![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I think this is quite constructive edit. It is in accordance with the recent changes in the Allies of World War II article, and the arguments presented at that talk page are equally applicable to the WWII article. In connection to that, I propose to bring the leaders order in accordance with the order of the Big Three, and make it chronological: Churchill goes first, Stalin the second, Roosevelt - the third. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 look here, and pls see the above title — first cited as reference. Opinions is not how you create a Wikipedia article, you should know that. -- E-960 ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
E-960 The change in the order of the main Allied Leaders is not supported by consensus in the discussions on this Talk page in the sections above. Further, the title of a book is for marketing purposes. We have to reference the contents of the source. Please find below a survey the literature:
As discussed at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Big Four in the infobox:
-- Whizz40 ( talk) 13:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Get of your high horse Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging and Peacemaker67. The reason no admin up to this points closed the RfC is because it's so obvious your "rationales" for Stalin first are nothing more than opinions and synthesis. How would an admin summarize that conclusion — a few sources presented by Nick-D talk about the Soviet Unions on the Eastern Front these statements are then equated with Stalin and the wider war. Also, several editors voiced their personal opinion that Stalin should be first. However, no source was ever presented that actually says Stalin lead the alliance. -- E-960 ( talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources I own on the significance of China's role in the war provide the following:
As a result, while there isn't a consensus in the sources, I favour continuing to include China as the sources generally note that it was one of the four main countries and made a major contribution to the war. Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
"Offtopic" collapsed
|
---|
|
If I understand Nick-D's arguments correctly, they, first, confirm my argument that the role of China was seen differently by Americans and other Allied (USSR and UK). Therefore, inclusion of China would mean leaning to the US viewpoint, which would be not fully neutral). Second, I think we should remember that we are discussing leaders, not countries. Obviously, Soviet Union's contribution to the joint war efforts was enormous, but Stalin's role was less significant. I already presented the analysis of pro et contra arguments for all three leaders, and it is really hard to objectively rank them. However, taking into account that we do not include country's names into infobox, and only leaders are included, they serve as indicators of their country's roles (and that is why Stalin goes first). In that sense, Chinese flag might (conditionally) be included into the infobox, although it would be a US-centric viewpoint. However, I see absolutely no reason to include Chiang, because his role in strategic planning and decision making was incomparable with that of the Big Three leaders. The only meeting (in Cairo) was devoted exclusively to the Chinese role in the war in East Asia, and it lead to virtually no global strategic decision (just take a look at the Cairo declaration). In contrast, Tehran conference lead to a number of global strategic decisions that affected all theatres of war, and, in addition to Tehran, the Big Three met two more times, and each conference (Yalta and Potsdam) lead to tectonic shifts in the world policy. In addition, Chiang even didn't control all Chinese military forces, because Communists were acting semi-independently. Therefore, I still do not understand if Chiang deserves inclusion into the infobox as one of the key Allied leaders.
We can think about inclusion of China as a country in the infobox (although that may require inclusion of France too), however, that is a different story. I would prefer to include five countries (USSR, US, UK, China, France, in that order) and three leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, in that order). The chronological order seems to be the most reasonable option, because the personal roles of each of three leaders were comparable, and each of them deserves to be put on the top of the list. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why we are not talking about sources?Answer:
...there isn't a consensus in the sources.... So, another approach is needed. What is plan B? The options for that appear to be: (i) take a decision on which order to place these leaders in based on an editorial consensus of who was most influential/important or whatever or (ii) list them in an order based on other criteria which are easily verifiable - such as chronological/number of days in charge. Option (i) seems to be particularly difficult (see all discussion above) and relies hugely on editors' opinions which seems less than ideal in a source-based encycopedia. Option (ii) is fact-based, has some relevance to the overall subject (in that if we were starting from scratch, it would seem a reasonable course of action) and should end this interminable discussion. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion progressed to consensus on Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Four label and weight to present the Big Three in chronological order with a suggestion made to apply the same here for the list of Main Allied leaders. Whizz40 ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Why are the Chinese in the first photo as if they won the war?? They received lots of help from the allies!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301B:4:6900:606D:12F8:332:4E03 ( talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians!
I've added Romanian wartime leader Ion Antonescu to the infobox. User:Britmax has removed my edit.
I've added his name along with 4 proper sources (references from books of British historians) to back it up. I don't want to sound biased, but if you take a look at the numbers and events regarding the Eastern Front, you'll clearly see how Romania was definitely Germany's most important ally in the European War. And this becomes even more obvious after 1943, when Italy surrenders. It's not only because of the massive amount of troops Romania sent to the front, but also because without Romanian oil, the invasion of the USSR would have been impossible, which Hitler says himself in the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. My claims are backed up by British historians Dennis Deletant and Mark Axworthy, whom I've both quoted in the aforementioned sources. Axworthy also mentions how Antonescu always had a bigger influence on Hitler during the war than Mussolini did, and how Antonescu was always the first one of Hitler's allies to be told about major upcoming events like Operation Barbarossa. Mussolini found himself under pressure because of this, says Axworthy.
What do you guys think? Please take this thread seriously, as to me it is pretty obvious that Romania deserves more attention than it gets for its WW2 contribution. Please read the sources, as I also wrote the exact quotes that back up my claim.
Cheers! Lupishor ( talk) 19:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And I repeat, deficiency in the writings of academic historians cannot be righted in Wikipedia. If you have to wait for the right shift in academia, so be it. In an entirely different part of Wikipedia, I was fortunate that, eventually (and fortuitously) the leading historian of that subject, wrote a definitive account which included some points that I had always felt obvious, but were omitted by prior academic accounts. With the new source supported by positive academic reviews, I was able to include that material in an article, after waiting more than 2 years for such a quality source. Hence I understand the problem, but remain steadfast in the purist view that Wikipedia is based on its sources. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How Romania's role is described in the sources that write about the Eastern Front?If they devote a significant attention to Romania, then, yes, Romania should be included, otherwise, it should not be included. I am not familiar with that, so if Lupishor will provide some evidences that confirm that Romania played an important role in EF, then we should include it. However, if such sources as Glantz, Bellamy, etc mention Romania only occaionally, I see no reason to include it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: Aren't you the one who said Wikipedia is based on sources, not on speculation? You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil. Well, I could also speculate that the USSR could have invaded Romania whenever they liked, and thus, Germany wouldn't have had any Romanian oil.
We need to focus on our timeline, not on speculative alternate timelines. And in our timeline, Romania did provide Germany with oil willingly, and therefore made Operation Barbarossa possible. This is what matters here.
And how do you answer the argument that, after Italy had surrendered, there was no other country than Romania that could have been considered the second most important Axis member in Europe? This is not my claim, it is also what historian Axworthy says in his book.
Another argument is that after the royal coup d'état which put Romania on the allied side, the war was shortened by up to 6 months, because Germany suddenly found itself out of Romanian oil and Romanian troops. This shows how dependent Germany was on Romania during the war, and, therefore, how important Romania was to the Axis.
You said you wanted sources, so I gave you sources in form of two British historians. Who says we need a "consensus of historians" to add Romania? While I admit that I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's rules, I am pretty certain that what you need to have in order to make an edit are credible sources to support your claim. And I provided you with 4 good sources from 2 different historians. Please show me where Wikipedia mentions that your "consensus" thing is needed. We even have the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. Even if Wikipedia doesn't consider it a reliable source, it still makes my point so obvious that I'd say that's rather a question of common sense than of needed sources. Lupishor ( talk) 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil.This idea is discussed in one of your sources. There were clear concerns both within Romania and outside that Germany would take the oil fields by force. [1]: 50,53, 60
historian Axworthy. Axworthy's book is out of print (which is not a good sign when assessing a source). I have tried to ascertain whether or not Axworthy is a trained historian with any particular academic credentials. So far, it appears he is not. (See WP:HISTRS) (b) I don't think the issue is whether Romania was, at that point, the second-ranking European axis power. The issue is whether their role in the whole war (or even as number 2 in the European Axis) is sufficiently significant to get them an entry in the info box.
