Talk:World War II

Mass rapes

When I worked on the Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army article I found some sources that claim that the number of rapes of Soviet women by German military " amounted hundreds of thousands, if not millions case", i.e. was at least of the same scale as mass rapes of German women by Red Army. In connection to that I am wondering if we need to make a stress on the 1945 rapes leaving German and Japanese crimes beyond the scope.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I might be missing something, but why would the rapes conducted by German and Japanese troops be out of scope? The soldiers of both countries conducted rapes on a huge scale, and the Japanese government ran a massive sex slavery operation until the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This might be different, because in this case these crimes were supported and appreciated by the panslavic Stalinists 85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis forbade the raping of Eastern European women, as they considered it demoralizing for the army. Besides Nazi ideology felt superior towards Slavic people. It was considered a racial shame. So maybe there were not so many rapes. Stalin, on the other hand, ordered his soldiers to rape German women as a sort of humiliation.--92.224.207.177 (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To be useful here, your assertion must have an expert source. What author wrote that? Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Nazis organised a system of military brothels where captured women were forced to work. Source: Kaputt by Curzio Malaparte, 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.88.119 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So did the British and the US Army. But Stalinist crimes were different, because it was supposed to terrorized and extinquish the population and slavinize the conquered areas accourding to the Yalta stipualtions - as negotiated with the US and GB. 85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing WWII People Pages for Decorated Veterans

While searching for biographical information, I found that Wikipedia has no reference for Decorated WWII veteran Charles Scheffel, is anyone working on filling gaps in WWII content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil lindsay (talk • contribs) 18:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If he meets the relevant notability criteria (see WP:BIO) then you may wish to start the article - DIY normally works best! ;) regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Not every decorated veteran is 'notable' in an encyclopedia. That Scheffel is an author and used in the WWII in HD series got a spot for him on the WWII in HD, with no information provided, yet. --Habap (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Article protection

As a note, I've turned off pending changes for this article and reinstated the semi-protection. The result of the pending changes trial for this particular article has been to increase the workload for editors (due to the need to review large numbers of IP edits) for no benefits as all the IP edits appear to have been rejected. As such, semi-protection appears to be more appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 24.189.232.170, 10 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Causes: Militarism Alliances Imperialism Nationalism

24.189.232.170 (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AJCham 16:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Allied Belligerents WWII

The Indian flag is missing from the information box under allied belligerents. Considering India's deep role in the war from beginning to end(1939 - 1945) the gallantry and bravery in her soldiers wherein Indian personnel received no less than 4,000 awards for gallantry, and 31 Victoria Crosses, and painfully with between 1.5 million and 3 million casualties 5 to 7 times larger than Britain, and larger than the total casualties of Britain, USA, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Italy (the third power in the axis) and the rest of the commonwealth this is a grand oversight in the flag of india not being included (almost as if it to suggest and infer that india played no part when it gave it's soul to the allied war effort. It is also all the more disappointing when the likes of Greece and Yugoslavia have their flags included and the belligerents who I have listed as having a combined smaller total number of casualties have their flags displayed whilst India the sword arm of the British Empire and jewel in the crown is missing. India fought on both the German and Japanese fronts and was vital to the allied success in WWII and served in both WWI and WWII. PLEASE RIGHT THIS WRONG AND DISPLAY INDIA'S FLAG OF THAT TIME, THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, DO NOT DISHONOUR INDIA'S HEROES, MARTYRS, AND GLORIOUS DEAD WHO FOUGHT FOR A PEACEFUL AND FREE WORLD !!!

User - Righteditor(Righteditor (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC))

I'm not sure why you devolved into shouting and demanding. The area including modern India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Myanmar wasn't independent since it was under British dominion as the Indian Empire until 1947. So, I'm not sure a separate flag is appropriate - and if it is, it would probably be this one: Star of India (flag). This doesn't devalue their efforts, which stand for themselves. Also see India in World War II. (Hohum ^@) 18:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

India was not a sovieriegn state during ww2, it was a possesion of the british empire and as such falls under their flag since persons living in that colony were subjects of the british empire.XavierGreen (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

order of the thingys

why are us and ussr first?? surely it should be china,then britain, france, ussr, U.S, then the commonwealth and the others, china were at war for the longest so why are they near the end?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The Allies are in order of "importance", not how long they were at war. The Big Three are ranked at the top because they simply were the three largest and most influencial members of the Allies. China is the fourth country listed in the Allies section and is nowhere near the bottom like you claim. --PlasmaTwa2 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

i disagree but whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianp321 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The usa, ussr, and uk dictated to the other allies basic strategy and the l.ike, as such they need to be listed at the top. China was the fourth most important and influential of the allies for most of the war so thats why its listed fourth.XavierGreen (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Link to www.truth-hertz.net

