This is an archive of past discussions. 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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Can anybody comment on this addition [1]? Anyway, even if Truman is accepted, Churchill cannot go after him. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose to make a strategic decision about figures in this section. I find illogical when killing of 6 million Jews or several million of other civilians are mentioned along with killing of several thousands of others. I agree that Katyn or Vohlyn massacre were separate events, however, killing of 6 million Jews was a series of single events too. Why do we combine some events under a single umbrella name and explicitly mention few others? Thus, the section says about "millions of other Slavs", and then it specifically mentions 200,000 ethnic Serbs. What is the reason to separate ethnic Serbs from other Slavs?
I propose to remove these figures, and add just to list those Nazi collaborators (Ustaces, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian and other nationalists) who were engaged in mass execution of civilians.
In addition, if population transfer in the USSR is mentioned, the story about deportation of ethnic Japanese in the USA should be mentioned too.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, this is getting old, are you now the article 'decider' because for the past 2 months or so, you hit this article by storm, all you are doing is either trying to change everything in the article or challenge things. And, it's really annoying to see all those red herring arguments, above you mentioned that there is nothing about the internment of Japanese-Americans, so I said you should put that in, but all of a sudden you are not interested in doing that, so that was just a excuse to attack the new sentence. This is Wikipedia, so stop trying to "fix" everything, because by nature of the process you will never have a "perfect" paragraph in each section. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Soviet deportations and Japanese American internment aren't really comparable, hundreds of thousands of Soviet deportees died. I am not necessarily opposed to inclusion of Japanese American internment, but drawing any equivalence with Soviet deportations would be blatant Stalin apologia. Also I don't really see much point listing separate collaborators, as Nazis recruited collaborators among almost all the nations they occupied except Jews.-- Staberinde ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The text ignores German bombings in Poland, it describes British and German victims.
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need more alliance members listed J.Greeny123459 ( talk) 07:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can I please get permission to edit this source? I'm only going to either add in info or edit things that were written to make them better. Pixelgun3dhacker ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that the Kursk battle is mentioned only passingly. To the best of my knowledge, this was the largest tank battle of the II World War; and it would be advisable to devote at least a short paragraph to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efroimsk ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change nether belligerent
to neither belligerent
because typo
83.31.88.249 (
talk) 16:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried to look for an additional book dealing with the WWII in this bibliography. But the bibliography contains ca. 240 titles. It is therefore totally useless. I would propose to delete 200 of this titles. Nearly 40 titles are sufficient to get more informations about this subjekt. Kind regards -- Orik ( talk) 18:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this edit, because we cannot have too many photos in this section. Meanwhile, I am wondering what purpose the Cairo photo serves in this section. The meeting with Chinese leader was not the most important event, Tehran conference was much more important. By saying that, I don't propose to replace this photo with the photo og the Big Three. Any ideas?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Oxford historian Rana Mitter is an authority on the role of China and the positive peer reception of his Forgotten Ally: China’s War with Japan, 1937-45 (2013) did a lot to revise the mainstream view. That will be a useful source for us at this juncture. In many interviews online, Mitter talks about the book, the addition of Wang Jingwei to Mao and Chiang, Stalin's pragmatic assistance to Chiang, and Chiang's 4 million troops fighting Japan; e.g. here: [5] - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I removed the Cairo image as redundant. I also propose to think about Casablanca: this was a meeting between just two Allied leaders, and no important agreements were achieved there.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The use of Indigenous languages also became a technological device as part of Canada's and US's communications. Indigenous members of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps developed for transmitting vital messages in WW2. Know as " code talkers", their role was similar to the American First Nations who spoke Navajo and were know as “ Windtalkers”. [7] JIllPrice ( talk) 16:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Seems to be an omission in such a comprehensive article that goes into so much detail on other topics. Code-breaking gets a passing mention as part of the 'Technology' section but afaics there's nothing on e.g. the Double-Cross System and Operation Scherhorn, etc. I hereby call for a dedicated section, and invite drafting below for discussion. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Author(s) | Title | Publisher | Date | Notes |
Babington-Smith, Constance | Air Spy: The Story of Photo Intelligence in World War II | — | 1957 | — |
Berg, Moe | The Catcher Was a Spy: The Mysterious Life of Moe Berg | Vintage Books | 1994 | — Major league baseball player and OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Yugoslavia |
Bryden, John | Best-Kept Secret: Canadian Secret Intelligence in the Second World War | Lester | 1993 | — |
Doundoulakis, Helias | Trained to be an OSS Spy | Xlibris | 2014 | OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Greece |
Hall, Virginia | The Spy with the Wooden Leg: The Story of Virginia Hall | Alma Little | 2012 | SOE and OSS spy in France |
Hinsley, F. H. and Alan Stripp | Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park | — | 2001 | — |
Hinsley, F. H. | British Intelligence in the Second World War | — | 1996 | Abridged version of multivolume official history. |
Hohne, Heinz | Canaris: Hitler's Master Spy | — | 1979 | — |
Jones, R. V. | The Wizard War: British Scientific Intelligence 1939–1945 | — | 1978 | — |
Kahn, David | Hitler's Spies: German Military Intelligence in World War II | — | 1978 | — |
Kahn, David | Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes, 1939–1943 | — | 1991 | FACE |
Kitson, Simon | The Hunt for Nazi Spies: Fighting Espionage in Vichy France | — | 2008 | |
Leigh Fermor, Patrick | Abducting a General: The Kreipe Operation in Crete | New York Review Books | 2015 | SOE spy who abducted General Kreipe from Crete |
Lewin, Ronald | The American Magic: Codes, Ciphers and the Defeat of Japan | — | 1982 | — |
Masterman, J. C. | The Double Cross System in the War of 1935 to 1945 | Yale | 1972 | — |
Persico, Joseph | Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage | — | 2001 | — |
Persico, Joseph | Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey-From the OSS to the CIA | — | 1991 | — |
Pinck, Dan | Journey to Peking: A Secret Agent in Wartime China | US Naval Institute Press | 2003 | OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Hong Kong, China, during WWII |
Ronnie, Art | Counterfeit Hero: Fritz Duquesne, Adventurer and Spy | — | 1995 | ISBN 1-55750-733-3 |
Sayers, Michael & Albert E. Kahn | Sabotage! The Secret War Against America | — | 1942 | — |
Smith, Richard Harris | OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency | — | 2005 | — |
Stanley, Roy M. | World War II Photo Intelligence | — | 1981 | — |
Wark, Wesley | The Ultimate Enemy: British Intelligence and Nazi Germany, 1933–1939 | — | 1985 | — |
Wark, Wesley | "Cryptographic Innocence: The Origins of Signals Intelligence in Canada in the Second World War" in Journal of Contemporary History 22 | — | 1987 | — |
West, Nigel | Secret War: The Story of SOE, Britain's Wartime Sabotage Organization | — | 1992 | — |
Winterbotham, F. W. | The Ultra Secret | Harper & Row | 1974 | — |
Winterbotham, F. W. | The Nazi Connection | Harper & Row | 1978 | — |
Cowburn, B. | No Cloak No Dagger | Brown, Watson, Ltd. | 1960 | — |
Wohlstetter, Roberta | Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision | — | 1962 | — |
Thanks - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the name of consensus I'd hoped we could all chip in for content, but I'm happy to start the brainstorm if that's what you want. Here's a start:
====The intelligence war====
Cryptography and SIGINT was used extensively during World War II, with a plethora of code and cipher systems fielded by the nations involved. The break into the most secure Japanese diplomatic cipher, designated "PURPLE" by the US Army Signals Intelligence Service, started before the US entered the war. Product from this source was called Magic; the Japanese Ambassador to Germany, General Hiroshi Ōshima, routinely sent information about German plans to Tokyo which was immediately read by Roosevelt and Churchill. Decryption by the Allies of the German "Enigma" Cipher created product named Ultra. The first complete break into Enigma was accomplished in 1932 by the Poles, who passed their technology and methodology to the French and British in July 1939, and evacuated their team of code-breakers at the start of the war to continue their work. Ultra contributed to many Allied victories, including the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Kursk.