@ Paul Siebert: If you consider oil not to be a criterion, then I could use the war effort on the Eastern Front as a whole as a criterion. Not just the oil, but the big number of troops sent there, that made Operation Barbarossa possible. Romania sent more troops than all other Axis members (apart from Germany, of course) combined. And as you stated, the Eastern Front alone made up 50% of WW2. If Romania wasn't willing to help with troops (like Bulgaria did), the invasion wouldn't have been possible.
@ ThoughtIdRetired: Maybe there were, indeed, concerns that Germany would have taken the oil by force if Romania wasn't willing to help. But you forget the Romanian troops (see what I responded to Paul). We can't speculate that Germany would have forced Romania to help with troops, like they would've done for the oil, considering that Bulgaria was also an Axis member, but wasn't forced to invade the USSR. Axworthy mentions how the German leadership of troops in Ukraine kept on asking for reinforcements from Romania all the time, because German troops alone could not have done the job. This is a clear sign of how imporant Romania's contribution was. Even if Axworthy is not a trained historian, he uses Romanian archives as sources for his book, so I guess that makes his book a reliable source, no matter what his historian degree is, right?
Also: Remember, we're not actually talking about Romania as a country here, but about its leader Ion Antonescu. My aim is to add him to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox. Even if, let's say, Romania as a country didn't have a notable contribution (I'm sure it did), we are talking about its leader here. And Axworthy mentions how Antonescu was much more important for Hitler than Mussolini. For example, it's mentioned that Antonescu was always the first Axis leader that Hitler told about major upcoming events, including Operation Barbarossa. It's also mentioned how Mussolini noticed that he's losing his prestige in favor of Antonescu, and how he was under pressure because of this. Axworthy also states how Antonescu was "the only Axis leader whom it was permitted to simply contradict Hitler face to face". This was due to Antonescu's military experience (he had fought in four other wars/conflicts before WW2), which Mussolini didn't have. That's how Hitler came to respect Antonescu so much, and according to Axworthy, Hitler even admired him, viewing his situation in Romania as similar to Hitler's own situation in Germany. Lupishor ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
we could deduce that..... It does not matter what Wikipedia editors deduce about a subject. It is what is in the sources that is important. The numbers are just simple facts - their interpretation needs the input of historians - in a way that produces a consensus. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, @ ThoughtIdRetired: and @ Nick-D:, even if Deletant's entry in The Oxford Companion to World War II doesn't mention that Romania was a main Axis member, isn't the fact that he wrote an entry for that book still an argument to add Romania/Antonescu, since Deletant has claimed in another book that Romania was on a par with Italy when it came to importance for Germany? Lupishor ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
References
@ RickySarzus: @ KIENGIR: User:RickySarzus wants the infobox to say that the Result included the fall of Fascist Italy (1922–1943). User:KIENGIR insists the Result included the fall of the Kingdom of Italy, which existed, according to the Wikipedia article on the Kingdom, from 1861 to 1946. I'm no expert on World War II, but it seems to me like the fall of Fascist Italy (1922-1943) was part of World War II, while the Kingdom officially didn't end until 1946-06-02, over a year after Victory in Europe Day, 1945-05-08.
Therefore, I think the infobox should say the result included the fall of Fascist Italy, NOT the fall of the Kingdom.
Comments? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Course of the war", subsection "Western Europe (1940–41)" I intend to change following:
"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's ultimatum,[which?][99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."
To following:
"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's peace offer [99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."
By using this source:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/1940.html
Under page 251, which is the same website that the original writer used. T.Randrup ( talk) 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the "Axis attack on the Soviet Union (1941)" sub-section, namely, replacing this photo with this one, as the latter illustrates better the fact that Germany didn't fight alone, but received significant help from its allies, which is forgotten by many in the context of the Eastern Front. The photo quote I'd add is " Erich von Manstein with Romanian generals Petre Dumitrescu and Gheorghe Avramescu on the Eastern Front (1942)". Alternatively, it could be added to "Eastern Front (1942-43)", because it fits better timeframe-wise. What do you think, Paul Siebert, ThoughtIdRetired and Nick-D? Lupishor ( talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I see no significant problem with showing staged photosI couldn't disagree more. I agree that many WW2 photos were staged, so all the more reason to make use of those that weren't. Then there are "levels" of staging - photos of the big three at the Tehran conference were staged, but they recorded a real event, so are important. The Julien Bryan photo of the Polish girl finding her sister dead after an air attack (as discussed on this talk page recently, but (i.m.h.o.) sadly excluded) most certainly was not. Then we have the Iwo Jima flag raising which was believed for some time to be staged due to a misunderstanding. So, whilst there are some shades of grey in the subject, I strongly feel that photographs of "real" events are infinitely preferable. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit: The photo I've suggested might get deleted, as it seems it's owned by Getty Images, which I didn't expect, considering I've found it in a 1995 book with no source given. I would then suggest to use this one as the replacement; this one doesn't seem to be owned by anyone. Of course, other photos are possible too, for example, illustrating Hungarian or Italian soldiers. I'd choose this particular one, since Romania had the second biggest contribution on the Eastern Front, so I'd find it more fitting; it also shows a German soldier, which would obviously be needed too. I find it much better then the staged photo the article currently uses. Lupishor ( talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I found that this iconic photo is now under CC, so it can be added to the article. I am going to replace the Reichstag photo with this one. The only reason why that photo was not in this article were a copyright problem. Now it seems to be resolved, so I see no obstacles to its addition anymore.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do the commanders of the nations (even one wrong and you know who I'm talking about) have the flag but the nations don't? It would be enough to put the USA, UK, USSR, and China for the Allies and Germany, Japan and Italy for the Axis. KROSLO ( talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have marked the following sentence as dubious:
"Despite strong pacifist sentiment after World War I, irredentist and revanchist nationalism emerged in several European states in the same period. These sentiments were especially marked in Germany because of the significant territorial, colonial, and financial losses imposed by the Treaty of Versailles."
Given that Austria and Hungary both suffered much more extreme territory, population, and industry loss as a result of their respective treaties, I find the "especially" dubious at best. I know that this used to be a popular historiographical opinion which has come under scrutiny in recent decades, so for now I have marked it as dubious and welcome further discussion. Kakurokuna ( talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add the due to the well documented Italian war crimes TTTTRZON ( talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
In the current infobox, the participants in WW2 are currently only listed as "Allies" and "Axis". Should it be changed to reflect similarity with the infobox at World War I, where the reader is given information as to the specific participating nations? -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Should we make Hideki Tojo as the main leader of the Axis Powers in Japan because he was the main wartime planner for most of the war? Cupcake547 talk 17:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
Prime Minister Tojo should not be added because it were mainly the Japanese generals and admirals which were making plans. But all that the Japanese did in the war was to make the Allies respect them and teach them to fear the Japanese and the Japanese respected the Emperor a lot that they sacrificed their life for their country. So the Emperor should not be removed and Tojo should not be added. Also, if you're adding Tojo (which you should not), so Kuniaki Koiso and Kantarō Suzuki should also be added because they were also Japanese prime ministers. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 10:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sthitapragnya Tripathy: The list of allied leaders and their order has been discussed extensively, e.g., in Talk:World War II/Archive 62#The Big Three. Conclusion: Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, in that order. Moreover, Chaing Kai-Shek did NOT belong on that list. This was discussed extensively last December and January.
Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Mate Sthitapragnya Tripathy ( talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone make this a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
France was one of the main leaders of ww2, so maybe you can add Charles De Gaulle as the leader of Free France? TTTTRZON ( talk) 15:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a rather bizarre grab bag of various sources about various specific aspects of the war, and should probably be removed or entirely replaced. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the disambiguation, some people may have been searching for the call of duty game with this title and it should have a redirect to this page. Big boy Zack ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Germany, followed by the other Axis states, declared war on the United States in solidarity with Japan, citing as justification the American attacks on German war vessels that had been ordered by Roosevelt. Which one? Unknown... ( talk) 00:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be 3–4 regular-size paragraphs. Right now it stands at 5 large paragraphs. I know this isn't a trivial task but I thought I would raise the issue in case anyone more familiar with the article might want to weigh in on how it can be shortened. This would mean about a 25% reduction. UserTwoSix ( talk) 21:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Article length: 235,721 bytes (greater than 30,000)
Outline:
Concise version
(Feel free to edit the above section) UserTwoSix ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
World War II changed the political alignment and social structure of the globe. The United Nations (UN) was established to foster international co-operation and prevent future conflicts, and the victorious great powers—China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—became the permanent members of its Security Council. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the nearly half-century-long Cold War. In the wake of European devastation, the influence of its great powers waned, triggering the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Most countries whose industries had been damaged moved towards economic recovery and expansion. Political integration, especially in Europe, began as an effort to forestall future hostilities, end pre-war enmities and forge a sense of common identity.
The previous montage alignment is better than to understand rather arranged in horizontal alignment. It also helps reader to easily navigate (especially for mobile phone users). I'm requesting to restore previous montage arrangement. The Supermind ( talk) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1941-1945 Russia won 2A00:1FA2:44F1:2D26:F5E4:E154:C5C3:2ECD ( talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Tamerlanahayav: Thank you for your work to improve this Wikipedia article.
However, I'm concerned that your additions seem to be incomplete: Please help me understand {{sfn|Ramet|2006|p=146}}{{sfn|Geiger|2012|p=86}}{{sfn|Tomasevich|2001|p=747}}: I cannot find "Ramet 2006", nor "Geiger 2012" nor "Tomasevich 2001". I click on the apparent link in the notes at the end and get nothing.
Template:Sfn suggests to me that you need to add a complete citation matching these {{sfn|...}} notes to the "References" at the end.
Thanks again, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There isn't a lot of countries there, it's missing one of the main country where the majority of the war actually happened, France, and there is no date next to certain leaders, Italy switch side and neither the USSR nor the USA fought at the beginning of the war unlike China France and the UK. Esteban Outeiral Dias ( talk) 11:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It says main leaders. France and Italy weren't part of the Big Four and Mussolini didn't switch sides.
2601:600:A37F:F111:284F:3A39:A991:A8AF ( talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be the executed symbol beside Benito? CanadianSingh1469 ( talk) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
But why? CanadianSingh1469 ( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we have a link to some Japanese human experimentation article, if it exists. I see there is a main link to Nazi human experimentation but really need one for Japan as well. scope_creep Talk 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
A study published by the German government in 1974 estimated the number of German civilian victims of crimes during expulsion of Germans after World War II between 1945 and 1948 to be over 600,000, with about 400,000 deaths in the areas east of Oder and Neisse (ca. 120,000 in acts of direct violence, mostly by Soviet troops but also by Poles, 60,000 in Polish and 40,000 in Soviet concentration camps or prisons mostly from hunger and disease, and 200,000 deaths among civilian deportees to forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union), 130,000 in Czechoslovakia (thereof 100,000 in camps) and 80,000 in Yugoslavia (thereof 15,000 to 20,000 from violence outside of and in camps and 59,000 deaths from hunger and disease in camps). Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945–1978. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28 Mai 1974. Archivalien und ausgewälte Erlebenisberichte, Bonn 1989, pp. 40-41, 46-47, 51-53) [unsigned comment 2021-09-21T16:08:49 by user:AdrianXX]
I added the source. [unsigned comment by user:AdrianXX]
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Would request to add the missing countries, as well as their commanders, in the info box. Right now there are a lot of a missing information that should be there, to allow more quidance to people who are interested. Leozzyy ( talk) 19:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Moxy: @ Helper201: I restored the link to the Wikipedia article on " Opposition to World War II" deleted by User:Moxy. I think said opposition is an important part of the history of WW II and seems to be reasonably well documented in that Wikipedia article on "Opposition...". DavidMCEddy ( talk) 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Currently the 'Chronology' section only covers the start and end of the war. I think it is really trying to define it, more than describe all of it. I suggest changing its name to 'Definition' or even 'Etymology'. It should cover what is and is not WW2 and where the name came from. Hopefully with only a few more words then we currently have. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 02:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The photos in the collage aren't quite aligned—the vertical line doesn't go straight down the middle. Would any of the maintainers of this article be interested in doing some small crops on Commons so we can get them aligned? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don´t know if anyone has talked about this before but everyone always leaves out the 4th International, The Chinese Untied Front, and The Greater East Asain Co-Prosperity Sphere. This kinda ticks me off because you are only fueling the misinformation of WWII being only Axis and Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommadent Klaus ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose that George VI for United Kingdom and Victor Emanuel III for the Kingdom of Italy should be added to the leaders section in the info box. Jjfun3695 ( talk) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we please show countries instead of leaders in the Infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing we create an FAQ for the World War II page and its correspondent talk page. For an example of an FAQ page, see Talk:Jesus/FAQ. This is what a talk page FAQ would look like. The reason I propose this is because editors constantly bring up new issues that have already been discussed once, or even more, times (as I am writing this, there are at least two, overlong disputes on this page: #Soviet Switch and #Chiang Kai-Shek?). An FAQ page would prevent already-discussed (and decided-on) issues from being brought back to light...again. It would also prevent sections from becoming overlong, like the Soviet Switch section, which has over 70,000 characters of repeated arguments. Please let me know what you think of an FAQ. Obviously it would take a while to put together, but I reckon we'd all be able to do it together. Have a great day, everyone! - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 12:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose to remove this text from the infobox:
Allied military occupations of Germany, Japan, Austria and foundation of the Italian Republic in place of the Kingdom of Italy
First, why is the military occupation of Austria included and Korea's not? If we do include Korea, why not include the Allied occupation of Libya which lasted longer than the occupation of Germany? Also, if we're including foundations of new republics, why not include the new republic created in France? Or the new Syrian republic? I think this section doesn't really add much to the infobox. Practically every piece of land that was administered by the defeated Axis powers went under military occupation/new management in the immediate aftermath of the war, as expected given the unconditional surrender of the Axis. Merrybrit ( talk) 23:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D: Per
WP:BRD I would like to discuss your revert of my edit by alleging "inaccuracies". Every single fact I introduced into the article is well-known and can be attested in many WW2 books. Let's go through it:
My overall point of view is that we need to be consistent. The logic is straightforward. Either we select (by whatever criteria) the most important participant in a battle/operation (and then change for consistency that the Reichstag was taken by the Soviets, not the Allies) or we combine all participants into Allies/Axis if the wikipage of a battle says there was more than one participant (and obviously it's supported by RS). One or the other, not the inconsistent mess we currently have.
