also doesn't support the claims above, and notes multiple instances where Romania was bossed around by Germany or undertook various things in an attempt to impress the German leadership - at no stage does it say that Romania was of equal status to the three main Axis countries. As such, I'm not seeing any grounds to include Romania. I suspect that the reason the proposal above has attracted no interest is that this is the latest of several recent proposals on Wikipedia glamorising the Romanian war effort (I note that you also proposed this last year, with this attracting no support. Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Indeed, I also proposed it last year, but without proper sources. In my opinion, this is not a proposal to "glamorize" the Romanian war effort, but to improve the article's historical accuracy. I haven't read those books you've quoted, but they most likely don't look into the Romanian war effort in a proper way, being based on the mainstream perception (and, in my opinion, misconception) that Romania was one of the "other Axis members". Meanwhile, the sources that I have quoted take a very detailed look at Romania's war effort, being based on archive documents. And remember, we're talking about British historians, so the argument of "Romanian bias" can't be brought up.

The fact that Romania was "bossed around" by Germany doesn't change the importance of the former's war contribution. I've often heard Italy was also often "bossed around" by the Germans. But that's normal, considering that Germany was by far the strongest European Axis member, and Romanian/Italian troops were often under German control. It's also known that the Germans had a feeling of being superior to other peoples (that they considered more or less inferior to them). Mark Axworthy's book I quoted also mentions how Romanian troops were mistreated/bossed around, but this doesn't change the historian's opinion that Romania was more important than Italy. So I don't consider your argument as valid. Have you got any other ones?

Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Recollecting Richard Overy's coverage of Romania in his book The Bombing War, I took a look at his treatment. He takes care to cover the bombing of Romania in WW2, particularly (a) the oilfields, and (b) with an ambition to turn the populace (and hence their leaders) against their alignment with Nazi Germany. Despite looking for it, I cannot detect any tone from this noted expert on WW2 that infers Romania to be anything other than a junior partner with Germany. I have not seen anything of such kind elsewhere - I went to Overy's book because it goes to the trouble of providing some coverage of Romania in the book's subject matter. Whilst I appreciate the ideas presented by User:Lupishor may (or may not be) valid historical views, I do not detect anything approaching a consensus on the subject among historians, so do not see anything that would enable Wikipedia editors to make the change suggested.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: From what you said, the book you mentioned covers the bombing of Romania, not the Romanian war effort on the Eastern Front. On the other hand, the two books that I have quoted take a close and detailed look into Romania. You guys are contradicting my argument by quoting books that don't seem to take a close look on the Romanian war effort.

Like Mark Axworthy says in his Third Axis Fourth Ally, the Romanian war effort is overlooked even by historians very familiar with WW2, since Romania only fought on the Eastern Front, which is normally viewed as a battle between "two giants" (as Axworthy calls them): Germany and the USSR. Therefore, most people tend to forget the Romanian (and also Italian/Hungarian/etc.) contribution on the Eastern Front.

If we compare the war efforts of Italy and Romania, we can clearly see that the latter helped Germany a lot more. It's just that Italy is seen as a "main Axis power" because they are an original part of the Tripartite Pact. Also: Romania's war effort is not so well known because it's less documented, which is actually very normal, considering Romania is geographically more distant from the West (and was also politically until 1989). This makes it more difficult to document Romania's contribution; therefore, only few (like Axworthy and Deletant) have done it. Lupishor (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Overy's book is not just an account of aircraft dropping bombs. It explains why particular targets were chosen and what it was hoped that would achieve. Whilst my argument is something along the lines of "the dog that did not bark", I still take the view that here we have an author who was particularly trying to highlight some forgotten elements of WW2 history (such as the bombing of Italy - something totally ignored by many, despite its great extent). Not mentioning Romania as an "equal partner", when there was every opportunity when discussing why Romania was targeted, is significant.

I take the point about Romania being a little ignored WW2 history. But if it is being ignored by historians, it is not the role of Wikipedia to set that right. You could present all sorts of arguments like: the number of Romanian troops put into combat, compared with Italy, Finland, Slovakia, Hungary, Croatia, Bulgaria and, of course, Germany. Or you could compare the influence of the national leaders of each country. (Yes, you list one source making such a comparison - but that is one source out of a vast number of books on WW2.) But if these points are not being widely discussed by historians, and those discussions do not produce a consensus that Romania was an equal partner with Germany, Italy and Japan, I don't see this going anywhere.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: How about we leave the historians aside for a moment and look at what Hitler himself had to say? In my first message, I've linked the Hitler-Mannerheim recording (famous for being the only recording where Hitler speaks without being in public). At the 9:07 minute mark, Hitler says "without the addition of 4-5 million tonnes of Romanian oil, we could not have fought the war – and would have had to let it be – and that was my big worry". Does the opinion of historians even matter as long as the opinion of contemporary wartime leaders is different? Hitler clearly stated how important Romania was for Germany. If – as he says – Romania joining the Axis was the condition for making Operation Barbarossa possible, doesn't that automatically imply that Romania was the most important Axis member behind Germany? Lupishor (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure how to make this any clearer, but the recording you mention is a primary source. An editor's interpretation of that primary source, on a key point in a high profile article, is insufficient without the support of a consensus of historians. See, among other guidance, WP:HISTRS. I don't know how other editors divide up their efforts on this project, but I spend more time searching for sources that meet the appropriate standards than on actually editing. If something is either contentious or a major point, you need more sources. If they are not there, of if a point has not made it into the mainstream literature of a well-covered subject, then you have to leave that point alone.

To use the example of the Mannerheim recording and why you need the interpretation of mainstream academic historians: (1) Hitler needed to keep Finland active in the war. (2) Being appreciative of another Axis ally to Mannerheim implies the value that Hitler puts on Finland too. (3) If Romania had pulled out of providing that oil, Germany could have taken it forcibly (after all, they provided extensive, high quality anti-aircraft defence for the oilfields already) Hitler being appreciative of Romania distracts from that reality. A professional historian would look at a wide range of sources to analyse the relevance of the recording. This is just one tiny component of the whole approach of a historian. (And, interestingly, the view of Overy is that later in the war, it was the failure of the ability of Germany to transport that oil to where it was needed that reduced the supply to Germany - this kicked in before the Soviets eventually over-ran the oilfields. To work that out, you need a broad view and rigid use of the right methods.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. More broadly, if we were to start using original research in this article, which we never will given WP:NOR, recordings of Hitler would likely be the absolute worst sources to use. Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Alright guys, so be it, if these are Wikipedia's rules. I still stand by my opinion, though. What Hitler says in the recording (that the war would have been lost without Romania's oil) is, in fact, supported by historian Mark Axworthy in the book I quoted. But since I (currently) don't know other historians who support this point (apart from maybe Deletant – there surely are others as well, but I currently don't know them), I guess Axworthy isn't enough to add this point on Wikipedia. Even if there are surely multiple people who share this opinion, I guess the "consensus of historians", as you called it, is still that Romania was "another Axis member".

It's kind of mind boggling to me, though, that there aren't more who share this thought, since after Italy surrendered in 1943, it's pretty clear that Romania became Germany's most important ally. Lupishor (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Lupishor, we cannot trust to what Hitler (or Churchill, Stalin etc) were saying during the war, because political speeches could be motivated by some specific political needs and, therefore, could be insincere (let's say that politely).

Nick-D & ThoughtIdRetired. One important problem with that article is that it treats Eastern Front as a single geographical location, similar to some minor theatres as North Africa, Italy, or Burma. As a result, Romania, which was involved only in EF, is seen as a minor participant of WWII, despite the fact that its military losses (KIA) exceeded Italian losses, which is an indicator of the contribution to the Axis war effort. Romania was deeply involved in the Battle of Stalingrad (which alone had a scale comparable with the whole Western Front), in conquest and occupation of South Ukraine and Crimea. Those regions had an extremely high strategic importance, and Romanian involvement there was very significant. The fact that Romanian role is understated in Western sources is just a consequence of a low priority of the Eastern Front events in Western historiography. But we don't want to write this article exclusively from the Western perspective, aren't we?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Thanks, that's exactly what I was also saying. Also, as a side note, what Hitler said there was not actually a speech (not a public speech, if that's what you meant). It was an in-door conversation, the only one known where Hitler uses his normal voice. You can listen to the whole recording yourself, it's clear Hitler is just mentioning certain facts, there's nothing like propaganda in there.

Like Paul said, the Eastern Front can certainly not be seen as a single geographical location. Romania was involved in numerous battles across many different areas: Stalingrad, Kharkov, Odessa, the Crimea, the Caucasus, the Don River's bend, the Black Sea campaign and pretty much all of (southern) Ukraine. In the Black Sea campaign, Romania is even considered the most important Axis member (even in front of Germany!), which can also be seen on the quoted Wikipedia article, since Romania is always the first Axis member to get listed. Paul, should I understand that you are also for adding Romania to the main Axis member list? Lupishor (talk) 18:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

An important point from User:Paul Siebert, but to counterbalance that: Italy was a willing participant in WW2. Mussolini could have simply sat on the sidelines (as did Franco) - but he didn't. Consequently the Italian fleet was of huge concern - the ramifications of that affected all parts of the conflict. This cannot be underover-emphasised to those whose expertise is the Eastern Front - the naval war was the linking component of a world war. Compared with Italy, Romania was caught between Russian and Soviet ambitions, and felt obliged to pick one as an ally (and who in their right mind would have done a deal with Stalin).

And I repeat, deficiency in the writings of academic historians cannot be righted in Wikipedia. If you have to wait for the right shift in academia, so be it. In an entirely different part of Wikipedia, I was fortunate that, eventually (and fortuitously) the leading historian of that subject, wrote a definitive account which included some points that I had always felt obvious, but were omitted by prior academic accounts. With the new source supported by positive academic reviews, I was able to include that material in an article, after waiting more than 2 years for such a quality source. Hence I understand the problem, but remain steadfast in the purist view that Wikipedia is based on its sources. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, we need to follow what historians say rather than our personal views, or cherry picking (various sources note that Australia was the second most important Allied country in the Pacific War between 1942 and 1944, for instance, but it would be nonsensical to portray Australia as one of the major participants in the war). Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick, as ThoughtIdRetired argued elsewhere, different sources say different things. I believe we all agree that EF is underrepresented in most Western sources, which means other sources should be taken into account. Since Romania fought exclusively in the EF, it is not a surprise that its contribution is underrepresented in Western literature. Therefore, a correct argument for or against inclusion of Romania would be the following: How Romania's role is described in the sources that write about the Eastern Front? If they devote a significant attention to Romania, then, yes, Romania should be included, otherwise, it should not be included. I am not familiar with that, so if Lupishor will provide some evidences that confirm that Romania played an important role in EF, then we should include it. However, if such sources as Glantz, Bellamy, etc mention Romania only occaionally, I see no reason to include it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I am hesitant about Paul Siebert's approach on this. I don't think the solution to the problem is to look at sources that deal primarily with the Russian front, because they are never going to answer any question about the influence of Romania in a world war. The answer has to be in the more generalist WW2 literature, or any WW2 generalist historian who specifically tackles the question of Romania's role. If we rely on analysing sources specialising on the Russian front, then this becomes an editor opinion on those sources, with a significant amount of extrapolation from the largest front to the whole war. And, of course, any specialist writing about the Russian front will, unless enormously talented at keeping things in proportion, will give more importance to the subject they have studied. Given time, an authoritative historian writing about WW2 from an "overview" position will consider the sources given above that highlight Romanian involvement. If such a historian is persuaded by those sources, the ideas will be in the "overview" work. If not, they will be silent - which appears to be the current position.