Churchill's order to "set Europe ablaze" was undertaken by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), which developed a plan to train HUMINT spies, guerrillas and saboteurs for deployment in occupied Europe; eventually, this would become the Special Operations Executive. America had no overarching military intelligence agency until Roosevelt, inspired by the British, started the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI) which in 1942 became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which after the war became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [1] [2] The Soviet NKVD had been well-established for many years before the war, and its staff were Stalin's most trusted personnel; agents included Richard Sorge, who accurately reported that Japan had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, and double-agent Kim Philby, a senior SIS officer with access to most of Britain's intelligence reports. NKVD operatives were also crucial to partisan warfare and the establishment of Soviet power in Eastern Europe toward the end of the war.
References
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"The Soviet NKVD had been well-established for many years before the war"
This seems to be an exaggeration. The NKVD was active from 1934 to 1946. The previous secret police was the Joint State Political Directorate (1923-1934), which was itself preceded by the State Political Directorate (1922-1923), the Cheka (1917-1922), the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee (1917), and the Okhrana (1881-1917). Dimadick ( talk) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So at least three options:
(i) "The Soviet NKVD had been well-established before the war"
(ii) "The Soviet NKVD had been well-established before the war, and was preceded by the Joint State Political Directorate (1923-1934), which was itself preceded by the State Political Directorate (1922-1923), the Cheka (1917-1922), the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee (1917), and the Okhrana (1881-1917)
(iii) "The Soviet NKVD was the culmination of many years of the absolute power of the Russian state, which had masterfully pioneered tactics such as " maskirovka", " spetsoperatsiya", false flag, " aktivniyye meropriyatiya", " kompromat", "provokatsiya" and " mokroye delo". Run by Stalin's right-hand-man Lavrentiy Beria, it was not just the USSR's primary intelligence organization, but also the Interior Ministry of the Soviet Union, with a monopoly on law enforcement (when it merged with the secret police OGPU in 1934), operation of the Gulags, political repression including extrajudicial mass killings of perceived and real enemies, cooperation with the Gestapo and Denazification; during the war it took its methods abroad and even had its own front-line divisions.
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't support the proposed text at all. It's focused on various individuals, when the intelligence war was conducted on an industrial scale. The text also makes no mention of the Axis intelligence efforts (which were quite successful until about 1943) and their attempts at sabotage campaigns (which were total failures). Nick-D ( talk) 07:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"Axis intelligence efforts" You can find some material on the Gestapo (secret police), the Foreign Armies East (military intelligence organization), the Sicherheitsdienst (intelligence agency of the SS), the Abwehr (Wehrmacht military intelligence), the Geheime Feldpolizei (Wehrmacht secret police), and the Sicherheitspolizei (security police) on their respective articles. We also have an incomplete List of German spies, divided by period. Dimadick ( talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D, I hope you're well. I'm keeping my word, and bringing this issue to conclusion. It's been over one week since you said you need time to go and research and write your preferred text. I have held back from editing the article out of respect for that. During this time you have not responded to my request for an indication of when you you are going to get back with said text. During this time you have not striked through the sentence in which you alleged I was "snide". I've explained above that this was a misinterpretation, and that Wikipedia standards are at stake. We are all bound by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You are further bound by WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, etc. I am not going to strike out your line myself, out of respect for boundaries. With the absence of a civility noticeboard at this time there are very few options left other than requesting the involvement of other administrators. Per WP:BOOMERANG I would invite scrutiny of my own conduct. The request would include the information that you have made the 2nd biggest number of edits on this article [6] and have been editing this article for 12 years and 457 edits, which were mostly deletions of content, the majority of which in the last three years were hard reverts [7]. This is evidence of your great work; it might also have become significant with regard to your stance here. I say this to give you a friendly and collegial explanation and notice for my next step before I take it. That will be within the next 24 hours or so. I still hope that before then you will be able to strike through the line, in order to maintain Wikipedia standards. I would be most grateful, and would look forward to continuing to support your work in the future. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
References
I removed the mention of 200k civilians killed in Warsaw, because we do not provide this type figures in the Course of the War section. Should we add this information to the War crimes section?
The only serious problem that I see in this section is the image from Warsaw uprising. This event (more precisely, the behaviour of Soviet leadership) had long lasting political consequences, but its strategic implications were minimal. The second important battle in 1944 in terms of political effect (and the first important in terms of German military losses) was Bagration. Therefore, it would be correct to replace Dirlewanger's photo with one of Bagration photos. 1944 was the year of four major Soviet offensives where Germany sustained immense losses. The images do not reflect that fact.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Frequently in discussions here, people have referred to the latest revisionist historians as the ultimate authority, and discounted older historians, and popular perceptions. I think this is a flawed approach. If this article was written entirely based on the latest revisionists, it would present a view of the war that no one holds and that would be unrecognizable to vast majority of readers. We should present a consensus view of the war and acknowledge different viewpoints.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Frequently in discussions here, people have referred to the latest revisionist historians as the ultimate authority, and discounted older historians"
That should not be "frequently", that should be "always". It is one of the most important content guidelines in Wikipedia, included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:
We need more historical revisionism, not less. Dimadick ( talk) 10:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Stalingrad. Perhaps the latest revisionist historians consider it to be a mere skirmish"
The Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)? What kind of "skirmish" lasts for 5 months and has 2 million people as casualties? Dimadick ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Jack Upland, you write (regarding the atomic bomb): "... some historians do not think the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings won the war. I tend to agree, but this is not the only issue. There are many people that think they did. I think there needs to be a balanced representation." This is a very interesting question: should Wikipedia translate the common popular views, myths and misconceptions, or it should rely on expert's opinion? In my opinion, if peer-reviewed sources are available on some subject, we should write what they say, and we can ignore popular books, newspaper articles and films. That is especially relevant to WWII, because a new mythology is gradually forming about it, so American historians had to organise round tables to discuss what to do with that.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
We already discussed this question recently, and I explained that these references are to journal articles, the first and last page are already provided. Wikipedia standards require a exact page only when a book is used as a source (which it totally reasonable, because articles are small, and they are devoted to some narrow topic). Adding the "page needed" template to journal articles, despite the fact that that issue has already been explained on the talk page, is unacceptable. I put notes to the article's text, and if the "page needed" template will appear again, I will consider it as a bad faith attempts to cast a doubt on the article's content and to spoil the article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead currently says:
However, Japan announced its surrender on 15 August, and the islands were occupied after that. The same anachronism is repeated in the body of the article. Also, why is the invasion of Korea not mentioned as well? Clearly, this was a threat to Japan.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I made several changes that, I believe, will cause no objections. My explanations are below.
I hope these edits are not controversial.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I also propose to significantly shorten this text:
This text provides too many details. We do not tell how many civilians were killed in Hamburg, Warsaw, London, Hiroshima. I don't understand why Tokyo should be an exception. We do not tell what part of German or Soviet urban areas was destroyed, and I don't understand why should we tell about Japan. I propose this version:
References
-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"The air campaign against Japan was massive in scale," - hardly, the largest raid ever against Japan consisted of around 300 B-29's. The RAF OTOH was regularly sending out twice this number of Lancasters and Halfaxes against Germany, and carried out raids of over 1,000 bombers on a number of occasions. Total bomb tonnage dropped on Japan 1941-45 was around 300,000 US tons, whereas the RAF dropped around 900,000 long tons on Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 ( talk) 10:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors requested at
Talk:Brześć Ghetto#Soviets and Germans as "wartime allies" where there is a dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 08:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This conversation should be at the other page!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section 4.9 Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45), 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence:
Meanwhile, the United States Army Air Forces launched a massibe firebombing campaign of strategic cities in Japan in an effort to destroy Japanese war industry and civilian morale.
Typo for 'massive' spelled 'massibe' in article 104.129.194.61 ( talk) 16:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
http://www.historynet.com/when-did-wwii-really-begin.htm https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-history https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/what-should-be-done-about-german-invasion-poland Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Paul you know I'm trying to do good that's why my two sources are from the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum. In Washington DC and New Orleans and top historian have contributed to both museums. so you know that they're accurate the sources. I am Requesting to be Allowed to make the changes for the soul reason it will help improve Wikipedia credibility because for the World War II casualties page has 70 million to 85 for the death toll that is why I put over 70 million .and for the Holocaust page you have 17 million victims overall.
