Talk:World War II/Archive 51

World War II
Location	{{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union ; United States ; United Kingdom ; China ; France ; Poland ; Canada ; Australia ; Yugoslavia	Axis Germany ; Japan ; Italy ; Hungary ; Romania ; Bulgaria ; Finland ; Thailand ; Iraq

This is an archive of past discussions about World War II. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 45

←

→

Request for comment: WWII infobox

Consensus is fairly clearly in favour of option one. Number 5 7 17:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Over the last several years, the list of belligerents in the World War II infobox, which is used in this article but has been so contentious that it has its own separate page, has expanded to include 26 Allied states and subjects, 19 Axis states and subjects, and 12 explanatory notes (in context, the entire WWII article now has only one note).

An extensive !vote appears on the template's talk page, but it was never a formal RfC, and the consensus was not implemented until yesterday.

The questions posed to the community are simple:

Should World War II's infobox only have links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers? This is how it appears now, appeared in 2010, and was the consensus option chosen several months ago.
Should it include only the largest nations on each side, with links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers beneath?^[1]
Should it include a high level of detail, i.e. a total of 45 nations and 12 notes (current setup)?

To avoid splitting the !vote, please indicate your first and second preferences (if applicable). Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

^ On the Allied side, this would be the United States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom (preferably in randomized order); including five would add China and France. For the Axis, it would be Germany, Japan, and Italy.

Option one: two links, Allies of World War II and Axis powers (10/1/0)

Second preference. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. Parsecboy (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. Aside from getting around the tiresome arguments over who should be in and who should be out and in what order they should be presented in, this more accurately represents how World War II was fought. None of the Allied powers could have gone it alone, and the middle-sized countries and British dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc) made important contributions to the war effort by providing the major powers with vital support. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. My concerns have been somewhat allayed by the highly detailed Allies of WW2 and the Polish contribution article, which is impressive. Ecclesiastes' was right. There is nothing new under the sun, especially in WP discussions. Irondome (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
First preference. Mainly because I had a look on a mobile device and the second option was too large for my taste MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
First Preference. In order to remain neutral, either every nation gets mentioned or no nation gets mentioned, and since the number of participating nations (ie the number to have declared for one side as apposed to neutrality) is in this case huge. From where I sit, this is the fairest way to settle the debate over the belligerents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:40, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
First preference, largely per Nick-D. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
First preference per Nick-D. -- Shudde ^talk 11:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Option two: Big Three/Five (3/4/1)

First preference. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Second preference. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Second preference. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Second preference. --Bye for now (PTT) 17:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
First preference - with and others beneath each. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
I've modified the option above to include "and others". I assumed that was implied, but it's best to be certain. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First and only preference. China absolutely needs to be included. -- Calidum 23:15, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Third preference. Great potential for flag adding edit-warring. Either all or none. A poor compromise IMO. Irondome (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Second preference. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Option three: detailed "Country list" of most participants (current setup) (3/2/0)

Support - This is the only solution that is of a neutral point of view, as any other solution would leave out various countries of great importance to the conflict. To list merely allies and axis gives the reader who knows nothing about world war two no idea as to what that actually means upon glancing at the page. On virtually every other main page for a war, there is an infobox providing a detailed list of all parties involved in the conflict. I see no reason why this page should be any different.XavierGreen (talk) 22:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Second preference. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
First and only preference. No need to change the format of the Infobox under a pretext that it's "too long" or "confusing" for the average reader. In fact, the Infobox list all the belligerents in a easy to view format, much easier to glance over then actually going through the respective Allies and Axis articles. --E-960 (talk) 22:15, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
WWII it more complicated than just Axis vs Allies. This is the largest war mankind has ever fought, and therefore the combatant list is quite large. I dont see where this is a problem. I see no point in removing/hiding information. Having a detailed infobox gives the reader lots of information at a glance. Otherwise he has to search for infos he doesnt even know they exist. This is never good. The more clicks needed, the the smaller the chance someone will read it... StoneProphet (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Second Preference. In order to remain neutral, either every nation gets mentioned or no nation gets mentioned, and since the number of participating nations (ie the number to have declared for one side as apposed to neutrality) is in this case huge. From where I sit, this is the second fairest way to settle the debate over the belligerents. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I'll note that the first option was the consensus version from 2007 to 2010, when it was changed unilaterally. And the reason those of us who were around at the time chose that option was because having any list continually caused pointless arguments about what countries should be listed (even when we had tried capping it at the 5v3 option), and more importantly, in what order (because, you know, that totally matters). Having simple links to the respective Axis and Allies articles is far cleaner and presents far less to argue about. Maybe I'm the crazy one, but keeping a magnet for stupid arguments isn't my idea of a wise choice. Parsecboy (talk) 15:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want the RfC summary to come across as too POV, but Parsecboy is correct. I've also slightly tweaked the RfC, as I'd forgotten that the old standard was 5 and 3, not three and three. Parsec, please feel free to tweak the options and language above as you see fit. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer the first option simply because it would stop the arguments, but the second option could also work, with a link to "and others..." beneath. Showing the USSR, the USA, Britain, China and France on the Allied side would handily show the five countries that later became the five permanent UN Security Council members. If we went this way we could easily keep the Axis side down to Germany, Japan and Italy ("and others...") by explicitly only including the original Tripartite powers. So I'm not too fussed really. The third option is out though. — Cliftonian (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

STOP Why does everyone who starts a discussion, want to Sanitize the article. Why does this discussion demand a answer, by providing a False dilemma option, that only includes choices like the "Big Three/Five" (there is a reason why this is called a WORLD WAR, because more than five countries fought in it). THIS IS B.S. All of a sudden you have a faction that comes in saying that there is a big problem that must be resolved now, and now you must vote. Here are your option 1 or option 2. In my opinion you are putting the carriage in front of the horse. How about a first vote if we want to change anything in the first place, and stop trying to make this article so generic it reads like the Encyclopedia Britannica. --E-960 (talk) 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is most definitely not a new problem. Please see the archives at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. As for generic, please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts that appear in the article. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe in this less in more BS. I understand that there is a debate which wants to paint this issue in Black or White. But, how about the middle option which leaves things the way they are. Allowing, the reader to see in a glance (Infobox) the many nations that fought in WW2, and if they want to read about all the nuances they can follow the links and go the the other pages that detail every twist and turn of the war. ALSO, WHY THE HECK DID YOU ALREADY MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE ARTICLE AND NOW YOU ARE ASKING FOR A VOTE AFTER THE FACT??? --E-960 (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Please keep calm. I've linked to a previous discussion that established consensus for removing the countries; without a formal RfC, however, the discussion died, and nothing was done. Hence, here's this RfC. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so change back the article, and then we can have a discussion in the WW2 talk page so everyone can notice it. And, start with the first question... do we want to change anything. Believe it or not there may be people that like the current set-up, so lets not make this a debate between the two options provided earlier by a faction of users who are all paining this debate in black and white. --E-960 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no reason to revert to the previous version, since the earlier discussion established consensus for the change.

Regardless, this is not an issue of "less is more", it's an issue of cramming too much information into a very small space - one loses the ability to make cogent points because it's drowned out in what is effectively white noise. Listing Brazil or Cuba in the infobox alongside Denmark and Czechoslovakia creates the mistaken impression that their experiences in the war were in any way comparable.

While that example might seem clear cut, it only highlights the fundamental problem: where does one draw the line? One of the solutions we tried several years ago was a longer list with the Big Five under a "Major Allies" heading and several other countries under a "Minor Allies" section. Smashcut to near-constant complaining from nationalists of all stripes about their country being labeled "minor". Any way you slice it, someone is going to get their panties in a twist because Country X is included but Country Y is: the only alternatives (which is not a false dilemma, mind you) are to include all combatants (which is, frankly, ridiculous and out of the question) or none of them and simply link to the Allies and Axis articles. Trust me, we have been through all of the options over the years. Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Parsecboy "Trust me" you say? I did notice your user page, and it's nice to know you are interested in the German Navy, I myself also like maritime history. But, regarding the Infobox change it is clear that this is a attempt to sanitize the article, the Infobox was not an issue, this is a false dilemma deliberately created to remove key pieces of information from the article. --E-960 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sanitize only in the sense that the infobox was far too bloated as it was. And yes, you should trust me. I don't know when you started editing this article (nor do I really care), but I've been around since 2006 - you of course can go wade through the millions of empty words wasted on these arguments.

And do please drop the nonsense about this being a false dilemma, because it's not. Parsecboy (talk) 20:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I strongly feel Poland MUST be included in any contemplated grouping. She was attacked first and lost the highest percentage to population ratio of all the nations (I believe), to mention nothing of the Holocaust and Nazi Germany's usage of the "General Government" as Europe's place of slaughter. Her political importance vis a vis the emerging ideological rivalries which developed into the cold war alliances cannot be overstated. Re-position this comment as you wish, but I feel strongly about this. Irondome (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't totally disagree with you, but I feel I must play Devil's advocate here—if Poland, why not Czechoslovakia? If not Czechoslovakia, why not Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Australia, Canada etc etc? Then people will take exception to the order the various powers are listed in. Then we're back where we started with a list the length of a necktie down the right of the page, complete with reams of footnotes. Far better in my view just to have "Allies" and "Axis" and leave it at that—it's the only way to create any sense of stability in the box. People who want to know who was on the Allied side and who was on the Axis side can look at the respective articles, or even just do a ctrl-F search of the main WWII page and see where their country shows up. — Cliftonian (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Yep. I hear you on that issue. Irondome (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Including every participant in an infobox could be described as a case of "Undue". The infobox is intended to summarize, and thinning down (focusing) its contents is not revisionism, or deprecating the individual contributions. I think some mention of participants over and above Allies / Axis is needed to match with the leaders of each side given in the next section below. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the 2007 consensus used the articles Allied leaders of World War II and Axis leaders of World War II instead of a laundry list of individuals. Parsecboy (talk) 11:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

May I suggest a compromise solution? As has been done in other conflict infoboxes, why do we not include only bolded links to the articles about the Allies and Axis forces, and provide for a collapsible list of all the nations, so that way readers can either choose to click to the sub-articles, or to see the list in the infobox instead. This way both groups get what they want.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Agree, this debate should be restarted and include the collapsible list option. --E-960 (talk) 17:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There is the Manual of Style on use of collapsible sections. Due (in part to accessibility concerns) they "...should not conceal article content". Which I read as ruling them out as a solution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett, the next sentence states: Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text isn't the infobox a table that consolidates information?? --E-960 (talk) 05:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

There's the rub. None of the sections in the Manual of Style or the Help that I have read so far dealing with tables and infoboxes makes reference to one being a kind of the other. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would support that too. It would be a good compromise between option 1 and 3 of the RFC. StoneProphet (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this discussion over?

If so, I'll ask the Military History Wikiproject's coordinators to close the discussion and implement whatever they judge the consensus to be. Nick-D (talk) 01:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe so Nick. There's been no meaningful contributions for days. Let MILHIST make the judgement. Irondome (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If a coordinator takes this on, they should remove my request at AN (sorry, old chap! I didn't see this before.) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on the tallies it would appear that the first option is by far the one most agreeable to the editors here. Now all we need is a milhist coordinator to close this thing. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: anyone want to take this? I'd love to, but I'm involved. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, i think a collapsable list has the most support. And quite frankly i object to having a military history coordinator close the discussion given that many of them were the people pushing for option one in the first place. I'd rather see a non-involved administrator do it from the dispute resolution people.XavierGreen (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Collapsible list was not in the options suggested. It has been proposed by one editor, with two more agreeing and opposed by one editor (me). The options that were given have higher support. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Implemented

Thank you to Number 57 (talk · contribs) for closing this discussion. I have just implemented the consensus, and left a comment in the infobox's code to that effect. [1] Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Finnish bias

Now that all belligerents in the infobox have been subsumed into the labels of Allies and Axis, the page is not biased various co-belligerants of the Axis who were not members of it, most notably Finland. Finland was never a member of the axis and yet was an important participant in the war. It specifically refused to sign the Tripartite Pact and thereby join the Axis coaltion. In order to correct this bias, i have listed the Axis-aligned co-belligerents separately in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted this unilateral change given it violates the result of the RfC above. Please don't reinstate this material until (and if) consensus is gained here. While there's probably merit in tweaking the wording to acknowledge this situtation (Axis powers, and allies, perhaps?), I think that the results of the above discussion are pretty conclusive regarding a lack of desire to list any individual countries. Claiming that this somehow constitutes "anti-Finnish bias" is ridiculous, and makes it difficult to take you seriously to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

How is it ridiculous? The Finnish position during the war is heavily covered by various historians as be that of co-belligerent with the Axis but specifically not being a part of it. The entire foreign policy of Finland during the Continuation War was built around that very principal. The results of the above discussion do not take into account the problem of co-belligerence at all. Show me where it does if you believe to the contrary.XavierGreen (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Best not to disrupt the whole article because of a perceived wrong in one template...thus POV tag added removed. Best solution I can see is a note added to both the Allies of World War II and Axis powers. The whole point of the last RfC on the template was not to list anyone by name....so solve the problem at the concusses linked destination articles. Or make an article listing all the co-belligerence instead of just listng a few in the template....many possible solutions that don't disrupt the article as a whole-- Moxy (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with User:Moxy here. Let's keep the article stable. Going with a seperate article seems the way ahead. B.T.W I think you are over reacting a bit by using Anti Finnish bias as a thread header. Most of us editing are aware of Finland's predicament during the years 39 to 44. Also that many Jewish offivers and soldiers were in the Finnish army. Indeed a Jewish Finnish officer was awarded the Iron cross first class by the Germans. It was refused by the officer involved. Bias is an unwise term to be deployed here IMO. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd also note that the Axis Powers article which the infobox links to does describe Finland and Iraq's situations in detail in the Axis powers#Minor co-belligerent state combatants section and notes this in its infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reported XavierGreen's continued edit warring at WP:AN3 Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You still have not shown me where in the RFC discussion where the co-belligerent issue was discussed.XavierGreen (talk) 23:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear here...you believe the RfC that decided (by many editors) not to list ANY individual country does not apply to Finland and this is why you keep adding it? Can you address the solutions that have been presented thus far instead of a run around question that to most is common sense. -- Moxy (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your suggestions above i believe a link stating "Cobelligerant powers" that leads to the relevant section would in my mind satisfy the issue.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Infobox Debate: "Collapsible List of all the Nations" option