Some time ago I provided an external link to the site www.truth-hertz, which was almost immediately removed by Binksternet who sent this message to my user page: "Please do not add non-neutral material such as links to essays at" www.truth-hertz.net "to Wikipedia articles, as you did to World War II and Strategic bombing during World War II. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. " Binksternet (talk) 20:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC) The "essays" to which Binksternet refers are in fact seven or eight downloadable CHAPTERS from the non-fiction book Between the Lies (2nd edition, London:2007), which include several hundred primary and secondary sources, footnotes and extensive bibliography. The book, which remedies some prevailing historical myths about WW2, was published by a reputable academic publisher. So it was presumably subjected to academic peer review prior to publication. I doubt if Binksternet actually took the trouble to read those chapters, the appropriateness of which might be a subject for discussion instead of arbitrary deletion. Wiki's rule is that external linking to a website is acceptable if and when the site provides "significant and reliable additional information on an article's topic", and certainly the link to www.truth-hertz.net meets that requirement. As for allegedly violating neutrality, I think that's a matter of Binksternet's own less than neutral personal point of view. As I understand it, Wiki's definition of neutrality does not mean the absence of a point of view, but rather a judicious and unbiased mix of sources cited. Between the Lies seems to do that rather well, but I could be wrong. Nobody's perfect. Communicat (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The link looks unsuitable to me. It appears to be a self-published website, and there's no need to give prominence to a single book, particularly in such a high-level article as this one. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I just answered this same post at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, where I noted that the book, the author and the web link are all dismissed by the guideline at WP:FRINGE. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

To answer Nick-D: Appearances can be deceptive. Why not assume good faith? Alternatively, why not verify whether or not it's a self-published site by contacting the publisher Southern University Press via the contact link provided at the site in question?

To answer Binksternet: I think you should be referring to WP:EL and not WP:FRINGE as you've done. This discussion was meant to be about an external link, not an article, which is the function of WP:FRINGE. But since you've raised WP:FRINGE, I'm okay with broadening the discussion. Interestingly, WP:FRINGE with regard to real or perceived fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / other (call it what you like) positions, states: NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Why is it that content of the main WW2 article and all its related sub-articles deal exclusively with majority i.e. Western positions? (Strikes me as a major flaw in an otherwise excellent and high-level article). WP:FRINGE also rules that In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical ... prominence. And: ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. So, it follows that the existing WW2 article and sub-articles seem to have a serious NPOV problem in so far as they exclude all reference to "other"-type positions which deviate from those of dominant majority-position type editors. But to return to the question of reliable sources, WP:FRINGE further rules that "reliable sources on Wikipedia include ... books published by university presses (and)published by respected publishing houses. The download-linked book in question and under discussion is published by Southern Universities Press, London. Enough said.

By the way, it might be worth bearing in mind that today's "fringe" position can sometimes become tomorrow's majority position. Take the Battle of Britain for instance, which was once described by mainstream historians and others as "a heroic victory of the few against the many", when in fact, as latter-day historians have now established beyond doubt, RAF fighters at the time of that battle vastly outnumbered those available to the Luftwaffe (Sources available on request). It might also be worth bearing in mind that what is seen as a fringe / minority / "other"-type position in the West can also be a consensual mainstream / majority position outside of the Western cultural and political sphere of influence, i.e. in socialist countries. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to determine who is behind Southern Universities Press in London. They appear to me to have published a handful of scholarly psychology texts, and Winer's book, but nothing else that I can find. They are not very prolific. Certainly, the press has not published any WWII histories, or any other histories, so I do not see their ability to properly manage a work such as Winer's. I wonder if the press has been compromised.

Here's a flavor of the wild-eyed prose in the book: "Many historians and ideological managers of Western society—teachers, journalists and the like—would in future years attribute the commencement of the political Cold War between East and West to the Berlin blockade of 1947. They are all wrong, though the myth survives to this day. The fact is, the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union."

Winer gets many of his facts and figures wrong, and draws conclusions that are flawed. In other scholarly works, Winer is not cited at all; a poor indication of his reputation among other historians and scholars. I still say the book is not appropriate for this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ELNO says not to include "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting."