(as a side note I'm surprised that such highly trafficked "good" page has so many real inaccuracies like obsolete sources, unreliable sources, mislabeled images, uncited claims etc. which I've been trying to fix for the past day) Merrybrit ( talk) 10:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is Chiang listed as a main leader? Chiang's troops didn't even fight against Nazi Germany (and Italy). Merrybrit ( talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1) The "Four Policemen" - can be dismissed per
Paul Siebert and me above.
2) Chinese involvement in a **world** war as opposed to a local war - lacking because China never fought Hitler or Mussolini. (note that the USSR vs Japan is not the same because the USSR fought Japan in 1939, provided military support to the Chinese government against Japan since 1937, forced Japan to keep large forces in Manchuria throughout the Pacific war (the Kwantung Army) partly to prevent a Soviet attack, and finally declared war on Japan in 1945 and destroyed the Kwantung Army with 700,000 losses to the Japanese).
3) Chinese contribution to defeating Japan as measured by inflicted casualties - lacking per me above. To reiterate, after December 1941 China inflicted about as many losses on Japan as Australia did which is rather surprising.
4) China's permanent membership of the UN Security Council - reflective of FDR's post-war vision, not relevant to the conduct of war itself, equivalent to France.
Ultimately, it is subjective but the evidence for the "Big Three" vs the "Four Policemen" presented above by
Paul Siebert in combination with "the Grand Alliance" coined by Churchill to describe the three major Allies, means that Chiang should not be included. Political reasons like "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" should have no place here. No evidence of a consensus among English-speaking historians that China played a major role has been presented. Once such a consensus is established we can revisit the issue but in my view Chiang's role doesn't merit inclusion in the infobox.
Merrybrit (
talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I will now post a link to this discussion in
WP:MILHIST to get more eyes on it.
Merrybrit (
talk)
22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
We've discussed the infobox to death over the years, and the current listing (and the order!) reflects the outcome of these discussions, which have included a couple of full-scale RfCs and a huge number of other discussions. I'm really struggling to understand why this keeps being re-raised. I'd suggest that people who want to change the infobox make reference to a broad survey of the huge literature on the war (noting that claiming that single sources are definitive is not credible given the vast number of sources which are available) rather than advocate for changes based on their personal views. Nick-D ( talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D: I disagree with characterising the previous
discussion as consensus. In fact, your own quotes on closer examination don't support your argument. For example, Spector calls the efforts to make China a major contributor "vain". Hastings points out a little further in the same paragraph that you quoted that Japan's commitment in China was important insofar as it caused the United States' "animosity" against Japan: "Japan’s withdrawal from the mainland in 1940 or 1941 could probably have averted war with the United States, since Japanese aggression there, and the culture of massacre symbolised by the deaths of at least 60,000 and perhaps many more civilians in Nanjing, was the principal source of American animosity, indeed outrage." Finally, Rana Mitter is an expert on China and is propounding a revisionist view writing that "For decades, our understanding of that global conflict has failed to give a proper account of the role of China." (p.4) and arguing against the common view (one might even say, a consensus) in the West that "China's role in the war is a historical byway, not worthy of the full examination that is the due of the major powers involved." (p. 9)
Now on to my sources:
It seems clear from my sources that they do not consider Chiang's China a major player. Important WW2 studies like The Economics of World War II are made without any reference to China at all. The sources all foreground the contribution of the Big Three: the US, the USSR and Great Britain; these three should be in the infobox. Merrybrit ( talk) 13:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have put my earlier question/point another way: What do the best sources available generally state when listing the main combatants for the entire war (rather than when they list all of them exhaustively). This is something Encyclopaedias may already do, or something from the introduction of books about the war in general. Delving into the depths of books and synthesizing a rationale from isolated quotes isn't helpful, in my opinion.
Surely the main combatants are the nations that such sources say they were. They may or may not be the ones that caused the victory (which would exclude all axis powers by definition), or the ones an editor thinks should be there just because of quotes about numbers involved, casualties inflicted/taken, ground taken or lost, or economic might. ( Hohum @) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Also just a note but looking into past archives this is something that appears to be a failure mode for this page. Just like many years ago an editor snuck in a minority view that the Second World War started in 1937 into the lede and people were arguing about it for years before it got edited. It seems that a number of Chinese nationalists/people who believe that "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" are pushing their POV in this important WP article instead of relying on the consensus view of RS written by historians.
In fact, there are almost as many books about Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin's wartime alliance as about Chiang Kai-Shek's whole life including both before and after WW2 (compare this and this). This is why the Big Three belong in the infobox and Chiang doesn't. Merrybrit ( talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D:, @
Dushan Jugum:,@
Hohum:, @
ThoughtIdRetired:, @
GraemeLeggett:, @
Therealscorp1an:, @
Paul Siebert: In view of the new information posted above and in the interest of focusing the discussion and establishing a consensus I propose a poll over which leaders should be included in the infobox, please post your view below with reasons:
Option 1: The Big Three or Option 2: The Big Three + Chiang.
Option 3: Put countries instead of leaders
23:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Option 4: 12 month moratorium on further discussions of the infobox The infobox has been stable for many years, which suggests that the results of the previous RfCs still have support. The frequent discussions of the infobox have not gone anywhere and soak up a lot of time on unproductive discussions that distract from improving the actual content of the article. As such, I'd like to suggest that we leave the infobox as-is and that further proposals made over the next twelve months to change it be closed. Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I am relatively new at editing contentious materialis a good explanation of why there are differing views on this. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Paul Siebert: and @ Washington Lincoln: Based on [20] and [21], I think it is necessary to use {{ping}}.I think we should follow WP:AFG.Give @ Washington Lincoln: a chance to talk about what he wants to do on the talk page.
PS: On commons.wikimedia.org, Elcobbola blocked @ Washington Lincoln: because of abusing multiple accounts. Rastinition ( talk) 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could I add a flag map of pre-World War Two and perhaps a flag map during WW2 DoctorAce08 ( talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
as suggested by Nick-D, here's the proposed edit about china's future (current) role as superpower:
i believe it's noteworthy to include this from the book "American Strategy in World War II: A Reconsideration." because:
1) it is explicitly mentioned in the long-term plans of FDR
2) (although it took long) china's superpower role/place did happen eventually as (pre)planned.