I did have lots of other arguments in this post - but they are just the ideas and interpretations of this editor - so are not relevant, however compelling they might (or might not) be. I have only retained arguments about what to expect from sources and how to use them.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Since Eastern Front alone constituted 50% of the whole WWII, then if Romania played a very significant role in it (according to the sources that write about EF), that makes Romania a major participant of the global WWII. However, I am not sure if EF sources say so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, let's find out if Eastern Front sources say so in the first place - because if they don't, there is the answer. The problem still is that Romanian oil was always available, either voluntarily or otherwise. All that is left is troops to put in the front line. As I understand sources, the bulk of the Romanian forces were expended in Stalingrad - I don't have a good set of numbers available to me but would be keen to know what they are. This falls far short of, say, Italy's involvement in influencing the war. I have in mind the denial of the Mediterranean, even if largely as a fleet-in-being, alongside other Italian adventures that put the Axis in North Africa, Greece, etc. Among other things, the demands on the Royal Navy probably prevented a suitable response to building tensions with Japan, thereby altering both the war in the Far East and the overall situation in the region post-war. You can certainly track comment in authoritative sources that show cancelled Far Eastern operations due to lack of naval resource. Those same sources talk at length about the RN having to fight an extra war in the Mediterranean (the plan always was that the French navy would do most of the work in the Med). There is only limited synthesis to link the 2 ideas (and perhaps another historian has done that job). So, among other questions, how does Romania's involvement compare with that? But I am pitting one piece of "breaking the rules" against another - how far can we push against the principles of avoiding putting editor conclusions versus source conclusions in Wikipedia?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

As a post-script, it appears from Romanian armies in the Battle of Stalingrad that the numbers of Romanian troops involved there were 16% more than the Allied forces at the Second battle of El Alamein. If my understanding is correct, that does not seem to do the job.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

To that, I would probably add that oil is not a factor at all: the US provided Japan with lion's share of her oil demands during SSJW, which does not make the US a participant of the war. Czech military plants supplied Germany with wast amount of armament, and Sweden provided it with iron ore, but these two countries were just annexed and neutral states, accordingly.

Therefore, a preliminary conclusion is that Romania should not be included, unless some new arguments are presented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Aren't you the one who said Wikipedia is based on sources, not on speculation? You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil. Well, I could also speculate that the USSR could have invaded Romania whenever they liked, and thus, Germany wouldn't have had any Romanian oil.

We need to focus on our timeline, not on speculative alternate timelines. And in our timeline, Romania did provide Germany with oil willingly, and therefore made Operation Barbarossa possible. This is what matters here.

And how do you answer the argument that, after Italy had surrendered, there was no other country than Romania that could have been considered the second most important Axis member in Europe? This is not my claim, it is also what historian Axworthy says in his book.

Another argument is that after the royal coup d'état which put Romania on the allied side, the war was shortened by up to 6 months, because Germany suddenly found itself out of Romanian oil and Romanian troops. This shows how dependent Germany was on Romania during the war, and, therefore, how important Romania was to the Axis.

You said you wanted sources, so I gave you sources in form of two British historians. Who says we need a "consensus of historians" to add Romania? While I admit that I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's rules, I am pretty certain that what you need to have in order to make an edit are credible sources to support your claim. And I provided you with 4 good sources from 2 different historians. Please show me where Wikipedia mentions that your "consensus" thing is needed. We even have the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. Even if Wikipedia doesn't consider it a reliable source, it still makes my point so obvious that I'd say that's rather a question of common sense than of needed sources. Lupishor (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Each concrete statement in Wikipedia articles must be based on some concrete source or sources. However, the way those statements are presented depends on us. We can, and we should perform a comparative analysis of sources to decide which facts should be included, and how it should be done.

You probably noted that I neither objected nor opposed to inclusion of Romania. Instead, I proposed a criterion that would allow us to decide if Romania should be included. If you agree with this criterion, please, demonstrate that that criterion was met. If you disagree, propose your own criterion, and if other users will agree with that criterion, let's check together if, according to that criterion, Romania can be included.

Oil cannot be such a criterion for two reason. First, contrary to common beliefs, oil was not as vital to Germany as people think. Germany had its own huge synthetic fuel plants, where synthetic gasoline was made from coal and water using the Fischer–Tropsch process, so by 1944 Germany produced 72.3% of its liquid fuel domestically. Oil was needed as a source for a diesel fuel (mostly for submarines), whereas the land troops used synthetic fuel.

Second, and I already explained that, Romania's role as a supplier of resources does not make it a major Axis member. It could have been a source of oil even if it were a neutral state (like Sweden, who provided Germany with iron ore), or it could be occupied by Germany (like Hungary by the end of war). I don't see how that argument can work.

Anyway, if you believe Romania should be included, your arguments should follow a two-step protocol: first, we jointly propose some criteria for inclusion, and after that, when we achieved some agreement about criteria, we can check if these criteria are met.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Lupishor, I will try and answer the points you have made.
You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil. This idea is discussed in one of your sources. There were clear concerns both within Romania and outside that Germany would take the oil fields by force.
Romania as second axis power in Europe after Italian surrender. (a) You describe this as a claim by historian Axworthy. Axworthy's book is out of print (which is not a good sign when assessing a source). I have tried to ascertain whether or not Axworthy is a trained historian with any particular academic credentials. So far, it appears he is not. (See WP:HISTRS) (b) I don't think the issue is whether Romania was, at that point, the second-ranking European axis power. The issue is whether their role in the whole war (or even as number 2 in the European Axis) is sufficiently significant to get them an entry in the info box.
Cessation of Romanian oil supplies following coup. That cessation was due to successful bombing of the oilfields and mining of the Danube. The oilfields remained in the hands of German troops whilst the coup was underway. The timing is: Romanian coup, 23 August; Soviet occupation of oilfields 2 September.
Sources/WP rules. I presume you have read WP:RS and WP:HISTRS. Out of these I hope you would take that if a viewpoint is expressed by just a few sources, you need to consider if that qualifies for inclusion in an article as minority view. I don't see how a minority view that Romania was a major party in the world war qualifies for the edit you proposed. If it is not a minority view, then we need more sources.
Looking at Joining Hitler's Crusade, the following points come to mind:
(a) "All of this places Romania on a par with Italy as a principal ally of Germany and not in the category of a minor Axis satellite." (pg 78). Reading this in its entire context, this statement seems to be unsupported by the level of argued support that you would expect. There is no mention of exactly what the Italian contribution was. Therefore there is no reasoned comparison. We virtually have the bald statement as quoted here. The preceding narrative of the chapter on Romania in this book does not lead the reader (or, at least, this reader) to reach anything approaching that conclusion. I note, also, that the Italian contribution to the course of the war was more than just ground troops. The Italian navy - if only as a fleet in being for much of the time - coupled with Italian adventures in countries with Mediterranean coastlines, put a severe strain on the Royal Navy, which impacted on the whole world war. See Evan Mawdsley quoting Stephen Roskil: "trying to fight a five-ocean war with, at best, a two-ocean Navy".
(b) Deletant is a specialist on Romanian history. A wikipedia editor must consider this. Someone who is a specialist in one field claims that something or someone that they have studied in that narrow field is significant in a much wider field. How do we assess whether the specialist has sufficient understanding of the wider subject to make that claim? We have to look, at the very least, for him being cited elsewhere (and cited in support - not to criticise his ideas). Ideally, his ideas are written about by more general historians.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: If you consider oil not to be a criterion, then I could use the war effort on the Eastern Front as a whole as a criterion. Not just the oil, but the big number of troops sent there, that made Operation Barbarossa possible. Romania sent more troops than all other Axis members (apart from Germany, of course) combined. And as you stated, the Eastern Front alone made up 50% of WW2. If Romania wasn't willing to help with troops (like Bulgaria did), the invasion wouldn't have been possible.

@ThoughtIdRetired: Maybe there were, indeed, concerns that Germany would have taken the oil by force if Romania wasn't willing to help. But you forget the Romanian troops (see what I responded to Paul). We can't speculate that Germany would have forced Romania to help with troops, like they would've done for the oil, considering that Bulgaria was also an Axis member, but wasn't forced to invade the USSR. Axworthy mentions how the German leadership of troops in Ukraine kept on asking for reinforcements from Romania all the time, because German troops alone could not have done the job. This is a clear sign of how imporant Romania's contribution was. Even if Axworthy is not a trained historian, he uses Romanian archives as sources for his book, so I guess that makes his book a reliable source, no matter what his historian degree is, right?

Also: Remember, we're not actually talking about Romania as a country here, but about its leader Ion Antonescu. My aim is to add him to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox. Even if, let's say, Romania as a country didn't have a notable contribution (I'm sure it did), we are talking about its leader here. And Axworthy mentions how Antonescu was much more important for Hitler than Mussolini. For example, it's mentioned that Antonescu was always the first Axis leader that Hitler told about major upcoming events, including Operation Barbarossa. It's also mentioned how Mussolini noticed that he's losing his prestige in favor of Antonescu, and how he was under pressure because of this. Axworthy also states how Antonescu was "the only Axis leader whom it was permitted to simply contradict Hitler face to face". This was due to Antonescu's military experience (he had fought in four other wars/conflicts before WW2), which Mussolini didn't have. That's how Hitler came to respect Antonescu so much, and according to Axworthy, Hitler even admired him, viewing his situation in Romania as similar to Hitler's own situation in Germany. Lupishor (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Lupishor, Romanian role at EF could be the argument. However, for this argument to work, we need some proof, because your speculations are not sufficient. As I already explained, that proof could be as follows: if a significant fraction of the sources about EF emphasize Romania's role in EF hostilities, then yes, that makes Romania a major Axis member. The problem is, however, that I never saw that when I was reading the EF sources. Mostly, Romania's involvement is discussed in a context of Stalingrad and sometimes Crimea. In both cases its role is described as subordinate and secondary, which is not sufficient to prove your thesis. If you have sources saying otherwise, please, present them.

And, since we are discussing not Romania, but Antonescu, it would be good if you provided any evidences that he played some active role in EF, and that role allows us to speak about him as a leader.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Like I said, these are not just my speculations; I've already presented two sources that support my claim, as you asked. About Antonescu, Axworthy's book is an evidence. Antonescu had 11 meetings with Hitler and, according to said book, when they met to discuss the situation on the EF, Hitler was often the one in the defensive stance, since Antonescu was more experienced and sometimes influenced Hitler's decisions. You can also read Antonescu's Wikipedia article, which provides a plethora of sources about his involvement on the EF. I am not familiar with the sources (haven't read the books), but they possibly also sustain my claim that Romania can be considered a major Axis power. There is even footage of Antonescu on the EF, since you asked for evidence about his role. By the way, I'd appreciate if you tag me when responding, like I always do, so I actually get notified. Cheers! :) Lupishor (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Lupishor, I note what you say. Out of all the discussion, I do not see any of the following
(a) Deletant (who we know is a history professor) producing any serious arguments to support the statement on Antonescu's importance/influence. To me, this is significant in assessing this source.
(b) Since you appear to have Axworthy's book to hand, you presumably have some biographical material on the author in that book. Since you are not telling us that he is a qualified historian, I think we can presume that he is not. I note that Deletant cites him in a few instances, so that give some validation, so possibly squeaking through on WP:HISTRS, but I am hesitant about the usefulness of this source.
(c) No-one has come forward with other historians, particularly those who take a wide view of WW2 history, citing either of these 2 as sources or writing about their ideas. One has to suspect that is because this hasn't happened - or certainly not to any large degree.
I have no doubt that Antonescu/Romania had an important role in WW2. However, I do not think that level of importance is sufficient to justify inclusion in the info box. That is because the "bar" for entry to that is set particularly high. I have little doubt that if such inclusion met those standards, it would be relatively easy to find a good number of historians commenting in a way that supported inclusion. Without additional sources, I don't see this going anywhere.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Well, based on numbers (like Paul has said in one of his responses), we could deduce that Romania had a bigger contribution than Italy, right? Well, if that's the case, then I don't see why we'd include Italy/Mussolini, but not Romania/Antonescu. Is it just because Italy was one of the Tripartite Pact's original members? If Romania doesn't get added, shouldn't Italy get removed as well? I know Wikipedia is based on sources, but aren't the numbers themselves good enough sources? Lupishor (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lupishor: I could give you a lengthy answer, but all the points are mentioned above. we could deduce that..... It does not matter what Wikipedia editors deduce about a subject. It is what is in the sources that is important. The numbers are just simple facts - their interpretation needs the input of historians - in a way that produces a consensus.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Well, then I guess Romania can't be added. Idk, maybe Antonescu's article has some more sources that could back up my claim - but as I said, I'm not faimiliar with them. Lupishor (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