As first noted by fellow contributor, the Infobox debate should include the Collapsible list of all the Nations as currently in use on pages such as the Korean War's Infobox Belligerents table. The Manual of Style on use of collapsible sections states that "Collapsible sections or cells may be used in tables that consolidate information covered in the main text". Thus, I think that this is an appropriate option that can also see use here. I think the current RFC should be reworked, as from the start it was a flawed debate for the following reasons: initially the Infobox was changed to the Allies/Axis option and then the RFC was initiated; the wording strongly leans in favor of Option 1; and finally the options only include suggestions made by a small group of contributors, and as we see here other possible options to resolve the problem were not taken into consideration. --E-960 (talk) 06:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be amendable to this, i think it might also solve the problem of bias resulting from the listing of the term axis, since that term does not include Finland, Thailand, and Iraq which were co-belligerents who fought against the allies but were not part of the axis.XavierGreen (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Currently the article Axis powers does include Thailand as Axis (describes it as "...a formal ally of Japan from 25 January 1942"). Iraq is down as a co-belligerent. It was at war with the Allies (well the British) for about 4 weeks. A month before, it had had a generally pro-British regent (and a fairly one-sided treaty with Britain) and it was a coup looking for German assistance that changed things. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is generally understood by historians that the Axis powers were those that signed the Tripartite Pact. Finland, a significant belligerent in the war never signed the pact. To call Finland a member of the axis powers is a contentious suggestion. Thailand while indeed formally allied with Japan, also never signed the pact. Your assessment of Iraq is correct in my understanding. My main point is, that to merely list Axis powers in the infobox presents a clear bias against Finland, which although co-belligerent with the Axis was never actually an Axis power. To provide a collapsible list would be an easy solution to the problem.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem with this proposal is that the temptation over time will be to load up the infobox will all kinds of minor combatantants on the grounds that most readers won't notice. IMO, this raises issues of WP:UNDUE, and could also make the article look ridiculous (eg, heaps of countries jumped on the Allied bandwagon in 1944-45 but played no or virtually no role in the war, and there seems to be a temptation among some people to list the Axis puppet states as though they were independent countries). Given that this is one of Wikipedia's flagship articles, I think that we'd be better off keeping some form of strict inclusion criteria rather than using this as an easy solution. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, any solution that simply lists Axis powers in the belligerent section of the infobox is non-neutral, as Ffinland was a signifigant combatant in the war and was not a member of the Axis Powers.XavierGreen (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Look Nick-D, there is temptation all the time to change the article, and the Infobox is no different. Why all of a sudden do we have a movement to create a static Infobox populated with information so generic as to kill the debate process? As I said before, the "reasons" this group of editors put forth to change the Infobox are weak, and probably have to do more with some academic POV as to how WW2 should be interpreted at this time, than any objective need to clean up the article. --E-960 (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What are you hoping to gain from making allusions about editors who happen to disagree with you here? I've made my suggestions here in good faith, and I'm sure that you're doing the same. Let's leave it at that, and consider how the article can be improved rather than throwing accusations around. Nick-D (talk) 22:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Accessibility dos and don'ts - Don't use scrolling lists or collapsible sections to conceal content. Best we just have a main link to the powers list....as was decided at the last RfC. -- Moxy (talk) 23:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose including the 9 major countries aligned with the allies, and the 9 major countries aligned with the Axis. Footnotes have been added to this example, explaining that Finland, Thailand and Iraq never joined the Axis, but were co-belligerents. This would also provide the main belligerents without clogging up the infobox with 40+ countries. I believe it is crucial that readers can easily view who the main belligerents are. DylanLacey (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The Allies omits (British) India unless its subsumed under UK, Iraq for the Axis hardly contributed at all (one month). And that's how the arguments start again. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - and that appears to be why option 1 in the above RfC appears to have won most of its support from. The article's text is far more important that the infobox... Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The infobox is important as it gives readers an indication of the basic facts of the topic. Not including any countries in the belligerents is a departure from every other war article on Wikipedia, and for good reason as the most important detail of a war is who is fighting in it. India had no independence from the UK during World War II. As for Iraq, it can be removed if necessary, there were far more Allied powers than Axis powers, causing that issue. DylanLacey (talk) 08:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A possibility that might be discussed is using the third column option to give a link to those countries who got caught up in the middle (as it were). eg Thailand goes from at war with Vichy France, then briefly at war with Japan, before ending up firmly on the Japanese side thus achieving some sort of co-belligerence with both sides, though more significantly contributing to the Axis course. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Given that these handful of countries played a very minor role in the war, it would be best to not do this IMO: infoboxes aren't good at explaining subtleties. Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be more useful to give the subject a concise but richly sourced section of its own in mainspace. Sorts everything out then. Irondome (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

One of the concerns raised was the usefulness of the links used in the infobox...why link to Canada (country article) over Military history of Canada during World War II (article about the topic at hand). Useless to link unrelated articles over topic specific articles. Anyways would take alot to get all the useless links back a new RfC at the very least. -- Moxy (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding the links to that country's involvement is a good suggestion. If this was implemented, readers could see who the major countries involved were, and access to further information (on each country's involvement). DylanLacey (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, as I always viewed this issue… this article needs an Infobox that has the combatants of the war listed. And, perhaps we should brainstorm together and come up with a solid approach and criteria for the list, taking into account all the nuances, discussing how to best present the information. Not simply say it "too complicated" so lets shorten the Infobox to an absurd level of generality. --E-960 (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I dont mean to state the obvious.... unlike other war articles the title of this article includes the descriptive parameter WORLD WAR- to the average person this would imply a global conflict. No need to list all the participants. The link Participants in World War II would do just fine and is much more informative then generic modern country article links. The infobox at WWI is full of useless links for our readers to understand more about the topic at hand - the link Participants in World War I would be much more useful. If we get WWI two GA level one day ...all this concerns should be address...as they were here. -- Moxy (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I oppose the recent change. "Allies" and "Axis" are rather informal terms. United Nations and Tripartite Pact would be more correct, although still insufficient. I'd prefer to list the combatants according to criteria established by consensus, but not to an arbitrary number (the Big Three/Four/Five). Srnec (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been bold see if this helps....See this edit added link to Participants in World War II -- Moxy (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That looks good to me. In regards to some of the comments above, we just finished a widely-advertised and lengthy RfC on what to list in these fields of the infobox. Given that a clear consensus was reached in this discussion, I don't think that re-opening it so soon would be a good idea: let's see how things work out. The article's text is a more fruitful area for discussions and improvements anyway IMO. Nick-D (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove Chiang Kai-shek form the Infobox Commanders and leaders

I recommend the removal of Chiang Kai-shek form the Infobox Commanders and leaders section. Reasons: During the war years, China was not a dominant power like the United States, Britain or Soviet Union. In fact, it played a role similar to that of France or Poland (defeated countries that had a significant resistance movement and assisted the Big Three allied powers). Perhaps, using a different approach we could include Charles de Gaulle and Władysław Sikorski in the list, highlighting major contributions of countries that had the three largest resistance movements of the war, and regular troops stationed abroad who fought the axis powers. --E-960 (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The Chinese armies were around two million. Keeping three-four million Japanese occupied (three-quarters of their manpower?) and causing about two million Japanese casualties sounds a reasonable contribution. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Manpower is the only thing China had. In every other respect China was even less prepared for war than Poland. China had no armaments industry, armored divisions, no real air force and a failed government. I think the only reason China gets such recondition is because of it size, and most people think that it must have contributed greatly during the war… but, it did not. As for man power, the Indian Army during WW2 had 2.5 million soldiers. If the argument is that China's contribution to the war was that they kept the Imperial Army distracted for 8 years, then I don't think it should have the same status as US, UK and USSR. Chinese effort was more along the lines of resistance (supported by the West), not a sovereign state at war. --E-960 (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What do the reliable sources you've consulted on this topic say about the contribution the major Allied powers made? It seems a somewhat western-centric argument to casually dismiss the huge Chinese Army as you're doing here, especially as historians are starting to focus on China's role in the war. From what I've read, the general consensus is that the Chinese war effort was huge and the theatre involve some very large-scale fighting, but that Chiang Kai-shek wasn't well regared by FDR or Churchill (for good reasons due to his incompetence). Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely, to exclude Kai-shek would be in favor of a western point of view. He had over 5 million troops under his direct command with no defacto authority superior to him. Of the troops under his command some 3 or 4 million were killed in some of the most intense fighting of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 23:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

To say nothing of the often critical interventions which saved Allied arse during the Burma campaign. Chinese assaults were arguably critical in the latter stages of the British retreat from Burma in 1942, and Chinese forces fought highly effectively during the spring- summer Burma offensives of 1944, saving Merrill's Marauders in the process, I seem to recall. CKS was also a critical post war figure on the East Asian stage, especially in the final struggle for power in China, post war. A removal would be unwise. Irondome (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well that would have been news to the British 14th Army - they under Bill Slim spent most of 1943-44 trying to get "Vinegar Joe" Stillwell to get "his" Chinese to do something, and when in late 1944 he finally did manage to cajole them into doing something aggressive, he then had the cheek to claim in a press release that "his" Chinese had captured Mogaung when it was actually the British who had done it. As a riposte the British sent a signal saying "the Chinese under Stillwell have taken Mogaung. The British have taken Umbrage". Stillwell's staff officers then tried in vain to find "Umbrage" on the map.

Stillwell spent most of the war making promises and claims to the British that "his" Chinese were going to do this or that, and when every time nothing happened the British eventually gave up relying on anything he claimed for "his" Chinese.

BTW, Stillwell was always referring to "My Chinese" when referring to the Chinese army. As far as the British re-taking of Burma was concerned, Stillwell and "his" Chinese weren't worth having as allies. They did almost nothing until the very end of the war. Stillwell was a noted Anglophobe which tells you something about the wisdom - or rather lack of it - in putting him supposedly in charge of a foreign army in a close allied relationship with British forces who were fighting in what was at the time a British colony - Burma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.215.233 (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Army Group A and B

A and B are mixed up on this page. See the links to other wikipedia articles or Manstein, Erich (2004). Lost Victories: The War Memoirs of Hitler's Most Brilliant General. Minneapolis: Zenith Press. ISBN 0-7603-2054-3. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.145.40 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. I have adjusted the text accordingly. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

reasons for a further war

historians agree that that second world war were those consequences from the first world war. It was a sequel. (e.g. the historian Ian Kershaw says that) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47w0rmh0le (talk • contribs) 09:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia editors, historians rarely agree. The notion thatJapan was a puppet state of Germany has been discredited, and economic historians in particular hve argued that the origin of the war go back to the 19th century. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Commanders and leaders should be more accurate

For example Stalin and Hitler were allies (1939-1941), and since Stalin invaded Poland in 1939, only 16 days afer Hitler (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), he should be mantionad as one of the Axies leader. And what about Harry Truman? We must remember that Roosevelt passed away before the end of WW2. Before Churchil there was Neville Chamberlain, and after - Clement Attlee. And after Hitler we had Dönitz...

Or just put the word "main" before commanders... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borubar (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

invaded and entered

In February, the Soviets invaded Silesia and Pomerania, while Western Allies entered western Germany and closed to the Rhine river. Why Soviets invaded and Allies entered? It would be more correct if both of them entered. Otherwise you show Soviets as aggressor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.99.98.20 (talk) 18:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's probably done more to avoid repetition. The "Invasion of Normandy" is often called that although it is the allies doing the invading for example. Britmax (talk) 18:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You make a fair point. I will change that unless there are objections. We will wait couple of hours, if no comments I will change or you can. Irondome (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, IMO. Britmax (talk) 18:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorted. I don't think that's too controversial. Irondome (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why the bias against the Axis Powers?

Its truly embarrassing that after 70 years we can't do any better than simply repeat the Allied propaganda justifying the war. The rulers of the Allies had, and still have, an obvious vested interest in perpetuating myths, but its not clear why Wikipedia feels bound to accept those myths without question.

Some basic points

The idea that German actions provided legitimate grounds for the British declaration of war is absurd. Germany repeatedly offered friendship and understanding toward Britain but was always rebuffed. Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Eastern Europe in general were of no concern whatsoever to the British, which is definitively proven by the fact that they acquiesced to Soviet domination of those countries after World War II.

The United States similarly had absolutely no reason to go to war. Germany had no naval force capable of invading Britain, let alone the Western hemisphere. World War II was an obvious war of aggression on the part of the United States and was prosecuted with far more wanton brutality than the much criticized but comparatively defensive Vietnam War. Why is this not reflected in the article?

The Soviet Union had an obvious interest in war, but only because of ideological reasons. The Soviet state threw away all international norms when it loudly and repeatedly demanded the overthrow of all governments apart from its own. It can hardly cry victim when other countries took their rhetoric seriously. This is especially true considering the massive expansion of Soviet power in the 1930s.

75.186.73.113 (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have the feeling as if you are living on a planet of your own.

The United Kingdom was trying to counteract the hegemonic and expansionist policies of Nazi Germany in continental Europe, which was nothing new and less absurd than you can think in that context (after Munich). Afterward, what you call acquiescence, was simply the reality where Russia, after having made the biggest exertion against Hitler's troops, letting in the way millions of its soldiers and civilians to die, achieved a military powerfulness to which the British didn't have anything anymore to counteract with; nations of western, and centre-est Europe in particular, have to thank Hitler for this result;
Hitler declared war against the USA, not the other way around;
not to condone its actions, but the Soviet Union of Stalin was more interested, before 1941, to follow in the footsteps of the Czar than to chase ideological chimeras. I suggest you read Gabriel Gorodetsky's Grand delusion - Stalin and the German Invasion of Russia.

More on a general term I invite you to open your mind to what many historians researched and wrote about. We all, you in particular though, have to remember that "persuasion comes from what seems to be true, not from the truth". Cheers. Carlotm (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I understand there is a hegemonic pro-Allied, anti-Axis narrative in existence but do not understand why it must be automatically obeyed. It obviously does not suit dominant ideologies or entrenched interest groups to tell the truth about World War II, but Wikipedia is supposed.