appreciate the thoughts on this. thank you Grandia01 ( talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Thank you for your advices. Grandia01 ( talk) 07:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
As here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_War_II&diff=1065004661&oldid=1064935633 @Hohum where is the disagreement? I saw the disagreement about the USSR so I removed that from my edit until that discussion is settled. But I don't see any disagreement about anything else in my edit. TheGoldAge ( talk) 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | 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 55 | ← | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | Archive 64 | Archive 65 |
I think this is quite constructive edit. It is in accordance with the recent changes in the Allies of World War II article, and the arguments presented at that talk page are equally applicable to the WWII article. In connection to that, I propose to bring the leaders order in accordance with the order of the Big Three, and make it chronological: Churchill goes first, Stalin the second, Roosevelt - the third. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Peacemaker67 look here, and pls see the above title — first cited as reference. Opinions is not how you create a Wikipedia article, you should know that. -- E-960 ( talk) 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
E-960 The change in the order of the main Allied Leaders is not supported by consensus in the discussions on this Talk page in the sections above. Further, the title of a book is for marketing purposes. We have to reference the contents of the source. Please find below a survey the literature:
As discussed at Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Big Four in the infobox:
-- Whizz40 ( talk) 13:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Get of your high horse Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging and Peacemaker67. The reason no admin up to this points closed the RfC is because it's so obvious your "rationales" for Stalin first are nothing more than opinions and synthesis. How would an admin summarize that conclusion — a few sources presented by Nick-D talk about the Soviet Unions on the Eastern Front these statements are then equated with Stalin and the wider war. Also, several editors voiced their personal opinion that Stalin should be first. However, no source was ever presented that actually says Stalin lead the alliance. -- E-960 ( talk) 16:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources I own on the significance of China's role in the war provide the following:
As a result, while there isn't a consensus in the sources, I favour continuing to include China as the sources generally note that it was one of the four main countries and made a major contribution to the war. Nick-D ( talk) 10:10, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
"Offtopic" collapsed
|
---|
|
If I understand Nick-D's arguments correctly, they, first, confirm my argument that the role of China was seen differently by Americans and other Allied (USSR and UK). Therefore, inclusion of China would mean leaning to the US viewpoint, which would be not fully neutral). Second, I think we should remember that we are discussing leaders, not countries. Obviously, Soviet Union's contribution to the joint war efforts was enormous, but Stalin's role was less significant. I already presented the analysis of pro et contra arguments for all three leaders, and it is really hard to objectively rank them. However, taking into account that we do not include country's names into infobox, and only leaders are included, they serve as indicators of their country's roles (and that is why Stalin goes first). In that sense, Chinese flag might (conditionally) be included into the infobox, although it would be a US-centric viewpoint. However, I see absolutely no reason to include Chiang, because his role in strategic planning and decision making was incomparable with that of the Big Three leaders. The only meeting (in Cairo) was devoted exclusively to the Chinese role in the war in East Asia, and it lead to virtually no global strategic decision (just take a look at the Cairo declaration). In contrast, Tehran conference lead to a number of global strategic decisions that affected all theatres of war, and, in addition to Tehran, the Big Three met two more times, and each conference (Yalta and Potsdam) lead to tectonic shifts in the world policy. In addition, Chiang even didn't control all Chinese military forces, because Communists were acting semi-independently. Therefore, I still do not understand if Chiang deserves inclusion into the infobox as one of the key Allied leaders.
We can think about inclusion of China as a country in the infobox (although that may require inclusion of France too), however, that is a different story. I would prefer to include five countries (USSR, US, UK, China, France, in that order) and three leaders (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, in that order). The chronological order seems to be the most reasonable option, because the personal roles of each of three leaders were comparable, and each of them deserves to be put on the top of the list. -- Paul Siebert ( talk) 23:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand why we are not talking about sources?Answer:
...there isn't a consensus in the sources.... So, another approach is needed. What is plan B? The options for that appear to be: (i) take a decision on which order to place these leaders in based on an editorial consensus of who was most influential/important or whatever or (ii) list them in an order based on other criteria which are easily verifiable - such as chronological/number of days in charge. Option (i) seems to be particularly difficult (see all discussion above) and relies hugely on editors' opinions which seems less than ideal in a source-based encycopedia. Option (ii) is fact-based, has some relevance to the overall subject (in that if we were starting from scratch, it would seem a reasonable course of action) and should end this interminable discussion. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 17:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
The discussion progressed to consensus on Talk:Allies of World War II#Big Three / Four label and weight to present the Big Three in chronological order with a suggestion made to apply the same here for the list of Main Allied leaders. Whizz40 ( talk) 15:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Why are the Chinese in the first photo as if they won the war?? They received lots of help from the allies!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:301B:4:6900:606D:12F8:332:4E03 ( talk) 16:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello, fellow Wikipedians!
I've added Romanian wartime leader Ion Antonescu to the infobox. User:Britmax has removed my edit.
I've added his name along with 4 proper sources (references from books of British historians) to back it up. I don't want to sound biased, but if you take a look at the numbers and events regarding the Eastern Front, you'll clearly see how Romania was definitely Germany's most important ally in the European War. And this becomes even more obvious after 1943, when Italy surrenders. It's not only because of the massive amount of troops Romania sent to the front, but also because without Romanian oil, the invasion of the USSR would have been impossible, which Hitler says himself in the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. My claims are backed up by British historians Dennis Deletant and Mark Axworthy, whom I've both quoted in the aforementioned sources. Axworthy also mentions how Antonescu always had a bigger influence on Hitler during the war than Mussolini did, and how Antonescu was always the first one of Hitler's allies to be told about major upcoming events like Operation Barbarossa. Mussolini found himself under pressure because of this, says Axworthy.
What do you guys think? Please take this thread seriously, as to me it is pretty obvious that Romania deserves more attention than it gets for its WW2 contribution. Please read the sources, as I also wrote the exact quotes that back up my claim.
Cheers! Lupishor ( talk) 19:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
And I repeat, deficiency in the writings of academic historians cannot be righted in Wikipedia. If you have to wait for the right shift in academia, so be it. In an entirely different part of Wikipedia, I was fortunate that, eventually (and fortuitously) the leading historian of that subject, wrote a definitive account which included some points that I had always felt obvious, but were omitted by prior academic accounts. With the new source supported by positive academic reviews, I was able to include that material in an article, after waiting more than 2 years for such a quality source. Hence I understand the problem, but remain steadfast in the purist view that Wikipedia is based on its sources. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 20:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
How Romania's role is described in the sources that write about the Eastern Front?If they devote a significant attention to Romania, then, yes, Romania should be included, otherwise, it should not be included. I am not familiar with that, so if Lupishor will provide some evidences that confirm that Romania played an important role in EF, then we should include it. However, if such sources as Glantz, Bellamy, etc mention Romania only occaionally, I see no reason to include it.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: Aren't you the one who said Wikipedia is based on sources, not on speculation? You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil. Well, I could also speculate that the USSR could have invaded Romania whenever they liked, and thus, Germany wouldn't have had any Romanian oil.
We need to focus on our timeline, not on speculative alternate timelines. And in our timeline, Romania did provide Germany with oil willingly, and therefore made Operation Barbarossa possible. This is what matters here.
And how do you answer the argument that, after Italy had surrendered, there was no other country than Romania that could have been considered the second most important Axis member in Europe? This is not my claim, it is also what historian Axworthy says in his book.
Another argument is that after the royal coup d'état which put Romania on the allied side, the war was shortened by up to 6 months, because Germany suddenly found itself out of Romanian oil and Romanian troops. This shows how dependent Germany was on Romania during the war, and, therefore, how important Romania was to the Axis.
You said you wanted sources, so I gave you sources in form of two British historians. Who says we need a "consensus of historians" to add Romania? While I admit that I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia's rules, I am pretty certain that what you need to have in order to make an edit are credible sources to support your claim. And I provided you with 4 good sources from 2 different historians. Please show me where Wikipedia mentions that your "consensus" thing is needed. We even have the Hitler-Mannerheim recording. Even if Wikipedia doesn't consider it a reliable source, it still makes my point so obvious that I'd say that's rather a question of common sense than of needed sources. Lupishor ( talk) 13:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
You speculated that Germany could have simply invaded Romania, if Romania didn't want to help with oil.This idea is discussed in one of your sources. There were clear concerns both within Romania and outside that Germany would take the oil fields by force. [1]: 50,53, 60
historian Axworthy. Axworthy's book is out of print (which is not a good sign when assessing a source). I have tried to ascertain whether or not Axworthy is a trained historian with any particular academic credentials. So far, it appears he is not. (See WP:HISTRS) (b) I don't think the issue is whether Romania was, at that point, the second-ranking European axis power. The issue is whether their role in the whole war (or even as number 2 in the European Axis) is sufficiently significant to get them an entry in the info box.