Jack90s15 (
talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
And those two numbers are backed by the United States Holocaust museum in Washington DC
And the national World War II museum Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
when you add all the deaths it over 70 million so it does match the numbers that are uses in scholarly and match the numbers that part of the World War II casualties page and the 17 million number is in line with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum number and the wiki page one Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
my two sources are from the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum. In Washington DC and New Orleans and top historian have contributed to both museums. so you know that they're accurate the sources. I am Requesting to be Allowed to make the changes for the soul reason it will help improve Wikipedia credibility because for the World War II casualties page has 70 million to 85 for the death toll that is why I put over 70 million .and for the Holocaust page you have 17 million victims overall. Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
And those two numbers are backed by the United States Holocaust museum in Washington DC
And the national World War II museum Jack90s15 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
when you add all the deaths it over 70 million so it does match the numbers that are uses in scholarly and match the numbers that part of the World War II casualties page and the 17 million number is in line with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum number and the wiki page Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am doing this to improve Wikipedia credibility the 70 Million is part of the range Total on the ww2 casualties wiki page so it right to say over 70 Million died it is backed by the the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum In Washington DC does not use 11 Million they use 17 Million Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Axis attack on the Soviet Union (1941) to German Invasion on the Soviet Union (1941) Chubbyhands ( talk) 00:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
As about the priority position of the Allied leaders in the mainbox, I believe that the name of Winston Churchill must be the first name of the Allied leaders. I propose that, beacause the United Kingdom was the first country declared the war on Germany (not by a beetween two countries difference, but by an allied anti-Axis view), but also because Churchill worked hard about the establishment of the Alliance [1].
Inspirduser ( talk) 21:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The article seemed to short in its narrative: Thought I would add to it, without to much verbage and maintaing its conciseness:
1. After " In October Italy attacked Greece, but the attack was repulsed with heavy Italian casualties; the campaign ended within days with minor territorial changes.[113]"
ADD:
Mussolini reasoned that Greece was defenseless but, “to his chagrin and humiliation — was easily brushed aside by Greek resistance, shored up by five Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons. Worse for Mussolini, on Nov 14, the Greeks mounted a counteroffensive that pushed the Italians out of Greece and deep into Albania. On March 9, 1941, Mussolini decided to redeem Italian honor by launching a new invasion into Greece, this time using twenty-eight divisions (known as the Italian Spring Offensive). Despite the greatly enlarged force, the Italians were again pushed out of Greece. Hitler watched Mussolini falter, yet had no great desire to bail out his Italian ally ... but he desperately wanted to secure the Romanian oil fields and to provide protection for the southern flank of the Soviet invasion he was planning.” [1]
2. Then, after "Germany started preparation for an invasion of the Balkans to assist Italy, to prevent the British from gaining a foothold there, which would be a potential threat for Romanian oil fields, and to strike against the British dominance of the Mediterranean.[114] Germany responded with simultaneous invasions of both Yugoslavia and Greece commencing on 6 April 1941; both nations were forced to surrender within the month.[119]"
ADD:
The rapid collapse of Yugoslavia the Germans to send the bulk of their 12th Army directly into Greece, circumventing Greece's defensive
Metaxas Line at the Greco-Bulgarian border and a diversionary force to attack the Metaxas Line instead. Similar to France’s
Maginot Line, these string of defensive forts, eponymously named for their prime minister, fell after three days. The Germans entered Salonica on April 9. The blitzkrieg outflanked and divided the Greek forces in the west and British forces in the east, inevitably leading to the retreat of the British to the historical pass at Thermopylae. The Greeks hastened German strategy by maintaining their army in Epirus, refusing to leave ground won from the Italians in the Greco-Italian campaign.
[2] Without hope, Wilson ordered the evacuation of Allied forces; most left mainland Greece by April 30 for Crete or Egypt.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
3. After "Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[121]"
Then:
In Greece, the flight of King George II and the placement of a far-right puppet government in Athens led to a power vacuum and the emergence of ELAS, a large left-wing guerrilla movement, while the nationalist forces did likewise, forming EDES. Germany’s shrewd tactics relied on enabling Greek-fascist Security Battalions to keep the communists at bay, both America’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) armed and supplied ELAS and EDES with hopes of quelling their bitter rivalries. [3]
Greek partisans continuously engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece in 1944. [4] [5]
Far-right puppet government=Hellenic State (1941–1944) Greek People's Liberation Army=ELAS National Republican Greek League=EDES
Cheers Bigeez ( talk) 22:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Siebert, Thank you for your quick response. Next, how would I do this in light of the existence of the list of confirmed editors to this article? I guess any confirmed editor can to add this small bit of info, albeit crucial. I recommend, after the present sentence:
"Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[121]"
I recommend adding the two sentences below:
"In Greece, a similar large-scale left-wing guerrilla movement gripped the country with logistic sustainment from America’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE)." [6]
Greek resistance continuously engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece in 1944. [7] [8]
Nevertheless, I believe either or both statements would do justice to both FDR's and Churchill's policies in crippling Axis control of Greece, without adding too much and detracting from the article's objective. Cheers, Bigeez ( talk) 13:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Mr. Seibert, Shall I go ahead and add these two sentences with the references as displayed above? I will await your approval. Cheers, Bigeez ( talk) 00:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon Nick,
Point well taken. Nonetheless, if I may, the existing sentence for the suggested edit is beneath "Mediterranean (1940–41)." The existing sentence is:
Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[122]"
Therefore, the point was simply to allow our readers to follow on the same thought, stating Greek resistance along with the Yugoslav resistance. As an editor with past experience, the novice — a newby WW II reader — gathers from the article that Greek resistance did not occur. Mr. Seibert agreed that Greek resistance wasn't mentioned at all as well. Since it was crucial, if not moreso – in light of Curchill's sphere of influence split over Yugoslavia/Greece – why not include it?" Otherwise, if the goal is to reduce the article size, probably better to delete the sentence referring to Yugoslav Resistance altogether and be done with it, and place a blanket statement in the article's inception, that partisan resistance spread across Europe and Asia after the Axis powers took control. Or better, perhaps, add a subheading for resistance?
Rather, I believe Mr. Seibert's affirmation that it "would be fine" to add the two sentences. Plus, it is more educating to the reader.
It makes no difference who adds it: the editors, or I can, surely. I was awaiting Mr. Seibert's direction and from the editorial board.
Thank you for your guidance and time, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
HI PAUL AND NICK D
After further refining with working references, hopefully this is would be pleasing to the editorial staff. The references are spot-on as well. One, is first-hand fact (
Patrick Leigh Fermor); the other, Susan Hueck is the go-to on OSS/SOE Greece, having combed through the National Archives with her archaeologist's shovel. It can follow immediately after the existing sentence Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[122]":
In Greece, a similar
leftist partisan movement gripped the country, while America’s
Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's
Special Operations Executive (SOE) provided support with logistic sustainment, sending their agents behind enemy lines."
[9]
Cretan partisans engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece.
[10]
Regards, Eli
Bigeez (
talk) 01:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul, Thanks much. Points well taken. Will ponder a couple of sentences in regards to all three; the Balkans and Italy. I’ll endeavor to keep it curt: I thank you and Nick D for your guidance, touch (ever so briefly) on Crete. After all, that great travel writer lived with the folk, for heavens sakes. Cheers Bigeez ( talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, gentlemen, for these wonderful comments and topics to consider. I’m in agreement with you both. Personally, the article is beautifully written considering it’s topic size. Everything else out there is 4-500 pages, or more. Let’s not forget, I will wager that most readers are middleschhoolers grasping for any knowledge about their grandparents; or school projects, or those riding the bus or tube. By the time they get to where they’re going, anyone can be educated on WW II.
I know many who have read it, and used it for a reference. Does it need an overhaul with a cudgel? Certainly not. It might be heavy on strategy and light on resistance, but nevertheless, it’s well-written and obviously has been refined many times.
Here and there, perhaps, the reader might question a thing or two. For example, resistance is brought up under Poland and Yugoslavia. Yet, really nowhere else. That’s how this all started on my part.
For that reason, the article would certainly benefit from a Collaboration/Resistance subheading. Otherwise the middle schooler or regular bloke doesn’t have a clue. On that same line of thinking, another subheading on SIS and SOE, along with the Yanks’ OSS, wouldn’t go afoul either. Both would be smaller in size than what you might think.