Again, there was no rational reason for Britain to concern itself with alleged German domination in Eastern Europe if it though it could live with Soviet domination in the same place later. Hitler repeatedly said he had no interests in the West, and nobody has ever disproven that fact. Numerous left-wing scholars have argued that the purely defensive actions by the West in the Cold War were unjustified because they had no real interests in Eastern Europe. The same argument obviously applies much more strongly to World War II, where an actual war was waged over these non-existent interests.

Hitler was provoked by Roosevelt's hostile actions which indicated he intended to go to war. It is universally acknowledged that Roosevelt wanted to enter the war against Germany. What is not acknowledged is how utterly unjustifiable his decision was. Germany posed no threat whatsoever to the U.S. and any potential differences that existed could easily have been negotiated. The Wikipedia article American entry into World War I as well as numerous historians blame banks and big business for contributing to American entry into that war. The article Historiography of the Cold War contains sections blaming the U.S. for hyping a non-existent threat. Why is the U.S. suddenly innocent here?

Stalin did not really embrace nationalism until after his country got invaded. Every source I've read indicates that he was a strong supporter of international Communism, hence the Comintern and a dedicated Marxist. The international nature of his regime is one of the reasons it attracted huge numbers of western apologists in the 1930s. I'm not saying the Axis was justified in attacking the USSR but its absurd to pretend that no provocation existed or that he would have been entirely peaceful if Hitler hadn't broken the pact.

75.186.73.113 (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This conjecture has no place in Wikipedia. You are imagining that the UK's weak response to USSR annexations in the 1950s and 1960s in some way weakens the UK's righteous fear of German hegemony in Europe in the 1930s. We cannot use this (flawed) exercise in logic because of the hard policy against original research. Sorry. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

World War II was an American war of aggression waged against a friendly and harmless Germany? That's pretty weird thinking, and such extreme fringe views have no place in the article as they are not shared by any serious - or even semi-serious - historian or writer (even David Irving never suggested such a thing back in the days when some people paid attention to him). Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You would be better off finding a blog somewhere (or starting your own) for these speculations as this is not the place for them. I would suggest, however, that when seeking a reason for not fighting the Soviets, you consider what the answer to the suggestion "hey, kids, let's have another war right here!" would have been in, say, 1947? Britmax (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

While I know it will be dismissed as "fringe" the book Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War contains similar ideas and cites numerous scholars to justify it. The only area in Europe where Germany was alleged to be aggressive or hegemonic was in the East, the same area they were later fine with the Soviets having. The argument that nobody wanted a third world war after the second would apply equally to the fact that nobody wanted a second world war after the first.

And yes, it was a war of aggression on part of the United States, it was objectively speaking actually far less justifiable than the Vietnam War or Iraq War. There isn't a shred of evidence that Germany posed a threat or even wanted to pose a threat to any vital U.S. interests. If there is, I would like you to enlighten me. Roosevelt's sole argument for fighting Germany is that they had an interest in protecting the British, which even if true simply ignored the fact that the British started the war and turned down German peace offers. Nobody in the U.S. at the time thought the invasion of Poland provided legitimate grounds for the U.S. to go to war.

75.186.73.113 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have gone a bit into discussing the subject without getting to the point of talk pages which is to discuss improving articles. If an editor (or reader) is questioning a lack of NPOV, then they ought to 1) identify particular parts that are lacking 2) suggest, if possible, an improved wording of the section, and 3) provide reliable sources (as opposed to opinions) that back up the points. User:GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended content

The fact is that it was the UK that started the war. The British, who were occupying a quarter of the world, broke their pact with Poland and only declared war on Germany, then helped Stalin overrun half of Europe. (ManfredHavel (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

The only fact here is that Nazi Germany directly precipitated WW2 by invading Poland, and then turned her into Europes' killing field for the subsequent 5 years. You are obviously not here to build an encylopedia. Not an encouraging first edit. Your railing against universally held historical consensus will not change that fact a jot. I suggest you find a forum more suited to your historical world-view. Irondome (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland at the same time. Everybody knew that had been agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23rd August 1939, yet the UK and France only declared war on Germany. I don't think the UK and France with their vast empires were in any position to criticize a country for invading other countries. (ManfredHavel (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

What? The USSR invaded eastern Poland on the 17th of September. You are obviously quite ignorant of the subject. Your second point is quite grotesque. I have no more time to counter obvious trolling. Irondome (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Everybody knew the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland had been agreed on 23rd August 1939. (ManfredHavel (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC))

Professor Hall Gardner (2015). The Failure to Prevent World War I: The Unexpected Armageddon. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. p. 32. ISBN 978-1-4724-3056-4. -- Moxy (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that there is a lot oversensitivity about World War II arising from understandable revulsion against Nazi atrocities against the Jews. If that hadn't happened people would be far more open to alternative views on the matter. Jews in Allied countries were understandably upset about the persecution in Nazi Germany, harbored a desire to overthrow the Hitler regime, and for the same reason still oppose any softening of the contemporary wartime line.

It is neither conspiratorial or anti-Semitic to note that Jews are a highly successful group and that Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin had close relationship with influential Jews and endorsed Zionist aims. In fact the U.S. ambassador to Germany in the 1930s said that the only reason relations with the U.S. were bad was because of the Jewish issue. I'm not endorsing that comment but merely noting that it is hardly a fringe take on the matter.

CJK (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing the invasion of Poland. Well it does rather border on the conspiratorial. It is also simplistic. It ignores Great Britain's hoary policy of maintaining the balance of power in Europe, which arguably continues to the present day, that of no one nation state gaining hegemony, France and her foreign policy concerns in Europe during the 20s and 30s, a whole host of other European factors and not least, the growing revulsion within the Western democracies' own public regarding the nature of Nazism. You didnt have to be Jewish.. To blame increasing tensions solely on the Jews, no matter how delicately phrased, is highly problematic. Stalin was hardly a "friend" of the Jews in any case, and the idea of Stalin being a Zionist is rather problematic. And what exactly were "Zionist aims?" in this context? Only Churchill had strong Zionist convictions, which I rather admire him for. Was Roosevelt a Zionist? Irondome (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have gone a bit into discussing the subject without getting to the point of talk pages which is to discuss improving articles. If an editor (or reader) is questioning a lack of NPOV, then they ought to 1) identify particular parts that are lacking 2) suggest, if possible, an improved wording of the section, and 3) provide reliable sources (as opposed to opinions) that back up the points. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hear hear. Irondome (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

IP, Wikipedia is not supposed to correct the record but to present views in accordance with their acceptance. TFD (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a stupid liberal pacifists upset America went to war and saved the war. Hes so obvious anti American and England and anti War. Rather the Nazis one? Glad w did not have pacifists running things back than. And of course anti war liberal sheep scholars are going to find anti WWII evidence. There going to make it up. Hate liberals, hate pacifists and hate people bashing the United States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.20.98 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't Truman be listed under the commanders of the Allied Forces?

I know that he was a part of the war far less than Roosevelt was, but he still played a major part. Shouldn't he be listed in the sidebar along with Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.2.66 (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Technically yes, but he was the leader for only a short time, so he should not be listed in the infobox. Infobox is just for basic information, not for the in-depth coverage. If we add Truman, than we should also add Clement Attlee and Karl Dönitz, and that would be stupid. Only principal leaders are listed. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

WW2 Verse WW1 ... This article is about WW2 not WW1 Either remove or tell the truth about USA in WW1

I feel that if this article is going to talk about WW1 aswell as WW2, Then the article should highlight the fact that the USA was not allied with the western forces of the U.K, Australia, New Zealand & Canada during WW1.

During WW1 While the Allies ( Not the USA ) fought the Germans & the Ottoman Empire in Europe & Africa, the USA was Fighting Mexico over corn & land. ( in what is now New Mexico )

& when the USA did enter World war 1 ... The USA allied itself with the Muslim's Ottoman empire & the Nazi German forces' Against the British, Australian, New Zealand & Canadian forces. ( which is why the USA received none of the spoils of war from world war one. As the USA was on the losing side of the war )

I think if this article is going to get into world war one, Then i think it should reflect the fact the USA was allied with the Nazi Germans & the Muslim Ottoman empire. Cut the U.S Lies & Propaganda for once.

If Wikipedia could tell the truth for once it would be nice.

Either that or just keep the article on WW2.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.40.200 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Template:WW2InfoBox has been nominated to be merged into this article

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 February 22#Template:WW2InfoBox Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Done - The result of the discussion was merge/redirect ..talk page moved to Talk:World War II/Infobox -- Moxy (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

world war 2

The war did not start until 1939-1945.It could also be the holocaust. THe instability created in Europe by the first world war (1914-18)set a stage for another war.Adolf hitler was the one who began world war 2.we was a — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.99.58 (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

British English

Why is article British English? Takes place in Europe and England was primary until United States entered war but still curious as to why. 68.198.20.98 (talk) 23:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Because Britain went into the war voluntarily in 1939 to help Poland whereas the other 'Allies' waited on the sidelines until they were either attacked or had war declared against them.

... and because without the British, Hitler would have won. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 11:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's for none of those reasons -- just WP:ENGVAR. This started in British English, and there's simply no reason to change it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Slight alteration

I've tried to alter the text in the article which says:

Unlike in the West, the Nazi racial policy encouraged excessive brutality against what it considered to be the "inferior people" of Slavic descent; most German advances were thus followed by mass executions.

To:

Unlike in the West, the Nazi racial policy encouraged excessive brutality in the East against the Bolshevik, Jewish, Gypsy, Slavic and Soviet Untermenschen ("sub-humans"); most German advances were thus followed by mass executions.

The reason for this is quite simple: the Nazis viewed more than just the Slavic population in the east as sub-humans. I've also removed the link of Generalplan Ost to mass executions because the former was a Nazi plan which consisted of much more than just mass executions and the latter were often done without any correlation to the Generalplan Ost.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me. Although you might want to get a source for that. Green547 (talk) 15:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History, 2001, p.512

I'll add and reference it now.--Hashi0707 (talk) 16:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Good. Green547 (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Hashi0707 - Actually I don't think this is a good edit as it is far too simplistic, and given that you were reverted twice before if you are going to start a discussion you should wait until it has actually been discussed before making the change. This "discussion" has included just two editors, you and one other. Hardly a consensus as required by Bold, Revert and Discuss cycle. Neither myself or User:Nick-D, both of whom expressed concern with your original edit and reverted it, have been able to contribute to the discussion yet. That said I am really am beyond caring anymore - if no one else has a problem with this then do what ever you wish. Anotherclown (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see this as being helpful: the German-language term doesn't add much, and specifying some groups but not others (for instance, Poles) isn't necessary. While we're discussing this, the start of the sentence ("Unlike in the West") is somewhat over simplistic: modern historians note that while the Nazis treated Western Europeans better than Eastern Europeans, their brutal tactics spread to their entire empire (and Germany itself) over time. The mass starvation in Greece and the Netherlands, summary execution of people associated with resistance movements and, of course, the mass murder of Western Europe's Jews are all examples of this. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Nick-D, by simply just mentioning the Slavs is ignoring the fact that the Nazis viewed more than just the Slavic population in the East as inferior. What about the Jews, Gypsies and others classified as "Untermenschen"? And no, the Nazis made a remarkable distinction between people from Western European as opposed to Eastern European once the war got under way. The "mass starvation in Greece and the Netherlands, summary execution of people associated with resistance movements and, of course, the mass murder of Western Europe's Jews" are not good examples. It's simply a non-sequitur to suggest this means the Nazis would have implemented the same policies in the East to the West. The two famine examples you give are not the same as the actual Hunger Plan and other plans against the populations in the East. The Nazis viewed the Dutch, being Germanic, as part of the 'master race' and were to be part of the Greater Germanic Reich. They also viewed the Greeks quite highly. The people executed for being involved with resistance movements was because of their association with movements that opposed the Nazis, not because of them being Western Europeans (many German political opponents and/or enemies were also killed) and the murder of Western European Jews is also another poor example because in the Nazis eyes these were not Western Europeans but "Jews" just like the German Jews massacred were not seen as Germans but as Jews.--Hashi0707 (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

"Nazi racial policy encouraged excessive brutality in the East against the Bolshevik, Jewish, Gypsy," would mean that Nazi racial policy did not encouraged excessive brutality in the West against the Bolshevik, Jewish, Gypsy. Which simply isn't true. There is a difference in treatment of Western European ethnicities and Slavs but the sentence would have to be completely rewritten or broke into two sentences to solve the issues caused by this proposed change. Rmhermen (talk) 21:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How to tackle the issue of axis co-belligerents in the info-box

I had brought this up before prior to the WWII infobox page being merged into this one. While the infobox currently states Allies and Axis, there were powers that fought along side the axis that were not members of that alliance (most notably Finland). For purposes of neutrality, i had suggested adding co-belligrent Powers, to the infobox on the axis side, linking to that particular section of the Axis powers article. At the time i proposed it, there was no opposition. If that is still the case i will implement the change.XavierGreen (talk) 14:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm opposed. Finnish protestations notwithstanding, she was very much a part of the Axis. Srnec (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From an objective, neutral point of view Finland was not part of the Axis, it never signed the Tripartite Pact which formed the alliance. Neither did several other co-belligerent states. Lumping all co-belligerent powers together with the axis presents a neutrality problem. The Axis Powers article itself states that Finland, Thailand, ect were never part of the axis powers.XavierGreen (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

From an objective, neutral point of view, there was nothing substantially different about Finland's participation in the war compared with the other minor Axis powers (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary). Sure, Finland was not at war with the USA, but Bulgaria was not at war with the USSR (except for a matter of days). Further, the Tripartite Pact did not in fact bring any of its signatories into the war. In that sense, the enemy of the Allies in WWII cannot be taken simply to be the Tripartite Pact powers. The term "Axis" is used by some as a synonym for the latter, but not by all, for the reasons mentioned. Here below, a quotation from a recent academic publication [Antero Holmila and Oula Silvennoinen (2011), "The Holocaust Historiography in Finland", Scandinavian Journal of History 36 (5), 605–19] that reflects my view:

Likewise, it is pointless to continue arguing for interpretations seeking to bolster the continuing influence of the separate war thesis. Every Axis ally went to war for reasons they thought were their own and for their own interests. Every Axis ally sought to limit their involvement in the war and to maintain maximal political independence from Germany. Countries like Hungary and Bulgaria, whose commitment on the German–Soviet front throughout the conflict remained limited to none, are better examples than Finland of the capability of Axis ‘satellites’ to remain aloof of German pressure. Bickering about Finland's status among the other Axis associates will hardly bring us any better understanding about either the position of minor states in the conflict, or of minor participants and onlookers in the Holocaust.