@ Paul Siebert: If you consider oil not to be a criterion, then I could use the war effort on the Eastern Front as a whole as a criterion. Not just the oil, but the big number of troops sent there, that made Operation Barbarossa possible. Romania sent more troops than all other Axis members (apart from Germany, of course) combined. And as you stated, the Eastern Front alone made up 50% of WW2. If Romania wasn't willing to help with troops (like Bulgaria did), the invasion wouldn't have been possible.
@ ThoughtIdRetired: Maybe there were, indeed, concerns that Germany would have taken the oil by force if Romania wasn't willing to help. But you forget the Romanian troops (see what I responded to Paul). We can't speculate that Germany would have forced Romania to help with troops, like they would've done for the oil, considering that Bulgaria was also an Axis member, but wasn't forced to invade the USSR. Axworthy mentions how the German leadership of troops in Ukraine kept on asking for reinforcements from Romania all the time, because German troops alone could not have done the job. This is a clear sign of how imporant Romania's contribution was. Even if Axworthy is not a trained historian, he uses Romanian archives as sources for his book, so I guess that makes his book a reliable source, no matter what his historian degree is, right?
Also: Remember, we're not actually talking about Romania as a country here, but about its leader Ion Antonescu. My aim is to add him to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox. Even if, let's say, Romania as a country didn't have a notable contribution (I'm sure it did), we are talking about its leader here. And Axworthy mentions how Antonescu was much more important for Hitler than Mussolini. For example, it's mentioned that Antonescu was always the first Axis leader that Hitler told about major upcoming events, including Operation Barbarossa. It's also mentioned how Mussolini noticed that he's losing his prestige in favor of Antonescu, and how he was under pressure because of this. Axworthy also states how Antonescu was "the only Axis leader whom it was permitted to simply contradict Hitler face to face". This was due to Antonescu's military experience (he had fought in four other wars/conflicts before WW2), which Mussolini didn't have. That's how Hitler came to respect Antonescu so much, and according to Axworthy, Hitler even admired him, viewing his situation in Romania as similar to Hitler's own situation in Germany. Lupishor ( talk) 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
we could deduce that..... It does not matter what Wikipedia editors deduce about a subject. It is what is in the sources that is important. The numbers are just simple facts - their interpretation needs the input of historians - in a way that produces a consensus. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
By the way, @ ThoughtIdRetired: and @ Nick-D:, even if Deletant's entry in The Oxford Companion to World War II doesn't mention that Romania was a main Axis member, isn't the fact that he wrote an entry for that book still an argument to add Romania/Antonescu, since Deletant has claimed in another book that Romania was on a par with Italy when it came to importance for Germany? Lupishor ( talk) 18:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
References
@ RickySarzus: @ KIENGIR: User:RickySarzus wants the infobox to say that the Result included the fall of Fascist Italy (1922–1943). User:KIENGIR insists the Result included the fall of the Kingdom of Italy, which existed, according to the Wikipedia article on the Kingdom, from 1861 to 1946. I'm no expert on World War II, but it seems to me like the fall of Fascist Italy (1922-1943) was part of World War II, while the Kingdom officially didn't end until 1946-06-02, over a year after Victory in Europe Day, 1945-05-08.
Therefore, I think the infobox should say the result included the fall of Fascist Italy, NOT the fall of the Kingdom.
Comments? DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under "Course of the war", subsection "Western Europe (1940–41)" I intend to change following:
"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's ultimatum,[which?][99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."
To following:
"The United Kingdom rejected Hitler's peace offer [99] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command, forcing the indefinite postponement of the proposed German invasion of Britain."
By using this source:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/events/1940.html
Under page 251, which is the same website that the original writer used. T.Randrup ( talk) 12:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have a proposal for the "Axis attack on the Soviet Union (1941)" sub-section, namely, replacing this photo with this one, as the latter illustrates better the fact that Germany didn't fight alone, but received significant help from its allies, which is forgotten by many in the context of the Eastern Front. The photo quote I'd add is " Erich von Manstein with Romanian generals Petre Dumitrescu and Gheorghe Avramescu on the Eastern Front (1942)". Alternatively, it could be added to "Eastern Front (1942-43)", because it fits better timeframe-wise. What do you think, Paul Siebert, ThoughtIdRetired and Nick-D? Lupishor ( talk) 15:53, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I see no significant problem with showing staged photosI couldn't disagree more. I agree that many WW2 photos were staged, so all the more reason to make use of those that weren't. Then there are "levels" of staging - photos of the big three at the Tehran conference were staged, but they recorded a real event, so are important. The Julien Bryan photo of the Polish girl finding her sister dead after an air attack (as discussed on this talk page recently, but (i.m.h.o.) sadly excluded) most certainly was not. Then we have the Iwo Jima flag raising which was believed for some time to be staged due to a misunderstanding. So, whilst there are some shades of grey in the subject, I strongly feel that photographs of "real" events are infinitely preferable. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 18:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Edit: The photo I've suggested might get deleted, as it seems it's owned by Getty Images, which I didn't expect, considering I've found it in a 1995 book with no source given. I would then suggest to use this one as the replacement; this one doesn't seem to be owned by anyone. Of course, other photos are possible too, for example, illustrating Hungarian or Italian soldiers. I'd choose this particular one, since Romania had the second biggest contribution on the Eastern Front, so I'd find it more fitting; it also shows a German soldier, which would obviously be needed too. I find it much better then the staged photo the article currently uses. Lupishor ( talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I found that this iconic photo is now under CC, so it can be added to the article. I am going to replace the Reichstag photo with this one. The only reason why that photo was not in this article were a copyright problem. Now it seems to be resolved, so I see no obstacles to its addition anymore.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 02:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do the commanders of the nations (even one wrong and you know who I'm talking about) have the flag but the nations don't? It would be enough to put the USA, UK, USSR, and China for the Allies and Germany, Japan and Italy for the Axis. KROSLO ( talk) 09:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I have marked the following sentence as dubious:
"Despite strong pacifist sentiment after World War I, irredentist and revanchist nationalism emerged in several European states in the same period. These sentiments were especially marked in Germany because of the significant territorial, colonial, and financial losses imposed by the Treaty of Versailles."
Given that Austria and Hungary both suffered much more extreme territory, population, and industry loss as a result of their respective treaties, I find the "especially" dubious at best. I know that this used to be a popular historiographical opinion which has come under scrutiny in recent decades, so for now I have marked it as dubious and welcome further discussion. Kakurokuna ( talk) 01:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add the due to the well documented Italian war crimes TTTTRZON ( talk) 15:35, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
In the current infobox, the participants in WW2 are currently only listed as "Allies" and "Axis". Should it be changed to reflect similarity with the infobox at World War I, where the reader is given information as to the specific participating nations? -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello. Should we make Hideki Tojo as the main leader of the Axis Powers in Japan because he was the main wartime planner for most of the war? Cupcake547 talk 17:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC).
Prime Minister Tojo should not be added because it were mainly the Japanese generals and admirals which were making plans. But all that the Japanese did in the war was to make the Allies respect them and teach them to fear the Japanese and the Japanese respected the Emperor a lot that they sacrificed their life for their country. So the Emperor should not be removed and Tojo should not be added. Also, if you're adding Tojo (which you should not), so Kuniaki Koiso and Kantarō Suzuki should also be added because they were also Japanese prime ministers. ShauryaOMG ( talk) 10:48, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Sthitapragnya Tripathy: The list of allied leaders and their order has been discussed extensively, e.g., in Talk:World War II/Archive 62#The Big Three. Conclusion: Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill, in that order. Moreover, Chaing Kai-Shek did NOT belong on that list. This was discussed extensively last December and January.