Off the top of my head, I remember reading, at least twice, the massacre at Nanking, and Polish resistance. Granted, it does flow nicely. However, if the object is to reduce article size, why be repetitive?
There’s more. Such as usages of words that could be cutout. For example, in the beginning of the article, when Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, no need to say the colonies in the “Pacific Ocean,” but simply, “the Pacific.” We all get it.
Sorry for overextending my stay.
Thank you for that bit of confidence. I will write up something in the Talk” page regarding Collaboration and resistance. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 07:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul,
Thank you for the vote of confidence and that my comments haven't been passed over from the hordes you must receive; which in itself must be daunting. Be that as it may, I hope to accomplish a proper going over, but not without receiving guidance and final nod from the editorial board. I can assure you that I will prove equal to the task.
Oh well, no rest for the wicked … .
Eli
Bigeez (
talk) 04:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul and Nick D, "Into the breech" I leapt. Upon re-reflection, perhaps the issue of Collaboration/Resistance and SOE/OSS might be best addressed under "Impact?" In this way, it will keep it shorter. There is no need in rewriting a beautifully-scripted article by introducing new subtopics at this point. By stating under, Impact," ... we don't need to add more verbiage. In this regard, we can eliminate the Soviets' NKVD, begun before the war even started, blah-blah. Overall, it will achieve the objective: keeping it shorter, simply stating the facts, and employing Wiki links for the reader to be enriched. Am I too anglophilic? Comments? Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I completely understand @ Paul Siebert: Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC) after you explained it thanks everyone showing me the way to be a proper member of the Wikipedia community Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul, You ought perhaps to know that I‘ve always feared that the article was short of these topics, and yet, I didn’t want to press the issue too much. I’ve got sharp eyes for anything out of order, but I didn’t want to ruin a beautifully-scripted article and hollow out its conciseness, for the sake of resistance/collaboration/SOE/OSS and these other equally-important topics you mentioned. In fact, I am more and more beginning to see Nick D’s point about it all ... keeping it shorter ... and by suggesting more text, I feared I would be a disappointment. Perhaps, it is why I stressed placing resistance/collaboration in the “Impact” part, so as not to appear at lengthening the article and confirm his expectations. I do agree that these topics are crucial to the article, and will strive to incorporate them ... and ... keep it short. I haven’t given up the fight, not by a long chalk. Thank you both for your encouragement. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 05:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change the combatants listed. "Allies" will be changed to a list of the allied powers in ww2, and "Axis" will be changed to a list of the Axis powers in ww2. For the Aliies, Soviet Union, United States, Great Britain, Norway, Australia, India, South Africa, France, Poland, China, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Brazil, Philippines, Mongolia, Mexico, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, and Luxembourg. The Axis Powers will be, Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Italy, Kingdom of Romania, Kingdom of Hungary, Slovak Republic, Kingdom of Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Vichy France, Soviet Union(Invasion of Poland). Also the States under axis control will be listed under allies. Such as, France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and Luxembourg. Ian22schaefer ( talk) 04:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm relatively new, so I'm not totally sure what to call these, but should we add little icons for the deaths of the leaders next to their names in the infobox? That is, FDR died of natural causes, Hitler committed suicide and Mussolini was executed, all within the span of the war; it might be valuable to include this under the "Commanders and Leaders" header. JeanLackE ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul Siebert and Nick-D, You have my nod on that. It is, to say the least, unnecessary. I am currently working on the recommendations that Paul mentioned. Nick, I thought, perhaps, if you might have any others that are cogent ... (see right above, my note to Paul) it would be helpful. Cheers Eli Bigeez ( talk) 03:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:American conflicts (i.e. {{American conflicts}} ) is missing from this article. As it is protected, I cannot add it at this time. -- 155.95.90.241 ( talk) 18:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the numbers of killed civilians started to re-appear in the Casualties section. Now the article provides the figures for 22,000 Polish officers killed during the Katyn massacre, 100,000 Polish civilians and 30,000 Ukrainians (this war of figures, I suppose seems like a resurrection of the old dispute between nationalistic groups of editors), etc. I am still wondering if we really need to present all these figures, and if yes, why don't we present the number of civilians killed by, for example Arajs Kommando (about 26,000 Jews), by Dresden bombing, or those who were starved to death during the Leningrad blockade?
I still believe we have to purge this section from all figures except the most important categories (Axis, Allied, most persecuted ethnic groups, biggest civilian losses by country, and few other), otherwise the process of inclusion of figures for each ethnic group will become non-contrallable.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
50 million does not have all deaths from WW2 so I put the 85 to show all deaths Jack90s15 ( talk) 04:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) the other WW2 death page has it so I will put it to show all death from WW2 https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Jews 6 million
Soviet civilians around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)
Soviet prisoners of war around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)
Non-Jewish Polish civilians around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)
Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) 312,000
People with disabilities living in institutions up to 250,000
Roma (Gypsies) 196,000–220,000
Jehovah's Witnesses around 1,900
Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials at least 70,000
German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory undetermined
Homosexuals hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution Jack90s15 ( talk) 04:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
it was Deliberate Policy
This death toll was neither an accident nor an automatic result of the war. It was the Nazi state's deliberate policy. German treatment of Soviet POWs differed dramatically from German policy towards POWs from Britain and the United States, countries the Nazis regarded as racial equals to the Germans. Of the 231,000 British and American prisoners held by the Germans during the war only about 8,300—3.6 percent—died in German custody. Jack90s15 ( talk) 05:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-soviet-prisoners-of-war
just adding how many were sent to Gulag
("Военно-исторический журнал" ("Military-Historical Magazine"), 1997, №5. page 32)
Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944–1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4 Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I will put 85,000,000 for the death toll I will put down to The figure of over 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You have changed text that is sourced and removed cn tags without adding citations. You are also applying a specific number where sources indicate that a range is appropriate, based on sources that do not cite their sources or discuss their methodology. Please allow for discussion before making such significant changes, and please stop starting new discussion threads for every comment you make. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The ww2 Casualty page has 85 million for all deaths that is why I put it that page is linked wit this page so that is why I put it Jack90s15 ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Jack90s15 appears to be referring to the World War II casualties page. As that page discusses, estimates of casualties are indicated because exact totals cannot be determined. Further, there are different methodologies for arriving at estimates, again making exact totals impossible to state. Thus we discuss ranges instead of precise figures, and even the 70-85 million figure on the casualties page does not bear a specific cite. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ok I will put over 70 million since that is cited by other sources and not wiki Jack90s15 ( talk) 18:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war https://www.historyonthenet.com/how-many-people-died-in-world-war-2 https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php
Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I put the 17 million number I cited the holocaust museum they do not use the 11 million number)and I put why I did with the sources for the death toll of World War II Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) and I did try put the same source back in and I did put the source back in Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. 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 50 | ← | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | → | Archive 60 |
Can anybody comment on this addition [1]? Anyway, even if Truman is accepted, Churchill cannot go after him. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:58, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I propose to make a strategic decision about figures in this section. I find illogical when killing of 6 million Jews or several million of other civilians are mentioned along with killing of several thousands of others. I agree that Katyn or Vohlyn massacre were separate events, however, killing of 6 million Jews was a series of single events too. Why do we combine some events under a single umbrella name and explicitly mention few others? Thus, the section says about "millions of other Slavs", and then it specifically mentions 200,000 ethnic Serbs. What is the reason to separate ethnic Serbs from other Slavs?
I propose to remove these figures, and add just to list those Nazi collaborators (Ustaces, Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Latvian and other nationalists) who were engaged in mass execution of civilians.
In addition, if population transfer in the USSR is mentioned, the story about deportation of ethnic Japanese in the USA should be mentioned too.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 13:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, this is getting old, are you now the article 'decider' because for the past 2 months or so, you hit this article by storm, all you are doing is either trying to change everything in the article or challenge things. And, it's really annoying to see all those red herring arguments, above you mentioned that there is nothing about the internment of Japanese-Americans, so I said you should put that in, but all of a sudden you are not interested in doing that, so that was just a excuse to attack the new sentence. This is Wikipedia, so stop trying to "fix" everything, because by nature of the process you will never have a "perfect" paragraph in each section. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Soviet deportations and Japanese American internment aren't really comparable, hundreds of thousands of Soviet deportees died. I am not necessarily opposed to inclusion of Japanese American internment, but drawing any equivalence with Soviet deportations would be blatant Stalin apologia. Also I don't really see much point listing separate collaborators, as Nazis recruited collaborators among almost all the nations they occupied except Jews.-- Staberinde ( talk) 18:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The text ignores German bombings in Poland, it describes British and German victims.
