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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Why is it that we don't have detailed statistics for the military strengths for each of the major combatants in World War II, like we have in the World War I article? I find this extremely unhelpful, especially since it is extremely difficult to find any accurate information on a collection of these statistics anywhere on the internet. Such research would be even more difficult for novices or students. We include detailed statistics for military strengths and losses in most, if not all, or our articles on other major conflicts as well, so why should our article for World War II be the sole exception? I'd like to hear the opinions of other seasoned editors on this. If there are no serious objections, or if there is a consensus for including more information, I shall restore the additions from this revision. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just reverted an attempt to edit war this material in which was made with an obviously false claim that there is a consensus in the above discussion. LightandDark2000 you might want to seek further participation in this discussion, but do not edit war further. I note that you have not responded to the concerns I raised about the sourcing of this material. For instance, why has it been assembled from a fairly random collection of references when there are single works which provide these statistics (presumably in a consistent way), are the statistics peak figures or totals, why do some of the statistics appear to refer only to Army strengths, why is the Japanese figure in a source only covering the Army up to 1939, and what reliable sources claim that Manchukuo was a significant participant in the war and why are you adding totally unreferenced 'totals' from what seem to be a mish-mash of inconsistent figures? This is low quality content, and edit warring it in with a false claim that there is a consensus is really unhelpful. Nick-D ( talk) 22:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The main leaders are mentioned as main "main allied leaders" and "main axis leaders so main nations need a mention as "main allied" and "main axis" Kommune12 ( talk) 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: I'm fine with most of your 2020-12-16T07:26:09 changes except one: Changing "1939-1945" to "20th century" seems too much for me. The 20th century included many other conflicts that were at most only tenuously related to World War II from the Russo-Japanese War (Feb 8, 1904 – Sep 5, 1905) to Rwandan Civil War (1990 - 1994), to name only two; an expanded list appears in Lists of wars in the 20th century.
I'm reverting that one change. Thanks for the others. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The arguments and sources used to keep Stalin at the top of the list are blatant WP:SYNTH - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
None of the sources presented by Nick-D and other editors who back his point of view, actually say "Stalin was the leading figure among the Big Four or Big Three". Let me repeat that, none of the sources presented actually say that. Instead, statements from books referring to the Soviet victory over Germany are then combined with statements from books on Soviet skirmishes in Asia, along with a dose of opinions to say that... since the Soviets were the most important belligerent in the Allied fight against Germany, then this must mean that the Soviets were the most important belligerent globally (given their presence in Asia), and thus Stain was the most important Allied leader globally and should be first at the top of the infobox list.
This is a blatant WP guideline violation, and it is being done be experianced editors, who btw make a point of belittling other editors on technicalities and behavior. Well, misrepresenting facts and sources using WP:SYNTH is far worse because it hits a Wikipedia accuracy. I've provided quotes from sources which specifically say Roosevelt was the leading figures among the Allied leaders and that he pieced together individual belligerent to form the grand alliance, here: [1]] and [2], and user GizzyCatBella provided links so several sources which list Roosevelt first among the allied leaders, here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Yet, none of this is match for some well argued WP:SYNTH, backed by several editors no less. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
There's an RFC over this above. If you think its synth make your case there. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
hehehe... TheTimesAreAChanging, when you say "American nationalist arguments" I can't help but notice that that you are part of the Sega Task Force, I wonder if you would have been part of that group or even played SEGA if uncle Joe and his comrades got to Japan and set up one of those highly successful economic models the Soviets were know for. So, why don't you think before throwing around your anti-American non-sense. Btw, where was Wikipedia created? Also, where was the internet invented? Think about that before tapping away at your keyboard. Are you using Windows or a Mac, do you wear jeans and shop at a supermarket? All those things came from the USSR, I guess? Let me clue you in on a undeniable fact, the modern way of life was pretty much created in the US. BTW, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Roosevelt's United Nations were also "American" inventions. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This here is the reason i deleted my old account and stopped editing. The amount of US propaganda taken as gospel is insane. Now we even have nationalistic comments in here too.. Dustie ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Just curious since the in the information box the casulties would include all the dead from the Second Sino-Japanese war so should'nt the start date be 1937? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240B:252:7941:CC00:BD83:D89C:8BE1:E083 ( talk) 07:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Whizz40: Do you have documentation of exactly when on 1939-09-03 the UK and France declared war on Germany?
I ask, because you reversed the order in which the two are mentioned with justification "Chronological order". It might be good to include that information at least in footnotes, e.g., "World War II is generally considered to have begun on 1 September 1939, with ... subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom<ref>at 1939-09-03 11:33 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> and France<ref>at 1939-09-03 14:44 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> on the 3rd.
If you did that, it could also be useful to add that to the section on "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" as well as the Wikipedia articles on " Diplomatic history of World War II" and " European theatre of World War II".
Even if you don't have time to do all of this, it would help if you can provide references where you made these changes.
Thanks for your contributions to the Wikimedia mission, to make freely available the sum of all human knowledge. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hawaii was not a state but a territory. This sentence implies that only European countries had colonies under attack by Japan in December 1941, and the American targets were somehow different than the European targets in colonial status. Why not say something like "colonies of the United States and Europe"? Basically, don't downplay US colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. I don't think that refers to French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. The attack on Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong was an attack on Britain, not just on its colonies. Britain was a major power fighting in the war. France and the Netherlands had been defeated by Germany at this point.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Which Colonies again? The problem with soapboxing on Wikipedia, after your done, wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. What the hell are you talking about actually? Can you name these colonies? Can you provide source? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies, composed of four large islands (Borneo, Celebes, Java, and Sumatra) plus innumerable smaller ones. In addition to their value as exporters of sugar, pepper, rice, and tea, those islands produced 35 percent of the world’s known supply of rubber and boasted some of the most productive oil fields outside the United States.(p. 220) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's look at the surrounding text, which I think is problematic: Japan, which aimed to
dominate Asia and the Pacific, was
at war with the
Republic of China by 1937. In December 1941, Japan
launched a surprise attack on the
United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan, supported by one from the UK, the European Axis powers declared war on the United States in solidarity with their ally.
dominate Asia and the Pacific— why include this? We don't mention German war aims in the lead. And it seems exaggerated. Also is repetitive, followed by
East Asia and the Pacificin the next sentence.
was at war with the Republic of China by 1937— while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc. Questionable relevance. Also overlinking.
launched a surprise attack— this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December.
United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific— this is repetitive and hard to understand. What does it mean to say they attacked the United States and US colonies? Why not add that they attacked Britain and British colonies?
Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan— why say this? The USA had been attacked. Naturally it was in the war. This is wasting space in the lead.
supported by one from the UK— why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA. And in fact declared war beforehand.
in solidarity with their ally— I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies. Claiming that this original wording somehow is "Colonialism downplayed" has been already observed by others as soapboxing. -- Nug ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I found this [8] an interesting assessment of the problem of the various American possessions attacked by the Japanese in 1941. Not sure how it moves us on on terms of the article. The author is a history professor with a few books (and articles) published by reputable publishers. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Japan soon captured much of the Western Pacific. The attack on Britain is important as Britain was a major player in the war, whereas France, the Netherlands etc had already been defeated by the Axis and their territories were easy pickings. The fall of Singapore was a major event in WW2, whereas the conquest of the Dutch East Indies wasn't. I think this would deal with the downplaying of colonialism, which I think is a genuine issue, not just because it is not neutral, but also because it is anachronistic.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies....(Symonds). It needs to be mentioned somewhere relatively prominently. The idea that the Dutch colonies were easy pickings is, I believe, incorrect. Certainly they had been defeated in Europe, but the Dutch government in exile were British allies and the USA had major interests in preventing the Japanese in accessing the oil resources of the area. On the basis that actions speak louder than words, this is demonstrated by the establishment of the ABDA combined force (American, British, Dutch and Australian). The Dutch had naval assets in the region. Bearing in mind the political difficulties that the US Navy had working with anyone (e.g. USAAF), the level of intent shown is powerful. Note that the formation of this force was discussed in November. It might have been somewhat ineffective, but that was down to its military efficiency, which one would only have known about when it was tested in combat. Without the attack on both Pearl Harbor and the destruction of US military aircraft in the Philippines, ABDA might have had more resource. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, the whole discussion is about the following sentence:
In my opinion, the relevant facts that deserve inclusion into the lead are: (i) the US were attacked at Perl Harbor; (ii) Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya and other territories in South-East Asia were attacked by Japan. Any discussion of whether the attacked territories were colonies, independent states etc. is irrelevant to the lead. In addition, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US military base and the US navy. As far as I know, an attack of some state's military ship is tantamount to the attack of that state. Therefore, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US independently on whether Hawaii were a colony or a state.
With regard to East Asia, the exact status of these territories is hardly relevant to the lead. The term "possessions" seems to be an adequate umbrella term that covers all nuances. I also agree that only Perl Harbor was a surprise attack. Therefore, I propose this wording:
In addition, I agree with Jack Upland that the paragraph is far from perfect. Below are my comments to his criticism.
dominate Asia and the Pacific— why include this?" - I recall, similar statement about German war aims existed in earlier versions of the lead. It seems it was removed, and, for consistency, we should do the same here.
was at war with the Republic of China by 1937— while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc." Actually, it is not true: Japan was not at war with China de jure. Despite large scale hostilities, China never declared a war on Japan before 7th of December, 1941. If we want to speak about de facto hostilities, why Khalkhin Gol, which was a full scale, although non-declared war, is not mentioned? The truce between the USSR and Japan signed after 1st of Sept, 1939, so this non-declared was was a part of WWII.
launched a surprise attack— this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December. " Yes, and I don't think why we shouldn't say that directly.
Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan— why say this?" Totally agree. We cannot afford a luxury to waste precious lead's space for these trivial things.
supported by one from the UK— why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA." Actually, USA joined WWII that was fought by UK and USSR. It seems that paragraph is written in isolation from the previous paragraph.
in solidarity with their ally— I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round." Actually, the Axis was a military alliance, so war declaration was not an act of solidarity, it was an obligation. I agree the wording is totally awkward.
Similar problems can be found in other parts of the lead. Its current state is far from satisfactory. It seems, many local and poorly coordinated changes were made during last few years, and many redundant details were added, which create an impression of a fragmentary text written from different perspective. I propose to copy-edit it to remove redundant or unnecessary details. However, such a discussion should be moved to a separate section.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
why were the British aware that an attack was about to happen?— they weren't. Churchill aware of the possibility because Britain's position in the Pacific was vulnerable.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Epilogue: reworded the sentence (second sentence of the third paragraph) to read: In December 1941, Japan attacked American and British territories with near-simultaneous
offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific including an
attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Also improved the section at the first link which redirects to
Pacific War#Japanese offensives, 1941–42.
-- Whizz40 ( talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Question: Should the Main Allied Leaders list in the article's infobox start with Franklin D. Roosevelt followed by Joseph Stalin, thus reversing the current order on the list. -- E-960 ( talk) 06:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes The list should include FDR first, for the following reasons:
Based on the sources favoring FDR, it is clear that the US president was the leading figure in the Alliance and it was him that pieced together individual belligerents (such as the Soviets and China) to formally organize the grand alliance against the Axis Powers. -- E-960 ( talk) 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
No As I've tried to explain above, the current ordering of Allied leaders reflects that of the ordering of the Allied countries, per what reliable sources say such as those I've provided. This is in line with the guidance for how the ordering be handled in infoboxes at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc ("Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article"). It would be nonsensical to use different ordering in the two infobox fields, and the editors proposing this change have totally failed to offer any sources supporting a view that the US made the larger contribution to the war - instead all they can offer is quotes from a tertiary sources and the potted bio of FDR written by his presidential library which only say that FDR moved to set up the UN. As the Oxford Companion to World War II any many other sources note, FDR had little influence over Stalin (who was actually fairly successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way), and the western Allies and USSR only loosely coordinated their efforts. Nick-D ( talk) 09:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Tipping to Support - The only reason I would consider having Roosevelt placed in the initial position is that the current order might hint that WW2 was a conflict between two totalitarian regimes with the US and G.B. only supporting one side. Did this thought come to your mind too guys? Otherwise, it does not matter, I believe.... but let me think about a little more.
GizzyCatBella
🍁 20:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (Note added after research) I now support listing
Stalin at the last position actually (see discussion section below) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 09:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Albert Weeks states the USA supplied the Soviet Union 53% its ordnance, as well as 57% of its aviation fuel and 427,284 trucks. For a 6 million man army, that is approximately one truck for every 15 soldiers. Mobility and the ability to rapidly exploit breakthroughs was a significant factor in the defeat of the German Army, which being still mostly horse drawn were unable to regroup quickly enough mount an adequate defence. -- Nug ( talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Ordance (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives): Sokolov found 53 percent of such materials used in the war by Soviet forces had been contributed by Lend-Lease. Soviet propaganda always reduced the figure to a small fraction of this.".
"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort. There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."