Thanks for your support of Wikipedia. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 21:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Cheers Mate Sthitapragnya Tripathy ( talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Can someone make this a featured article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caustic3 ( talk • contribs) 23:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
France was one of the main leaders of ww2, so maybe you can add Charles De Gaulle as the leader of Free France? TTTTRZON ( talk) 15:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a rather bizarre grab bag of various sources about various specific aspects of the war, and should probably be removed or entirely replaced. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the disambiguation, some people may have been searching for the call of duty game with this title and it should have a redirect to this page. Big boy Zack ( talk) 23:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Germany, followed by the other Axis states, declared war on the United States in solidarity with Japan, citing as justification the American attacks on German war vessels that had been ordered by Roosevelt. Which one? Unknown... ( talk) 00:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Per MOS:LEADLENGTH it should be 3–4 regular-size paragraphs. Right now it stands at 5 large paragraphs. I know this isn't a trivial task but I thought I would raise the issue in case anyone more familiar with the article might want to weigh in on how it can be shortened. This would mean about a 25% reduction. UserTwoSix ( talk) 21:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Article length: 235,721 bytes (greater than 30,000)
Outline:
Concise version
(Feel free to edit the above section) UserTwoSix ( talk) 22:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
World War II changed the political alignment and social structure of the globe. The United Nations (UN) was established to foster international co-operation and prevent future conflicts, and the victorious great powers—China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—became the permanent members of its Security Council. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the nearly half-century-long Cold War. In the wake of European devastation, the influence of its great powers waned, triggering the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Most countries whose industries had been damaged moved towards economic recovery and expansion. Political integration, especially in Europe, began as an effort to forestall future hostilities, end pre-war enmities and forge a sense of common identity.
The previous montage alignment is better than to understand rather arranged in horizontal alignment. It also helps reader to easily navigate (especially for mobile phone users). I'm requesting to restore previous montage arrangement. The Supermind ( talk) 11:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
1941-1945 Russia won 2A00:1FA2:44F1:2D26:F5E4:E154:C5C3:2ECD ( talk) 16:07, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Tamerlanahayav: Thank you for your work to improve this Wikipedia article.
However, I'm concerned that your additions seem to be incomplete: Please help me understand {{sfn|Ramet|2006|p=146}}{{sfn|Geiger|2012|p=86}}{{sfn|Tomasevich|2001|p=747}}: I cannot find "Ramet 2006", nor "Geiger 2012" nor "Tomasevich 2001". I click on the apparent link in the notes at the end and get nothing.
Template:Sfn suggests to me that you need to add a complete citation matching these {{sfn|...}} notes to the "References" at the end.
Thanks again, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 22:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
There isn't a lot of countries there, it's missing one of the main country where the majority of the war actually happened, France, and there is no date next to certain leaders, Italy switch side and neither the USSR nor the USA fought at the beginning of the war unlike China France and the UK. Esteban Outeiral Dias ( talk) 11:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
It says main leaders. France and Italy weren't part of the Big Four and Mussolini didn't switch sides.
2601:600:A37F:F111:284F:3A39:A991:A8AF ( talk) 00:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be the executed symbol beside Benito? CanadianSingh1469 ( talk) 06:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
But why? CanadianSingh1469 ( talk) 18:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we have a link to some Japanese human experimentation article, if it exists. I see there is a main link to Nazi human experimentation but really need one for Japan as well. scope_creep Talk 18:04, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
A study published by the German government in 1974 estimated the number of German civilian victims of crimes during expulsion of Germans after World War II between 1945 and 1948 to be over 600,000, with about 400,000 deaths in the areas east of Oder and Neisse (ca. 120,000 in acts of direct violence, mostly by Soviet troops but also by Poles, 60,000 in Polish and 40,000 in Soviet concentration camps or prisons mostly from hunger and disease, and 200,000 deaths among civilian deportees to forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union), 130,000 in Czechoslovakia (thereof 100,000 in camps) and 80,000 in Yugoslavia (thereof 15,000 to 20,000 from violence outside of and in camps and 59,000 deaths from hunger and disease in camps). Vertreibung und Vertreibungsverbrechen 1945–1978. Bericht des Bundesarchivs vom 28 Mai 1974. Archivalien und ausgewälte Erlebenisberichte, Bonn 1989, pp. 40-41, 46-47, 51-53) [unsigned comment 2021-09-21T16:08:49 by user:AdrianXX]
I added the source. [unsigned comment by user:AdrianXX]
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I Would request to add the missing countries, as well as their commanders, in the info box. Right now there are a lot of a missing information that should be there, to allow more quidance to people who are interested. Leozzyy ( talk) 19:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
@ Moxy: @ Helper201: I restored the link to the Wikipedia article on " Opposition to World War II" deleted by User:Moxy. I think said opposition is an important part of the history of WW II and seems to be reasonably well documented in that Wikipedia article on "Opposition...". DavidMCEddy ( talk) 00:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Currently the 'Chronology' section only covers the start and end of the war. I think it is really trying to define it, more than describe all of it. I suggest changing its name to 'Definition' or even 'Etymology'. It should cover what is and is not WW2 and where the name came from. Hopefully with only a few more words then we currently have. Dushan Jugum ( talk) 02:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
The photos in the collage aren't quite aligned—the vertical line doesn't go straight down the middle. Would any of the maintainers of this article be interested in doing some small crops on Commons so we can get them aligned? {{u| Sdkb}} talk 23:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
I don´t know if anyone has talked about this before but everyone always leaves out the 4th International, The Chinese Untied Front, and The Greater East Asain Co-Prosperity Sphere. This kinda ticks me off because you are only fueling the misinformation of WWII being only Axis and Allies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kommadent Klaus ( talk • contribs) 18:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I propose that George VI for United Kingdom and Victor Emanuel III for the Kingdom of Italy should be added to the leaders section in the info box. Jjfun3695 ( talk) 21:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Can we please show countries instead of leaders in the Infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaron106 ( talk • contribs) 07:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I am proposing we create an FAQ for the World War II page and its correspondent talk page. For an example of an FAQ page, see Talk:Jesus/FAQ. This is what a talk page FAQ would look like. The reason I propose this is because editors constantly bring up new issues that have already been discussed once, or even more, times (as I am writing this, there are at least two, overlong disputes on this page: #Soviet Switch and #Chiang Kai-Shek?). An FAQ page would prevent already-discussed (and decided-on) issues from being brought back to light...again. It would also prevent sections from becoming overlong, like the Soviet Switch section, which has over 70,000 characters of repeated arguments. Please let me know what you think of an FAQ. Obviously it would take a while to put together, but I reckon we'd all be able to do it together. Have a great day, everyone! - Therealscorp1an ( talk) 12:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I propose to remove this text from the infobox:
Allied military occupations of Germany, Japan, Austria and foundation of the Italian Republic in place of the Kingdom of Italy
First, why is the military occupation of Austria included and Korea's not? If we do include Korea, why not include the Allied occupation of Libya which lasted longer than the occupation of Germany? Also, if we're including foundations of new republics, why not include the new republic created in France? Or the new Syrian republic? I think this section doesn't really add much to the infobox. Practically every piece of land that was administered by the defeated Axis powers went under military occupation/new management in the immediate aftermath of the war, as expected given the unconditional surrender of the Axis. Merrybrit ( talk) 23:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D: Per
WP:BRD I would like to discuss your revert of my edit by alleging "inaccuracies". Every single fact I introduced into the article is well-known and can be attested in many WW2 books. Let's go through it:
My overall point of view is that we need to be consistent. The logic is straightforward. Either we select (by whatever criteria) the most important participant in a battle/operation (and then change for consistency that the Reichstag was taken by the Soviets, not the Allies) or we combine all participants into Allies/Axis if the wikipage of a battle says there was more than one participant (and obviously it's supported by RS). One or the other, not the inconsistent mess we currently have.