2 thoughts to add, @Lupishor:. Firstly, wait and see what comments/help you get from others. Second, I note that the article on Antonescu has Deletant as a reference on a large number of occasions. Irritatingly, the referencing of the article is ambiguous, as there are two works by Deletant that they could refer to. Both appear to be works that you have not read. This might be where he repeats the remarks on Romania's influence in WW2. Of course, we are still looking for other historians to support it, but it would be significant if Deletant does not repeat the comment. Incidentally, one of these refs is The Oxford Companion to World War II, where Deletant has written the Romania section. It appears that User:Nick-D has a copy of this - he said where he had checked comment on the leaders of the war - but it is not clear if he took a look at the Romania section as well.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

As above, I checked the entries on the Axis, which are those most relevant here. The entries on Antonescu and Romania also don't support the claims being made above that Romania was one of the major Axis powers, and both note that Antonescu tried to get out of the war from early 1943 onwards (pp. 34 and 746). Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Alright, but the fact that Antonescu tried to leave the war earlier doesn't affect his importance. Italy had also left the war by 1943 but is still considered a major Axis power. Lupishor (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, @ThoughtIdRetired: and @Nick-D:, even if Deletant's entry in The Oxford Companion to World War II doesn't mention that Romania was a main Axis member, isn't the fact that he wrote an entry for that book still an argument to add Romania/Antonescu, since Deletant has claimed in another book that Romania was on a par with Italy when it came to importance for Germany? Lupishor (talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

No. The book has entries on pretty much all the countries which participated in the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: I'm aware of that, but that's not what I mean. Deletant pointed out that Romania was as important as Italy, in one of his books. So, since Deletant was allowed to contribute to the The Oxford Companion to World War II (which seems to be one of the sources you guys consider worth mentioning), doesn't that mean that Deletant's claim on Romania's importance should be taken seriously? I mean, if other historians hadn't taken Deletant seriously, I don't think he would have been allowed to participate in the creation of such an important book as The Oxford Companion to World War II, right? Lupishor (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lupishor: What seems odd to me is that Deletant appears to have mentioned his idea on Romania'a importance just once - and without the sort of reasoned arguments that you would expect to support the idea. He does not appear to have mentioned it anywhere else. That does not sound like this is a major thesis of his that he is proposing to other historians. Did he put it in the first draft of his entry to the Oxford Companion and it was edited out? We don't know, but certainly looking for any further statement of it shows that it is hard to find. That means no "current scholarly consensus" (as discussed in WP:HISTRS). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:04, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Result in Italy

@RickySarzus: @KIENGIR: User:RickySarzus wants the infobox to say that the Result included the fall of Fascist Italy (1922–1943). User:KIENGIR insists the Result included the fall of the Kingdom of Italy, which existed, according to the Wikipedia article on the Kingdom, from 1861 to 1946. I'm no expert on World War II, but it seems to me like the fall of Fascist Italy (1922-1943) was part of World War II, while the Kingdom officially didn't end until 1946-06-02, over a year after Victory in Europe Day, 1945-05-08.

Therefore, I think the infobox should say the result included the fall of Fascist Italy, NOT the fall of the Kingdom.

Comments? DavidMCEddy (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy:,

this is an issue that has been already emerged and discussed, and the result is that Fascist Italy (1922–1943) is an era article, while Kingdom of Italy is a country article. In places, where you list countries, you have to pipe countries. Nazi Germany is a country. Since what I set is piped as [[Kingdom of Italy|Fascist Italy]], so the reader will see "Fascist Italy", which is part of the linked country article's timeline.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Thanks. I asked, because you reverted a change by User:RickySarzus without a comment that I saw, and I felt that some discussion was needed. Unless User:RickySarzus was involved in the earlier discussion, they may not be aware of the distinction you just pointed out. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk)`

Sure, thank you as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021

Under "Course of the war", subsection "Western Europe (1940–41)" I intend to change following:

"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's ultimatum,[which?][99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."

To following:

"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's peace offer [99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."

By using this source:

http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/1940.html

Under page 251, which is the same website that the original writer used. T.Randrup (talk) 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 14:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Better photo suggestion

I have a proposal for the "Axis attack on the Soviet Union (1941)" sub-section, namely, replacing this photo with this one, as the latter illustrates better the fact that Germany didn't fight alone, but received significant help from its allies, which is forgotten by many in the context of the Eastern Front. The photo quote I'd add is "Erich von Manstein with Romanian generals Petre Dumitrescu and Gheorghe Avramescu on the Eastern Front (1942)". Alternatively, it could be added to "Eastern Front (1942-43)", because it fits better timeframe-wise. What do you think, Paul Siebert, ThoughtIdRetired and Nick-D? Lupishor (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It is a reasonable picture, replacing another picture of random soldiers with one of the top brass where there isn't an equivalent for a while on either side. As long as you're not using it as part of your strange crusade to have Romania listed as a major member of the Axis I don't see a problem. Britmax (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Britmax: I'm not sure why you're describing my intention to add Antonescu to the main Axis leaders as "strange", since other editors didn't exactly take it as a joke (as you seem to do), which can be seen on that section of the talk page. The claim is supported by at least two historians. Anyway, back to the topic, no, it isn't. I would add it for the reason stated in my previous comment. Lupishor (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thinking something is strange and treating it as a joke are not the same thing. But, good. See what others think. Britmax (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a particular dislike of the picture of the German soldier throwing a stick grenade. Rightly or wrongly, I take the view that this is a staged publicity shot - and as such does not qualify for inclusion in the article. Therefore I am already half-way there with the substitution. I cannot see anything wrong with an illustration of Romanian generals in the company of a German field marshall - and I have tried to do a job of Devil's advocate on this, with no real result. The picture gives the opportunity for the reader to look into the matter more, which is the major role of this high-level summary article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: I also thought the same thing – that photo looks staged, considering the angle and its content. It's more of an artistic photo. So can I make the change, since three editors are already in favor of this? Lupishor (talk) 19:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the stick grenade photo is a propaganda shot, and it would be good to replace it. It is a well known image which is widely used in this context though. A good replacement might be an image which depicts the nature of this campaign, such as one depicting Soviet POWs with the caption noting their terrible fate. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1979-113-04, Lager Winnica, gefangene Russen.jpg or File:Bundesarchiv Bild 192-205, KZ Mauthausen, sowjetische Kriegsgefangene.jpg perhaps? These images illustrate both the scale of the Soviet losses and the inhuman aims of the German forces. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nick, we have a whole section about war crimes and human losses, so all photos depicting a horror of that war should go there. In this section, we should show the pictures describing the course of the war. I see no significant problem with showing staged photos. Actually, a significant part of WWII photos, including many iconic imaged are staged photos. In general, I think the current set of photos is far from optimal. I am going to discuss that in a separate section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I have a strong preference to not include any Nazi propaganda photos in the article. Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert:I see no significant problem with showing staged photos I couldn't disagree more. I agree that many WW2 photos were staged, so all the more reason to make use of those that weren't. Then there are "levels" of staging - photos of the big three at the Tehran conference were staged, but they recorded a real event, so are important. The Julien Bryan photo of the Polish girl finding her sister dead after an air attack (as discussed on this talk page recently, but (i.m.h.o.) sadly excluded) most certainly was not. Then we have the Iwo Jima flag raising which was believed for some time to be staged due to a misunderstanding. So, whilst there are some shades of grey in the subject, I strongly feel that photographs of "real" events are infinitely preferable.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Actually, there is no strict borderline between staged and non-staged photos. Is it really important if the photographer took a picture of solders raising the flag over Iwo Jima, or he asked them to do so? In reality, that happened during the battle, so, it was a part of the battle anyway. Similarly, the Reichstag photo (see below) was definitely staged, but it by itself was a historical event, because it was the first image that heralded the fall of Berlin (and, therefore, was a symbolic end of the battle of Berlin). Yes, obviously staged propaganda photos should be excluded without any doubts (except if they are aimed to illustrate how the propaganda works), but rejecting images that were, to some degree, staged would be deeply incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I was trying to make clear that there are all sorts of "shades of grey" in what is a staged photo. All part of the decision-making judgements for an editor.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit: The photo I've suggested might get deleted, as it seems it's owned by Getty Images, which I didn't expect, considering I've found it in a 1995 book with no source given. I would then suggest to use this one as the replacement; this one doesn't seem to be owned by anyone. Of course, other photos are possible too, for example, illustrating Hungarian or Italian soldiers. I'd choose this particular one, since Romania had the second biggest contribution on the Eastern Front, so I'd find it more fitting; it also shows a German soldier, which would obviously be needed too. I find it much better then the staged photo the article currently uses. Lupishor (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a low quality photo, and a blatant propaganda shot that wouldn't fit into the infobox at all. The lack of sourcing information also makes it unusable. This does seem to be part of your crusade to have Romania portrayed as Germany's peer by finding photos which depict Germans and Romanians as equals and partners, despite what the literature says. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

What would you suggest, finding a photo where Romanians are shown as being inferior to Germans, instead of being their equals? Either way, it would be more accurate in relation to what the literature says, than showing a photo that only portrays German soldiers. And what's your evidence that it's a propaganda shot? I could easily say that the photo of the German throwing a stick grenade is also a propaganda shot since it's obviously staged, but there's no evidence to confirm this. Please stop using the term "crusade", because I didn't come with that proposal out of nowhere; I provided some actual points and other users, especially Paul Siebert, didn't seem to view it as a "strange crusade" like you do. Lupishor (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Drop the WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS approach. Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: If that photo needs to be removed, then so be it. There are still other alternatives, that are much better anyway; I should have proposed them from the beginning. One of them is here, showing German and Romanian troops at the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, which means that it also fits very well timeframe-wise with the section I'm proposing it for. There's also this one of Antonescu and Hitler in 1941. It's advantages are that it fits timeframe-wise and shows members of the top brass. The disadvantage is that it doesn't show the actual invasion. Lupishor (talk) 12:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nick&Lupishor. I think the photos must be as informative as possible, and they should complement the text. I do not care if they are Nazi, Soviet or US propaganda: as soon as they carry useful information, they are ok. What information should they convey? In my opinion, the section tells about the most massive military invasion in world history, triumph of German war machine (at the beginning), and fierce resistance of Soviet troops, which resulted in a first major defeat of Wehrmacht at the outskirts of Moscow. If, at the same time, we will be able to present a photo showing not just Germans, but their allies too, that would be great. We do not need to show fleeing civilians, POWs or public executions, because this section is not about war crimes or civilian losses. By showing that type photos, we are wasting a precious space that must be allocated to convey a very specific idea: Barbarossa opened the largest theatre of war in the world history, where a series of gigantic battles lead to a first major defeat of the Axis in December 1941.

If you agree with these criteria, let's think together about photos.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I definitely agree with these criteria, that's why I think that the photo showing German and Romanian soldiers crossing the Prut river into the USSR fits very well, since it shows the beginning of Barbarossa. The image of fleeing civilians should probably be changed with one about the battle of Moscow, some can be found here. Lupishor (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I would like to challenge the principle of excluding photos of civilians caught up in the immediate conflict - they were there at the time and definitely were part of the story. I have complained before that this article is so strong on the deliberate killing of civilians, often away from the immediate combat area, that it pays little attention to those who died because the war came to where they were. I see this as a significant failing of the article. Much of the compartmentalisation sought by User:Paul Siebert for the article did not happen at the time; using that compartmentalisation reduces the completeness with which the article does its job. (Remembering that the typical consultation of a Wikipedia article does not involved end-to-end reading of its content.) I think the article can convey some points in parallel, and photos are a particularly useful way of doing this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, we have space for TWO (maximum three) photos, so we must select the most informative ones.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed - the only issue is over deciding which are the most informative. Hence all this discussion. The current total photographic content of this article is easily challenged. For instance, in the montage in the infobox, the naval war is illustrated with a picture of battleships - for a war in which the battleship was shown to be obsolescent. Looking at the comments about "staged" photos, the shot by MacArthur's full time photographer of him striding out of a landing craft will no doubt be up for challenge. Strangely, I think that should stay, but am having difficulty in producing a logical justification for that. I think that shows that some element of this is the "gut feeling" of what is better - as would be used by any professional picture editor.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd like it if Nick-D told us exactly how he defines "propaganda shot", because I'm pretty sure that (almost) every photo in this article could be used as propaganda in a way or another. "Propaganda shot" is a very vague term. Lupishor (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's no need to ping me - I've had this talk page watchlisted for ages. Propaganda images are those which present a misleading portrayal of events, such as those you are seeking to include which present German and Romanians as peers as part of pushing your tiresome agenda, or glamorise their subject. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop associating literally everything I do with the so-called "crusade". Britmax and ThoughtIdRetired had absolutely no problem with the first image I proposed and seemed to favor its inclusion. It's very obvious that photos always depict allied soldiers as peers – again, what would you suggest, finding a photo where other Axis soldiers are shown as inferior to German soldiers? First of all, good luck finding that. Secondly, that could be seen as discriminating by readers of certain nations, so it would be controversial and I wouldn't agree to show such images. The last image I suggested (Germans and Romanians crossing the Pruth) has absolutely nothing Romanian-biased. Lupishor (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Berlin photo

I found that this iconic photo is now under CC, so it can be added to the article. I am going to replace the Reichstag photo with this one. The only reason why that photo was not in this article were a copyright problem. Now it seems to be resolved, so I see no obstacles to its addition anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Nations

Why do the commanders of the nations (even one wrong and you know who I'm talking about) have the flag but the nations don't? It would be enough to put the USA, UK, USSR, and China for the Allies and Germany, Japan and Italy for the Axis. KROSLO (talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Revanchism "especially marked" in Germany due to Versailles Treaty

I have marked the following sentence as dubious:

"Despite strong pacifist sentiment after World War I, irredentist and revanchist nationalism emerged in several European states in the same period. These sentiments were especially marked in Germany because of the significant territorial, colonial, and financial losses imposed by the Treaty of Versailles."