This isn't about Finish culpability, however. It's about accurately representing the war. Srnec (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Your claim that "At the time i proposed it, there was no opposition" is totally inaccurate. There was actually consensus to not have some special treatment for Finland when you edit warred this in against the consensus of the RfC on the infobox in November last year: Talk:World War II/Archive 51#Anti-Finnish bias. I didn't respond to your final post in that thread because I was sick of your edit warring and ridiculous accusation of "Anti-Finnish bias", and I suspect that other editors felt the same way. I agree with Srnec's comments above, and note (again) that the result of the lengthy RfC was to have a very simple infobox. Why re-open this? Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The previous discussion you mention from November was a previous proposal I made to list each co belligerent individually. The overall problem of an Allied bias against the various co-belligerents is still problem in the article. I am proposing to simply list co-belligerents, or alternatively a note stating that there were also co-belligerent powers that participated not formally part of the Axis.XavierGreen (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Please can you explain what you mean by "bias" and quantify it. You consistently use the term. Please clarify your position on this. I see no bias. you seem to be seeing an agenda or something, where none exists. Please clarify as a matter of urgency. Irondome (talk) 01:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The page's infobox as it currently stands lumps various states together on one side as Allies and on the other side as Axis. While every single state on the allied side was indeed part of a formal alliance with one another (hence the Allied powers) there were several powers that fought in a state of co-belligerence with the Axis but were not actually members of the formal military alliance that formed the axis powers. Lumping them together with the Axis powers is quite unhistorical and biased towards a viewpoint that Srnec mentions above that Finland, Thailand, Iraq, ect where members of the "Axis powers" when the more commonly held viewpoint states that they are not. I get that the individual states were combined to reduce clutter in the infobox, i am not opposed to the spirit of that. All i am saying is that to maintain a neutral point of view there needs to be some distinction mentioning that not all of the powers that fought the allies were members of the Axis. A simple notation next to the word "Axis" would probably suffice.XavierGreen (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Leader of Japan

I think that we should change the leader of Japan in the infobox from Hirohito to Hideki Tojo. Hirohito was more of a figurehead akin to Victor Emmanuel III of Italy. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"After the war, he was not prosecuted for war crimes as many other leading government figures were, and his degree of involvement in wartime decisions remains controversial among historians as of 1997.[2]" From present article on H featured on WP. The citation given indicates a degree of complexity not to be found in the Italian example given. Oppose any changes at this point Irondome (talk) 00:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Its generally considered by modern historians that Hirohito was the key figure in the Japanese Government, albeit with some important constraints on his powers. The extent of his involvement in the various decisions made during the war is at times unclear, but he had enormous influence on the country's war effort when he chose to intervene or a dispute was put to him to resolve. Japan didn't really have a single "strongman" leader like most of the other major combatants had (which partly explains the disastrous decision to start a war with the US). Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

A few additions

Hi all. I have just been adding a few minor additions to the prelude and outbreak of war sections. I've fleshed out the feverish diplomatic activity that was going on in the final 48 hours before the German invasion, and Hendersons furious interview on the night of 30-31st August with Ribbentrop, on the 16 points German scam. Also that Chamberlain was deeply and personally wounded by Hitlers actions in March, and truly the scales fell from his eyes from that point. Shirer still IMO provides the most dramatic and readable account of the final days before war, and intend to add some cites from his work. Also the fact that a British ultimation was issued demanding German withdrawal, which was not mentioned in mainspace. Also added timings for the declarations of war, with the French government interestingly getting cold feet at the last moment, due to the intense and malign lobbying of Georges Bonnet, so that the French declaration was some 6 hours after Chamberlains announcement. I think this adds new information for the general reader. Also expanded the description of the Saar "offensive" a bit. Basically more a recce in force. Happy to discuss as always, but I feel these edits are reasonable and are an improvement in small detail. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that the hourly timings of the declaration of war is too much detail at this very high level, especially as it didn't make any difference. Other than that, the changes look good to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries on the edit Nick. Seemed a good idea at the time, but that was then ;) Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Main Allied leaders

I propose that in the WWII infobox under the "Main Allied leaders" section we place Franklin D. Roosevelt as the first leader listed. It makes no sense whatsoever to list Joseph Stalin first. Here are reasons why the US and Roosevelt were the leaders of the Allied coalition, thus making the change appropriate to highlight this fact. Here are the arguments to support this… for one, it's Roosevelt that's always seated in the center during every photo opp—not Stalin or Churchill—this was due to his status among the leader (not a coincident).

The United States; defeated Japan (USSR has no real part in that war), had the A-Bomb, organized the Bretton Woods Conference, the United Nations, the Marshall Plan. The US sent war aid to the Soviets (not the other way around). On the other hand, the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and then formed the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation, rejecting cooperation with Britain and France, only when Germany attacked the Soviet Union did Stalin scramble to join the western alliance. There is absolutely no justification to have Stalin first among the "Big 4" (even if it's alphabetical he would not be first), He was not the central figure in the alliance, second perhaps. --E-960 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know on what grounds the current order was decided. There is something to be said for each country to be on top. China had already been fighting Japan since the mid 1930's. The UK, was active in all theatres (like US and Russia) and had been at war with Germany since 1939. The US only joined end of 1941 (about 1/3 into the war). Such arguments would warrant moving the UK and Chinese leaders up. I can come up with no reason why Stalin should be listed first, but probably there are arguments for that too. Arnoutf (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Then we should be consistent and list both Allied and Axis leader in Alphabetical Order to avoid justifications based on historical details. --E-960 (talk) 20:29, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I doubt there is any order which will resolve the ongoing bickering which I suspect is largely due to some misplaced sense of national egocentricity. Unless someone can suggest some other clear criteria for precedence that can get a consensus (which is not likely) it should be done in Alphabetical order, if only to end this interminable quibbling. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

~~A few options..~~

Use the ordering of the original communique of the formation of the United Nations of Jan 1st 1942.

An ordering based on wartime production, tanks, aircraft, ship tonnage construction, naval and merchant.

An ordering based on military and civilian casualties.

An ordering based on length of time as a belligerent power.

An alphabetical ordering.

I know we have been here before, but maybe laying out the options based on criteria above could be productive, providing no egotistic nationalism creeps in (a major if, that, obviously) Let us just come to a definitive conclusion and be done with it. I suggest participants exercise maximum self-restraint in the conversation and stick rigidly to facts. Also it should be closely supervised by one or more admins to keep it disciplined. A vote based on the above criteria, and then an end to it. Irondome (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I imagine that the ordering here reflects the ordering of the countries when they were listed in the infobox: in that instance the USSR was placed at the top of the list as there was consensus (supported by reliable sources) that the country had played the most significant role in the Allied cause (eg, by doing the great bulk of the work of defeating Nazi Germany). As we've - happily - moved on from this in the infobox, I'd suggest simply listing the leaders alphabetically by the common name of their country (China, UK, USSR, USA for the Allies, and Germany, Italy, Japan for the Axis). It's not like it actually matters much. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Let's just stick with what we have. This is just confusing things, and is really just an excuse to reopen this dreary debate. We agreed the U.S.S.R came first. We must stick to that. The leaders should reflect their nations contributions, they are not a seperate entity. Lets just keep it simple Irondome (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

That also works for me. As I've said before, the content of the article is much more important than the infobox and we waste way too much time on it. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so can we agree on Alphabetical Order for the Allied and Axis leaders. This way we remove the debate based on historical details? --E-960 (talk) 10:08, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. Keep as is. Irondome (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, myself and another user are for Alphabetical Order. In any case, this option would give a clear justification to the order. Just looking at the ongoing debate — no one has a clue why (by what criteria) Stalin ended up on top of the list, at least with Alphabetical Order it will be clear, and will take out the historical details/debate out of the equation. I asked a specific question why Stain was first and no one can remember or defend the earlier decision. --E-960 (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually said I don't mind either way, and explained the history of the current ordering. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest the infobox about allied countries in article Allies of World War II use the same order of this. If Joseph Stalin was placed top in main article, then USSR should be also listed first in Allies of World War II. Actually, the original version of that article is USSR first then United States [2]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.42.160 (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the WWII article, I'll go ahead and set up the Alphabetical Order for both Allies and Axis, as noted this will remove the historical details/facts from the debate and will make the order completely neutral, lets try that approach. --E-960 (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Yet you've alphabetised them by their last name, which only you proposed. I note that this puts Stalin last for the Allies, which I suspect is no coincidence. As there isn't a consensus to a) change the order or b) do so in that way, I've reverted. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Whatever my position is on this issue, I'm sure that Stain was not the first among the allied leaders… those 3 pictures I included speak for themselves, I don't know what criteria was used to place him at the top of the list and by who, but Stalin was not the leader of the alliance. --E-960 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I propose a clear and simple vote for the following options:

1. Change order of Allied and Axis leaders using Alphabetical Order, going by last names.
2. Keep the order of Allied and Axis leaders as is, no changes.

--E-960 (talk) 11:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment. Whatever we do should also be applied consistently using the same rule for Axis leaders. So if we alphabetize on last name it would be Hirohito, Hitler, Mussolini in that order. Arnoutf (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep as is Irondome (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there not a way to use Javascript and randomize the order? If not, keep as is, trout the nominator for bring up a perennial topic, and move on with our lives to more productive areas. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Then lets randomize it, come on Ed, the reason this issue comes up is because no one knows the reasoning behind this stupid order (it's whatever the edits managed to push through at the time, using subjective historical arguments). If it's randomized or alphabetized then no one will ever argue about it. --E-960 (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Change order, Option 1. --E-960 (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
The reasoning behind the order is evidently the number of troops each nation contributed. The Soviets more than the Americans; the Americans more than the British (and Empire); and the British Empire more than China. I don't know why this was so hard for E-960 to figure out. Srnec (talk) 01:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully Srnec, are we kids or something? The number of troops… really? Do we all have an understanding of WWII of a sixth grader. How about the number of nuclear bombs, or the number of strategic bombers or the size of the navy, size of contributions in the Pacific and Europe (both), or the number of international agreements initiated (Bretton Woods, United Nations, Marshal Plan, Lend-Lease, etc.). I'm not trying to be disruptive, but I do see a serious error in how this information is being presented where only ONE factor is used to determine the line-up (the reason USSR fielded so many troops is because of its inherent weakness in those other areas). --E-960 (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It kind of seems like there's an issue with the way the article is being presented, then? I'm up to suggestions on how it should be worded, if "number of troops" is not satisfactory. I don't feel that it's derived from 6th language, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on a better way. Your suggestions to add various other points of information, nuclear bombs, strategic bombers, etc, is well founded and certainly plausible. But is it the representation of the word, or the word itself? Is infantry or soldiers or otherwise more suitable? Also, it's looking to get a little personal between E-960 and Srnec, which I just feel is worth pointing out. As long as the content in the article is sound and reasonable, I'm fine with competition in the talk page so that we may discuss and arrive at the best version of an article that we can, especially considering how in depth and huge this article actually is (it's actually somewhat shorter than I expected). Other than perhaps alphabetical, I'm not really understanding why there's a problem with the order representation of the data. Looking forward to your thoughts, Chewbakadog (talk) 05:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Keep as is I'm bored senseless of discussions over the infobox, and no ordering is going to be perfect. What we have hasn't sparked complaints previously and no compelling reason is being given for changing it above (especially now that E-960 has started abusing people, again), so let's stick with it. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, if the vote is "Keep as is" than that's what the community wants, but Nick-D please don't label me as abusing people, especially when I was told: "why this was so hard for E-960 to figure out". hehe… I figured it out and did not agree, in any case no one has crossed the line yet.--E-960 (talk) 16:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Western Europe (1940–41) - specifically Scandinavia

Hi. The section "Western Europe (1940–41)" has several inaccuracies:

1. Regarding the Norwegian Campaign, the articles states that "... the important harbour of Narvik temporarily was recaptured by the British...". This is incorrect as the recapturing of Narvik was carried out by British, French, Norwegian and Polish land, air and naval forces, not just British. Suggestion: That "the British" is replaced by "the Allies and Norwegians".

2. This sentence (regarding 10 May 1940) is incorrect: "That same day the United Kingdom occupied the Danish possessions of Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes to preempt a possible German invasion of the islands." Only Iceland was occupied on 10 May, the Faroes were occupied by the British on 13 April 1940 (in response to the German invasion of Denmark) and Greenland wasn't really occupied by the British at all, rather American bases were built on the island in 1940-41 and agreements were made between the Americans and local Danish officials. So, my suggestion is, to move the mention of the occupation of the Faroes close to the invasion of Denmark and change the mention of Greenland to something like "Greenland, cut off from the authorities in Copenhagen, was administrated by local civil servants. American bases were built on the island from 1940 onwards."

Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Your suggestion 1 looks good to me, but could it be simplified to just "the Allies"? Re 2; I'm not sure if Greenland really warrants that much detail? Nick-D (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps make the second statement a bitter vaguer so that it is true but not longer. Would "That same day the United Kingdom took action to preempt possible German possession of the Danish islands Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes." Arnoutf (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D:: I agree that that's somewhat a lot of details when it comes to Greenland. Something simpler would be nice, but it is a quite complicated case.

As for Narvik, how about simply replacing "by the British" with "from the Germans"? After all, to be able to recapture something, you must first lose it, and only the Norwegians had control of the port before the German invasion. It's pretty clear who fought against the Germans in Norway.