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Need more alliance members listed J.Greeny123459 ( talk) 07:31, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can I please get permission to edit this source? I'm only going to either add in info or edit things that were written to make them better. Pixelgun3dhacker ( talk) 23:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I am surprised to see that the Kursk battle is mentioned only passingly. To the best of my knowledge, this was the largest tank battle of the II World War; and it would be advisable to devote at least a short paragraph to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Efroimsk ( talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
please change nether belligerent
to neither belligerent
because typo
83.31.88.249 (
talk) 16:16, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
I tried to look for an additional book dealing with the WWII in this bibliography. But the bibliography contains ca. 240 titles. It is therefore totally useless. I would propose to delete 200 of this titles. Nearly 40 titles are sufficient to get more informations about this subjekt. Kind regards -- Orik ( talk) 18:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this edit, because we cannot have too many photos in this section. Meanwhile, I am wondering what purpose the Cairo photo serves in this section. The meeting with Chinese leader was not the most important event, Tehran conference was much more important. By saying that, I don't propose to replace this photo with the photo og the Big Three. Any ideas?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Oxford historian Rana Mitter is an authority on the role of China and the positive peer reception of his Forgotten Ally: China’s War with Japan, 1937-45 (2013) did a lot to revise the mainstream view. That will be a useful source for us at this juncture. In many interviews online, Mitter talks about the book, the addition of Wang Jingwei to Mao and Chiang, Stalin's pragmatic assistance to Chiang, and Chiang's 4 million troops fighting Japan; e.g. here: [5] - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I removed the Cairo image as redundant. I also propose to think about Casablanca: this was a meeting between just two Allied leaders, and no important agreements were achieved there.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 19:40, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The use of Indigenous languages also became a technological device as part of Canada's and US's communications. Indigenous members of the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps developed for transmitting vital messages in WW2. Know as " code talkers", their role was similar to the American First Nations who spoke Navajo and were know as “ Windtalkers”. [7] JIllPrice ( talk) 16:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Seems to be an omission in such a comprehensive article that goes into so much detail on other topics. Code-breaking gets a passing mention as part of the 'Technology' section but afaics there's nothing on e.g. the Double-Cross System and Operation Scherhorn, etc. I hereby call for a dedicated section, and invite drafting below for discussion. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Author(s) | Title | Publisher | Date | Notes |
Babington-Smith, Constance | Air Spy: The Story of Photo Intelligence in World War II | — | 1957 | — |
Berg, Moe | The Catcher Was a Spy: The Mysterious Life of Moe Berg | Vintage Books | 1994 | — Major league baseball player and OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Yugoslavia |
Bryden, John | Best-Kept Secret: Canadian Secret Intelligence in the Second World War | Lester | 1993 | — |
Doundoulakis, Helias | Trained to be an OSS Spy | Xlibris | 2014 | OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Greece |
Hall, Virginia | The Spy with the Wooden Leg: The Story of Virginia Hall | Alma Little | 2012 | SOE and OSS spy in France |
Hinsley, F. H. and Alan Stripp | Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park | — | 2001 | — |
Hinsley, F. H. | British Intelligence in the Second World War | — | 1996 | Abridged version of multivolume official history. |
Hohne, Heinz | Canaris: Hitler's Master Spy | — | 1979 | — |
Jones, R. V. | The Wizard War: British Scientific Intelligence 1939–1945 | — | 1978 | — |
Kahn, David | Hitler's Spies: German Military Intelligence in World War II | — | 1978 | — |
Kahn, David | Seizing the Enigma: The Race to Break the German U-Boat Codes, 1939–1943 | — | 1991 | FACE |
Kitson, Simon | The Hunt for Nazi Spies: Fighting Espionage in Vichy France | — | 2008 | |
Leigh Fermor, Patrick | Abducting a General: The Kreipe Operation in Crete | New York Review Books | 2015 | SOE spy who abducted General Kreipe from Crete |
Lewin, Ronald | The American Magic: Codes, Ciphers and the Defeat of Japan | — | 1982 | — |
Masterman, J. C. | The Double Cross System in the War of 1935 to 1945 | Yale | 1972 | — |
Persico, Joseph | Roosevelt's Secret War: FDR and World War II Espionage | — | 2001 | — |
Persico, Joseph | Casey: The Lives and Secrets of William J. Casey-From the OSS to the CIA | — | 1991 | — |
Pinck, Dan | Journey to Peking: A Secret Agent in Wartime China | US Naval Institute Press | 2003 | OSS Secret Intelligence (SI) spy in Hong Kong, China, during WWII |
Ronnie, Art | Counterfeit Hero: Fritz Duquesne, Adventurer and Spy | — | 1995 | ISBN 1-55750-733-3 |
Sayers, Michael & Albert E. Kahn | Sabotage! The Secret War Against America | — | 1942 | — |
Smith, Richard Harris | OSS: The Secret History of America's First Central Intelligence Agency | — | 2005 | — |
Stanley, Roy M. | World War II Photo Intelligence | — | 1981 | — |
Wark, Wesley | The Ultimate Enemy: British Intelligence and Nazi Germany, 1933–1939 | — | 1985 | — |
Wark, Wesley | "Cryptographic Innocence: The Origins of Signals Intelligence in Canada in the Second World War" in Journal of Contemporary History 22 | — | 1987 | — |
West, Nigel | Secret War: The Story of SOE, Britain's Wartime Sabotage Organization | — | 1992 | — |
Winterbotham, F. W. | The Ultra Secret | Harper & Row | 1974 | — |
Winterbotham, F. W. | The Nazi Connection | Harper & Row | 1978 | — |
Cowburn, B. | No Cloak No Dagger | Brown, Watson, Ltd. | 1960 | — |
Wohlstetter, Roberta | Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision | — | 1962 | — |
Thanks - Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the name of consensus I'd hoped we could all chip in for content, but I'm happy to start the brainstorm if that's what you want. Here's a start:
====The intelligence war====
Cryptography and SIGINT was used extensively during World War II, with a plethora of code and cipher systems fielded by the nations involved. The break into the most secure Japanese diplomatic cipher, designated "PURPLE" by the US Army Signals Intelligence Service, started before the US entered the war. Product from this source was called Magic; the Japanese Ambassador to Germany, General Hiroshi Ōshima, routinely sent information about German plans to Tokyo which was immediately read by Roosevelt and Churchill. Decryption by the Allies of the German "Enigma" Cipher created product named Ultra. The first complete break into Enigma was accomplished in 1932 by the Poles, who passed their technology and methodology to the French and British in July 1939, and evacuated their team of code-breakers at the start of the war to continue their work. Ultra contributed to many Allied victories, including the Battle of the Atlantic and the Battle of Kursk.
Churchill's order to "set Europe ablaze" was undertaken by the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), which developed a plan to train HUMINT spies, guerrillas and saboteurs for deployment in occupied Europe; eventually, this would become the Special Operations Executive. America had no overarching military intelligence agency until Roosevelt, inspired by the British, started the Office of the Coordinator of Information (COI) which in 1942 became the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which after the war became the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). [1] [2] The Soviet NKVD had been well-established for many years before the war, and its staff were Stalin's most trusted personnel; agents included Richard Sorge, who accurately reported that Japan had no intention of attacking the Soviet Union in 1941, and double-agent Kim Philby, a senior SIS officer with access to most of Britain's intelligence reports. NKVD operatives were also crucial to partisan warfare and the establishment of Soviet power in Eastern Europe toward the end of the war.