The Soviet military revival in 1942 and 1943 was inextricably linked to the recovery of the battered industrial economy. The Soviet war effort was saved only by a most remarkable exodus of machines, equipment and manpower from the areas under German attack in 1941.Overy goes on to talk about Russia's war material production exceeding that of Germany's production. (
...the same six months of 1941. In these six months Soviet industry turned out as much as, or in some cases more than, the German economy produced during the whole year.)
K.e.coffman, your comment is down right manipulative and dishonest. You blatantly ignore the main reference sources I presented in the RFC along with the quotes cited from them, which say FDR lead the Alliance, instead focusing an a preceding discussion which contained a lot of initial opinions from everyone. Apparently, the fact that the sources presented by Nick-D do not actually say anything about Stalin's leadership and role in the Alliance is not an issue for you. I really don't know how an editor who displays "Editor of the Week" award can blatantly ignore the fact that the arguments to back up Stain's place on the list are WP:SYNTH, pieced together form several sources, none of which actually address the issue directly. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Still no one provide any reliable reference sources which say Stalin was the leader of the alliance, only syntheses and opinions. Here are my references, which directly attribute the leadership role to FDR: 1.) Encyclopedia Britannica [22]: "From the start of American involvement in World War II, Roosevelt took the lead in establishing a grand alliance among all countries fighting the Axis powers." 2.) Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum [23]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942."-- E-960 ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
All the sources Nick-D presented specifically relate to the Soviet Union's contribution to European theatre of World War II alone, specifically the Eastern Front. But WW2 was more than that, it included the Asia and Pacific comprising of China, South-East Asia, the Pacific (including North and Central Pacific and South-West Pacific) and the Indian Ocean. It also included the Mediterranean and Middle East comprising of North Africa, East Africa, West Africa and Italy, as well as the South America. And of course the Battle of the Atlantic and the Western Front as well as the Anglo-American air campaign which severely impacted Germany's military-industrial capacity. The USA had contributed to almost all of the above listed theaters and campaigns, while the Soviet Union essentially contributed to only one. Of course it is argued that the Soviets essentially annihilated the bulk of the German Army, but this was only possible with significant material assistance from the USA via Lend-lease, which Zhukov later described as fundamental: "When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense as compared to Germany ... one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war...". And in the aftermath of WW2 Roosevelt shaped the post-war world order with the creation of the United Nations. Sources have been presented that explicitly state the leadership of Roosevelt in the Grand Alliance, and other sources on the economic power of the USA as the greatest contributor to the Allied victory. While the Red Army deployed some 6 million combatants on the Eastern Front, the USA had a total of 16 million combatants, 11.2 million in the US Army, 4.2 million in the US Navy and 600,000 Marines, distributed across all the other mentioned campaigns. The infobox relates to the entirety of World War II in its full geographic, political, economic as well as its military scope, the ordering of the combatants should reflect that, not according to the narrower military scope of a single theater to the exclusion of the wider conflict that was WW2. -- Nug ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging, ThoughtIdRetired, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 and Serialjoepsycho, I would like to bring to your attention this quote form Stalin himself at a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in 1943: “The United States… is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.” and Nikita Khrushchev, also agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev said how Stalin viewed the Lend-Lease program: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.” [27] Stalin saying the USSR would have lost the war without the US, but I though the USSR was the game changer in WWII, I thought that Stalin was so "successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way"?? -- E-960 ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"global leadership of the grand alliance"because that is a nebulous original research standard of your own invention. (As Nick–D pointed out,
"the US-British Empire alliance and the Soviets only loosely coordinated their efforts.") Given that about 84% of Allied Lend-Lease aid reached the USSR only from 1943 onwards, after the tide of the war had shifted in the Red Army's favor, and that the Soviets won the crucial Battle of Moscow in 1941-1942 without large-scale assistance, the impact of Lend-Lease remains controversial and difficult to quantify. (Interestingly, Russian sources are more likely to cite Lend-Lease as a decisive factor in the outcome of the war, whereas relatively few Western historians believe that it was determinative. Glantz p. 285 offers a consensus view:
"Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.") Finally, your personal attack accusing other editors of cherrypicking Google search results and book excerpts based on selectively chosen keywords is unintentionally hilarious coming from a user that has cited extraordinarily low-quality sources such as share.america.gov, the FDR library, and a Victor Davis Hanson opinion column in the American conservative magazine National Review—sources that no editor familiar with Wikipedia's content policies would cite in a discussion of this kind, and that frankly raise serious questions about the criteria by which you select reliable sources for research purposes. (The fact that even those sources fail to support E-960's assertions regarding
"global leadership of the grand alliance"is no doubt a good faith error, but points to a general lack of WP:COMPETENCE on the part of the filer.) TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union, not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition."Big difference between just merely "helped" as you suggest and what Weeks describes as "essential to the the Soviet war effort." -- Nug ( talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick note - Stalin and the Soviet Union is placed first here also [28] so looks like the current order is consistent with other articles, no? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Here too [31] and in USHMM lists it like this "The Allied Powers, led by Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, defeated the Axis in World War II" [32] CES also "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin" [33], here too [34] "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin." As a matter of fact, Stalin is consistently listed at the last position in recurring sources [35]. I just searched for "leaders of the allied powers in ww2" without names. Nick-D, I'm afraid E-960 is right here. The order should be changed with Stalin bumped to the third position, actually. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Here too - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin [38] and here [39] Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and here [40] Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and here [41] Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. Stalin is always at the end in the %90 of sources I could find..... here too [42] "A meeting of the Big Three Allied leaders - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin" IDK Nick... - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) FDR here first too [43] and here [44] Rosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. This book lists Stalin first, however, but this is like 1 in a 100. [45] Let's see how this goes, but it's unlikely that I'll change my position after seeing all of these sources. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
As much as I agree with user Paul Siebert that Stalin should not be first and that the Soviet Union played a key role in the fight against Germany, I completely disagree with his assessment that WWII was just centered on Europe and that it was a primarily a fight between two totalitarian regimes, thus marginalizing Western Democracies by citing an exception to the rule, with Finland (you can always find an exception to everything). This is a minority view which is being pushed on this article, by several editors no less, including Nick-D (backed with SYNTH of several sources, which only focus on the war in Europe). You can just as well argue that this war was between the Anglo-American establishment (British Commonwealth included) and the two opposing challengers, Germany and Japan, who tried to overturn the economic/cultural world order of the time (again this is a minority view, which has legitimate backing, however it is not the majority view to be pushed on this mainstream article). -- E-960 ( talk) 05:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, this is how Encyclopedia Britannica starts off the article on the second world war: "World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45." and this is how Britannica starts off the article on the first world war" "World War I, also called First World War or Great War, an international conflict that in 1914–18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions." Please notice the difference, WWI was centered on Europe, WWII was a global conflict. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Whereas it is obvious that this RfC will not support the proposed change, it is equally obvious that similar hot discussions will be restarting regularly in future, because there are serious reasons for that. Below, I tried to summarise the most important arguments. I also propose the solution, which, I believe, will satisfy everybody. The arguments against Stalin are as follows:
Clearly, arguments against each of three leaders are strong and convincing, and they may re-appear, with some variations, in future. Similarly, arguments in support of each of three leaders are also strong. Thus,
Obviously, that situation cannot be resolved in terms of relative importance of these three leaders. The only reasonable solution should be explicitly neutral: put them (as well as the Axis leaders) in a chronological order, and show the dates explicitly, something like that:
The advantage of that approach is obvious: it puts an end to all future discussions of relative importance of Allied leaders, thereby saving our time and efforts for more fruitful discussions.