Given that Austria and Hungary both suffered much more extreme territory, population, and industry loss as a result of their respective treaties, I find the "especially" dubious at best. I know that this used to be a popular historiographical opinion which has come under scrutiny in recent decades, so for now I have marked it as dubious and welcome further discussion. Kakurokuna (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, especially Hungary, however there are a few significant cases, Germany is among them, which due her size became as well a significant base of rendering these issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2021

add the due to the well documented Italian war crimes TTTTRZON (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: these are listed in their own page. — TGHL ↗ (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Participants in infobox

In the current infobox, the participants in WW2 are currently only listed as "Allies" and "Axis". Should it be changed to reflect similarity with the infobox at World War I, where the reader is given information as to the specific participating nations? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

No. Please see the many previous discussions of this topic, where the consensus has not to have a bloated infobox like that which blights the World War I article. Nick-D (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hideki Tojo as main Axis Leader for Japan

Hello. Should we make Hideki Tojo as the main leader of the Axis Powers in Japan because he was the main wartime planner for most of the war? Cupcake547 ^talk 17:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC).

I'm inclined to think not. There are several reasons for this:

• A growing number of historians consider that Hirohito was actively involved in Japanese wartime policy. On this matter, we can see some information on this article.
• Years ago, on this talk page, a consensus was reached to include Hirohito because, of all the Japanese leaders of the war, he was the only one who remained in power during the entire war period (1937-1945). Tojo was Prime Minister only for 2 years and 9 months (October, 1941-July, 1944).
• The unsettled controversy among the historians regarding Hirohito's role in the war means that ignoring the emperor to name his prime minister between 1941 and 1944 as the sole leader would deviate from neutrality to clearly side with Hirohito's apologists. It could be discussed whether the old consensus (naming only the leader who remained throughout the war, that is, Hirohito) is sufficient, or whether Tojo should be named along with Hirohito, but never replacing him.

To illustrate the need to keep the mention of Emperor Hirohito, I will cite three opinions of different historians:

• Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Portland State University, writes in his book The People’s Emperor: Democracy and the Japanese Monarchy, 1945-1995 (2001, p.127) that "If 'war responsibility' means participating in the policymaking process that led to the commencement and prosecution of an aggressive war (for many Japanese, the key issue was the responsibility for defeat, not complicity in an aggressive war), then there is growing evidence that Emperor Hirohito played a considerable role in this area".
• Peter Wetzler writes in his recent book Imperial Japan and Defeat in the Second World War: The Collapse of an Empire (2020, p.175) that "During the Tokyo War Crimes Trials the testimony offered by Tôjô Hideki, and gladly accepted by US officials, succeeded in exonerating the Shôwa Emperor of war guilt. The debate, however, about Hirohito's participation in political and military affairs during the Second World War -whether or not (at first) and to what extent (later)- still continues. It will animate authors for years to come. Now most historians acknowledge that the Emperor was deeply involved, like all nation-state leaders at that time."
• Takahisa Furukawa, expert on wartime history from Nihon University, described Hideki Tojo with this words: "Tojo is a bureaucrat who was incapable of making own decisions, so he turned to the Emperor as his supervisor. That's why he had to report everything for the Emperor to decide. If the Emperor didn't say no, then he would proceed." We can see it in this article.

For all these reasons, my opinion is that it would not be neutral to omit the reference to Hirohito in Japan's leadership in the war. As I said before, it could be discussed whether, in addition to the emperor, Prime Minister Tojo should also be mentioned, but I must oppose a replacement of the former by the latter.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, in the Emperor's autobiography, Showa Tenno Dokuhakuroku, he explicity says he was involved in major decisions. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 01:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister Tojo should not be added because it were mainly the Japanese generals and admirals which were making plans. But all that the Japanese did in the war was to make the Allies respect them and teach them to fear the Japanese and the Japanese respected the Emperor a lot that they sacrificed their life for their country. So the Emperor should not be removed and Tojo should not be added. Also, if you're adding Tojo (which you should not), so Kuniaki Koiso and Kantarō Suzuki should also be added because they were also Japanese prime ministers. ShauryaOMG (talk) 10:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Allied leaders

@Sthitapragnya Tripathy: The list of allied leaders and their order has been discussed extensively, e.g., in Talk:World War II/Archive 62#The Big Three. Conclusion: Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, in that order. Moreover, Chaing Kai-Shek did NOT belong on that list. This was discussed extensively last December and January.

Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Cheers Mate Sthitapragnya Tripathy (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Request

Can someone make this a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

france

France was one of the main leaders of ww2, so maybe you can add Charles De Gaulle as the leader of Free France?TTTTRZON (talk) 15:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

There must be a number of discussions on the talk page or its archives on why De Gaulle isn't included. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Further reading section

This is a rather bizarre grab bag of various sources about various specific aspects of the war, and should probably be removed or entirely replaced. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree completely - it is pretty random, and we have the Bibliography of World War II article. I also suspect that a fair number of works listed in the references section haven't actually been used as references (or were once used but no longer are) given the number is so large. Would anyone object to removing the further reading section? Nick-D (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've just removed this section. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2021

For the disambiguation, some people may have been searching for the call of duty game with this title and it should have a redirect to this page. Big boy Zack (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The disambiguation message links to WWII (disambiguation) which already mentions the Call of Duty game. Please clarify what you are requesting. RudolfRed (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Curious

Germany, followed by the other Axis states, declared war on the United States in solidarity with Japan, citing as justification the American attacks on German war vessels that had been ordered by Roosevelt. Which one? Unknown... (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Lede too long?

Per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be 3–4 regular-size paragraphs. Right now it stands at 5 large paragraphs. I know this isn't a trivial task but I thought I would raise the issue in case anyone more familiar with the article might want to weigh in on how it can be shortened. This would mean about a 25% reduction. UserTwoSix (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Article length: 235,721 bytes (greater than 30,000)

Outline:

• Names, overview and scale: 156 words
• Early European: 189
• Asian, US, and later war: 202
• German surrender and atomic bombs: 170
• Post war and effects: 125

Concise version

• P1: 145 136
• P2: 168
• P3: 175
• P4: 98
• P5: 111

(Feel free to edit the above section) UserTwoSix (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Longer leads are allowed and I can't think of a more appropriate article to have a five-paragraph lead. If you feel there are certain things that could be removed, then suggest removing them, but we shouldn't arbitrarily shorten the lead. -- Calidum 02:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

OKAY

UserTwoSix (talk) 06:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Among other changes to the lede, it appears that UserTwoSix has completely removed the following paragraph:

World War II changed the political alignment and social structure of the globe. The United Nations (UN) was established to foster international co-operation and prevent future conflicts, and the victorious great powers—China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—became the permanent members of its Security Council. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the nearly half-century-long Cold War. In the wake of European devastation, the influence of its great powers waned, triggering the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Most countries whose industries had been damaged moved towards economic recovery and expansion. Political integration, especially in Europe, began as an effort to forestall future hostilities, end pre-war enmities and forge a sense of common identity.

I am not convinced that this deletion improves the article, as the redacted paragraph included significant information regarding World War II's legacy.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 14:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've just restored, pending possible consensus for its removal. I mean are you kidding me? You remove the consequences paragraph from the article on the most consequential event in the last 100 years??? There is absolutely no rule that Leads have to be four paragraphs, see Donald Trump and George W. Bush for instance. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the paragraph was not removed, only moved down to a section in which the aftermath of the war was discussed. It was the only possible way to really shorten the lead (by having it just discuss the events of the war and not the aftermath). The consensus seems to be for a longer lead. UserTwoSix (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

If the lead is to be shortened at all, it would be by combining the middle three paragraphs into 2. I don't really see a good place to remove information from those paragraphs, however. This may be one of those rare cases where an extra lead paragraph is warranted, since the topic is absolutely enormous. — Goszei (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Montage of images

The previous montage alignment is better than to understand rather arranged in horizontal alignment. It also helps reader to easily navigate (especially for mobile phone users). I'm requesting to restore previous montage arrangement. The Supermind (talk) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2021

1941-1945 Russia won 2A00:1FA2:44F1:2D26:F5E4:E154:C5C3:2ECD (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Please make your request in the form of "change X to Y", we do not know what you want changed. - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Problems with {{sfn|...}}

@Tamerlanahayav: Thank you for your work to improve this Wikipedia article.

However, I'm concerned that your additions seem to be incomplete: Please help me understand {{sfn|Ramet|2006|p=146}}{{sfn|Geiger|2012|p=86}}{{sfn|Tomasevich|2001|p=747}}: I cannot find "Ramet 2006", nor "Geiger 2012" nor "Tomasevich 2001". I click on the apparent link in the notes at the end and get nothing.

Template:Sfn suggests to me that you need to add a complete citation matching these {{sfn|...}} notes to the "References" at the end.

Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

There isn't a lot of countries there, it's missing one of the main country where the majority of the war actually happened, France, and there is no date next to certain leaders, Italy switch side and neither the USSR nor the USA fought at the beginning of the war unlike China France and the UK. Esteban Outeiral Dias (talk) 11:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

It says main leaders. France and Italy weren't part of the Big Four and Mussolini didn't switch sides.

2601:600:A37F:F111:284F:3A39:A991:A8AF (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Benito was executed

Shouldn't there be the executed symbol beside Benito? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

There's been a longstanding view here to not include those symbols in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

But why? CanadianSingh1469 (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The symbols add clutter for little benefit, and few people understand what they mean. Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Japanese human experimentation

Can we have a link to some Japanese human experimentation article, if it exists. I see there is a main link to Nazi human experimentation but really need one for Japan as well. scope_creep^Talk 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Japanese human experimentation on the Chinese is already linked in the 'casualties and war crimes' section. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Add to war crimes

A study published by the German government in 1974 estimated the number of German civilian victims of crimes during expulsion of Germans after World War II between 1945 and 1948 to be over 600,000, with about 400,000 deaths in the areas east of Oder and Neisse (ca. 120,000 in acts of direct violence, mostly by Soviet troops but also by Poles, 60,000 in Polish and 40,000 in Soviet concentration camps or prisons mostly from hunger and disease, and 200,000 deaths among civilian deportees to forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union), 130,000 in Czechoslovakia (thereof 100,000 in camps) and 80,000 in Yugoslavia (thereof 15,000 to 20,000 from violence outside of and in camps and 59,000 deaths from hunger and disease in camps). Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945–1978. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28 Mai 1974. Archivalien und ausgewälte Erlebenisberichte, Bonn 1989, pp. 40-41, 46-47, 51-53) [unsigned comment 2021-09-21T16:08:49 by user:AdrianXX]

If it had credible reference and was placed in an appropriate place in the article with adequate context, it might stay and improve understanding of the issues involved. DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I added the source. [unsigned comment by user:AdrianXX]

Thanks.