(as a side note I'm surprised that such highly trafficked "good" page has so many real inaccuracies like obsolete sources, unreliable sources, mislabeled images, uncited claims etc. which I've been trying to fix for the past day) Merrybrit ( talk) 10:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Why is Chiang listed as a main leader? Chiang's troops didn't even fight against Nazi Germany (and Italy). Merrybrit ( talk) 18:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
1) The "Four Policemen" - can be dismissed per
Paul Siebert and me above.
2) Chinese involvement in a **world** war as opposed to a local war - lacking because China never fought Hitler or Mussolini. (note that the USSR vs Japan is not the same because the USSR fought Japan in 1939, provided military support to the Chinese government against Japan since 1937, forced Japan to keep large forces in Manchuria throughout the Pacific war (the Kwantung Army) partly to prevent a Soviet attack, and finally declared war on Japan in 1945 and destroyed the Kwantung Army with 700,000 losses to the Japanese).
3) Chinese contribution to defeating Japan as measured by inflicted casualties - lacking per me above. To reiterate, after December 1941 China inflicted about as many losses on Japan as Australia did which is rather surprising.
4) China's permanent membership of the UN Security Council - reflective of FDR's post-war vision, not relevant to the conduct of war itself, equivalent to France.
Ultimately, it is subjective but the evidence for the "Big Three" vs the "Four Policemen" presented above by
Paul Siebert in combination with "the Grand Alliance" coined by Churchill to describe the three major Allies, means that Chiang should not be included. Political reasons like "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" should have no place here. No evidence of a consensus among English-speaking historians that China played a major role has been presented. Once such a consensus is established we can revisit the issue but in my view Chiang's role doesn't merit inclusion in the infobox.
Merrybrit (
talk) 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I will now post a link to this discussion in
WP:MILHIST to get more eyes on it.
Merrybrit (
talk)
22:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
We've discussed the infobox to death over the years, and the current listing (and the order!) reflects the outcome of these discussions, which have included a couple of full-scale RfCs and a huge number of other discussions. I'm really struggling to understand why this keeps being re-raised. I'd suggest that people who want to change the infobox make reference to a broad survey of the huge literature on the war (noting that claiming that single sources are definitive is not credible given the vast number of sources which are available) rather than advocate for changes based on their personal views. Nick-D ( talk) 09:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D: I disagree with characterising the previous
discussion as consensus. In fact, your own quotes on closer examination don't support your argument. For example, Spector calls the efforts to make China a major contributor "vain". Hastings points out a little further in the same paragraph that you quoted that Japan's commitment in China was important insofar as it caused the United States' "animosity" against Japan: "Japan’s withdrawal from the mainland in 1940 or 1941 could probably have averted war with the United States, since Japanese aggression there, and the culture of massacre symbolised by the deaths of at least 60,000 and perhaps many more civilians in Nanjing, was the principal source of American animosity, indeed outrage." Finally, Rana Mitter is an expert on China and is propounding a revisionist view writing that "For decades, our understanding of that global conflict has failed to give a proper account of the role of China." (p.4) and arguing against the common view (one might even say, a consensus) in the West that "China's role in the war is a historical byway, not worthy of the full examination that is the due of the major powers involved." (p. 9)
Now on to my sources:
It seems clear from my sources that they do not consider Chiang's China a major player. Important WW2 studies like The Economics of World War II are made without any reference to China at all. The sources all foreground the contribution of the Big Three: the US, the USSR and Great Britain; these three should be in the infobox. Merrybrit ( talk) 13:06, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have put my earlier question/point another way: What do the best sources available generally state when listing the main combatants for the entire war (rather than when they list all of them exhaustively). This is something Encyclopaedias may already do, or something from the introduction of books about the war in general. Delving into the depths of books and synthesizing a rationale from isolated quotes isn't helpful, in my opinion.
Surely the main combatants are the nations that such sources say they were. They may or may not be the ones that caused the victory (which would exclude all axis powers by definition), or the ones an editor thinks should be there just because of quotes about numbers involved, casualties inflicted/taken, ground taken or lost, or economic might. ( Hohum @) 17:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Also just a note but looking into past archives this is something that appears to be a failure mode for this page. Just like many years ago an editor snuck in a minority view that the Second World War started in 1937 into the lede and people were arguing about it for years before it got edited. It seems that a number of Chinese nationalists/people who believe that "China's role is unfairly diminished by Big Three sources" are pushing their POV in this important WP article instead of relying on the consensus view of RS written by historians.
In fact, there are almost as many books about Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin's wartime alliance as about Chiang Kai-Shek's whole life including both before and after WW2 (compare this and this). This is why the Big Three belong in the infobox and Chiang doesn't. Merrybrit ( talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@
Nick-D:, @
Dushan Jugum:,@
Hohum:, @
ThoughtIdRetired:, @
GraemeLeggett:, @
Therealscorp1an:, @
Paul Siebert: In view of the new information posted above and in the interest of focusing the discussion and establishing a consensus I propose a poll over which leaders should be included in the infobox, please post your view below with reasons:
Option 1: The Big Three or Option 2: The Big Three + Chiang.
Option 3: Put countries instead of leaders
23:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Option 4: 12 month moratorium on further discussions of the infobox The infobox has been stable for many years, which suggests that the results of the previous RfCs still have support. The frequent discussions of the infobox have not gone anywhere and soak up a lot of time on unproductive discussions that distract from improving the actual content of the article. As such, I'd like to suggest that we leave the infobox as-is and that further proposals made over the next twelve months to change it be closed. Nick-D ( talk) 09:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I am relatively new at editing contentious materialis a good explanation of why there are differing views on this. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@ Paul Siebert: and @ Washington Lincoln: Based on [20] and [21], I think it is necessary to use {{ping}}.I think we should follow WP:AFG.Give @ Washington Lincoln: a chance to talk about what he wants to do on the talk page.
PS: On commons.wikimedia.org, Elcobbola blocked @ Washington Lincoln: because of abusing multiple accounts. Rastinition ( talk) 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Could I add a flag map of pre-World War Two and perhaps a flag map during WW2 DoctorAce08 ( talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
as suggested by Nick-D, here's the proposed edit about china's future (current) role as superpower:
i believe it's noteworthy to include this from the book "American Strategy in World War II: A Reconsideration." because:
1) it is explicitly mentioned in the long-term plans of FDR
2) (although it took long) china's superpower role/place did happen eventually as (pre)planned.
appreciate the thoughts on this. thank you Grandia01 ( talk) 10:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
References
Thank you for your advices. Grandia01 ( talk) 07:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
As here: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_War_II&diff=1065004661&oldid=1064935633 @Hohum where is the disagreement? I saw the disagreement about the USSR so I removed that from my edit until that discussion is settled. But I don't see any disagreement about anything else in my edit. TheGoldAge ( talk) 13:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)