An important note. If that proposal is accepted, I request that its implementation must be postponed until we restore the balance in the article, because the actual scale and importance of Eastern front is absolutely not evident from it (I provided some concrete examples in one of my previous posts), so the Stalin's first position partially compensates that omission.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired, yes fans of "Google searches"... this is how most of the arguments favoring Stalin are made, search for key words on "Google Scholar", without actually reading the book, because obviously how can you use a book titled "Europe at War 1939-1945" to argue that Stalin was the leading figure in the Alliance globally... how, easy... find a phrase witch says that the Soviet union was key in Allied victory against Germany and then just WP:SYNTH that statement to mean Stalin was the leader of the Allied coalition globally in all theaters of the war. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the first picture of the infobox is of the Battle of Wanjialing, which occurred in late 1938. Shouldn't we change it, seeing as the battle didn't even happen during the timespan of WW2? Lettler hello • contribs 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Resistance by local populations took many forms, including intelligence gathering and sabotage ( railway sabotage, industrial sabotage, etc.), [1] printing illegal newspapers or broadcasting radio announcements. [2] Widespread resistance kept German troops engaged in Poland, [3] Norway, [4] Holland, France, [5] Yugoslavia, [6] Greece, [7] the Soviet Union [8] and later Italy. [9] [10] In Poland, the Polish Resistance formed the Underground State, the Home Army and Żegota, Europe’s only government-founded and sponsored underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of the Jews. [11] In Yugoslavia, Tito's Partisans were Europe's most effective anti-Axis resistance movement, who succeeded in retaking control of large areas of Yugoslav territory. [12] Western Europe’s French communists and nationalists joined forces against the Axis after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. [13] [14] Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of British Special Operations Executive (SOE), and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). [15] [16] In Asia, communist movements in China — the New Fourth Army and Eighth Route Army — battled the Japanese, as did the Kuomintang nationalists who defeated the Japanese in the last major battle of the Sino-Japanese War. [17] In French Indochina, the communist Viet Minh gave rise to an anti-Axis partisan movement. This initiated Vietnam’s anti-colonial movement where the OSS became a key player. [18] In Southeast Asia, resistance was still more complex. In the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support to declare the Netherlands East Indies free [19] [20] and SOE was successful in Burma and in Malaysia, persuading the Burmese to switch sides [21] and trap the Japanese Army. [22]
During the war, huge territories in the Pacific and Europe were under Axis authority. The Japanese and German armies required some level of collaboration in order to exert a degree of control over the occupied territories. [23] [24] The Japanese presented themselves as liberators of colonial people using an ideological underpinning known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. [25] This satisfied Japan’s claim of fighting a war of liberation. It was accepted by some of the local independence movements, but in reality it was bogus as Japan aimed to form its own colonial empire. [26] In the Pacific, collaborators exercised power under pressure from the Japanese. [27] In China, after Manchuria or Manchukuo, Beijing, and Nanjing fell, military conquest shifted to collaboration with minor elites to exercise power, [28] while Wang Jingwei led a new reformed government and army. [29] Communists also colluded with the Japanese and Chinese collaborators. [30] Local nationalist leaders as in Burma and in the Philippines established collaborationist governments. India and Burma each had armies which fought alongside the Japanese. [31] [32] In Europe, collaboration consisted in participation with Nazi Germany. [33] Nazi ideology-driven collaboration was the prime factor, including fascism, antisemitism, anticommunism, or national independence. [34] Collaboration by those who supported Nazi doctrine included Anton Mussert in Netherlands, Marcel Déat in Vichy France, Vidkun Quisling in Norway or Georgios Tsolakoglou in Greece. [35] Another reason for collaboration was antisemitism. Members of the Trawnikimänner or volunteers of the Schutzmannschaft partook in the capture and murder of Jews, and served as guards at Nazi concentration camps. [36] Anti-communism was another reason for collaboration; Soviet atrocities committed in the Baltic states [37] and Ukraine were exploited by German propagandists. [38] Also, foreign volunteers formed Waffen SS divisions. The final reason for collaboration was the desire for independence. [39] Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, and allies of the Axis like Slovakia and Croatia sought independent fascist states. [40] [41]
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
I see no additional criticism/comments, so if no justified objections will follow in the next couple of weeks, I will take a liberty to shorten these sections a little bit and to add to the article. Eli made a big work, and it would be unfair just to ignore in. Any comments?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2021 (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 59 | Archive 60 | Archive 61 | Archive 62 | Archive 63 | → | Archive 65 |
Why is it that we don't have detailed statistics for the military strengths for each of the major combatants in World War II, like we have in the World War I article? I find this extremely unhelpful, especially since it is extremely difficult to find any accurate information on a collection of these statistics anywhere on the internet. Such research would be even more difficult for novices or students. We include detailed statistics for military strengths and losses in most, if not all, or our articles on other major conflicts as well, so why should our article for World War II be the sole exception? I'd like to hear the opinions of other seasoned editors on this. If there are no serious objections, or if there is a consensus for including more information, I shall restore the additions from this revision. LightandDark2000 🌀 ( talk) 02:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
I've just reverted an attempt to edit war this material in which was made with an obviously false claim that there is a consensus in the above discussion. LightandDark2000 you might want to seek further participation in this discussion, but do not edit war further. I note that you have not responded to the concerns I raised about the sourcing of this material. For instance, why has it been assembled from a fairly random collection of references when there are single works which provide these statistics (presumably in a consistent way), are the statistics peak figures or totals, why do some of the statistics appear to refer only to Army strengths, why is the Japanese figure in a source only covering the Army up to 1939, and what reliable sources claim that Manchukuo was a significant participant in the war and why are you adding totally unreferenced 'totals' from what seem to be a mish-mash of inconsistent figures? This is low quality content, and edit warring it in with a false claim that there is a consensus is really unhelpful. Nick-D ( talk) 22:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The main leaders are mentioned as main "main allied leaders" and "main axis leaders so main nations need a mention as "main allied" and "main axis" Kommune12 ( talk) 08:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
@ ThoughtIdRetired: I'm fine with most of your 2020-12-16T07:26:09 changes except one: Changing "1939-1945" to "20th century" seems too much for me. The 20th century included many other conflicts that were at most only tenuously related to World War II from the Russo-Japanese War (Feb 8, 1904 – Sep 5, 1905) to Rwandan Civil War (1990 - 1994), to name only two; an expanded list appears in Lists of wars in the 20th century.