A quick look shows the contents massively differ from what respectable sources say, so I believe it is factually inaccurate. So, what can you provide to support Stan Winer being a respectable historian, and that book in particular being reliable? A review by a respectable body would do. (Hohum ^@) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Far as I'm aware, Winer's book Between the Lies does not aspire to be a history, but rather an investigative work. As the site in question explains: "... Between the Lies, has exhumed a large body of evidence that somehow managed to escape the censors and the incinerators." Several hundred references to reliably published and impeccable sources, and an extensive bibliography are provided to support his thesis. But never mind all that for the moment. More noteworthy with regard to the editor's comments above is the dexterity with which they've managed to evade the cogent WP:FRINGE issues raised in my preceding post, which I don't have time to repeat again. Read them for yourself. The fact of the matter is that significant fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / theories do exist, and since their existence is an indisputable fact, it should as a matter of NPOV be stated in the WW2 article or sub-articles. Apart from Winer's effort, there are many other reliable, well-researched books etc about WW2 that deviate radically from the lame, so-called "respectable" and officially endorsed accounts of grand strategy and of what happened and why. (Titles and authors available on request, in the unlikely event that you're interested). I suspect that the reason why editors such as yourselves prefer to pretend such works don't exist, or to simplistically dismiss them as "propaganda" is because recognition of those works would mean a whole lot of extra work to remedy the omissions and correct the "NPOV" of the existing WW2 and related articles. Trying to engage constructively with editors of that ilk is an excercise in futility. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. This discussion in now closed from my end. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, the sources used appear far from impeccable, and the conclusions deviate so far from those of high quality sources that it is misleading and factually inaccurate, so per WP:ELNO it's not suitable. I haven't called it propaganda or pretended it doesn't exist, I have just pointed out its flaws, and the lack of credibility of the publisher - which you either ignore, embrace, or even seem to think of as benefits.

Cogent and fringe are mutually exclusive, by definition.

You can try and feed a horse with coal, but it's unlikely to eat any. (Hohum ^@) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Your pedantry does not merit a thoughtful response.

WW2 origins of Cold War

Binksternet, in his posting of 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) in the talk section above, headed Link to www.truth-hertz.net, ridicules the proposition contained in Winer's book Between the Lies, that " ... the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union." In fact, that historical premise has been around for a long time. Not only does it reflect a majority position in Russia, which bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe during WW2, but it is view shared to one degree or another by a substantial number of very well respected Western historians as published by very well respected Western publishers. They have drawn much the same conclusion, namely that the roots of the Cold War were buried deep in WW2. They agree on the basis of impeccable documentary research that by land, sea and air, the Western Allies generally failed to deploy their overwhelming military advantages to good effect while Russia suffered appalling losses as a result, on the eastern and decisive front of World War II. See Vladimir Petrov (ed.), Soviet Historians and the German Invasion, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1968, p.286; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984; Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971; DF Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960, New York: Random 1961' Wilfred Burchett, Shadow of Hiroshima, London: Verso 1983. Stan Winer, in Between the Lies, in Chapter 4 titled "The Missing Front", elaborates that position further in citing, among others, the memoirs of Red Army commander Georgi Zhukov to support the proposition that the roots of WW2 are firmly embedded in WW2. Wiki editors, in their "wisdom" and without being able to provide any concrete evidence whatsoever to support their allegations, arbitrarily refute all the foregoing documentation as "flawed", "unreliable", or "fringe". Which brings us to the issue of [WP: FRINGE], as first raised by Binksternet in his posting of 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC). [WP: FRINGE] rules that NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. And since wiki editors concur that the matter at issue concerns a "fringe" position (in the West, where wiki is based), this "fringe" position must therefore be included in the WW2 article or a related sub-article. Rules are rules. I didn't make them.

In the meantime, I'd be much obliged if discssion participants support their arguments with concrete evidence when they allege "unreliable" or "flawed" sources, or similar facile remarks that lower the tenor of what's supposed to be a serious discussion.