@Arnoutf:: That sentence won't do. Half my point is that the United Kingdom didn't take action against the three places the same day. Besides, Iceland wasn't a Danish island or possession in 1940. Iceland was a separate country in a personal union with Denmark. Calling Iceland "Danish" at the time is incorrect. Manxruler (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Would something like this do? "Following the fall of Denmark, the allies took action to preempt possible German possession of Iceland, Greenland and the Faroes." Arnoutf (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's closer. Although, the Americans were behind the efforts at Greenland before they joined the war on the side of the Allies, and I think the fact that Iceland and the Faroes were occupied should somehow be very briefly mentioned. We have articles, after all. Manxruler (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

How about someething along the lines of: "Following the fall of Denmark, the British occupied the Faroe Islands and Iceland, while the still-neutral United States established bases on Greenland." Manxruler (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

"Following the fall of Denmark the British occupied the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The United States, in close co-operation with the Danish envoy in Washington, established bases on Greenland". This gives some context to U.S actions. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

That sounds great. I'm all for that wording. Manxruler (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

And obviously the links provided give the back story, just the link to "Greenland in World War 2" is full of good stuff, not to mention the others. Would be an information packed sentence, that. I think U.S neutrality does not have to be mentioned, its fully covered in the link. That sentence has about an hours' reading! :) Irondome (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely. With the links the sentences work excellently. Manxruler (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

This wording also looks good to me Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me too. (Thanks all for the collaborative way in which this line was developed.) Arnoutf (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

So, if I've understood this correctly, we agree on:

1. "from the Germans"

2. "Following the fall of Denmark the British occupied the Faroe Islands and Iceland. The United States, in close co-operation with the Danish envoy in Washington, established bases on Greenland"

Would this be a correct summary? Manxruler (talk) 16:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That is my understanding, MR. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I have made the agreed adjustments. However, I had to expand it a bit to adhere to accuracy. In May 1940 the U.S agreed to protect Greenland and sent CG ships and supplies. This laid the political groundwork for bases to be established, but this did not happen until April 1941, with M. Kauffmann's audacious unilateral declaration of Greenland's independence. I hope this alteration meets with approval. Regards Irondome (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Irondome:: The Greenland bit looks good, but I thought we'd agreed to not label Iceland as a "Danish possesion". It wasn't true at that point in time. Manxruler (talk) 22:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Manxruler:: Sorry I did not notice that in the piping of Iceland when I did the Greenland amendement last night. Got a bit fixated trying to precis the complex Greenland political situation. Fixed it now so it just mentions Iceland. Hope that reads ok. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it should do now. Glad we could get this accomplished. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

What is this phrase doing in the first sentence of this article?

What is this phrase doing in the first sentence of this article? "caused by pringle tokes and Syds hookah rips" 199.87.130.130 (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

first sentence includes rubbish text

As of now, the first sentence of the article reads as follows: "World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War caused by pringle tokes and Syds hookah rips (after the recent Great War), was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945, though related conflicts began earlier." Obviously the text in bold is nonsense and should be deleted.

204.5.3.2 (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The above holds true. Someone, please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:1902:80C9:1D6D:3588:C516:FECA (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the article history, ClueBot fixed the sentence the same minute as the last disruptive edit (13:52 UTC). Did your versions somehow miss that? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is Chiang Kai-Shek listed as a 'Main Allied Leader' yet Mackenzie King of Canada or Menzies & Curtin of Australia are not?

Seriously, maybe not Australia but at least Canada should be up there. Not saying Chiang Kai-Shek shouldn't be, but it seems ridiculous that he is OVER some others.

Please read something, anything, on the Pacific War. China was one of the "big four" who dominated the Allied war effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

China massed a large army on paper, but for the most part their war "effort" was negligible. Except for a few units that were able to get supplies from the USA and Britain their army was static and paralysed. Many Chinese soldiers never fired a shot, if they even had a gun to fire. Canada was a major player in the European War, especially in the Battle of the Atlantic and the air war. Australia was a major contributer to the Western Desert and the Pacific Islands campaigns. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest you read the Second Sino-Japanese War article, which may lay to rest some of your more extravagant assertions. Irondome (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't start this discussion to argue about China's contribution but rather to state that Canada had a significant contribution, arguably more than China, and should have their leader listed as a Main Allied Leader Cairo9o9 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I would agree with Cairo9o9 that Canada made a significant contribution to the Allied effort and this needs to be recognized. Green547 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's good enough as it is. Was Canada ever referred to as part of the 'Big 4' during the war? Canada was largely subservient to Britain. 1982vdven (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

China was not one of the "Big Four" either, so that point is irrelevant. And Canada was not "subservient to Britain" in World War II, they were a close Ally, but they mad either own war effort, with many war goals not in keeping with the interests of either London or Washington DC. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

See Declaration by United Nations and note which four countries are listed first in the declaration. 1982vdven (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the Document itself, there is no mention in the Declaration of a "Big Four", much less China being one of them. So with all due respect your position is baseless on that point. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources refer to the "Big Four" who called themselves the "Four Sponsoring Governments" - France declined to participate. The Big Four wrote the UN Charter, later accepting some changes, and each one was given veto power. TFD (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating, but still irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

It certainly is relevant that the four major allied powers are referred to as the Big Four. Also relevant that only their leaders participated in the conferences directing the war. TFD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I also think its fine and reflects the consensus of many writers on the subject. To advance an alternative position, one needs to find some reliable sources that describe Canada/Australia etc this way and bring them here. Otherwise, such discussions end up going round in circles. Nickm57 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

In addition to what Nick-D has said, the idea of the "big four" (the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and China) is related to Roosevelt's notion of the Four Policemen. In pages 24-25 of The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947, John Lewis Gaddis writes: After Pearl Harbor Roosevelt toughened his position, arguing that in the immediate postwar period the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and China would have to act not as "trustees" but as "sheriffs" or "policemen" for the rest of the world. The Big Four would remove from the hands of other nations, friendly as well as hostile, all weapons more dangerous than rifles.--Khanate General ☪ talk ^{project mongol conquests} 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Canada played little role in planning and directing the war, which was done primarily by the UK, U.S. and U.S.S.R. Canada had no field marshals for example. Technically the main allied nations included China and France, and all five would therefore become permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. I would prefer all five listed. TFD (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

We had this discussion a few months ago, and the consensus was for the current listing. I reckon that the article's content is a much better topic for discussion than the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Although Canada's role did not happen to be as significant as that of the UK, US, and U.S.S.R., they did contribute quite a lot...for example at Dieppe they lost 3,000+ men in an operation devised to lessen the brunt on other allies. They participated in D-Day invasion and in numerous battles such as Ortona, Caen (important role), Monte Cassino, Scheldt Estuary, Reichswald Forest. They also helped to free the Dutch. The RCN escorted merchant vessels across the Atlantic Ocean and hunted for dangerous U-boats. The RCAF fought in the Battle of Britain and in North Africa. By the end 42,000+ Canadians had lost their lives, many more had been separated from their families. Canada spent enourmous sums ranging in the billions as part of its war effort and also participated in mass production of arms. It is hard to see why the Chinese leader is in the listing while Canadian is not, especially since China's role was limited to their own theater. For a source see ^[1] and ^[2] Green547 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The Canadians also constructed 815,729 military vehicles. For a comparison we have the T-34 mass production which was 84,070 and ~42,459 M4 Shermans fielded during WWII. Green547 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"The Canadians also designed..the Lancaster heavy bomber.." I hope someone has informed Roy Chadwicks descendants about this..Irondome (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly Canada contributed a lot relative to its population, as did dozens of other countries. It was a "world war" after all. But Canada did not plan Dieppe or the D-Day or VE Day or VJ Day, or participate in Tehran or Yalta. It left the leadership of the war effort to the UK and the other major allies. TFD (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

While it is true that Canada left the leadership of the war effort to other allies, China did as well. Out of 150,000 troops landing in Normandy, 14,000 were Canadians.^[3] Obviously, they did have a part in the planning of D-Day. Green547 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact Canadians participated in D-Day did not mean they planned it. TFD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that Canada was the third largest force participating in the Normandy landing. They fought along with the British and American toward VE day. They put up an enormous war effort (especially in production) and fought in Europe and North Africa. While it is true that Canada left the leadership of the war effort to other allies, China did as well. Hard to see WHY the Chinese leader is in the listing while Canadian is not, especially since China's role was limited to their own theater. Green547 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources which state that Canada's contribution to the war is commonly considered as significant as that of the "big four". Your personal views are not relevant. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

China was considered part of the Big 4. Incidentally, Russia was not part of the planning of D-Day and sent no troops, but was also part of the Big 4. All 4 either participated in the various summits or received reports about them. King was not even invited to participate in the Quebec summit, but was allowed to be photographed with Churchill and Roosevelt, which is in Canadian history books. TFD (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

For your information, I am not implying that Canada's contribution to the war is commonly considered as significant as that of the "big four". I am questioning the 'main allied leaders' listing in the infobox of this article. I have used several sources to back up my arguments on the matter and according to this source China was not one of the big four ^[4], yet its leader is in the listing, and Canada's is not. (Or Australia's, for that matter.)

I additionally point out two things:

The Canadians could have just sat back and said, "you know, I'm not lifting a finger until Jerry comes all the way to America." That did not happen. They willingly volunteered to participate overseas in dangerous airborne drops and brutal battles, far away from their homeland. They were up front with the British and the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and made a significant contribution, some of which I have described earlier and more information can be found here. In contrast, (and this is something which I have hinted more politely, but was not taken into account) mostly all of what the Chinese did was defend their own country.
Re:leadership of the war effort-China did not take part in planning of major world-wide operations either.

These points can be taken into consideration OR ignored. My suggestion is for the appropiate Canadian leader to be included in the infobox. Respectfully, Green547 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

None of your points seem relevant. Maybe Canada should have been invited to join the Big 4, but it was not. And at the time Canada saw itself as part of the British Empire, so its participation was virtually automatic. TFD (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Conroy claims nearly 400,000 Japanese fatalities during the Sino-Japanese war. That seems conservative, allowing for wounded, sick, and the fact that the majority of Japanese divisions were stationed on the Asian mainland, including Manchuria from 1937 the 1945. China performed a similar role to the Red Army to the Wehrmacht. The grinding down by attrition of the second most powerful Axis military force seems self evident from multiple sources. I find this line of argumentation tenuous and increasingly irrelevant. I deeply respect the Canadian contribution to final victory. But the facts point to China being vastly more effective in killing Axis forces. This is the reality. I suggest we end this thread. We have been here before. Irondome (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument that China and not Canada should be in seems to hinge largely on the assumption that China was among the "big four" in WWII.

I never heard that term in WWII context before. I tried googling. I found many references to a big 4 in WWI context, almost none in WWII context, and even those few I found more often seem to list France and not China as the fourth big one.

So can someone provide reliable sources, that there is mainstream talk about any big 4 in the context WWII, and that China is part of the 4. Otherwise much of the arguments favouring China over Canada seem to be build on an unsupported assumption. Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Try a Google Books search for "big five" "second world war".[3] Political Science for example says, "the five permanent [members of the UN Security Council] are the Big Five who had won the Second World War..." TFD (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You need an Indian high school text book which is listed well after African animals even though you explicitly include WWII in your search; and even so you do not provide any big FOUR, but a big FIVE reference. If anything this seems to support my claim. The use of the term Big four is not at all mainstream in the context of WWII. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to help you as you said you were having trouble using the Google search engine. Another source, from an academic publisher, also explains the "Big Five."[4] The point of providing you with this tool is so you can carry on with your own research.

The "Big Four" were actually the "Big Five" minus France, which chose not to accept its seat at the various summits, but nonetheless is considered one of the five main allies. The idea that Canada was one of the "Big Four" is absurd, King was not even invited to the Quebec conference where the initial plans for D-Day were approved even though he was host. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was exclusively staffed by the UK and U.S. In fact the Canadians fought as part of the UK's Second Army. If you want to argue otherwise, get a source that supports your view. Better still, read about the war, not just D-Day. You will find that the Normandy invasions were only possible because of the Soviet resistance to the Germans, the invasion of Italy and many other attacks on German strength and that the Pacific was a major theater of the war. In fact the outcome of the war had already been decided before D-Day.

TFD (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You misinterpret me. The claim I made is that the use of big four in the context of WWII is not mainstream. So my claim is largely that there are no big four, which means that Canada, nor China can be part of this non-existing group.