I'm reverting that one change. Thanks for the others. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 14:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The arguments and sources used to keep Stalin at the top of the list are blatant WP:SYNTH - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."
None of the sources presented by Nick-D and other editors who back his point of view, actually say "Stalin was the leading figure among the Big Four or Big Three". Let me repeat that, none of the sources presented actually say that. Instead, statements from books referring to the Soviet victory over Germany are then combined with statements from books on Soviet skirmishes in Asia, along with a dose of opinions to say that... since the Soviets were the most important belligerent in the Allied fight against Germany, then this must mean that the Soviets were the most important belligerent globally (given their presence in Asia), and thus Stain was the most important Allied leader globally and should be first at the top of the infobox list.
This is a blatant WP guideline violation, and it is being done be experianced editors, who btw make a point of belittling other editors on technicalities and behavior. Well, misrepresenting facts and sources using WP:SYNTH is far worse because it hits a Wikipedia accuracy. I've provided quotes from sources which specifically say Roosevelt was the leading figures among the Allied leaders and that he pieced together individual belligerent to form the grand alliance, here: [1]] and [2], and user GizzyCatBella provided links so several sources which list Roosevelt first among the allied leaders, here: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Yet, none of this is match for some well argued WP:SYNTH, backed by several editors no less. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
There's an RFC over this above. If you think its synth make your case there. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 16:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
hehehe... TheTimesAreAChanging, when you say "American nationalist arguments" I can't help but notice that that you are part of the Sega Task Force, I wonder if you would have been part of that group or even played SEGA if uncle Joe and his comrades got to Japan and set up one of those highly successful economic models the Soviets were know for. So, why don't you think before throwing around your anti-American non-sense. Btw, where was Wikipedia created? Also, where was the internet invented? Think about that before tapping away at your keyboard. Are you using Windows or a Mac, do you wear jeans and shop at a supermarket? All those things came from the USSR, I guess? Let me clue you in on a undeniable fact, the modern way of life was pretty much created in the US. BTW, Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points and Roosevelt's United Nations were also "American" inventions. -- E-960 ( talk) 09:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This here is the reason i deleted my old account and stopped editing. The amount of US propaganda taken as gospel is insane. Now we even have nationalistic comments in here too.. Dustie ( talk) 19:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Just curious since the in the information box the casulties would include all the dead from the Second Sino-Japanese war so should'nt the start date be 1937? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240B:252:7941:CC00:BD83:D89C:8BE1:E083 ( talk) 07:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Whizz40: Do you have documentation of exactly when on 1939-09-03 the UK and France declared war on Germany?
I ask, because you reversed the order in which the two are mentioned with justification "Chronological order". It might be good to include that information at least in footnotes, e.g., "World War II is generally considered to have begun on 1 September 1939, with ... subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom<ref>at 1939-09-03 11:33 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> and France<ref>at 1939-09-03 14:44 UTC per {{citation ...}}</ref> on the 3rd.
If you did that, it could also be useful to add that to the section on "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" as well as the Wikipedia articles on " Diplomatic history of World War II" and " European theatre of World War II".
Even if you don't have time to do all of this, it would help if you can provide references where you made these changes.
Thanks for your contributions to the Wikimedia mission, to make freely available the sum of all human knowledge. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hawaii was not a state but a territory. This sentence implies that only European countries had colonies under attack by Japan in December 1941, and the American targets were somehow different than the European targets in colonial status. Why not say something like "colonies of the United States and Europe"? Basically, don't downplay US colonialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbowler ( talk • contribs) 17:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In December 1941, Japan launched a surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. I don't think that refers to French Indochina and the Dutch East Indies. The attack on Malaya, Singapore, and Hong Kong was an attack on Britain, not just on its colonies. Britain was a major power fighting in the war. France and the Netherlands had been defeated by Germany at this point.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 23:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Which Colonies again? The problem with soapboxing on Wikipedia, after your done, wikipedia is still an encyclopedia. What the hell are you talking about actually? Can you name these colonies? Can you provide source? -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies, composed of four large islands (Borneo, Celebes, Java, and Sumatra) plus innumerable smaller ones. In addition to their value as exporters of sugar, pepper, rice, and tea, those islands produced 35 percent of the world’s known supply of rubber and boasted some of the most productive oil fields outside the United States.(p. 220) ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 12:46, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's look at the surrounding text, which I think is problematic: Japan, which aimed to
dominate Asia and the Pacific, was
at war with the
Republic of China by 1937. In December 1941, Japan
launched a surprise attack on the
United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific. Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan, supported by one from the UK, the European Axis powers declared war on the United States in solidarity with their ally.
dominate Asia and the Pacific— why include this? We don't mention German war aims in the lead. And it seems exaggerated. Also is repetitive, followed by
East Asia and the Pacificin the next sentence.
was at war with the Republic of China by 1937— while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc. Questionable relevance. Also overlinking.
launched a surprise attack— this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December.
United States as well as European and US colonies in East Asia and the Pacific— this is repetitive and hard to understand. What does it mean to say they attacked the United States and US colonies? Why not add that they attacked Britain and British colonies?
Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan— why say this? The USA had been attacked. Naturally it was in the war. This is wasting space in the lead.
supported by one from the UK— why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA. And in fact declared war beforehand.
in solidarity with their ally— I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 05:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
surprise attack on the United States as well as European colonies. Claiming that this original wording somehow is "Colonialism downplayed" has been already observed by others as soapboxing. -- Nug ( talk) 02:53, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I found this [8] an interesting assessment of the problem of the various American possessions attacked by the Japanese in 1941. Not sure how it moves us on on terms of the article. The author is a history professor with a few books (and articles) published by reputable publishers. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 06:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Japan soon captured much of the Western Pacific. The attack on Britain is important as Britain was a major player in the war, whereas France, the Netherlands etc had already been defeated by the Axis and their territories were easy pickings. The fall of Singapore was a major event in WW2, whereas the conquest of the Dutch East Indies wasn't. I think this would deal with the downplaying of colonialism, which I think is a genuine issue, not just because it is not neutral, but also because it is anachronistic.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 07:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The ultimate objective of the Japanese campaign—indeed of the whole war—was the Dutch East Indies....(Symonds). It needs to be mentioned somewhere relatively prominently. The idea that the Dutch colonies were easy pickings is, I believe, incorrect. Certainly they had been defeated in Europe, but the Dutch government in exile were British allies and the USA had major interests in preventing the Japanese in accessing the oil resources of the area. On the basis that actions speak louder than words, this is demonstrated by the establishment of the ABDA combined force (American, British, Dutch and Australian). The Dutch had naval assets in the region. Bearing in mind the political difficulties that the US Navy had working with anyone (e.g. USAAF), the level of intent shown is powerful. Note that the formation of this force was discussed in November. It might have been somewhat ineffective, but that was down to its military efficiency, which one would only have known about when it was tested in combat. Without the attack on both Pearl Harbor and the destruction of US military aircraft in the Philippines, ABDA might have had more resource. ThoughtIdRetired ( talk) 08:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, the whole discussion is about the following sentence:
In my opinion, the relevant facts that deserve inclusion into the lead are: (i) the US were attacked at Perl Harbor; (ii) Philippines, Indonesia, Malaya and other territories in South-East Asia were attacked by Japan. Any discussion of whether the attacked territories were colonies, independent states etc. is irrelevant to the lead. In addition, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US military base and the US navy. As far as I know, an attack of some state's military ship is tantamount to the attack of that state. Therefore, the attack of Perl Harbor was the attack of the US independently on whether Hawaii were a colony or a state.
With regard to East Asia, the exact status of these territories is hardly relevant to the lead. The term "possessions" seems to be an adequate umbrella term that covers all nuances. I also agree that only Perl Harbor was a surprise attack. Therefore, I propose this wording:
In addition, I agree with Jack Upland that the paragraph is far from perfect. Below are my comments to his criticism.
dominate Asia and the Pacific— why include this?" - I recall, similar statement about German war aims existed in earlier versions of the lead. It seems it was removed, and, for consistency, we should do the same here.
was at war with the Republic of China by 1937— while this is true, it is also true that Japan had annexed Korea in 1910 etc." Actually, it is not true: Japan was not at war with China de jure. Despite large scale hostilities, China never declared a war on Japan before 7th of December, 1941. If we want to speak about de facto hostilities, why Khalkhin Gol, which was a full scale, although non-declared war, is not mentioned? The truce between the USSR and Japan signed after 1st of Sept, 1939, so this non-declared was was a part of WWII.
launched a surprise attack— this links to Attack on Pearl Harbor, so very definitely referencing 7/8 December. " Yes, and I don't think why we shouldn't say that directly.
Following an immediate US declaration of war against Japan— why say this?" Totally agree. We cannot afford a luxury to waste precious lead's space for these trivial things.
supported by one from the UK— why "supported"? The British Empire had been attacked. Britain did not join the war against Japan to "support" the USA." Actually, USA joined WWII that was fought by UK and USSR. It seems that paragraph is written in isolation from the previous paragraph.
in solidarity with their ally— I don't think this is exactly true, and it makes it sound as if Japan was attacked, not the other way round." Actually, the Axis was a military alliance, so war declaration was not an act of solidarity, it was an obligation. I agree the wording is totally awkward.
Similar problems can be found in other parts of the lead. Its current state is far from satisfactory. It seems, many local and poorly coordinated changes were made during last few years, and many redundant details were added, which create an impression of a fragmentary text written from different perspective. I propose to copy-edit it to remove redundant or unnecessary details. However, such a discussion should be moved to a separate section.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
why were the British aware that an attack was about to happen?— they weren't. Churchill aware of the possibility because Britain's position in the Pacific was vulnerable.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 06:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Epilogue: reworded the sentence (second sentence of the third paragraph) to read: In December 1941, Japan attacked American and British territories with near-simultaneous
offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific including an
attack on the US fleet at Pearl Harbor.
Also improved the section at the first link which redirects to
Pacific War#Japanese offensives, 1941–42.
-- Whizz40 ( talk) 21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Question: Should the Main Allied Leaders list in the article's infobox start with Franklin D. Roosevelt followed by Joseph Stalin, thus reversing the current order on the list. -- E-960 ( talk) 06:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes The list should include FDR first, for the following reasons:
Based on the sources favoring FDR, it is clear that the US president was the leading figure in the Alliance and it was him that pieced together individual belligerents (such as the Soviets and China) to formally organize the grand alliance against the Axis Powers. -- E-960 ( talk) 06:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
No As I've tried to explain above, the current ordering of Allied leaders reflects that of the ordering of the Allied countries, per what reliable sources say such as those I've provided. This is in line with the guidance for how the ordering be handled in infoboxes at Template:Infobox military conflict/doc ("Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article"). It would be nonsensical to use different ordering in the two infobox fields, and the editors proposing this change have totally failed to offer any sources supporting a view that the US made the larger contribution to the war - instead all they can offer is quotes from a tertiary sources and the potted bio of FDR written by his presidential library which only say that FDR moved to set up the UN. As the Oxford Companion to World War II any many other sources note, FDR had little influence over Stalin (who was actually fairly successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way), and the western Allies and USSR only loosely coordinated their efforts. Nick-D ( talk) 09:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Tipping to Support - The only reason I would consider having Roosevelt placed in the initial position is that the current order might hint that WW2 was a conflict between two totalitarian regimes with the US and G.B. only supporting one side. Did this thought come to your mind too guys? Otherwise, it does not matter, I believe.... but let me think about a little more.
GizzyCatBella
🍁 20:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC) (Note added after research) I now support listing
Stalin at the last position actually (see discussion section below) -
GizzyCatBella
🍁 09:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Albert Weeks states the USA supplied the Soviet Union 53% its ordnance, as well as 57% of its aviation fuel and 427,284 trucks. For a 6 million man army, that is approximately one truck for every 15 soldiers. Mobility and the ability to rapidly exploit breakthroughs was a significant factor in the defeat of the German Army, which being still mostly horse drawn were unable to regroup quickly enough mount an adequate defence. -- Nug ( talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Ordance (ammunition, artillery shells, mines, assorted explosives): Sokolov found 53 percent of such materials used in the war by Soviet forces had been contributed by Lend-Lease. Soviet propaganda always reduced the figure to a small fraction of this.".