Two additional comments:

1. Might you have a URL for that reference? Is it easy for someone to access and (if they know German) read?

2. FYI. It's standard protocol with discussion so a "Talk" page to "sign" your posts with ~~~~. The string of 4 tilde characters are automatically translated into a date stamp followed by your user ID.

Thanks again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2021

I Would request to add the missing countries, as well as their commanders, in the info box. Right now there are a lot of a missing information that should be there, to allow more quidance to people who are interested. Leozzyy (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What are you talking about?

This has been discussed and fought over extensively ;-) I think we would want specifics, including references supporting the changes you propose.

Part of the Wikipedia culture is "Be bold but not reckless." That's especially true when discussing something that may not have been extensively discussed and fought over in the past. I think you need to seek a consensus by discussing specifics on changes of this importance. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to World War II

@Moxy: @Helper201: I restored the link to the Wikipedia article on "Opposition to World War II" deleted by User:Moxy. I think said opposition is an important part of the history of WW II and seems to be reasonably well documented in that Wikipedia article on "Opposition...". DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

As per BRD ....I have removed this junk article that was just added. We have an index, outline and topics page so we don't fill the see also with junk.Moxy- 00:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What's BRD?

Why do you think the article on "Opposition to World War II" is junk and does not deserve at least a mention in "See also" in this article? I can't find it referenced elsewhere in this article, and I think it merits at least a mention.

DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Moxy is referring to WP:BRD, which I think is unjustified. I firmly believe this falls under WP:BRD-NOT and possibly a case of WP:OWNERSHIP. An editor's opinion on the quality of an article and their own personal opinions on it are no justification for not having it in the see also section. These two articles are clearly significantly related and its hardly like the infobox is overloaded or that it harms it in any way. Helper201 (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Again we have an outline, index and topic list. We created these to not jam the see also section with links.....We have had hundreds of articles added to the list that get moved to the index etc. Your more then welcome to ask for more input...but I suggest you read over the archives to see how many see also links have been moved over the years of minor subtopics of this nature. That said we could incorporate it into the article if people were to agree. As for the info box...it's an accessibility nightmare right now.. large and over bloated Moxy- 02:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

This is rather a straightforward issue. Is opposition to WW2 an important part of the story of the war? The answer seems to be a very clear "yes" as it had a substantial effect on the progress of the war for many reasons. The problem Roosevelt had gaining political support for involvement is one example (solved by Pearl Harbor), and another is communist opposition to the war and war production in the UK (solved by Operation Barbarossa). Is the article on opposition to the war a "crap article"? Maybe, but the solution to that problem is to fix the linked article, not to remove the link. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

What a strange page has any reliable source grouped these things together. The idea for the page reads like a violation of WP:SYNTHESIS. Is there another page that covers 'Support for World War II' that collects ideas as disparate as Hitlers geopolitics and sentiment in rural America after Pearl Harbour. We could merge them both into 'What people thought about World War 2'. Anyway, yes, the page covers an important, but arbitrary topic. I am off to make the page 'Personal relationships between leaders during World War 2' it is important and well documented, imagine how many subsections it would have. My god, I started out being sarcastic, if I don't come back here soon you know what I am doing. Anyway pages like this are notable, endless and should be Categories or some such. I think this comment is on topic, however I accept that it is not obviously so. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I think I have been poisoned by how underwhelming the Opposition page is. And as mentioned above the best thing to do is fix it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggest 'Chronology' section renamed to 'Definition'

Currently the 'Chronology' section only covers the start and end of the war. I think it is really trying to define it, more than describe all of it. I suggest changing its name to 'Definition' or even 'Etymology'. It should cover what is and is not WW2 and where the name came from. Hopefully with only a few more words then we currently have. Dushan Jugum (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the change, as I do not think that the change is necessary. The section is about the timeline – the chronology – of the war. It even has a see also tag to the Timeline of World War II - Therealscorp1an (talk) 11:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

All good Therealscorp1an. Should we add information about the middle section of the war or should we just mention the things used to define its start and end? I think the eastern front deserves a mention and maybe the fall of France should get more airtime than the Italian invasion of Ethiopia. Can I mention the surrender of Germany? Its a definition section. Also it seems strange to have a summary chronology in the intro, followed by another summary chronology, followed by the main chronology of the rest of the page. Should I make a new section talking about how the war is defined? Its late in my timezone, sorry if I seem terse, i think I am being funny. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Tag uses 'See also' not 'main page' and tags can be wrong, I know I have made some. Dushan Jugum (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think we should make it a 'Main article' tag and mention the start and end a little more. Not too much detail, though. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

If, in the end, we agree to disagree, we should change that as you said. But, why do we need an introduction that summarizes the Chronology, followed by a Chronology section that summarizes the Chronology, followed by a page layout based on Chronology. How would you feel about a deletion of the Chronology subsection as repetitious? I know of course I would have to start a new discussion even if we both agree on this point. I do not think other pages are necessarily right, but have a look at the Names subsection of World War I#Names, Vietnam War#Names and Korean War#Names. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I do not think that deletion is necessarily the correct option, but I can see why you changed it to 'Definition'. For me, there is something about the word 'Definition' that does not seem entirely right. I think we need to try and find a different word that can be used. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes on that I completely agree. We can give it a break till we have a revelation. In the mean time if you want to change from 'see also' to 'main page'. No argument here. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Per Aumann, we can agree to disagree in two cases: (i) the parties provided incomplete set of data, or (ii) some of us has a hidden agenda. Assuming that none of us has it, the second option is unrealistic. Therefore, if we explain our points of view fully, and explain each other's logical errors, there cannot be any reason for disagreement.

I recommend the following exercise: assuming that this section has no title, read it and summarise what it is talking about. Based on that summary, we can propose the title that summarises the section better.

My summary is as follows: the section is discussing start and end dates. It is not discussion any other important dates, such as Battle of France, Battle of Britain, Barbarossa, and so on, which means it is hardly "Chronology". I recall there was a long dispute about the WWII's start date, and this section is a historical rudiment of the old consensus.

Therefore, we have three options: (i) bring the section's content into accordance with the title (i.e. summarize WWII's most important dates); (ii) bring the title into accordance with its content ("Start and end dates"); (iii) merge the section with some other section.

I am neutral about that, but I agree that the current version should be fixed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay. I 100% agree that it should be renamed. The word 'Chronology' just does not suit. I think that the word 'Definition' is on the right track, however does not fully fit the section's content. 'Start and End Dates' also seems a bit clunky for me, but is certainly close. I do not think we should delete the section, as it does serve some function, but I think renaming it is crucial. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Could not have said it better. I prefer 'Start and End Dates' to 'definition' and am happy for a change now, in the hope someone comes up with something better one day. But no harm in waiting a while. Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Collage photo alignment

The photos in the collage aren't quite aligned—the vertical line doesn't go straight down the middle. Would any of the maintainers of this article be interested in doing some small crops on Commons so we can get them aligned? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Every time I try to fix photos bad things happen and I need to ask for help, but thanks, now this is all I can see when I load the page. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Factions of WWII

I don´t know if anyone has talked about this before but everyone always leaves out the 4th International, The Chinese Untied Front, and The Greater East Asain Co-Prosperity Sphere. This kinda ticks me off because you are only fueling the misinformation of WWII being only Axis and Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommadent Klaus (talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Those puppet organisations are not taken seriously by most historians. Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Which specific organizations? Some organizations that have been described as "puppet" such as the Ustaše were, in reality, multi-sided partisan groups that had different factions that took different sides depending on the circumstances. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

It is hard to focus on these organisations in a one page summary of world war 2. The influence that Siam and the CCP had on World War 2 was interesting but they just don't get that much coverage in the reliable references which we must use. It can also be useful to use common names in a general interest article (eg why use the PR stunt of "The Greater East Asain Co-Prosperity Sphere" when we could just say Japan. What changes do you have in mind? Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Add Monarchs to Leaders section

I propose that George VI for United Kingdom and Victor Emanuel III for the Kingdom of Italy should be added to the leaders section in the info box. Jjfun3695 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:World War II/Infobox - the point that "the King played no significant role in directing the Commonwealth war effort - he was a constitutional monarch" still stands. Again, compare with the USSR: Mikhail Kalinin was a head of state nominally (head of a directorial presidency, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet), but a figurehead in fact, since the country's political and war effort was guided by Stalin, who was the party leader and (in 1941-1953) Premier, but not a head of state. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

And as for Truman suggestion, argument that "the other leaders you suggest would add clutter to the infobox for little gain given that they led their nations for only small parts of the war, with FDR and Churchill being the dominant UK and US war leaders" still stands too. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. As someone who's worked a lot on this article over the years, I'm not sure whether I should consider the almost-exclusive focus on the infobox by people commenting on the article to be either an encouraging indication that the article's text is of a very high standard or a discouraging indication that no-one reads the article! Nick-D (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Finally a question on here I can definitively answer. Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Show countries instead of leaders Infobox

Can we please show countries instead of leaders in the Infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 (talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The countries are listed in the links ("Allies" vs. "Axis") in the "Participants" section, the leader names are part of the "Commanders and leaders" section. To list all of the countries involved individually would make the infobox way too long. - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree, it makes no sense that Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill are listed in the infobox but not the countries they led. Why do we expect a reader to go to another article Allies of World War II to learn about the main participants? Every infobox-listed leader should have his country listed in the infobox as well. Merrybrit (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The flags next to the names link to their countries. We will never be able to list all of them in this info box (info boxes are meant to be quick summaries). Even for World War I they have a see other nations link. If we won't show all due to clarity, lets leave the split as it is, just the undisputed majors. I don't want to start arguing why India is in the Allied box but France is not in the Axis or some such. Dushan Jugum (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with limiting to the undisputed majors. It's weird to have the leaders listed but not their countries. And no, I don't think just having little flags that you have to hover over to see which country it is are enough. Just list the three majors on each side in the participants list and have a see other nations link under it. Merrybrit (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

FAQ Needed

I am proposing we create an FAQ for the World War II page and its correspondent talk page. For an example of an FAQ page, see Talk:Jesus/FAQ. This is what a talk page FAQ would look like. The reason I propose this is because editors constantly bring up new issues that have already been discussed once, or even more, times (as I am writing this, there are at least two, overlong disputes on this page: #Soviet Switch and #Chiang Kai-Shek?). An FAQ page would prevent already-discussed (and decided-on) issues from being brought back to light...again. It would also prevent sections from becoming overlong, like the Soviet Switch section, which has over 70,000 characters of repeated arguments. Please let me know what you think of an FAQ. Obviously it would take a while to put together, but I reckon we'd all be able to do it together. Have a great day, everyone! - Therealscorp1an (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have learned a lot from these discussions, but the page has not been improved by them. Most FAQ speak to matters of fact either about academic consensus or Wikipedia rules (Talk:Muhammad/FAQ). If consensus has been decisive on these points in the past we can reference the archive, but if not an FAQ often gets quoted as fact with no debate. Though my gut disagrees I consider the Chiang Kai-Shek debate above to be unworthy of complete dismissal, although I feel it started that way. Can we have an FAQ that says the "info box looks fine as it is" I doubt it. Maybe a 10 year moratorium on it (after the above debates of course). But I have no better ideas and would love to see your first proposal. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I fully support that idea, for I am sick and tired to explain the same things again and again. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, we already have the FAQ page, we just need to expand/update it. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We can work with that. Do we want a separate talk page for the infobox, maintaining it correctly (responding, moving comments in wrong place) may be more work than doing it here. Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the reality is that if infoboxes are simple and uncontroversial, they are useful. If not, they are just a magnet for controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Good job finding that. I think that will be a good place to start. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 04:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Infobox result: military occupations?