Re big-four/five. So far, I have only seen it mentioned in the context of the UN documents from the late 1940's. However UN was founded only after the end of WWII and there may well have been postwar geopolitical reasons drop lines like the one in the document you provide. So we preferably need a modern, mainstream historical academic defining the term. (although in my view evidence of mainstream modern usage would do as well). Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The UN was formed with the five major allies being assigned permanent positions in the Security Council with veto powers. I would prefer listing all the big 5. But no matter what you call them, only four or five countries directed the Allied war efforts, and Canada was not one of them. TFD (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

That would work if, and only if, we have evidence that the permanent positions to the security council were only assigned based on WWII involvement, and that postwar potential and future power had no role whatsoever in assigning the permanent seats. During the last year of WWII (once it was clear the allies would win) a lot of politics involved postwar organization of global power/safeguards/responsibilities. China was, like Yugoslavia, defending it's own territory. Where was it directing the allied war effort in the global theatre??? Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, the U.S.S.R was also "defending it's own territory", and did not seem to have much input into "directing the global war effort", whatever that actually means. It was following it's own path, as was China. Each nation was attempting to safeguard and reinforce it's own postwar position. Realistically, by 1943 it was the U.S.A alone that was directing the Western "global war effort". The last independent decisions and successful influence on effectively U.S devised grand strategy was arguably Churchill's ideas for attacking Fortress Europe via Italy. As has been stated several times above, this has been discussed before. Basically do you want all the Allied leaders in the info box? I thought we had reached consensus that the "big four" would be listed. That consensus still seems to stand. Irondome (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange, since China is not part of the big 4. And several people have expressed concerns re that previous consensus. Green547 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Chiang participated in the Cairo Conference 1943 and was kept informed of the discussions of the conferences it did not attend and of course participated as one of the Big Five in planning the UN, which would supposedly ensure peace after the Allies won the war. TFD (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Note the original communique of 1st January 1942. A JOINT DECLARATION BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND, THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS, CHINA, AUSTRALIA, BELGIUM, CANADA, COSTA RICA, CUBA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, EL SALVADOR, GREECE, GUATEMALA, HAITI, HONDURAS, INDIA, LUXEMBOURG, NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NICARAGUA, NORWAY, PANAMA, POLAND, SOUTH AFRICA, YUGOSLAVIA

The Governments signatory hereto,...." Also note this handwritten note on the draft; (2) A handwritten marginal note on the attachment reads: "CH 0K. It is approved now by Russia and WSC but not yet by China. FDR. Let's get it out on Jan. 1. That means speed. FDR". For a facsimile of Roosevelt redraft of the declaration incorporating the Russian amendments, see Sherwood, pp. 450-452". That indicates that a discrete group of four countries were explictly identified as having specific importance. That group included China. China certainly is part of the "big four". You will also notice the remaining nations are listed alphabetically. Irondome (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. Although I think it is necessary for someone to address the things I pointed out earlier. That said, I think this is at an end. Unless someone else has something to say. Green547 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Then there is the Moscow Declaration, and the UN charter specifically refers to "the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, 30 October 1943, and France...." TFD (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

^[5] This is an excellent essay on the political background to the U.S. motivations in having China as part of the "Big Four". Also note the usage of the explicit term Big Four, and FDR's usage of the term The four global policemen". For those interested, please follow the link. An excellent read, and lots of other material on U.S diplomacy in WW2 is there too. Irondome (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.mta.ca/library/courage/canadasroleinwwii.html
^ http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/second-world-war-wwii/
^ http://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/chrono/1931d_day_e.shtml
^ http://www.worldwar2history.info/war/Allies.html
^ Xiaohua, Ma. "The Sino-American alliance during World War II and the lifting of the Chinese exclusion acts". Google Books. Routledge. Retrieved 21 April 2015.

Possible Mistake?

Maybe I'm wrong because I don't know British English, but why does it say the length of the war is "6 year, 1 day"? Shouldn't it say 6 years because it is more than 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guhjkl4 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it should not say "6 years", and I don't think that it's a matter of "6 year" being British English. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The current infobox lists "Date: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 year, 1 day)". This should definitely state "(6 years, 1 day)". Perhaps the coding in the YMD set up has had a bit of a freak out, due to it containing multiple years and only a single day. Either way, this should be changed. - J man708 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I've just changed the date formats for the template parameters. It now gives more correct prose readout, but the spacing is now clunkier. Can anyone do better? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War

What is with the Spanish Civil war?!?!?!? What the hell! The Nationalist forces weren't fascist or authoritarian. They were oppressed people wanting to be relieved from the Communists! This is sick and wrong and should be corrected! Francisco Franco was a good Catholic man! Please edited it thanks. Cheers! 05-20-15 Kobra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobra 75 bro (talk • contribs) 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be specific about what wording in the article you find unfair? The section on the Spanish Civil War seems pretty neutral to me. I don't see the labels "fascist" or "authoritarian" applied there. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Broken atlas link

The link at the very bottom of the page leading to the atlas is broken. Correct link is here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Atlas_of_the_World_Battle_Fronts_in_Semimonthly_Phases_to_August_15_1945

If someone could please fix this, it would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.16.18.189 (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made the link an external link, but because it's to Wikisource, it may belong in another section and might get moved there soon. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Sperlinga and the iconic image of the advance of U.S. troops

During the Second World War, the special units of the American assault troops, including the Rangers and the historical 1st Infantry Division (United States), land on the beach of Sicily island e to free to free Italy from the Germans Nazis, supported by 3,200 ships and hundreds of aircraft. The July 27th, 1943 the American Special Forces allies win in a tough battle against the Germans Nazis inside the ancient castle of Sperlinga and the historic village at his feet, in the province of Enna, not far from the Mediterranean. In the medieval village of Sperlinga, built by Prince Natoli in 1597, in the district of Capostrà, was shooted the picture that will become the iconic worldwide symbol of the liberation of Italy from the Nazis by the American army. The picture shooted by Robert Capa portrays a Sicilian shepherd that show to an American special soldier and his companions the direction to hit the German Nazis troops.

about halfway down this page?. Not wanting to sound picky but Italy was under the Italian fascists as much as the German ones. Most of the troops on the island were Italian. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

?? what does? with the battle of Sperlinga ?! and the photo ?

anyhow, Italy have the fascism with Mussolini, but next when understand the Nazism concept the Italian people rebelled but was under the slave dictatorship of Nazis also with the persecution and Italian Jewish, and it was only the American army to liberate Italy and give the freedom and independence to Italy. These facts and what she says makes it even more important to the meaning that this image has had worldwide. All the Italians people was on the side of the US army. Maybe I didn't explain well these iconic photos and significance for the Italian population. I wait your and others comments about the Sperlinga photo. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That comes across as an idyllic interpretation of the causes of the Italian armistice after Italy's 4 years of war against the UK and nearly 2 against the US. Also underplays the multinational nature of the Allied force in the Italian campaign. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree: it's an obviously-posed propaganda photo with very little historic value (and arguably negative value given that it miss-represents the nature of the fighting in Sicily, where German and Italian forces fought together to defend the island), and may not be be in the public domain (and hence usable on Wikipedia) anyway given that Capa spent most of the war as a war correspondent. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

^{[citation needed]} for that very serious accusation. Rmhermen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle: should we put him in the infobox or not?

I wonder why CDG is not located in the infobox, near Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, who are quoted as being the main allied leaders. I have searched on the other Wikipedia and I saw that CDG was quoted in each infobox, except in the Portuguese one. So I would like to know if we could put CDG in that infobox or not, because I've already made it in the past, and that someone answered me that CDG could not be considered as a country leader and that it was a lost cause. --Embu wiki (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be included - most sources refer to the Big 5. There was lengthy discussion about whom to include which is now archived. TFD (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on whether to include de Gaulle. I've been on the side of not including him for the reason that this article itself barely mentions de Gaulle. What do the other articles have to say about him other than placing his name in the infobox? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

As noted last time, the Free French forces were relatively small until the very last months of the war and de Gaulle did not play a significant role in the strategic direction of the Allied war effort - for instance, he wasn't told about the timing for the liberation of France until a few days before the D-Day landings and wasn't invited to attend the Yalta or Potsdam conferences. The sources on the war I've read generally consider him a second tier at best figure during the war, and certainly don't rank him alongside FDR, Churchill, Stalin or Chiang Kai-shek. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You think in terms of military strengths, but what about the politic he led? As you know, Churchill didn't like him because he managed to do what he wanted to do and this against its will. Moreover, the fact that France has occupied with Americans, Russians and Britains a part of Germany shows well who were the main allied and victorious leaders of the war.--Embu wiki (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

France was only an occupied contry and not a leading power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.71.197 (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but and Chiang Kai-shek? Was he any different? Bertdrunk (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is the Declaration of the Four Nations in 1943 (See "The Yearbook of the United Nations":[5]) which confirmed China as one of the "Big Four" in Declaration by United Nations in 1942. France was not one of the 26 original signatory in Declaration by United Nations. Chiang is one of the three who attended Cairo Conference, issued the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration (reference:[6] "We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.") . In Franklin D. Roosevelt's original plans for the United Nations, the Four Policemen or Four powers (the US, UK, Soviet Union, and China) were the only nations allowed to possess weapons more powerful than a rifle. Hence, the United Nations was formulated among the delegations from the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and China in Dumbarton Oaks Conference in 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.163.102 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And miss the point that he barely could control his own country. Seems as arbitrary as any other draw line. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think every view may miss some point. Maybe I miss something but I did not mention the fact China was the only nation which fought with Japan from July of 1937 to December of 1941(more than 4 years). Then China fought with perhaps 3 or 4 millions (three-quarters of their manpower?) of Japanese. I cannot determine the draw line because I'm not politician or expert of International relationship. I just listed the proposal and draw line from Franklin D. Roosevelt, Yearbook of the United Nations, and some official documents like Declaration by United Nations(See Official website from UN [[7]]:"On New Year’s Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures."). I choose to trust these documents or proposal. If you disagree these,it's OK. We just have a different perspective on things. I don't try to debate with you but something like the proposal from Roosevelt and Declaration by United Nations are more convincible for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.99.163.102 (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, this is totally arbitrary. In fact, if someone compare how many times these appear in literature with things like the Big Three, it's barely noticiable. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Insert the icon image moment of the Italian freedom operations Husky

I wait your comment to insert these information about the most iconic picture of the US rescue operation against Nazi in Italy. Unluckly I don't have the rights of these photo, maybe someone can insert. The facts:

WWII and the crimes against the humanity

The brutal and ruthless murder of the European Jews, the area-covering bombings of hundreds of towns with many thousends of deads at every massive air raid, the maltreatment and killing of civilians in the occupied territories with millions of refugees and displacements of whole population groups during and after the war, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with hundred thousands of innocent victims, all these atrocities were doubtless barbaric crimes against the humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.114.39.30 (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

~~It was actually the British who bombed civilians first. (RobbieSterling (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC))~~

Aside from that not being relevant to the above, it isn't true: please see the Bombing of Wieluń article, for instance. The original post was also mistaken as the bombing of civilians was not a war crime at the time of World War II (though it is one now). The Aerial bombardment and international law article discusses this issue. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The British were the first to deliberately bomb civilians in World War II, on 11 May 1940. They invented aerial bombing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1920s. (RobbieSterling (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC))

And Weilun was bombed by the Nazis in September 1939. As for aerial bombing of cities (which almost certainly put civilians in danger), Bulgarians might have been first to do so (they bombed Adrianople in 1912). Your point being?69.142.223.83 (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Please fix sentence fragment

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Old: Though, the largest of these in Warsaw, where German soldiers massacred 200,000 civilians, as well as a national Slovak Uprising in the south did not receive Soviet support, and were put down by German forces.

New: The largest of these was in Warsaw, where German soldiers massacred 200,000 civilians. Also, a national Slovak Uprising in the south did not receive Soviet support, so was put down by German forces.

Context (New): The successful advance of Soviet troops prompted resistance forces in Poland to initiate several uprisings. The largest of these was in Warsaw, where German soldiers massacred 200,000 civilians. Also, a national Slovak Uprising in the south did not receive Soviet support, so was put down by German forces.[243] The Red Army's strategic offensive in eastern Romania cut off and destroyed the considerable German troops there and triggered a successful coup d'état in Romania and in Bulgaria, followed by those countries' shift to the Allied side.

Danielkwinsor (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Done True CRaysball | ^#RaysUp 22:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

inter-national, not global

"was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945"

The word global is misused here. Global means a war that spans the entire globe. WWII did not span the entire globe. It was inter-national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, global economy does not span Antarctica, but it's still global, isn't it? World War II did span enough countries on different continents to be called "global". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

World War II took place on or adjacent to (in the case of Antarctica) every continent, so it was a global war. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Start Date of 1937

I am an Englishman with no particular connection with China, but I think a start date of 1937 has merit and should be reconsidered.

The occupation of Manchuria can be compared with the annexation of the Sudetenland, or the rest of Czechia, in that it was barely resisted; and also because peace between nations was restored afterwards, whether it should have been or not. For these reasons they can all be considered precursor confrontations along with the invasion of Abyssinia, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese invasion of China in 1937 was as fiercely resisted as the German invasion of Poland in 1939, and China did not end hostilities with Japan until 1945, just as Britain and Free France did not end hostilities with Germany until 1945. The Tripartite Pact binding together the Axis was not signed until after each one of these invasions had already begun.

Most of the opposition to a 1937 start date seems to be based on whether the Sino-Japanese end of the conflict was big enough to warrant the term "World War", before the entry of America. This strikes me as thinner, more semantic argument then perhaps its advocates realise. "World War II" is a term of art. Even if no-one had thought to call it that, historians would still have to acknowledge somehow this war that grew from two locations- Europe and the Far East, that drew in more and more participants until a large portion of the world was engulfed, and which was uninterrupted by any peace between all parties. I think the sterility of trying to decide how much of the world makes a "World War" is well demonstrated by the contributor below.

I also suspect from some of the archived talk pages that a lot of people are shy of defying the conventional wisdom about when the war started. This doesn't seem like a very 'Wikipedia' type of approach to me. 90.195.57.233 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia type of approach is to cite reliable sources (See: WP:V). We are not allowed to draw our own conclusions (see: WP:NOR), but only to present the information already published by reliable sources. Encyclopedia Britannica says that the WII started in 1939 [8], as do most other reliable sources. Do you have some reliable sources that explicitly say the War started in 1937? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that history is written by the victor, the victor in this case didn't really get involved militarily in 1939. It is unfortunate that the Asia Pacific theatre in particular had a two year head start, but there are no major works that hold to this point of view among the victorious nations. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

As noted the start date of WWII must remain subject to historical consensus. However, the paragraph in the article does deal with this issue reasonably well--perhaps it could be better phrased. On the other hand the statement that "the victor" not being involved till 1939 is a wee bit anglo-centric. Some (perhaps a lot) might indeed say the victors did not get involved till June or December of 1941. OR in either case. Juan Riley (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

In fact, there are some sources supported 1937 claim: "Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945"[9] by Rana Mitter and Senshi Sōsho by Ministry of Defense of Japan. I think China was also one of the victors. If not, China would not be one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with veto power. Actually, all Allied Powers could be considered as the victors.

Other sources:

"The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. " (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945: 1931-1945, pg. 30)
"Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia." (A Companion to the Vietnam War, pg. 124)
"What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II." (American History the Easy Way, pg. 236)
"The Rape of Nanking:The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II" by Iris Chang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.81 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Italy

I am reluctant of including the fall of the Italian Empire as a consequence of the Allies' victory. It is certain that Italian Social Republic fell, the Kingdom of Italy fell in 1946 after a referendum.

I am also proposing to include "2 flags" for the Axis section for Benito Mussolini. One flag of the Kingdom of Italy & one flag of the Italian Social Republic.