"The Soviet Union did not turn the tide on the Eastern Front on its own. Though for decades Soviet historians played down the role of American and British Lend-Lease aid, its real significance has now been acknowledged. From 1942 a flow of food and raw materials and engineering equipment sustained the Soviet war effort. There was enough food in the end to ensure a square meal for every Soviet soldier; most of the Soviet rail network was supplied with locomotives, wagons and rails made in the USA; one million miles of telephone wire, 14 million pairs of boots, 363, 000 trucks, all helped to keep the Red Army fighting with growing efficiency. Without Allied aid, Stalin later admitted, 'we would not have been able to cope'."
The Soviet military revival in 1942 and 1943 was inextricably linked to the recovery of the battered industrial economy. The Soviet war effort was saved only by a most remarkable exodus of machines, equipment and manpower from the areas under German attack in 1941.Overy goes on to talk about Russia's war material production exceeding that of Germany's production. (
...the same six months of 1941. In these six months Soviet industry turned out as much as, or in some cases more than, the German economy produced during the whole year.)
K.e.coffman, your comment is down right manipulative and dishonest. You blatantly ignore the main reference sources I presented in the RFC along with the quotes cited from them, which say FDR lead the Alliance, instead focusing an a preceding discussion which contained a lot of initial opinions from everyone. Apparently, the fact that the sources presented by Nick-D do not actually say anything about Stalin's leadership and role in the Alliance is not an issue for you. I really don't know how an editor who displays "Editor of the Week" award can blatantly ignore the fact that the arguments to back up Stain's place on the list are WP:SYNTH, pieced together form several sources, none of which actually address the issue directly. -- E-960 ( talk) 07:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Still no one provide any reliable reference sources which say Stalin was the leader of the alliance, only syntheses and opinions. Here are my references, which directly attribute the leadership role to FDR: 1.) Encyclopedia Britannica [22]: "From the start of American involvement in World War II, Roosevelt took the lead in establishing a grand alliance among all countries fighting the Axis powers." 2.) Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum [23]: "He [FDR] moved to create a "grand alliance" against the Axis powers through "The Declaration of the United Nations," January 1, 1942."-- E-960 ( talk) 12:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
All the sources Nick-D presented specifically relate to the Soviet Union's contribution to European theatre of World War II alone, specifically the Eastern Front. But WW2 was more than that, it included the Asia and Pacific comprising of China, South-East Asia, the Pacific (including North and Central Pacific and South-West Pacific) and the Indian Ocean. It also included the Mediterranean and Middle East comprising of North Africa, East Africa, West Africa and Italy, as well as the South America. And of course the Battle of the Atlantic and the Western Front as well as the Anglo-American air campaign which severely impacted Germany's military-industrial capacity. The USA had contributed to almost all of the above listed theaters and campaigns, while the Soviet Union essentially contributed to only one. Of course it is argued that the Soviets essentially annihilated the bulk of the German Army, but this was only possible with significant material assistance from the USA via Lend-lease, which Zhukov later described as fundamental: "When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense as compared to Germany ... one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war...". And in the aftermath of WW2 Roosevelt shaped the post-war world order with the creation of the United Nations. Sources have been presented that explicitly state the leadership of Roosevelt in the Grand Alliance, and other sources on the economic power of the USA as the greatest contributor to the Allied victory. While the Red Army deployed some 6 million combatants on the Eastern Front, the USA had a total of 16 million combatants, 11.2 million in the US Army, 4.2 million in the US Navy and 600,000 Marines, distributed across all the other mentioned campaigns. The infobox relates to the entirety of World War II in its full geographic, political, economic as well as its military scope, the ordering of the combatants should reflect that, not according to the narrower military scope of a single theater to the exclusion of the wider conflict that was WW2. -- Nug ( talk) 11:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Nick-D, TheTimesAreAChanging, ThoughtIdRetired, Hawkeye7, Peacemaker67 and Serialjoepsycho, I would like to bring to your attention this quote form Stalin himself at a dinner toast with Allied leaders during the Tehran Conference in 1943: “The United States… is a country of machines. Without the use of those machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.” and Nikita Khrushchev, also agreed with Stalin’s assessment. In his memoirs, Khrushchev said how Stalin viewed the Lend-Lease program: “He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war.” [27] Stalin saying the USSR would have lost the war without the US, but I though the USSR was the game changer in WWII, I thought that Stalin was so "successful in bossing the western Allies around and getting his own way"?? -- E-960 ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"global leadership of the grand alliance"because that is a nebulous original research standard of your own invention. (As Nick–D pointed out,
"the US-British Empire alliance and the Soviets only loosely coordinated their efforts.") Given that about 84% of Allied Lend-Lease aid reached the USSR only from 1943 onwards, after the tide of the war had shifted in the Red Army's favor, and that the Soviets won the crucial Battle of Moscow in 1941-1942 without large-scale assistance, the impact of Lend-Lease remains controversial and difficult to quantify. (Interestingly, Russian sources are more likely to cite Lend-Lease as a decisive factor in the outcome of the war, whereas relatively few Western historians believe that it was determinative. Glantz p. 285 offers a consensus view:
"Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken twelve to eighteen months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France's Atlantic beaches.") Finally, your personal attack accusing other editors of cherrypicking Google search results and book excerpts based on selectively chosen keywords is unintentionally hilarious coming from a user that has cited extraordinarily low-quality sources such as share.america.gov, the FDR library, and a Victor Davis Hanson opinion column in the American conservative magazine National Review—sources that no editor familiar with Wikipedia's content policies would cite in a discussion of this kind, and that frankly raise serious questions about the criteria by which you select reliable sources for research purposes. (The fact that even those sources fail to support E-960's assertions regarding
"global leadership of the grand alliance"is no doubt a good faith error, but points to a general lack of WP:COMPETENCE on the part of the filer.) TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk) 22:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
"without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union, not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition."Big difference between just merely "helped" as you suggest and what Weeks describes as "essential to the the Soviet war effort." -- Nug ( talk) 02:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a quick note - Stalin and the Soviet Union is placed first here also [28] so looks like the current order is consistent with other articles, no? - GizzyCatBella 🍁 08:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Here too [31] and in USHMM lists it like this "The Allied Powers, led by Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union, defeated the Axis in World War II" [32] CES also "U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin" [33], here too [34] "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin." As a matter of fact, Stalin is consistently listed at the last position in recurring sources [35]. I just searched for "leaders of the allied powers in ww2" without names. Nick-D, I'm afraid E-960 is right here. The order should be changed with Stalin bumped to the third position, actually. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 09:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Here too - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin [38] and here [39] Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin and here [40] Roosevelt, Stalin, Churchill and here [41] Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. Stalin is always at the end in the %90 of sources I could find..... here too [42] "A meeting of the Big Three Allied leaders - Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin" IDK Nick... - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC) FDR here first too [43] and here [44] Rosevelt, Churchill, Stalin. This book lists Stalin first, however, but this is like 1 in a 100. [45] Let's see how this goes, but it's unlikely that I'll change my position after seeing all of these sources. - GizzyCatBella 🍁 10:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