I propose to remove this text from the infobox:

Allied military occupations of Germany, Japan, Austria and foundation of the Italian Republic in place of the Kingdom of Italy

First, why is the military occupation of Austria included and Korea's not? If we do include Korea, why not include the Allied occupation of Libya which lasted longer than the occupation of Germany? Also, if we're including foundations of new republics, why not include the new republic created in France? Or the new Syrian republic? I think this section doesn't really add much to the infobox. Practically every piece of land that was administered by the defeated Axis powers went under military occupation/new management in the immediate aftermath of the war, as expected given the unconditional surrender of the Axis. Merrybrit (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I take your point on Austria and Korea. I am in favour of anything short and consistent. I would not miss the whole "occupations" sections they seem a bit trivial in comparison with the others. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, removing "occupations" altogether as proposed will make the infobox shorter and more consistent. Merrybrit (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

This material notes that the Axis states were occupied, which is a key outcome of the war: the Axis states were destroyed as countries and were re-built by the victors. The occupation of Korea, Libya, the Netherlands East Indies, etc, are not as significant as outcomes of the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

First, I am confused why you think the occupation of Korea is not significant (when it literally led to a major war a few years hence) yet the occupation of Austria was significant.

Second, we already have the statement that the Axis states had "fallen": "Fall of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan", what does adding they were occupied do? A military occupation by the victors doesn't mean that the victors rebuilt them, see the occupation of the Rheinland post-WW1. Merrybrit (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Still for removal of section, but here we are comparing occupation of Austria with occupation of Korea seems like a good match (although as pointed out occupation of Korea was more interesting). We could say "fall and occupation", it is possible for a dictatorship to fall through war but not be occupied (Falklands War).Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

American/Allied/British/Soviet

@Nick-D: Per WP:BRD I would like to discuss your revert of my edit by alleging "inaccuracies". Every single fact I introduced into the article is well-known and can be attested in many WW2 books. Let's go through it:

• Participation of the British, Australians and other Allies besides the US in the Battle of Okinawa. A very well-known fact that the RN armoured deck carriers at Okinawa were able to withstand Japanese kamikaze attacks that would seriously damage US Navy carriers. HMS Indefatigable's US Navy liaison officer reported: "When a kamikaze hits a US carrier," he said, "it's six months repair at Pearl. In a Limey carrier, it's 'Sweepers, man your brooms'." 1. The presence of the British carriers at Okinawa may have saved untold American lives because kamikazes targeted the carriers and not the landing ships. The British contribution is "Inaccurate"?
• Participation of the Allies besides the British in the Battle of Britain. A well-known fact, I'm surprised you're not aware that the Commonwealth forces as well as the brave Polish, Czechoslovak, Free French and many other nationalities fought to keep Britain safe from the Luftwaffe bombers. See Bungay, Stephen. The Most Dangerous Enemy. pp. 172–176. which points out that No. 1 Squadron RCAF arrived in Britain in June 1940. "Inaccurate"?
• The cracking of the Japanese naval codes completed through joint efforts of the Americans, British, Australians and Dutch. Before WW2 the largest Royal Navy base east of Suez was at Singapore. There was a massive listening station attached to it and an important unit, the Far East Combined Bureau (FECB) decoding Japanese signals. The FECB was a visionary concept for its day, representing a "fusion centre" for all Far Eastern intelligence. It worked extremely closely with the Government Code and Cypher School, Britain's NSA. They closely collaborated with the US Station CAST at Corregidor, the Philippines. After the fall of Singapore in early 1942 many FECB staff relocated to Australia at FRUMEL and were joined by the US Navy personnel from Station CAST once Corregidor fell. They worked on cracking the Japanese naval codes for years and collaborated with Station HYPO at Hawaii before Midway. (See Boyd, Andrew. The Royal Navy in Eastern Waters 1935-1942. pp. 231–235.). If you think that this is inaccurate, please provide sources.
• Sinking of the Bismarck. I think here you may have the best argument against including "Allied". I can see both possibilities: purely British or Allied operation. According to this book (Peszke, Michael Alfred (1999). Poland's Navy, 1918–1945. Hippocrene Books. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-7818-0672-5.)) cited in Polish contribution to World War II article (I haven't checked the source myself), a Polish Navy destroyer participated in the operation. She was one of the seven destroyer escorts and attacked Bismarck with torpedoes which missed. On the one hand, one can say this is unimportant, just say it was a "British" operation. On the other hand, destroyers played an extremely important role in the battle: they kept contact with Bismarck travelling in the fog after she was damaged by carrier bombers from HMS Ark Royal. Without this, Admiral Lutjens might have escaped back into the Bay of Biscay evading the RN search forces sent after him. In this case it's quite important to note the Polish contribution.

My overall point of view is that we need to be consistent. The logic is straightforward. Either we select (by whatever criteria) the most important participant in a battle/operation (and then change for consistency that the Reichstag was taken by the Soviets, not the Allies) or we combine all participants into Allies/Axis if the wikipage of a battle says there was more than one participant (and obviously it's supported by RS). One or the other, not the inconsistent mess we currently have.

(as a side note I'm surprised that such highly trafficked "good" page has so many real inaccuracies like obsolete sources, unreliable sources, mislabeled images, uncited claims etc. which I've been trying to fix for the past day) Merrybrit (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

You are crashing around like a bull in a china shop to be honest, by raising large numbers of disputes simultaneously and editing somewhat carelessly. Please slow down and seek consensus. Regarding your edits here:

• You claimed that Iwo Jima was an 'Allied' effort: it was not. Okinawa involved Commonwealth forces though, albeit after the main landings.
  • No disagreement about Iwo. Yet by reverting my edit you introduced a much more serious inaccuracy which has been in this article for years: the article now says "American naval and amphibious forces also moved towards Japan" when the Royal Navy's British Pacific Fleet also moved towards Japan and its contribution is completely dismissed. Merrybrit (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• It is perfectly accurate to attribute the victory in the Battle of Britain to RAF Fighter Command, which was a multinational force (it included airmen from across the Commonwealth, as well as various Free Europeans, American volunteers, etc). Attributing this to the British and Canadian air forces only is simply wrong.
  • Canadians fought as part of the Royal Canadian Air Force, not as part of the RAF, as is made clear by my source above. Merrybrit (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Sure, but the Commonwealth airmen who were attached to the RAF also remained members of their own air forces. I suspect that the Free Europeans also remained members of their own air force. There were also Australian and NZ maritime patrol and bomber squadrons in the UK at this time (No. 10 Squadron RAAF and No. 75 Squadron RNZAF). Non-British personnel in the RAF during the Battle of Britain discusses this. The current text is accurate, as it was Fighter Command that won the battle not the British and Canadian air forces. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• It is not clear why you claimed that the Italian Navy was successful in the Atlantic: most sources note that it was not.
  • Fair enough, I didn't check that it said "enjoyed success" and not simply "participated". Merrybrit (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
• One Polish destroyer does not make an 'Allied' victory, and again the text attributes this to the Home Fleet which was a multinational force as it included ships from various Allied countries and Commonwealth servicemen in many of the British ships. We don't need to specify that multinational Allied units were 'Allied' at every opportunity, as this would make the article even more cumbersome.
  • You are correct that the Polish navy vessels were operationally under command of the RN. Yet they never formally joined the RN and carried their own flags (unlike eg the 50 famous US destroyers which were enrolled into the RN). The Polish ground forces on the Eastern Front were under operational command of the Red Army but also didn't enlist in the Red Army. They are literally equivalent. Yet the Poles' participation in taking Berlin is written out separately. This is one of the inconsistencies I'm trying to fix. Merrybrit (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd suggest that care be taken to avoid flooding the article in detail: this is a high level summary. Most major western Allied operations of the war were multi-national. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
• You are correct about the code breaking at Midway though, as this was an American effort.
  • Why? Because the Americans put the final piece of the puzzle together building on all the work that other Allies had done previously? Then Enigma must have been a purely British effort and all the contributions made by the other Allies must be removed. Merrybrit (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Oh, I see that you changed Americans to Allies. This is wrong: the Americans broke the Japanese codes relevant to the Midway operation. This was a remarkable effort by the US Navy codebreaking team at Pearl Harbor (see [16], for instance). The British, Australians and even some Canadians took part in breaking Japanese codes, but I don't think they played part of the Midway victory. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd also suggest that you stop trying to reflect on the motivations and knowledge of other editors - WP:AGF, etc. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

On further reflection I think you have a valid point that we need to weigh specifying 'Allied' for every multinational force against bloating the article even more. Excessive details are probably unnecessary in such a broad article. Merrybrit (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-Shek?

Why is Chiang listed as a main leader? Chiang's troops didn't even fight against Nazi Germany (and Italy). Merrybrit (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Because they fought against Japan? (Hohum ^@) 18:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

And? How can a country that only fought one of the three main Axis enemies be considered a "main" Allied country? There's a reason that historians speak of "The Big Three". Merrybrit (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Making such glib summaries as our info box of such a large conflict is typically not done by reliable sources. Therefore there will always be a subjective quality to it. Australia fought all Axis powers (excluding Bulgaria etc) why are they not a major? The answer to that may be the answer to why China is. Take a look at the Chinese war dead and the number of Japanese troops engaged. There may well be an element of politics involved but that does not effect us we are only here to represent reliable sources. Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct, and the reliable sources speak of "The Big Three". China didn't fight in other theatres besides Asia so they weren't really a major participant in the world war. Merrybrit (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Which of the best available reliable sources say that China wasn't a major participant in WW2, versus those that do? Honest question. (Hohum ^@) 19:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: The US National WW2 Museum states "In World War II, the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—formed a Grand Alliance that was the key to victory." [17] The US Holocaust Memorial Museum states that "The Allied Powers were led by Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union." [18] There are literally dozens of books on the "Big Three" and their war efforts.

@Dushan Jugum: And? According to Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan surrendered to the US, UK, USSR, China, Australia, Canada, France, Netherlands and New Zealand. Do you want to include all of them as majors? To the German surrender China wasn't even invited (but France was). So maybe we should replace Chiang with De Gaulle? At least the French were involved on all theatres. Merrybrit (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It is also important to note that for most of this time Russia was not at war with Japan, did they only become a major in 1945? See this sentence in Allies of World War II and its references 'The Declaration officially recognized the Big Three and China as the "Four Powers"' (always the last to be picked at lunch time, but still on the team). Hang on. By your logic Poland etc did now even fight in World War 2, nor did the Netherlands as for them it would have been their first World War. Some semantic games are interesting some are not. But Hohum's question is the only one that matters, the US National WW2 Museum is not going to cut it. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

To prove opposite is not our job. I recall Churchill wrote that he objected to inflating the role of China by Roosevelt. In general, to overemphasize the role of Chiang is a US trend, so that view is US-centric. However,

In addition, whereas the deep involvement of ROC into WWII since 1937 till 1945 and immense losses sustained by her (but not the losses inflicted by her on Japan) may be an argument in favour of ROC inclusion, the role of Chiang was less prominent than the role of his country. He even was not fully controlling his own country, and his role as a commander was not as important as US historiography presents.