Oh an this is for the Axis page, I suggest for "Italy" to have a "formerly" title next to it. After all, Italy became a co-belligerent in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:BC2B:9F64:ACF2:311D (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Books I've read are very clear about the collapse of the Italian Empire as being a consequence of the war, and it's hard to see how this wasn't the case: the entire Empire was conquered by Allied forces prior to September 1943, and Facist Italy's collapse was due to the defeat of their forces in various theatres. I don't think that we should complicate the infobox in that way. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right, Nick-D. From the article, Kingdom of Italy,

"Shortly after the war, civil discontent led to the Italian constitutional referendum, 1946 on whether Italy would remain a monarchy or become a republic. Italians decided to abandon the monarchy and form the Italian Republic, which is the present form of Italy today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:1C12:8246:B024:9414 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Chronology

I suggest that we mention the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War (surrender of Japan to China) on 9 September 1945 in the "Chronology" section. Also, in the same section, "surrender of Japan" could be specified "surrender of Japan to the Allies".

Sidyla Se T. L. (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC).

Why? As I understand it, the Second Sino-Japanese War was part of the broader war against Japan, and was covered by the same surrender arrangements. There were various surrender ceremonies across the Pacific, but the one in Tokyo Bay was the key one. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that the above-mentioned section discussing the various dates should mention the Act of Surrender, 9 September 1945. Sidyla Se T. L. (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC).

In some form I would not be against such a listing...but...read the surrender articles carefully (as ref'd by User:Sidyla Se T. L.). They appear to indicate that the surrender was of Japanese forces in China to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek pursuant to the Sept 2 surrender of Japan to the Supreme Commander for the Allied powers (aka MacArthur). Thus potentially twas just a formal forces surrender and the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War still was legally Sept 2? Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree - there were surrender ceremonies like that across the Pacific (for instance, the British orchestrated a major one in Singapore, and the Australian forces did the same in Borneo and Rabaul). Was the one in China really unusual or special? I also don't see a strong case to note what was really a diplomatic formality given that the war had ended in mid-August, with the important paperwork (so to speak) being signed in Tokyo Bay. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Note also that China just the other day (Sept 2 not Sept 9) had ceremonies for the 70th commemoration of the end of the war. Moreover a Chinese General was aboard the Missouri at the formal surrender Sept 2 ceremony to sign for China. And as you said there were many local formal ceremonies associated with the surrender of Japanese forces to local commanders. See Surrender of Japan#Further surrenders and continued Japanese military resistance. Perhaps User:Sidyla Se T. L. should check there to see if he is satisfied or can add additional info? Juan Riley (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

France, Charles de Gaulle Main Allied Power

France is currently not under the Main Allied Leaders section on the right hand column. I would argue that due to its inclusion in the United Nations as a veto power holding, permanant member of the Security Council, and the fact that it had regional influence zones in Germany and Austria after the war was over; it was and still should be considered a main Allied Power with General Charles de Gaulle labelled as its main commander. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CD9A:7340:40B9:BC9D:29B0:CE72 (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

There have been several discussions on the importance of France and de Gaulle, and how they should be treated in this article. Have you read the archives to see whether and how your concerns have been addressed? Dhtwiki (talk) 07:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Britain clarification

The official start date for the Battle of Britain is 10 July 1940, when the Kanalkampf intensified, operating under directions for a blockade, not August as shown. During the battle air superiority became the main aim in hope that bombing could defeat Britain: it was also a precondition for the conditionally planned Operation Sealion invasion which was more a political counter than a credible invasion plan. Multiple sources support that, but the existing text is either outdated or wrong. It also gives extraordinary prominence to a little known speech by Halifax, when Churchill's This was their finest hour was the most famous of that period.

This is the existing text:

On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this, with Lord Halifax responding "there was in his speech no suggestion that peace must be based on justice, no word of recognition that the other nations of Europe had any right to self‑determination ..."^[1] Following this, Germany began an air superiority campaign over the United Kingdom (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion.^[2] The campaign failed, and the invasion plans were cancelled by September.^[2] Frustrated, and in part in response to repeated British air raids against Berlin, Germany began a strategic bombing offensive against British cities known as the Blitz.^[3] However, the air attacks largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.

Here's a concise proposal, citing sources already in the references list:

What Churchill had already called the Battle of Britain^[4] began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbours.^[5] On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this ultimatum.^[1] In August, the German air superiority campaign failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, and a proposed invasion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September. The German strategic bombing offensive intensified as night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.^[5]

That keeps mention of Hitler's "appeal to reason" speech which had been drafted by von Ribbentrop as a peace offer, but by the time Hitler made the speech he'd decided on preparations for Operation Sealion and it came over as an ultimatum. Not so well known, and we could perhaps trim that if space is at a premium. . . dave souza, talk 01:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That new wording looks good to me (the current first para is of little value), but I'd suggest trimming "What Churchill had already called" from the start of the new para as the history of the term "Battle of Britain" isn't really necessary. Nick-D (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a considerable improvement to me. Good work. I would agree with Nick-D re "...had already...". Can I suggest adding "In August and September [or and early September] the German air superiority...". This is both more accurate (IMO) and addresses the question which would arise from the proposed revision as it stands - if the Germans failed to defeat to the RAF in August, why did it take them until the second half of September to act on this. In fact they hoped right up to 15 September - realistically or not - that air superiority might be established. (Obviously I can supply references but I am hoping that this is common ground.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, have boldly edited this in with modifications to address these points, as below. I think saying the air superiority campaign started in August leaves it open as when it failed. Hope that's ok, will be glad to see any further improvements deemed necessary. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Battle of Britain^[6] began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbours.^[5] On 19 July, Hitler again publicly offered to end the war, saying he had no desire to destroy the British Empire. The United Kingdom rejected this ultimatum.^[1] The main German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, and a proposed invasion was postponed indefinitely on 17 September. The German strategic bombing offensive intensified as night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but largely failed to disrupt the British war effort.^[5]

References

^ ^a ^b ^c "Major international events of 1940, with explanation". ibiblio.org. Retrieved 15 May 2013.
^ ^a ^b Kelly, Rees & Shuter 1998, p. 38.
^ The Battle of Britain: The Last Phase THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1957
^ Keegan 1997, p. 72
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Murray 1983, The Battle of Britain
^ Keegan 1997, p. 72

The addition of war generals under Allied and Axis leaders

Because generals in WWII were the ones commanding infantry, it might be desirable to add these generals to the infobox along with the heads of state of governments involved in the war. This would be useful for students researching WWII. Should we add them? The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 06:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so - very large numbers would need to be added, and this wouldn't be helpful to readers. The political leaders were the key figures in the governments of the countries. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Please start with adding the essential generals Henri Winkelman and Godfried van Voorst tot Voorst ;-)

But no kidding, the list would be incredibly long even if we limited ourselves to four star generals (such as aforementioned Winkelman) who generally did NOT command infantry but considerably larger units (i.e. an army). Arnoutf (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nick-D: We would only add the most substantial and notable generals like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Georgy Zhukov, and Erwin Rommel. The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs) 21:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

And who would decide who are substantial and notable generals. Henri Winkelman was commander in chief of all armed forces of a country so definitely notable and substantial, in fact (arguably) a more substantial general than either, Zhukov, Rommel, Eisenhower or Montgomery who never were commander in chief of all armed forces of a country (during WWII).

And no, of course Winkelman should not be listed, the example illustrates the potentially endless POV discussions we would get into if we go this way. Arnoutf (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Should be limited to basically heads of state. Separate articles can list for battles or theaters the generals. Juan Riley (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hideki Tojo

I tried adding him to the list of main Axis leaders but it was reverted and I was told to start a discussion here. I think he should be added because he was responsible for most Japanese military operations including Pearl Harbor which started the war between the US and Japan in the first place. He was also the one convicted of war crimes after the war instead of Hirohito. Hirohito should also be kept in the list, but I feel Tojo should also be added too. What do you think? The StormCatcher (talk) (contribs)

My understanding is that Hirohito is generally regarded by modern historians as having been the key figure in the Japanese government throughout the war - he's no longer regarded as having been a figurehead, and it's well known that he only escaped prosecution at the end of the war as the Allies were worried that doing so would lead to widespread unrest. The consensus from previous discussions has been to add the most important leader for the major combatants, and I think that's Hirohito. Tojo was certainly significant, but not as much as Hirohito was - especially as he resigned a bit over a year before the end of the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm also deem that Hirohito Emperor Shōwa are the most war crimes than other Japanese fascism, Hideki Tojo was just one of the 14 war criminals that imitability the emperor's political system leader, his privileges rule was in spite of dominated by emperor. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Antonescu

Hello, I have a proposal: How about you also put Marshal Ion Antonescu in the Axis leaders category? I mean, if you put the top 4 Allied leaders, you got to put the Top 4 Axis leaders too, right? And as far as I know, Antonescu was the leader of the 4th most important Axis country, and the third most important in Europe. That empty space below Mussolini just begs to be filled, and Antonescu is the most plausible candidate for that.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The actual contribution of Romania to axis war effort seems to have been largely limited to the ill fated Stalingrad siege. Neither before, after, nor politically did Romania play a major role. So I see no reason to add Romanian leaders. (NB after considerable discussion it was decided not to add France, which (under the Gaulle) had an important contribution to allied success (at least politically).

Also note that sometimes the world is just asymmetrical - and the current list reflects that - so I do not see any empty spaces begging to be filled. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. We went to Crimea, and to the Caucasus. Don't group us with the Hungarians and the Italians, who simply stopped at Stalingrad. Unlike them, we went all the way! We played an important part in the Capture of Sevastopol and the overall fighting in the Crimea. When the Romanian 2nd Mountain Division occupied Nalchik in the Caucasus, was the most Eastern point reached by the Axis, at that moment at least. How is that not something major? Or us supplying over a third of the total Axis fuel, how is that not something major? Or us contributing a force larger than all Germany's allies combined, how is that not something major? Or German troops being under nominal Romanian command (the 11th Army under Antonescu as part of Army Group Antonescu at the start of Barbarossa and the 6th Army under Dumitrescu as part of Army Group Dumitrescu from April to August 1944. Check the list of Army Gropus if you don't believe me.). Also out of the 43 foreigners who were awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, 18 were Romanians, and only 8 Italians! That means that our command was much better, at least according to the Germans. There was also the siege of Odessa. The only Soviet Hero City, and one of the original 4, that was captured by mainly a non-German Axis force, another major thing! It is understandable that you did not add France, since France did next to nothing compared to Romania. I dare say that not even Italy did as much as we did, and yet they still got a place among the commanders! It is a common mistake that, in a conflict, more credit to be inherently given to the Great Powers, even if there are non-Great Powers that had a greater impact. Think at Romania in the context of World War 2, not in the general, stereotypical context. I just gave you 6 strong reasons for us to be considered as playing a major role. And that was just scratching the surface. If you don't want to understand, and don't want to put the Romanian leader in his rightful, well deserved place, then I'm sorry, but you're just biased.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Italians acted in the African and European theatres of War during many operations; as did the Free French under the Gaulle. The Romanians seem to have been only heavily involved in operation Barbarossa (where much of their military power was lost). Also the Italians and French had some political power in global negotiations.

So unless you can bring up other operations besides Barbarossa with major Romanian forces involved (outside Europe), as well as major political influence on the global development of the war, I do not see how the Romanians were a major Axis power (both military (only during one operation) and global political (no evidence of that at all), during most of the war (since their involved started late and effectively ended with the losses during Barbarossa) Arnoutf (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The Italians often had massive casualties when fighting others. Hell, they made us seem like proffessional fighters! And give me a brake with political power, I'm talking about real merits here, as in action in the field, real, concrete stuff. And what you mean by "single operation"? We fought in Barbarossa, Case Blue, Stalingrad and subsequent Operations: (Crimean Offensive, Dneipr Carpathian Offensive and the 2 Jassy Kishinev Offensives). And we had 2 separate Armies with their own command, we were not attachments. Italy ceased it's fighting in the East in 1943 while we continued until 1944. Yes, they also had troops in Africa, but they were mostly under direct German command and as I said before didn't fare well enough to make Italy deserve the name of "major power". I don't say we fared better, oh wait, we did! The much greater number of German decorations for Romania proves it! But let's talk a bit about Antonescu himself, because he's that deserves to be there. Well, to begin with, he was the only foreigner that Hitler consulted on military matters (From this point of view alone we should be on top of Italy!) and was also the very first foreigner to be awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross (Not that potato-head Mussolini, another clear example of Romania under Antonescu being a major Axis Power!). Finally, you want to go to the politics huh? Well, after the invasion of Yugoslavia, Hitler wanted to give the Serbian Banat to Hungary. But Antonescu opposed and told Hitler to keep the Hungarian Army out of the Banat. And guess what? Hitler complied! Look, it doesn't matter that Hitler was the ruler of Germany and Antonescu was ruler of Romania. Their relationship was based first and above all on military virtue, and by that virtue, a flimsy Corporal like Hitler must obey a proven General like Antonescu. Plus that Antonescu is the Axis leader that met Hitler for the most times. As in yeah, more than Mussolini! Just please, give him and my country the place they deserve! I don't think I'm asking for too much, or for something that isn't normal.

Romania had very little influence on the Axis war strategy. We don't need to list Antonescu to create some kind of false balance: the Allies had the "big four", and the Axis didn't. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what really bothers me? That some time ago, not only Antonescu, bu also Hungary's Horthy was among the Axis leaders! You could have added de Gaulle on the allied list and make much more people happy! But no, making things as simple and stereotypical as possible and disregarding the efforts of others was much more important than making more people happy! You just HAD to be ignorant assholes and delete Antonescu and Horthy, didn't you? And what do you mean by "very little influence"? It is because Romania that Hitler took Crimea, so our oil fields he relied on so much would not be in danger! You say we didn't have major influence? Well after we defected on 23 August, the war was shortened by as much as 6 months! In what universe does that not translate as major influence? In what universe?