References
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 16:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
"The Soviet NKVD had been well-established for many years before the war"
This seems to be an exaggeration. The NKVD was active from 1934 to 1946. The previous secret police was the Joint State Political Directorate (1923-1934), which was itself preceded by the State Political Directorate (1922-1923), the Cheka (1917-1922), the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee (1917), and the Okhrana (1881-1917). Dimadick ( talk) 19:08, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So at least three options:
(i) "The Soviet NKVD had been well-established before the war"
(ii) "The Soviet NKVD had been well-established before the war, and was preceded by the Joint State Political Directorate (1923-1934), which was itself preceded by the State Political Directorate (1922-1923), the Cheka (1917-1922), the Petrograd Military Revolutionary Committee (1917), and the Okhrana (1881-1917)
(iii) "The Soviet NKVD was the culmination of many years of the absolute power of the Russian state, which had masterfully pioneered tactics such as " maskirovka", " spetsoperatsiya", false flag, " aktivniyye meropriyatiya", " kompromat", "provokatsiya" and " mokroye delo". Run by Stalin's right-hand-man Lavrentiy Beria, it was not just the USSR's primary intelligence organization, but also the Interior Ministry of the Soviet Union, with a monopoly on law enforcement (when it merged with the secret police OGPU in 1934), operation of the Gulags, political repression including extrajudicial mass killings of perceived and real enemies, cooperation with the Gestapo and Denazification; during the war it took its methods abroad and even had its own front-line divisions.
- Chumchum7 ( talk) 05:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't support the proposed text at all. It's focused on various individuals, when the intelligence war was conducted on an industrial scale. The text also makes no mention of the Axis intelligence efforts (which were quite successful until about 1943) and their attempts at sabotage campaigns (which were total failures). Nick-D ( talk) 07:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"Axis intelligence efforts" You can find some material on the Gestapo (secret police), the Foreign Armies East (military intelligence organization), the Sicherheitsdienst (intelligence agency of the SS), the Abwehr (Wehrmacht military intelligence), the Geheime Feldpolizei (Wehrmacht secret police), and the Sicherheitspolizei (security police) on their respective articles. We also have an incomplete List of German spies, divided by period. Dimadick ( talk) 08:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Nick-D, I hope you're well. I'm keeping my word, and bringing this issue to conclusion. It's been over one week since you said you need time to go and research and write your preferred text. I have held back from editing the article out of respect for that. During this time you have not responded to my request for an indication of when you you are going to get back with said text. During this time you have not striked through the sentence in which you alleged I was "snide". I've explained above that this was a misinterpretation, and that Wikipedia standards are at stake. We are all bound by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. You are further bound by WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, etc. I am not going to strike out your line myself, out of respect for boundaries. With the absence of a civility noticeboard at this time there are very few options left other than requesting the involvement of other administrators. Per WP:BOOMERANG I would invite scrutiny of my own conduct. The request would include the information that you have made the 2nd biggest number of edits on this article [6] and have been editing this article for 12 years and 457 edits, which were mostly deletions of content, the majority of which in the last three years were hard reverts [7]. This is evidence of your great work; it might also have become significant with regard to your stance here. I say this to give you a friendly and collegial explanation and notice for my next step before I take it. That will be within the next 24 hours or so. I still hope that before then you will be able to strike through the line, in order to maintain Wikipedia standards. I would be most grateful, and would look forward to continuing to support your work in the future. - Chumchum7 ( talk) 09:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
References
I removed the mention of 200k civilians killed in Warsaw, because we do not provide this type figures in the Course of the War section. Should we add this information to the War crimes section?
The only serious problem that I see in this section is the image from Warsaw uprising. This event (more precisely, the behaviour of Soviet leadership) had long lasting political consequences, but its strategic implications were minimal. The second important battle in 1944 in terms of political effect (and the first important in terms of German military losses) was Bagration. Therefore, it would be correct to replace Dirlewanger's photo with one of Bagration photos. 1944 was the year of four major Soviet offensives where Germany sustained immense losses. The images do not reflect that fact.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 00:08, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Frequently in discussions here, people have referred to the latest revisionist historians as the ultimate authority, and discounted older historians, and popular perceptions. I think this is a flawed approach. If this article was written entirely based on the latest revisionists, it would present a view of the war that no one holds and that would be unrecognizable to vast majority of readers. We should present a consensus view of the war and acknowledge different viewpoints.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Frequently in discussions here, people have referred to the latest revisionist historians as the ultimate authority, and discounted older historians"
That should not be "frequently", that should be "always". It is one of the most important content guidelines in Wikipedia, included in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources:
We need more historical revisionism, not less. Dimadick ( talk) 10:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
"Stalingrad. Perhaps the latest revisionist historians consider it to be a mere skirmish"
The Battle of Stalingrad (1942-1943)? What kind of "skirmish" lasts for 5 months and has 2 million people as casualties? Dimadick ( talk) 07:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Jack Upland, you write (regarding the atomic bomb): "... some historians do not think the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings won the war. I tend to agree, but this is not the only issue. There are many people that think they did. I think there needs to be a balanced representation." This is a very interesting question: should Wikipedia translate the common popular views, myths and misconceptions, or it should rely on expert's opinion? In my opinion, if peer-reviewed sources are available on some subject, we should write what they say, and we can ignore popular books, newspaper articles and films. That is especially relevant to WWII, because a new mythology is gradually forming about it, so American historians had to organise round tables to discuss what to do with that.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
We already discussed this question recently, and I explained that these references are to journal articles, the first and last page are already provided. Wikipedia standards require a exact page only when a book is used as a source (which it totally reasonable, because articles are small, and they are devoted to some narrow topic). Adding the "page needed" template to journal articles, despite the fact that that issue has already been explained on the talk page, is unacceptable. I put notes to the article's text, and if the "page needed" template will appear again, I will consider it as a bad faith attempts to cast a doubt on the article's content and to spoil the article.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
The lead currently says:
However, Japan announced its surrender on 15 August, and the islands were occupied after that. The same anachronism is repeated in the body of the article. Also, why is the invasion of Korea not mentioned as well? Clearly, this was a threat to Japan.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I made several changes that, I believe, will cause no objections. My explanations are below.
I hope these edits are not controversial.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 22:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I also propose to significantly shorten this text:
This text provides too many details. We do not tell how many civilians were killed in Hamburg, Warsaw, London, Hiroshima. I don't understand why Tokyo should be an exception. We do not tell what part of German or Soviet urban areas was destroyed, and I don't understand why should we tell about Japan. I propose this version:
References
-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"The air campaign against Japan was massive in scale," - hardly, the largest raid ever against Japan consisted of around 300 B-29's. The RAF OTOH was regularly sending out twice this number of Lancasters and Halfaxes against Germany, and carried out raids of over 1,000 bombers on a number of occasions. Total bomb tonnage dropped on Japan 1941-45 was around 300,000 US tons, whereas the RAF dropped around 900,000 long tons on Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.235 ( talk) 10:17, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors requested at
Talk:Brześć Ghetto#Soviets and Germans as "wartime allies" where there is a dispute over whether it is appropriate to state that The German armed forces launched Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union – previously its own wartime ally
.
Icewhiz (
talk) 08:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
This conversation should be at the other page!-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under section 4.9 Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45), 6th paragraph, 3rd sentence:
Meanwhile, the United States Army Air Forces launched a massibe firebombing campaign of strategic cities in Japan in an effort to destroy Japanese war industry and civilian morale.
Typo for 'massive' spelled 'massibe' in article 104.129.194.61 ( talk) 16:01, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
http://www.historynet.com/when-did-wwii-really-begin.htm https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/world-war-ii-history https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/what-should-be-done-about-german-invasion-poland Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Paul you know I'm trying to do good that's why my two sources are from the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum. In Washington DC and New Orleans and top historian have contributed to both museums. so you know that they're accurate the sources. I am Requesting to be Allowed to make the changes for the soul reason it will help improve Wikipedia credibility because for the World War II casualties page has 70 million to 85 for the death toll that is why I put over 70 million .and for the Holocaust page you have 17 million victims overall.