I recall, I already presented these arguments previously. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I think my main problem is with the Info box in general. Not that I think it should be removed. It is just a magnet for pedantic discussions. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

With regard to sources, let's compare this with that. It seems "Four policemen" are more related to UNO formation, and it was pushed by Roosevelt. "The Big Three" is more related to the course of the war proper. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dushan Jugum: The "Four Powers" was a post-war vision of world order pursued by Roosevelt, not the Grand Alliance of WW2. And Paul Siebert is correct, the Chinese inflicted fewer losses on Japan in eight years than the US did in four. In fact, during the Pacific War the Chinese inflicted about as many losses on Japan as Australia did (about 200,000 each according to World War II casualties) so I guess we should put Australia as a major. (And I don't know what your problem with the National WW2 Museum is, it's designated by Congress as the official museum of WW2 in the United States, one of the undoubted WW2 majors) Merrybrit (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Got to go was conflict edited, sorry if this reply is completely out of place. As follows... Interesting. I have almost contradicting ideas in my head "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" and "China should be in the info box summary". Both these things can be true, but not necessarily. I will will leave you to sort it out, some of us have to go to work. My last words of wisdom are that the Infobox is a summary of the page and the page is the summary of the topic. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another source by a Nobel Prize-winning historian, one W.S. Churchill, The Grand Alliance. :-) Merrybrit (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

So to sum up, the main reasons for including Chiang:

1) The "Four Policemen" - can be dismissed per Paul Siebert and me above.
2) Chinese involvement in a **world** war as opposed to a local war - lacking because China never fought Hitler or Mussolini. (note that the USSR vs Japan is not the same because the USSR fought Japan in 1939, provided military support to the Chinese government against Japan since 1937, forced Japan to keep large forces in Manchuria throughout the Pacific war (the Kwantung Army) partly to prevent a Soviet attack, and finally declared war on Japan in 1945 and destroyed the Kwantung Army with 700,000 losses to the Japanese).
3) Chinese contribution to defeating Japan as measured by inflicted casualties - lacking per me above. To reiterate, after December 1941 China inflicted about as many losses on Japan as Australia did which is rather surprising.
4) China's permanent membership of the UN Security Council - reflective of FDR's post-war vision, not relevant to the conduct of war itself, equivalent to France.
Ultimately, it is subjective but the evidence for the "Big Three" vs the "Four Policemen" presented above by Paul Siebert in combination with "the Grand Alliance" coined by Churchill to describe the three major Allies, means that Chiang should not be included. Political reasons like "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" should have no place here. No evidence of a consensus among English-speaking historians that China played a major role has been presented. Once such a consensus is established we can revisit the issue but in my view Chiang's role doesn't merit inclusion in the infobox. Merrybrit (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC) I will now post a link to this discussion in WP:MILHIST to get more eyes on it. Merrybrit (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Merrybrit good points. We may disagree as to how many Japanese were killed by Australians, Re Churchill one of the big three's view on the importance of the big three is not neutral (but I take your point on politics) and I will always find (2) odd, did Poland/Norway never fight in World War 2? It was this apparently odd logic that brought me here. I accept the top three allies are not disputed here, but his is now an argument about if we should have 3, 4 or 5 names in the info box (not who the top three should be), I find my passion ebbing. Objectivity will not get us there. It is an atheistic choice more than anything, put me down as leaning for 4 or 5 but generally indifferent. Have a look at Britannica[19] first paragraph or so, a going away gift to show there is no hard feelings. Dushan Jugum (talk) 01:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Did you miss my point that the comparison with Australia is post-December 1941? Obviously before that month Australia could not inflict any losses on Japan as Japan hasn't attacked yet. Merrybrit (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Churchill is an unreliable narrator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

We've discussed the infobox to death over the years, and the current listing (and the order!) reflects the outcome of these discussions, which have included a couple of full-scale RfCs and a huge number of other discussions. I'm really struggling to understand why this keeps being re-raised. I'd suggest that people who want to change the infobox make reference to a broad survey of the huge literature on the war (noting that claiming that single sources are definitive is not credible given the vast number of sources which are available) rather than advocate for changes based on their personal views. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Although I personally do not think that Chiang should be listed in the infobox, I respect previous consensus. I think we should create an FAQ (like the one on Talk:Jesus/FAQ) for this page and its correspondent talk page. Please see the new section I have created. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: as far as I can tell, in the previous discussion Talk:World_War_II/Archive_62#The_Big_Three, there was a preponderance of opinion that the Big Three make sense to include in the infobox. Calling on @DavidMCEddy:, @Whizz40:, @Peacemaker67:, @ThoughtIdRetired: and anyone else I might have missed to comment. Furthermore, @Paul Siebert: points out above, we don't need to prove a negative (that China was not a major), the onus is on the people arguing for China's inclusion to give evidence that China is considered a major in WW2 historiography. Merrybrit (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Nope, WP:PROVEIT applies to you, especially as you are seeking to overturn a long-established consensus. If you can't provide sources, or try to pretend that the sources all say the same thing, then you're wasting your time. I provided a survey of the sources I have access to in the previous discussion you note, which I think on-balance justifies the inclusion of China: please do the same if you want to propose a change. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Seeing myself asked for an opinion, here is my current thinking on this. (1) In no way did Chiang Kai-Shek have the same status as a wartime leader as Roosevelt, Churchill or Stalin - so the concept of the big three remains solid. When Chiang Kai-Shek was included in conferences, it was because the big three wanted something out of him. (2) Should the Commanders and Leaders section restrict listing of the Allied leaders to just the big three? This is less clear cut, but in reaching a decision, with some shades of grey to it, I consider the number of Japanese casualties in China. I take this to be an indicator of the effect Chinese fighting had on Japan during the war. This is listed in Second Sino-Japanese War as 39% of the Japanese wartime casualties. I think this is significant enough for Chinese involvement in WW2 to be summarised in the info box. Showing China's leader seems to be the easiest way of doing that. So, in justifying Chiang Kai-Shek's listing, I think that it is probably correct, but it does seem to dilute the huge influence of the big three, which gives an unfortunate misimpression. Overall, we are working within the inadequacies of info boxes in general. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The thing is that it's not a "commanders and leaders" section, it's the "main leaders" section. And no, I don't think that Chiang who didn't even command all Chinese forces and whose forces fought a local war in one theater belongs among the main leaders of the global war. Merrybrit (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sources on the Big Three

@Nick-D: I disagree with characterising the previous discussion as consensus. In fact, your own quotes on closer examination don't support your argument. For example, Spector calls the efforts to make China a major contributor "vain". Hastings points out a little further in the same paragraph that you quoted that Japan's commitment in China was important insofar as it caused the United States' "animosity" against Japan: "Japan’s withdrawal from the mainland in 1940 or 1941 could probably have averted war with the United States, since Japanese aggression there, and the culture of massacre symbolised by the deaths of at least 60,000 and perhaps many more civilians in Nanjing, was the principal source of American animosity, indeed outrage." Finally, Rana Mitter is an expert on China and is propounding a revisionist view writing that "For decades, our understanding of that global conflict has failed to give a proper account of the role of China." (p.4) and arguing against the common view (one might even say, a consensus) in the West that "China's role in the war is a historical byway, not worthy of the full examination that is the due of the major powers involved." (p. 9)
Now on to my sources:

• Ian Kershaw in Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World 1940-41: "By the end of 1941, nineteen months after the German offensive in western Europe was launched, the conflict had become global and genocidal. The war was at this juncture on a knife-edge. The Axis powers still seemed in the ascendancy. Only in retrospect can it be seen that their colossal gamble was already on the verge of failure, that they had overstretched their capacities, and that with the full engagement in the contest of the might of the United States, now allied with the extraordinary tenacity of the Soviet Union and the last major show of resilience of Great Britain and the British Empire, their eventual defeat would gradually be ensured." So the US, the USSR and the British ensured the Axis defeat.
• Official German history of WW2, Germany and the Second World War, Vol. 6, The Global War, p. 104: "When, on 7 and 11 December, Japan and the Third Reich brought about the United States’ inclusion in the war, the conflict had widened into a world war in which two great coalitions were facing each other—the Tripartite Pact states and the association of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union, now named the anti-Hitler coalition."
• Murray and Millett, A war to be won: Fighting the Second World War, p. viii: "Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and Fascist Italy could not, in the final analysis, be defeated except by fighting. The United States, Britain, the Soviet Union, and their allies had to fight their opponents in air, ground, and naval contests across the globe."
• The Economics of World War II (ed. Mark Harrison): "The purpose of this book is to provide a new comparative evaluation of the wartime economic experience of six great powers: the UK, USA, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the USSR."
• Overy Why the Allies Won p. xv: "The Allies covers a set of shifting coalitions: Britain, France and Poland from 1939 to 1940, Britain and the Soviet Union in 1941, and Britain, the Soviet Union, the United States and a host of other smaller states from 1942; from 1944, with the fall of the French Vichy regime, France again became one of the major allied powers."

It seems clear from my sources that they do not consider Chiang's China a major player. Important WW2 studies like The Economics of World War II are made without any reference to China at all. The sources all foreground the contribution of the Big Three: the US, the USSR and Great Britain; these three should be in the infobox. Merrybrit (talk) 13:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Concentrating on the term "the big three" or "the allies" is automatically exclusionary of China, and seems like cherrypicking to me. As is using a source like "Germany and the Second World War" - Germany and China had nothing to do with each other so they aren't going to be mentioned.

Perhaps I should have put my earlier question/point another way: What do the best sources available generally state when listing the main combatants for the entire war (rather than when they list all of them exhaustively). This is something Encyclopaedias may already do, or something from the introduction of books about the war in general. Delving into the depths of books and synthesizing a rationale from isolated quotes isn't helpful, in my opinion.

Surely the main combatants are the nations that such sources say they were. They may or may not be the ones that caused the victory (which would exclude all axis powers by definition), or the ones an editor thinks should be there just because of quotes about numbers involved, casualties inflicted/taken, ground taken or lost, or economic might. (Hohum ^@) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

First, where is the term "the big three" in my sources? it's not used, what is used is "The Allies". And I don't know how you decided that "the Allies" is exclusionary of China, it's not. What the argument is about is whether China counts as a major ally. I've given RS that list the major allies as Britain, the USSR, the US and do not include China as a major. My quotes from RS explicitly list what you term "major combatants".

Also, why is Germany and the Second World War not a good source but Nick-D quoting Rana Mitter's China's War with Japan 1937-1945 is ok? Or Nick-D using Spector's Eagle Against the Sun which focuses on the Pacific War? I have told you what RS state as "major combatants", you're now moving the goalposts to "encyclopaedias". Merrybrit (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe the question is whether China was a major combatant worthy of listing in the infobox, not whether it was specifically an ally. There is a difference.

To be clear, I don't care whether or not China or it's leader is listed in the infobox. What I hope for is a strong rationale, so that in the coming months and years when it is repeatedly challenged, we can point to a clear consensus built on the best foundations, and avoid yet another lengthy discussion, allowing editors to focus on something more constructive. (Hohum ^@) 17:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. I've given quotes from RS that list major combatants on both sides of WW2. None of them include China among the majors. Merrybrit (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Also just a note but looking into past archives this is something that appears to be a failure mode for this page. Just like many years ago an editor snuck in a minority view that the Second World War started in 1937 into the lede and people were arguing about it for years before it got edited. It seems that a number of Chinese nationalists/people who believe that "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" are pushing their POV in this important WP article instead of relying on the consensus view of RS written by historians.

In fact, there are almost as many books about Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin's wartime alliance as about Chiang Kai-Shek's whole life including both before and after WW2 (compare this and this). This is why the Big Three belong in the infobox and Chiang doesn't. Merrybrit (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

So you want to argue that people who support the inclusion of China in the infobox are not "relying on the consensus view of RS written by historians". To justify this, you are yourself pushing the obviously false claim that historians say the same thing on this topic, while attempting WP:WALLOFTEXT-style approaches of flooding this discussion with posts. This is plainly bad faith editing. I'll re-post the survey of the literature I provided when this was discussed previously which demonstrates that there are differing views on this topic, and that a literature survey that purports to demonstrate a consensus has been assembled in bad faith:

• The Oxford Companion to World War II states that the Grand Alliance's main members were "the UK, USA and USSR" (p. 390) but FDR saw China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific (p. 392)
• Gerhard L. Weinberg's A World at Arms states that the US persuaded the UK and USSR to class China as "one of the major powers", though both did so reluctantly (pp. 620, 624)
• Anthony Beevor makes a similar argument in his The Second World War, nothing though that FDR was motivated more by China's likely position in the post-war world than its war effort, though China tied down 1 million Japanese troops (pp. 510-511)
• Max Hastings states in All Hell Let Loose that China's role in the war is under-appreciated in the west as by fighting on, albeit ineffectually, it doomed Japan: "China, and Tokyo's refusal to abandon its ambitions there, were central to Japan's ultimate failure" (p. 192)
• Rana Mitter argues that China was a major player in his book China's War with Japan 1937-1945, stating that it was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" (p. 13), though he notes that "China had less ability to make its own decisions than the other Allies because it was so much weaker than them, both economically and politically" (p. 5) - my understanding is that this is the current standard work on China's role in the war
• Ronald H. Spector states in Eagle Against the Sun that the US sent massive amounts of aid to China "in a vain effort to make China a major contributor to the war against Japan" (p. 325) Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  Reply to Nick-D. Frankly I feel like we're going in circles. Instead of answering to my points you just reposted the same comment I already responded to above. Furthermore, you twisted my words (WP:AGF unintentionally) by writing "people who support the inclusion of China in the infobox are not "relying on the consensus view of RS written by historians". Where did I say that? I nowhere said it. My reference (as is plain to see above) was not to all people who support the inclusion of China but only to those subscribing to particular ideologies. Yet you seem to have misinterpreted it and run with it accusing me of "bad-faith". I find such an accusation ludicrous and remind you to WP:AVOIDYOU.
  