Please, stop this non sense. Romanian-and-proud, instead of trying to convince some editors, you should find in current historiography, and show us, the source of your assertions, that is some historian placing Antonescu and Horthy among the Axis leaders. Carlotm (talk) 08:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense?...Wow, do you have any idea just how hypocritical you sound right now? Everything that I said, all of my sources, come from the Wiki itself. I used in my arguments only what I found on the Wiki articles, and I can give you a list of those articles if you don't believe me. You don't trust the Wiki sources? Well no wonder, as long as the Wiki is run by ignorant, stereotypical people that refuse to give other countries the place they deserve, and stereotypically put the Great Powers above them, even if they don't deserve it. But I guess it's useless to continue this though, I obviously can't get you to think outside the box, so I'll just leave it like that. But it's sad, you people need to change, to open up...Meanwhile, I will never doubt the place of my country. I know who we are, what we did and what we deserve, and I will never cease to defend what rightfully is Romania's. LONG LIVE THE GREAT ROMANIA!

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Romanian-and-proud you are violating about everything in a number of central Wikipedia policies. Notably assume good faith, civility, neutral point of view and possibly conflict of interest the latter two strongly suggested by the ending shouted statement in your last post. Such behavior undermines, rather than strengthens the content of your posts and may even lead to sanctions. So stop that.

Content wise. I think Carlotm is a bit overly limited in their definition of leader. Yes Antonescu was an Axis leader. On the other hand, Charlotte, Grand Duchess of Luxembourg was an allied leader (as were Wilhelmina of the Netherlands and Leopold III of Belgium). Nobody suggests to add those. Some time ago we agreed to add only the most important leaders, those who, by today's mainstream historians are considered the key leaders. This is exactly the type of editorial decisions that Wikipedia MUST make to be a relevant tertiary source.

If you think Antonescu should be added, it is up to you to provide evidence that mainstream historian consensus list him as one the four Axis powers. If you cannot provide such evidence, you will not change current consensus and you should stop wasting everybody's time. Arnoutf (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Most "mainstream historians" are American, trying to get something from them that is not related to a Great Power is like trying to get fresh water from the Dead Sea. I just gave you enough reasons, if you actually bothered to read, for any reasonable, rational person to consider Antonescu as a main leader. Therefore, I consider that I did my part and now it's only up to you to understand. And all of those reasons, I took them from Wiki articles that I did not edit in any way, so if all those articles were according to "mainstream historians", then I see absolutely no problem, no reason to not add Antonescu. If not, then you are an immense hypocrite, because you ask me to provide for an article what maybe is not provided for all the articles I used as a source: Operation Munchen (Army Group Antonescu), Siege of Odessa and Hero City, Crimean Campaign Siege of Sevastopol, Case Blue, Nalchik, Crimean Offensive, Dnieper–Carpathian Offensive, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive (Army Group Dumitrescu), List of foreign recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross and obviously, Ion Antonescu, and many others. Look, I more than did my part, now it's time for you to do yours. And that's my final word on it. It's the National Day of my country, I got to watch the parade and feel good. Now goodbye to you.

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 09:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank for that flat out refusal to conform to one of the most central of all Wikipedia policies: WP:RS. You did your part and have not provided a single argument that passes the quality criteria of Wikipedia. I think we can close this as a clear case of no-consensus for change. Arnoutf (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Juan Riley (talk) I just gave you TWO, not one, but TWO historians that say Romania, and by implication Antonescu, had a major role! Why can't you just leave him alone, let him have the place he deserves? I never saw ONE source for Mussolini, yet I put TWO for Antonescu! Moreover, he's one of the 4 main Axis leaders who's name appears in the article itself! And in the same sentence, it says that Romania made a MAJOR contribution! MAJOR! Why you imply that I am at fault for doing what's normal, why you are against my country and it's leader get what they deserve? Why?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 19:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't edit Wikipedia on the basis of nationalistic views. Please stop edit warring. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think my message was not clearly understood. I will repeat myself again, and this time, I will do it calmly and as explicitly as possible. I stated the fact that Antonescu was a major leader and expect him to be treated as such, first and above all because of Wiki. I knew about him, before researching the Wiki, but I had no idea he did so much, that my country did so much! I resent the fact that you refuse to include him in the "Main Aixs leaders" category because there is absolutely no reason not to. At first, I tried to give you the 10+ Wiki articles that led me to believe he was one of the main ones. But you ignored everything and told me to come with quotes from historians. I did just that, and you STILL refuse to give him and my country his rightful place. Why? I did exactly as you said, you DO realize that that's hypocrisy, and is totally counter-productive to the article, right? Anyways, I did start to research, and found out British Historian Dennis Deletant. He describes Romania's contribution to the war as that of "a principal ally of Germany", as opposed to a "minor Axis satellite." another British historian, whom you quoted several times, Gerhard Weinberg, states in page 531 of his book, "A World At Arms" that "Romania was always treated as a major ally by Hitler". Yes, a mainstream historian as you requested and that you yourselves quoted several times in the article, used the word "major" to refer to Romania as an Axis member. And to top it all, there is a line, in the article itself, that says that "Romania would made a major contribution", emphasis on "major"! So again...what any more evidence do you need? I insist that you give me one good reason, considering all what I said in this paragraph, that Antonescu should not be considered a major ally. Nick-D, what do you mean by "nationalistic"? These 2 historians are by no means Romanian, they're British. They said Antonescu was a major leader, Hitler treated him like a major leader, why can't you do the same?

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Well for a start we are not Hitler (thank Gd) and we are not two British historians. We are all volunteers with some knowledge of the subject. You are falling into the trap of WP:UNDUE, which is a fallacy based on an attempt to posit a major point on a minority view of sources, or indeed a minority view. Now I have not seen Romania up there as a major Axis power in sources, because she did not have the capacity to fight major independent campaigns by air, land and sea, as opposed to Italy and Japan. Whether Italy often got kicked is irrelevant. She had the power projection. Romania provided much cannon-fodder in 1941-42 and was militarily broken thereafter. She was basically an oil and blood bank for Hitler. The "Hitler was always treated as a major ally by Hitler" quote does not make Romania a major power. Hitler often had funny ideas, as we all know. I would like to see the quote in its full context. I hope that clarifies some points. Irondome (talk) 16:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Well...I do admit that maybe I wasn't aware of all aspects. Still though, the main reason I want Romania to be call a Major power...is because I had enough to see us being called a minor! Sure, I guess you're right, we may have not been good enough to be called a major player, but STILL, we did WAY too much for us to be called minor! We were the only German allies that in the East, went all the way! The Hungarians and Italians stopped at Stalingrad, we went all the way to the Caucasus and also Crimea. Italy and Hungary were the first to fall, we resisted with the Russians on our land for months! There's also the fact that we commited more troops against USSR than all other German allies combined! You don't need to call us a major player, but for God's sake, don't call us minor either! We clearly did much more than the rest of the minor ones, and deserve better than that. Can't you just call us midway or something? I never liked this "minor" and "major" bipolarity, it only makes people look lazy, ignorant, and careless... :(

Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Now we are getting somewhere. I think the tone of your response indicates that you will be a useful colleague, when you learn the ropes, as we all did, and do..now, this problem has come up in varying ways many times before. How about the status of Hungary, or Croatia as axis allies? Note that Australia is also not on the Allies' list, but no one in their right mind would doubt the huge contribution that Aus made. Just being on that list does not presuppose a great story, and great sacrifice is absent. I think you should help out with Romanian articles, but FFS bear in mind WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:EDITWAR. And join MILHIST which will enhance your credibility. All newbies get this treatment at first. I sense you will do ok. Don't push the Romanian POV too hard either. You can be proud, and still maintain strong WP:NPOV. Please read the links I have given you. It will seriously help you out here. Irondome (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou...And I did modify a few articles. In Operation Uranus, for instance, there were only German commanders listed, but it was the Romanian Army that took the brunt of the offensive, and having no commander seemed unfair to me, so I made things right. Also, in the Kerch–Eltigen Operation, the result was labeled as "German defensive victory", that despite the active and significant contribution of Romanian troops. So I changed "German" to "Axis", to be just and fair to everyone. Romanian-and-proud (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Greece at war with the Axis

Greece entered WWII in October 28th 1940, and was fighting the Axis until its capture by German forces in late April 1941. Since Greece was an ally of the UK, the following passage in the lead is incorrect:

For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth were the only Allied forces continuing the fight against the European Axis powers (...)

Nxavar (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know Greece was neutral until October 1940. So it would be a few months indeed; and Yugoslavia joined the allies after being invaded in April 1941. I guess the June 1941 allied entry would be Soviet Union.

We might perhaps rephrase as "For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom was the only Allied great power continuing the fight against the European Axis powers" or "From late June 1940 until the Soviet Union entry in the war, the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth were the main Allied powers continuing the fight against the European Axis powers" Arnoutf (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Greece was a UK ally before entering the war. Saying that Greece was not a "main Allied power" is a bit biased. Greece held back the Italian invading forces for 5 and a half months. Because the situation was rather complicated, I believe it is a good idea to remove that passage altogether. Nxavar (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

What about this:

For a year starting in late June 1940, the United Kingdom (........) as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic. However the war was spreading in the Balkans where the Germans decided to strengthen their positions ahead of Barbarossa and as a patch-up of the ill organized invasion of Greece by Mussolini Italy; hence Yugoslavia and Greece were heavily involved on the side of the Allied powers, having to defend their territory from overwhelming German forces, without success.

Carlotm (talk) 03:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

a) The edit preserves the wrong claim that is already in the lead. A good alternative should not contain false information. The problematic passage is not just inaccurate, in which case adding a clarification is an improvement. Greece must be included in the list of countries fighting the Axis in Europe in that period.

b) The edit does not say when Greece got involved in the conflict. The clarification is inadequate. Nxavar (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Can we try

The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth continued the fight against the European Axis powers in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, the aerial Battle of Britain and the Blitz bombing campaign, as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic. Early 1941 Axis forces conquered most of the allied Balkan countries. In June 1941, the European Axis powers launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theatre of war in history, which trapped the major part of the Axis' military forces into a war of attrition. (...)

The Balkan campaign hyperlink provides the dates for Greece, Albania and Yugoslavia. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

This is very good. The only problem is that "early 1941" must be changed to "mid 1941" (the Germans invaded Greece in April 1941). Nxavar (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy with any suggestion for the early phrase. Perhaps "Between April and June 1941 Axis forces conquered..." Arnoutf (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to mention China was the only country fighting with the Asian Axis power Japan in that period as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513

@Arnoutf: No problem with that. Nxavar (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to implement the agreed changes. If the non-signing editor wants to discuss China status, I would suggest they start a new thread with a clear proposal how to adjust the text. Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxavar: @Arnoutf: I'm the previous non-signing editor. My ip address is too long (2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513). I suggest to mention China was the only country fighting with the Asian Axis power Japan in that period as well but I don't have a clear proposal how to adjust.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6b45:500:9978:3dfe:1cd6:a513

With Arnoutf's edit, no mention is made about someone fighting the Axis forces alone at some point. This had some sense when the list was (erroneously) short. I don't think this is appropriate anymore, because the lead should be short and making detailed accounts of secondary facts is discouraged. Nxavar (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

@Nxavar: I mean I just propose a simple mention the fact that the war between Japan and China was still continued in that time. I never asked for a detailed accounts. It just needs a short sentence or even just some words (5 or 6 words). However, this is just my suggestion. I don't have the right to determine which is primary or secondary. By previous non-signing editor

Since the information is false, it must be removed immediately. I made a stop-gap edit. Nxavar (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Repetition

The second last edit by Steverci repeats, in part, facts already exposed a little later. It all should be fused in one location. Moreover Steverci's text uses a term "attacked" that should be restricted, especially in a page like this, to actions strictly military in nature. Carlotm (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. I'll undo it. --Steverci (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor attack during World War Two

Why Japanese Fascist want to make an perfect surprise attack in Hawaii during World War Two??? SA 13 Bro (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't a surprise attack. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:18, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

US financiers who helped Nazis

Mention the fact that some rich American robber barons, like Henry Ford, and corporations helped the Nazis before and during WW 1&2: Ferdinand Lundberg "The Rich and the Super Rich" 1968, Bantam Books, page 152; and many books mentioned in Third World Traveler; one is "Wall Street and The Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton. Pepper9798 (talk) 17:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a good idea as it is really a detail compared to the scale of the conflict. Also limiting this to US backers of Nazism introduces bias. Arnoutf (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Pepper9798 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with Arnoutf. It is a detail worth of inclusion, since financing is very important for military operations. There is also no issue of "limiting this to the US" since Wikipedia is a work in progress. If some material does not represent a global view of the subject, it is no reason for removal or omission of content, but of need for further research and expansion. Nxavar (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is that this information may be WP:UNDUE in any case and may strengthen already existingWP:Systemic bias if we limit this to the US. So either we add a section on financial backers or we don't, but we simply cannot start by providing biased information first in the hopes it will get better.

While Wikipedia is indeed work in progress; it is not progress to introduce biased views, neither is it progress to keep expanding articles beyond a readable article size (maximum is advised not to be more than 100,000 bytes, WWII is well over 200,000). If anything the current article could do without a lot of the details currently already included. I would argue both approaches would constitue a step backwards i.e. the opposite of progress. Arnoutf (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly right. Any financial support from US countries would pale into total insignificance compared to the financial support from German companies. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

[1] On the Allied side, this would be the United States, Soviet Union, and United Kingdom (preferably in randomized order); including five would add China and France. For the Axis, it would be Germany, Japan, and Italy.

[13] ttp://www.mta.ca/library/courage/canadasroleinwwii.html

[14] ttp://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/second-world-war-wwii/

[15] ttp://www.warmuseum.ca/cwm/exhibitions/chrono/1931d_day_e.shtml

[16] ttp://www.worldwar2history.info/war/Allies.html

[17] Xiaohua, Ma. "The Sino-American alliance during World War II and the lifting of the Chinese exclusion acts". Google Books. Routledge. Retrieved 21 April 2015.

[ibiblio_1940-18] "Major international events of 1940, with explanation". ibiblio.org. Retrieved 15 May 2013.

[autogenerated38-19] Kelly, Rees & Shuter 1998, p. 38.

[20] The Battle of Britain: The Last Phase THE DEFENSE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1957

[21] Keegan 1997, p. 72

[Murray_BoB-22] Murray 1983, The Battle of Britain

[23] Keegan 1997, p. 72

[1]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[j]

[k]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]