Jack90s15 (
talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
And those two numbers are backed by the United States Holocaust museum in Washington DC
And the national World War II museum Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
when you add all the deaths it over 70 million so it does match the numbers that are uses in scholarly and match the numbers that part of the World War II casualties page and the 17 million number is in line with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum number and the wiki page one Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
my two sources are from the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum. In Washington DC and New Orleans and top historian have contributed to both museums. so you know that they're accurate the sources. I am Requesting to be Allowed to make the changes for the soul reason it will help improve Wikipedia credibility because for the World War II casualties page has 70 million to 85 for the death toll that is why I put over 70 million .and for the Holocaust page you have 17 million victims overall. Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
And those two numbers are backed by the United States Holocaust museum in Washington DC
And the national World War II museum Jack90s15 (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
when you add all the deaths it over 70 million so it does match the numbers that are uses in scholarly and match the numbers that part of the World War II casualties page and the 17 million number is in line with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum number and the wiki page Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I am doing this to improve Wikipedia credibility the 70 Million is part of the range Total on the ww2 casualties wiki page so it right to say over 70 Million died it is backed by the the national World War II Museum and the Holocaust Museum In Washington DC does not use 11 Million they use 17 Million Jack90s15 ( talk) 00:41, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change Axis attack on the Soviet Union (1941) to German Invasion on the Soviet Union (1941) Chubbyhands ( talk) 00:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
As about the priority position of the Allied leaders in the mainbox, I believe that the name of Winston Churchill must be the first name of the Allied leaders. I propose that, beacause the United Kingdom was the first country declared the war on Germany (not by a beetween two countries difference, but by an allied anti-Axis view), but also because Churchill worked hard about the establishment of the Alliance [1].
Inspirduser ( talk) 21:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
References
The article seemed to short in its narrative: Thought I would add to it, without to much verbage and maintaing its conciseness:
1. After " In October Italy attacked Greece, but the attack was repulsed with heavy Italian casualties; the campaign ended within days with minor territorial changes.[113]"
ADD:
Mussolini reasoned that Greece was defenseless but, “to his chagrin and humiliation — was easily brushed aside by Greek resistance, shored up by five Royal Air Force (RAF) squadrons. Worse for Mussolini, on Nov 14, the Greeks mounted a counteroffensive that pushed the Italians out of Greece and deep into Albania. On March 9, 1941, Mussolini decided to redeem Italian honor by launching a new invasion into Greece, this time using twenty-eight divisions (known as the Italian Spring Offensive). Despite the greatly enlarged force, the Italians were again pushed out of Greece. Hitler watched Mussolini falter, yet had no great desire to bail out his Italian ally ... but he desperately wanted to secure the Romanian oil fields and to provide protection for the southern flank of the Soviet invasion he was planning.” [1]
2. Then, after "Germany started preparation for an invasion of the Balkans to assist Italy, to prevent the British from gaining a foothold there, which would be a potential threat for Romanian oil fields, and to strike against the British dominance of the Mediterranean.[114] Germany responded with simultaneous invasions of both Yugoslavia and Greece commencing on 6 April 1941; both nations were forced to surrender within the month.[119]"
ADD:
The rapid collapse of Yugoslavia the Germans to send the bulk of their 12th Army directly into Greece, circumventing Greece's defensive
Metaxas Line at the Greco-Bulgarian border and a diversionary force to attack the Metaxas Line instead. Similar to France’s
Maginot Line, these string of defensive forts, eponymously named for their prime minister, fell after three days. The Germans entered Salonica on April 9. The blitzkrieg outflanked and divided the Greek forces in the west and British forces in the east, inevitably leading to the retreat of the British to the historical pass at Thermopylae. The Greeks hastened German strategy by maintaining their army in Epirus, refusing to leave ground won from the Italians in the Greco-Italian campaign.
[2] Without hope, Wilson ordered the evacuation of Allied forces; most left mainland Greece by April 30 for Crete or Egypt.Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
3. After "Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[121]"
Then:
In Greece, the flight of King George II and the placement of a far-right puppet government in Athens led to a power vacuum and the emergence of ELAS, a large left-wing guerrilla movement, while the nationalist forces did likewise, forming EDES. Germany’s shrewd tactics relied on enabling Greek-fascist Security Battalions to keep the communists at bay, both America’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE) armed and supplied ELAS and EDES with hopes of quelling their bitter rivalries. [3]
Greek partisans continuously engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece in 1944. [4] [5]
Far-right puppet government=Hellenic State (1941–1944) Greek People's Liberation Army=ELAS National Republican Greek League=EDES
Cheers Bigeez ( talk) 22:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Siebert, Thank you for your quick response. Next, how would I do this in light of the existence of the list of confirmed editors to this article? I guess any confirmed editor can to add this small bit of info, albeit crucial. I recommend, after the present sentence:
"Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[121]"
I recommend adding the two sentences below:
"In Greece, a similar large-scale left-wing guerrilla movement gripped the country with logistic sustainment from America’s Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's Special Operations Executive (SOE)." [6]
Greek resistance continuously engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece in 1944. [7] [8]
Nevertheless, I believe either or both statements would do justice to both FDR's and Churchill's policies in crippling Axis control of Greece, without adding too much and detracting from the article's objective. Cheers, Bigeez ( talk) 13:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello again Mr. Seibert, Shall I go ahead and add these two sentences with the references as displayed above? I will await your approval. Cheers, Bigeez ( talk) 00:18, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon Nick,
Point well taken. Nonetheless, if I may, the existing sentence for the suggested edit is beneath "Mediterranean (1940–41)." The existing sentence is:
Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[122]"
Therefore, the point was simply to allow our readers to follow on the same thought, stating Greek resistance along with the Yugoslav resistance. As an editor with past experience, the novice — a newby WW II reader — gathers from the article that Greek resistance did not occur. Mr. Seibert agreed that Greek resistance wasn't mentioned at all as well. Since it was crucial, if not moreso – in light of Curchill's sphere of influence split over Yugoslavia/Greece – why not include it?" Otherwise, if the goal is to reduce the article size, probably better to delete the sentence referring to Yugoslav Resistance altogether and be done with it, and place a blanket statement in the article's inception, that partisan resistance spread across Europe and Asia after the Axis powers took control. Or better, perhaps, add a subheading for resistance?
Rather, I believe Mr. Seibert's affirmation that it "would be fine" to add the two sentences. Plus, it is more educating to the reader.
It makes no difference who adds it: the editors, or I can, surely. I was awaiting Mr. Seibert's direction and from the editorial board.
Thank you for your guidance and time, Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 20:23, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
HI PAUL AND NICK D
After further refining with working references, hopefully this is would be pleasing to the editorial staff. The references are spot-on as well. One, is first-hand fact (
Patrick Leigh Fermor); the other, Susan Hueck is the go-to on OSS/SOE Greece, having combed through the National Archives with her archaeologist's shovel. It can follow immediately after the existing sentence Although the Axis victory was swift, bitter and large-scale partisan warfare subsequently broke out against the Axis occupation of Yugoslavia, which continued until the end of the war.[122]":
In Greece, a similar
leftist partisan movement gripped the country, while America’s
Office of Strategic Services (OSS) and Great Britain's
Special Operations Executive (SOE) provided support with logistic sustainment, sending their agents behind enemy lines."
[9]
Cretan partisans engaged Axis troops up until their final departure from Greece.
[10]
Regards, Eli
Bigeez (
talk) 01:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul, Thanks much. Points well taken. Will ponder a couple of sentences in regards to all three; the Balkans and Italy. I’ll endeavor to keep it curt: I thank you and Nick D for your guidance, touch (ever so briefly) on Crete. After all, that great travel writer lived with the folk, for heavens sakes. Cheers Bigeez ( talk) 18:10, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, gentlemen, for these wonderful comments and topics to consider. I’m in agreement with you both. Personally, the article is beautifully written considering it’s topic size. Everything else out there is 4-500 pages, or more. Let’s not forget, I will wager that most readers are middleschhoolers grasping for any knowledge about their grandparents; or school projects, or those riding the bus or tube. By the time they get to where they’re going, anyone can be educated on WW II.
I know many who have read it, and used it for a reference. Does it need an overhaul with a cudgel? Certainly not. It might be heavy on strategy and light on resistance, but nevertheless, it’s well-written and obviously has been refined many times.
Here and there, perhaps, the reader might question a thing or two. For example, resistance is brought up under Poland and Yugoslavia. Yet, really nowhere else. That’s how this all started on my part.