As much as I agree with user Paul Siebert that Stalin should not be first and that the Soviet Union played a key role in the fight against Germany, I completely disagree with his assessment that WWII was just centered on Europe and that it was a primarily a fight between two totalitarian regimes, thus marginalizing Western Democracies by citing an exception to the rule, with Finland (you can always find an exception to everything). This is a minority view which is being pushed on this article, by several editors no less, including Nick-D (backed with SYNTH of several sources, which only focus on the war in Europe). You can just as well argue that this war was between the Anglo-American establishment (British Commonwealth included) and the two opposing challengers, Germany and Japan, who tried to overturn the economic/cultural world order of the time (again this is a minority view, which has legitimate backing, however it is not the majority view to be pushed on this mainstream article). -- E-960 ( talk) 05:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Paul Siebert, this is how Encyclopedia Britannica starts off the article on the second world war: "World War II, also called Second World War, conflict that involved virtually every part of the world during the years 1939–45." and this is how Britannica starts off the article on the first world war" "World War I, also called First World War or Great War, an international conflict that in 1914–18 embroiled most of the nations of Europe along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions." Please notice the difference, WWI was centered on Europe, WWII was a global conflict. -- E-960 ( talk) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Whereas it is obvious that this RfC will not support the proposed change, it is equally obvious that similar hot discussions will be restarting regularly in future, because there are serious reasons for that. Below, I tried to summarise the most important arguments. I also propose the solution, which, I believe, will satisfy everybody. The arguments against Stalin are as follows:
Clearly, arguments against each of three leaders are strong and convincing, and they may re-appear, with some variations, in future. Similarly, arguments in support of each of three leaders are also strong. Thus,
Obviously, that situation cannot be resolved in terms of relative importance of these three leaders. The only reasonable solution should be explicitly neutral: put them (as well as the Axis leaders) in a chronological order, and show the dates explicitly, something like that:
The advantage of that approach is obvious: it puts an end to all future discussions of relative importance of Allied leaders, thereby saving our time and efforts for more fruitful discussions.
An important note. If that proposal is accepted, I request that its implementation must be postponed until we restore the balance in the article, because the actual scale and importance of Eastern front is absolutely not evident from it (I provided some concrete examples in one of my previous posts), so the Stalin's first position partially compensates that omission.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 21:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
ThoughtIdRetired, yes fans of "Google searches"... this is how most of the arguments favoring Stalin are made, search for key words on "Google Scholar", without actually reading the book, because obviously how can you use a book titled "Europe at War 1939-1945" to argue that Stalin was the leading figure in the Alliance globally... how, easy... find a phrase witch says that the Soviet union was key in Allied victory against Germany and then just WP:SYNTH that statement to mean Stalin was the leader of the Allied coalition globally in all theaters of the war. -- E-960 ( talk) 08:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that the first picture of the infobox is of the Battle of Wanjialing, which occurred in late 1938. Shouldn't we change it, seeing as the battle didn't even happen during the timespan of WW2? Lettler hello • contribs 18:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Resistance by local populations took many forms, including intelligence gathering and sabotage ( railway sabotage, industrial sabotage, etc.), [1] printing illegal newspapers or broadcasting radio announcements. [2] Widespread resistance kept German troops engaged in Poland, [3] Norway, [4] Holland, France, [5] Yugoslavia, [6] Greece, [7] the Soviet Union [8] and later Italy. [9] [10] In Poland, the Polish Resistance formed the Underground State, the Home Army and Żegota, Europe’s only government-founded and sponsored underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of the Jews. [11] In Yugoslavia, Tito's Partisans were Europe's most effective anti-Axis resistance movement, who succeeded in retaking control of large areas of Yugoslav territory. [12] Western Europe’s French communists and nationalists joined forces against the Axis after the German invasion of the Soviet Union. [13] [14] Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of British Special Operations Executive (SOE), and the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS). [15] [16] In Asia, communist movements in China — the New Fourth Army and Eighth Route Army — battled the Japanese, as did the Kuomintang nationalists who defeated the Japanese in the last major battle of the Sino-Japanese War. [17] In French Indochina, the communist Viet Minh gave rise to an anti-Axis partisan movement. This initiated Vietnam’s anti-colonial movement where the OSS became a key player. [18] In Southeast Asia, resistance was still more complex. In the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support to declare the Netherlands East Indies free [19] [20] and SOE was successful in Burma and in Malaysia, persuading the Burmese to switch sides [21] and trap the Japanese Army. [22]
During the war, huge territories in the Pacific and Europe were under Axis authority. The Japanese and German armies required some level of collaboration in order to exert a degree of control over the occupied territories. [23] [24] The Japanese presented themselves as liberators of colonial people using an ideological underpinning known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. [25] This satisfied Japan’s claim of fighting a war of liberation. It was accepted by some of the local independence movements, but in reality it was bogus as Japan aimed to form its own colonial empire. [26] In the Pacific, collaborators exercised power under pressure from the Japanese. [27] In China, after Manchuria or Manchukuo, Beijing, and Nanjing fell, military conquest shifted to collaboration with minor elites to exercise power, [28] while Wang Jingwei led a new reformed government and army. [29] Communists also colluded with the Japanese and Chinese collaborators. [30] Local nationalist leaders as in Burma and in the Philippines established collaborationist governments. India and Burma each had armies which fought alongside the Japanese. [31] [32] In Europe, collaboration consisted in participation with Nazi Germany. [33] Nazi ideology-driven collaboration was the prime factor, including fascism, antisemitism, anticommunism, or national independence. [34] Collaboration by those who supported Nazi doctrine included Anton Mussert in Netherlands, Marcel Déat in Vichy France, Vidkun Quisling in Norway or Georgios Tsolakoglou in Greece. [35] Another reason for collaboration was antisemitism. Members of the Trawnikimänner or volunteers of the Schutzmannschaft partook in the capture and murder of Jews, and served as guards at Nazi concentration camps. [36] Anti-communism was another reason for collaboration; Soviet atrocities committed in the Baltic states [37] and Ukraine were exploited by German propagandists. [38] Also, foreign volunteers formed Waffen SS divisions. The final reason for collaboration was the desire for independence. [39] Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, and allies of the Axis like Slovakia and Croatia sought independent fascist states. [40] [41]
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
I see no additional criticism/comments, so if no justified objections will follow in the next couple of weeks, I will take a liberty to shorten these sections a little bit and to add to the article. Eli made a big work, and it would be unfair just to ignore in. Any comments?-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)