  Regarding the sources. As you yourself pointed out above, single sources do not an argument make. Yet you failed to respond to my point above that a broad survey of books indicates there's almost as much secondary literature on Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin (their wartime alliance) than on the whole biography of Chiang: see this and this. This clearly establishes the significance of the Big Three in the context of WW2 vs. the relative insignificance of Chiang (and I'm not even discounting a number of panegyric biographies produced about Chiang during his authoritarian rule in Taiwan). As Rana Mitter himself admits (as I point out above in my comment) the consensus view is that China is a "forgotten ally" and people in the West believe her "role in the war is a historical byway, not worthy of the full examination that is the due of the major powers involved." (Forgotten Ally, p. 9) You would need more than a few revisionist sources to overturn the consensus view. You trying to give WP:UNDUE to "revisionists" (see the New York Times) and put them into the infobox is not how to reach a consensus. Merrybrit (talk) 11:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  The NYT review of China's War you are claiming discredits the book actually describes it as "superb", and notes that "In fact, Chinese resistance proved crucial in the defeat of the Axis, tying down Japanese forces in what became known as the “China Quagmire.”". While it is of course one of many works on the topic, it is one of the most recent major studies of China's role in the war and was very well reviewed (see, for instance, The Observer, The Economist, this scholarly review, etc) so I'm not sure why you have a set against it. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not claiming the NYT review "discredits" the book, I'm claiming it firmly situates Mitter's study among the revisionist works on China's role in the war. This is supported by many scholars. This scholarly review notes that "In this revisionist work, Mitter proposes numerous new and revealing interpretations. He argues, for instance, that World War II started not in Europe, but with an accidental firefight at the Marco Polo Bridge, a few miles southwest of Beijing, in 1937. This is a major departure from the view contained in most world history books that WWII started when Nazi Germany invaded Poland in September 1939." This scholarly review points out that "Rejecting a victor’s history, Mitter uses a revisionist approach to reexamine Chiang and the Nationalist government’s role in the Second Sino-Japanese War." And here's Rana Mitter himself elaborating his argument: "My argument is however that the role China played was a very important one. This is not just my argument, of course; much of this argument is based on revisionist history of the past 10-15 years. I am not suggesting it is fair or reasonable to suggest that China was a strong ally like the US or the Soviet Union, but there were actions that China took that profoundly affected World War II." See how he explicitly admits that the argument that China's role was a "very important one" is based on "revisionist history"? Yet you're insisting that this minority view should be included in the infobox. Merrybrit (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Developing a consensus

@Nick-D:, @Dushan Jugum:,@Hohum:, @ThoughtIdRetired:, @GraemeLeggett:, @Therealscorp1an:, @Paul Siebert: In view of the new information posted above and in the interest of focusing the discussion and establishing a consensus I propose a poll over which leaders should be included in the infobox, please post your view below with reasons:

Option 1: The Big Three or Option 2: The Big Three + Chiang.

• Option 1. Per above most RS agree that the major participants on the Allied side were the US, the UK and the USSR. Some others include China, some include France. But the consensus is that the Big Three are a group of the three most important Allied leaders and their wartime diplomacy has become a major field of study in itself (see these books, compare to the number of books on the "Big Four": literally 1, published as war propaganda in 1943!). While it's true that a more recent revisionist trend has been to reevaluate and emphasize the Chinese contribution in WW2 (no doubt thanks to the rise of China and related interest in recent Chinese history), this is not yet a mainstream view in historiography of WW2. Maybe it will follow a similar trajectory to how the importance of the Eastern Front was re-evaluated post-Cold War but then I can only ask editors arguing for including Chiang to wait for this to happen because WP:CRYSTAL. Until then, the article and its infobox should reflect the consensus view that the Big Three were the three major participants on the Allied side. Merrybrit (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral/Slightly Option 1. I accept that my original opinion was based on my questioning the logic of the original question "Why is Chiang listed as a main leader? Chiang's troops didn't even fight against Nazi Germany (and Italy)." and a general appreciation of Nationalist China's importance in the war. Both these things are still true, but do not speak to how many names we should have in the info box. Which to me is an aesthetic choice. On refection I am unqualified to debate beauty and so will remain neutral. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  Edit to say sightly Option 1, three for axis and allies has symmetry. Symmetry is beautiful. Until someone points out that Mussolini is less important than Hitler or the Emperor was not in complete control. Was Hitler a main Axis leader if he never attacked China...(sorry, meant in good humour). Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral I don't think I have a strongly developed enough opinion to produce a firm decision. Since making the remarks above, I also take into account the reminder that we should be influenced on what sources say were the main leaders, as expressed above. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Neutral/Slightly Option 1 I am mostly neutral, as I agree with the statements made by both parties in this instance. However, if I was required to choose a certain side, I would most likely lean towards Option 1. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 3: Put countries instead of leaders

• In that case, my soft support is The Big Three + China. Otherwise, I support the Option 1.

  My rationale is as follows: in such a gigantic war as WWII, the role of personality is much less significant than the role of their countries. There is no need to put additional emphasis on them. Keeping in mind that Chiang as a leader was much less prominent than his country as a combatant (and, by the way, he even was not controlling all Chinese forces who were fighting against Japan), he hardly deserves inclusion, although China probably does deserve it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  In principle, I agree that countries are more important than personalities. But I am conflicted on it in relation to this article. Note there are no countries in the infobox, just the Allies/Axis. I assume that this was decided to prevent unwanted edit wars because once there's a list of countries, many would want to add their own. With personalities, it's a bit different. For example, one could argue that the third biggest navy in the world was significant for the outcome of such crucial WW2 battles as the Battle of the Atlantic. But a lot fewer people would argue that Mackenzie King was one of the main Allied leaders who decided the course of the war. Furthermore, it's good for the infobox to introduce leading personalities (particularly such important ones as Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin) when they are not mentioned in the intro of the article. Merrybrit (talk)

  Canada did not have the third biggest navy. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

  Apparently it did, by the end of the war. Or is the Canadian War Museum lying to me? Merrybrit (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

23:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

"Was the RCN ever the Third Largest Navy" Canadian Naval Review Vol 5 number 3 . Even on VE day, Japan had more vessels in commission than RCN. And by VJ day, although Allies had reduced Japanese Navy further, the RCN had been decommissioning ships and was still less. Author concludes the RCN may briefly have been 4th largest around VJ day, but by end of 1945 was smaller than Australia's GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Option 4: 12 month moratorium on further discussions of the infobox The infobox has been stable for many years, which suggests that the results of the previous RfCs still have support. The frequent discussions of the infobox have not gone anywhere and soak up a lot of time on unproductive discussions that distract from improving the actual content of the article. As such, I'd like to suggest that we leave the infobox as-is and that further proposals made over the next twelve months to change it be closed. Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment. I find your attempt to shut down the discussion very unfriendly. Please WP:BITE. I am relatively new at editing contentious material and would ask you to WP:AGF. Furthermore, the infobox has been stable because you and other editors keep reverting the article. Regarding the alleged consensus, I can point you to at least two discussions just in the last 12 months. The last of them had your proposal (which you now claim is the consensus) with not a single other editor supporting it (as far as I can see). Your only reply was to ask for sources.

You yourself provided a source, Rana Mitter's China's War With Japan, 1937-1945 (also known as “Forgotten Ally”, the title gives away his partisan approach) which is revisionist as this NYT review attests:

"“Forgotten Ally” is in line with other recent revisionist works" on Chiang.

I have above responded to your request for RS supporting the Big Three position. You have ignored my response. I would in WP:AGF assume that you missed it. Please reply to my RS list below so that the threads don't get confused. Finally, given WP:CCC shutting down good faith discussions seems to me out of line (happy to be corrected). Merrybrit (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I am all for a moratorium (through the proposed FAQ perhaps) but out of respect the current conversations could be excluded. I would suggest working this into the FAQ or a new discussion. It is not that these suggested changes are wrong, its just they are so much work for such a trivial subjective change (I say this knowing that they have in part been hard work because of me). Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• Strongly support option 4 a moratorium is a good idea as it gets a little tedious coming back to the same issues time and time again - there are plenty of other things to fix on wikipedia. Merrybrit's I am relatively new at editing contentious material is a good explanation of why there are differing views on this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

11/2021

@Paul Siebert: and @Washington Lincoln: Based on [20] and [21], I think it is necessary to use {{ping}}.I think we should follow WP:AFG.Give @Washington Lincoln: a chance to talk about what he wants to do on the talk page.

PS: On commons.wikimedia.org, Elcobbola blocked @Washington Lincoln: because of abusing multiple accounts. Rastinition (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2021

Could I add a flag map of pre-World War Two and perhaps a flag map during WW2 DoctorAce08 (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: If you upload them to the commons and link to them here, reopen this request at that time so other editors can take a look at your proposed maps Cannolis (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

china's pre-planned role as superpower

as suggested by Nick-D, here's the proposed edit about china's future (current) role as superpower:

• Empowerment of China

i believe it's noteworthy to include this from the book "American Strategy in World War II: A Reconsideration." because:

1) it is explicitly mentioned in the long-term plans of FDR

2) (although it took long) china's superpower role/place did happen eventually as (pre)planned.

appreciate the thoughts on this. thank you Grandia01 (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Given that the direct result of the war for China was the Chinese civil war followed by years of relative isolation and stagnation, that seems like rather a stretch. The source you are providing to support the claim that China's recent re-emergence as a great power was a result of the war doesn't support it, as it dates from 1967. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Correct. In general, attempts to project out present-days knowledge to the past are deeply ahistorical. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Thank you for your advices. Grandia01 (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we list all the combatant nations of World War 2 under the Commanders and leaders section?

As here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=1065004661&oldid=1064935633 @Hohum where is the disagreement? I saw the disagreement about the USSR so I removed that from my edit until that discussion is settled. But I don't see any disagreement about anything else in my edit. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Search the talk page archives for "leaders" etc. (Hohum ^@) 01:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed a vast number of times, including through a couple of RfCs, and the current infobox reflects the consistent outcomes of those discussions. Nick-D (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I search for "leaders" in the archives and found tons of discussions not related with the infobox's subject. Could you please link me the actual discussions or an RfC involving it so I can understand the arguments of both sides? TheGoldAge (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Should we add a section dedicated to each nation's involvement in World War II ?

As following: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=1065399728&oldid=1065034912

This section contains a summarized version of minor countries in World War I. Due to the conflict's large scale, the minor powers often get one paragraph or two in the main article, with the main focus being placed on the major powers (as it should be). I believe a section dedicated to the minor nations will help covering them better while the major course of the war is kept in the "Course of the war" section. This will also help Wikipedia readers who are interested in a particular nation's course of war through World War II and allow readers who for example want to read a summary about Poland to do so without having to read the whole course of the war.

Currently, I made summaries about Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia but I also consider adding other nations if this is allowed. TheGoldAge (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

No. This article provides a high level summary of the war and World War II by country does what you are proposing (but please don't dump large quantities of text copied and pasted from other articles without attribution into it either). Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The World War II by country does not fulfill the same role as its a very summarized version (5 paragraphs at best) about every country on earth at the time of World War II (189 countries in total). By contrast, in the section I suggest, the summary would be larger but still a summary and only about the minor axis & minor allied powers (Poland, Romania, Czechoslovkia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Finland, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Thailand, Greece) offering a summary that is smaller than the main [Nation in World War II] article. The main articles were attributed, see for example "Polish Participation; Main article: History of Poland (1939–1945)" in the edit. TheGoldAge (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

No, as it is way too much information for just an overview article.Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that the main World War II article should be just an overview (general summary) of World War II. An overview of World War II would be best for an article such as the history of the Europe where World War II is just a section, but okay. Would it be okay if I add the edits I made for those countries in the World War II by country article? TheGoldAge (talk) 13:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You may not, the rest of us seem to think that is what this should be. As to other articles, you would need to ask there, not here.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

For clarification, can I or can't I add edits I made for those countries in the World War II by country article? As you told me that I may not, and then proceeded to tell me that I should ask there, I will ask there. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not the place to ask that question, but you can do what you like, I said you should not add it here. I meant "you may not see this as an overview article". This is why you shoulds ask one question.Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, got it. TheGoldAge (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)