For that reason, the article would certainly benefit from a Collaboration/Resistance subheading. Otherwise the middle schooler or regular bloke doesn’t have a clue. On that same line of thinking, another subheading on SIS and SOE, along with the Yanks’ OSS, wouldn’t go afoul either. Both would be smaller in size than what you might think.
Off the top of my head, I remember reading, at least twice, the massacre at Nanking, and Polish resistance. Granted, it does flow nicely. However, if the object is to reduce article size, why be repetitive?
There’s more. Such as usages of words that could be cutout. For example, in the beginning of the article, when Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, no need to say the colonies in the “Pacific Ocean,” but simply, “the Pacific.” We all get it.
Sorry for overextending my stay.
Thank you for that bit of confidence. I will write up something in the Talk” page regarding Collaboration and resistance. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 07:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul,
Thank you for the vote of confidence and that my comments haven't been passed over from the hordes you must receive; which in itself must be daunting. Be that as it may, I hope to accomplish a proper going over, but not without receiving guidance and final nod from the editorial board. I can assure you that I will prove equal to the task.
Oh well, no rest for the wicked … .
Eli
Bigeez (
talk) 04:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul and Nick D, "Into the breech" I leapt. Upon re-reflection, perhaps the issue of Collaboration/Resistance and SOE/OSS might be best addressed under "Impact?" In this way, it will keep it shorter. There is no need in rewriting a beautifully-scripted article by introducing new subtopics at this point. By stating under, Impact," ... we don't need to add more verbiage. In this regard, we can eliminate the Soviets' NKVD, begun before the war even started, blah-blah. Overall, it will achieve the objective: keeping it shorter, simply stating the facts, and employing Wiki links for the reader to be enriched. Am I too anglophilic? Comments? Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 00:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
References
I completely understand @ Paul Siebert: Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC) after you explained it thanks everyone showing me the way to be a proper member of the Wikipedia community Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Hello Paul, You ought perhaps to know that I‘ve always feared that the article was short of these topics, and yet, I didn’t want to press the issue too much. I’ve got sharp eyes for anything out of order, but I didn’t want to ruin a beautifully-scripted article and hollow out its conciseness, for the sake of resistance/collaboration/SOE/OSS and these other equally-important topics you mentioned. In fact, I am more and more beginning to see Nick D’s point about it all ... keeping it shorter ... and by suggesting more text, I feared I would be a disappointment. Perhaps, it is why I stressed placing resistance/collaboration in the “Impact” part, so as not to appear at lengthening the article and confirm his expectations. I do agree that these topics are crucial to the article, and will strive to incorporate them ... and ... keep it short. I haven’t given up the fight, not by a long chalk. Thank you both for your encouragement. Cheers, Eli Bigeez ( talk) 05:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to change the combatants listed. "Allies" will be changed to a list of the allied powers in ww2, and "Axis" will be changed to a list of the Axis powers in ww2. For the Aliies, Soviet Union, United States, Great Britain, Norway, Australia, India, South Africa, France, Poland, China, New Zealand, Ethiopia, Brazil, Philippines, Mongolia, Mexico, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Norway, and Luxembourg. The Axis Powers will be, Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Italy, Kingdom of Romania, Kingdom of Hungary, Slovak Republic, Kingdom of Bulgaria, Croatia, Finland, Vichy France, Soviet Union(Invasion of Poland). Also the States under axis control will be listed under allies. Such as, France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Greece, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Czechoslovakia, and Luxembourg. Ian22schaefer ( talk) 04:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm relatively new, so I'm not totally sure what to call these, but should we add little icons for the deaths of the leaders next to their names in the infobox? That is, FDR died of natural causes, Hitler committed suicide and Mussolini was executed, all within the span of the war; it might be valuable to include this under the "Commanders and Leaders" header. JeanLackE ( talk) 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi Paul Siebert and Nick-D, You have my nod on that. It is, to say the least, unnecessary. I am currently working on the recommendations that Paul mentioned. Nick, I thought, perhaps, if you might have any others that are cogent ... (see right above, my note to Paul) it would be helpful. Cheers Eli Bigeez ( talk) 03:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Template:American conflicts (i.e. {{American conflicts}} ) is missing from this article. As it is protected, I cannot add it at this time. -- 155.95.90.241 ( talk) 18:59, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I noticed the numbers of killed civilians started to re-appear in the Casualties section. Now the article provides the figures for 22,000 Polish officers killed during the Katyn massacre, 100,000 Polish civilians and 30,000 Ukrainians (this war of figures, I suppose seems like a resurrection of the old dispute between nationalistic groups of editors), etc. I am still wondering if we really need to present all these figures, and if yes, why don't we present the number of civilians killed by, for example Arajs Kommando (about 26,000 Jews), by Dresden bombing, or those who were starved to death during the Leningrad blockade?
I still believe we have to purge this section from all figures except the most important categories (Axis, Allied, most persecuted ethnic groups, biggest civilian losses by country, and few other), otherwise the process of inclusion of figures for each ethnic group will become non-contrallable.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:03, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php Jack90s15 ( talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
50 million does not have all deaths from WW2 so I put the 85 to show all deaths Jack90s15 ( talk) 04:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC) the other WW2 death page has it so I will put it to show all death from WW2 https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php
https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack90s15 ( talk • contribs) 22:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Jews 6 million
Soviet civilians around 7 million (including 1.3 Soviet Jewish civilians, who are included in the 6 million figure for Jews)
Soviet prisoners of war around 3 million (including about 50,000 Jewish soldiers)
Non-Jewish Polish civilians around 1.8 million (including between 50,000 and 100,000 members of the Polish elites)
Serb civilians (on the territory of Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina) 312,000
People with disabilities living in institutions up to 250,000
Roma (Gypsies) 196,000–220,000
Jehovah's Witnesses around 1,900
Repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials at least 70,000
German political opponents and resistance activists in Axis-occupied territory undetermined
Homosexuals hundreds, possibly thousands (possibly also counted in part under the 70,000 repeat criminal offenders and so-called asocials noted above)
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-persecution Jack90s15 ( talk) 04:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
it was Deliberate Policy
This death toll was neither an accident nor an automatic result of the war. It was the Nazi state's deliberate policy. German treatment of Soviet POWs differed dramatically from German policy towards POWs from Britain and the United States, countries the Nazis regarded as racial equals to the Germans. Of the 231,000 British and American prisoners held by the Germans during the war only about 8,300—3.6 percent—died in German custody. Jack90s15 ( talk) 05:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC) https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/nazi-persecution-of-soviet-prisoners-of-war
just adding how many were sent to Gulag
("Военно-исторический журнал" ("Military-Historical Magazine"), 1997, №5. page 32)
Земское В.Н. К вопросу о репатриации советских граждан. 1944–1951 годы // История СССР. 1990. № 4 (Zemskov V.N. On repatriation of Soviet citizens. Istoriya SSSR., 1990, No.4 Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:09, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I will put 85,000,000 for the death toll I will put down to The figure of over 85 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine. Jack90s15 ( talk) 06:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
You have changed text that is sourced and removed cn tags without adding citations. You are also applying a specific number where sources indicate that a range is appropriate, based on sources that do not cite their sources or discuss their methodology. Please allow for discussion before making such significant changes, and please stop starting new discussion threads for every comment you make. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 16:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
The ww2 Casualty page has 85 million for all deaths that is why I put it that page is linked wit this page so that is why I put it Jack90s15 ( talk) 17:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Jack90s15 appears to be referring to the World War II casualties page. As that page discusses, estimates of casualties are indicated because exact totals cannot be determined. Further, there are different methodologies for arriving at estimates, again making exact totals impossible to state. Thus we discuss ranges instead of precise figures, and even the 70-85 million figure on the casualties page does not bear a specific cite. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
ok I will put over 70 million since that is cited by other sources and not wiki Jack90s15 ( talk) 18:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC) https://www.nationalww2museum.org/students-teachers/student-resources/research-starters/research-starters-worldwide-deaths-world-war https://www.historyonthenet.com/how-many-people-died-in-world-war-2 https://www.secondworldwarhistory.com/world-war-2-statistics.php
Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) I put the 17 million number I cited the holocaust museum they do not use the 11 million number)and I put why I did with the sources for the death toll of World War II Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC) and I did try put the same source back in and I did put the source back in Jack90s15 ( talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)