Incidentally, and at the risk of digressing, the question of the roots of Cold War being embedded in WW2 relates essentially to Grand Strategy, yet the Grand Strategy of the Western Allies (nor anyone else) seems to be conspicuously absent from the WW2 article. This is with the exception only of a brief passing reference (see ref no.104 in the article), which speaks about Britain having to "reconsider its grand strategy", but curiously without saying what was their grand strategy in the first place. Communicat (talk) 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Britain's wartime Minister of Aircraft Production, Colonel Moore-Brabazon (Lord Brabazon), is on record as stating Britain's grand strategy: "Let the German and Soviet armies tear into each other. We will pick up the pieces." McClaine, Ian, Ministry of Morale: Home Front Morale and the Ministry of Information in World War II, London: Allen and Unwin, 1979 Communicat (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that sources that you want to use are reliable, not for other editors to prove otherwise. This article is an overview of WWII, not the Cold War, so it probably isn't the best place to try and include your pet theory anyway. Even if it is accepted, it is very unlikely to get more than a sentence. (Hohum ^@) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a high level overview of World War II, and certainly not the place to push fringe theories on the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are evading the issue by voicing opinion instead of fact. My postings are not to "push" any theories but to insist that the rules of WP:FRINGE be properly adhered to. WP:FRINGE was evoked in the first place by military history task force member Binksternet on this WW2 talk page, and I assume he knows what he's doing, which is why this "discussion" for the sake of continuity remains on this page. I assume also that the military history task forcers are the same for both WW2 and the CW. I hope to avoid complicating or obscuring matters by now having to move or duplicate the discussion to CW talk page. I also hope to avoid declaring a full-blown dispute, which may be my next logical move. A further logical move would be to invite the authors of WP:FRINGE to elaborate their rules. As already stated twice above, WP:FRINGE, rules that all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article for consistency with NPOV. Communicat (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue isn't being evaded, it's being responded to head on. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and wildly misinterpreting WP:FRINGE. Please do go and ask for clarification. (Hohum ^@) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

At the article Long War (20th century), the idea that the Cold War started within WWII is completely and totally subsumed by the assertion that all the great power wars of the 20th century are basically the same one, extended. The concept that the last century held one long war is not brought up in this WWII overview article, nor does it appear at Cold War, and I think that is appropriate. The proper place to put Winer-et-al's fringe theory is in other articles, ones such as Aftermath of World War II or Effects of World War II (the two possibly merged.) Another possibility is to create a new article about it, like the Long War editors did. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful response, (It makes a change from the gibberish that HoHum keeps posting). My own inclination for appropriate placement, and for reasons not yet elaborated, was more in the direction of "WWII in Contemporary Culture" article. That was where I did originally place the external link to Between the Lies some time ago, which someone then promptly deleted without discussion. My preference for placement in the WW2 article of what you describe as "Winer-et-al's fringe theory", is also based on three factors: (1) The WW2 overview article, in the right-hand panel of the top-page, attributes the "Beginning of the Cold War" to the Allied victory, which "Winer-et-al's minority position contradicts. (2) In the 3rd paragraph of the top-page there is the unsourced claim that WW2 "set the stage for the Cold War", which Winer-et-al's minority position similarly contradicts. (3)WP:FRINGE rules that, for consistency with NPOV, all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article (parity of sources).

Various editors including yourself have variously tried to rubbish Between the Lies as "unreliable", "unverifiable", "flawed", "self-published", etc, etc. In view of those dismissive remarks, and to make a point (since the "Burden of proof" of reliability etc evidently rests on me), I submit the following: In recent correspondence between myself and the author and the publisher in question, I've established that Winer's Between the Lies was not self-published. It was published by an independent publisher, Southern Universities Press. Independant publishers are by definition publishers that are outside the mainstream commercial publishing industry, in so far as commercial mainstream publishers employing their own editors etc are profit-driven (they publish essentially books that sell); whereas independant publishers are not profit-driven, their print runs are small, and editing is usually outsourced to specialist freelance editors in their respective fields of expertise. From a quick review of the WW2 overview article's reference sources, I've identified no less than 28 citations to independently published works, (and at least two self-published works, including one item published by an obscure outfit calling itself The Kurdish National Congress of North America). This suggests that double standards are being applied, i.e. it's okay cite independently published / self-published sources in some instances, but not in others, such as myself. (I have also noted at least 15 citations to tertiary sources, which seems rather strange, given that wikipedia is itself a tertiary source citing other tertiary sources).The allegation that Winer's book is not cited in other works, proves nothing. Not all books have been digitised, and digital citation figures apply only to digitised works. I rest my case, for the moment. Communicat (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Please respect WP:CIVIL. Your explanation of Southern Universities Press is dubious at best. There is nothing to suggest they are reliable, or that Winer is. Have you got clarification of WP:FRINGE? (Hohum ^@) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Winer's book Between the Lies and the proposed external link to it are no longer the key issues here. What is at issue (see new section head) is the WW2 origin of the Cold War. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU. As regards WP:FRINGE, I don't need any "clarification". WP:FRINGE makes quite clear the distinction between unreliable fringe theory and substantiated significant-minority position, namely my position, from which I'm not surrendering. If or when necessary, I'll invite opinion from authors of WP:FRINGE as to resolving the merits or otherwise of this ongoing dispute.

As regards civility, discussion pages are intended to improve an article. They are not supposed to be a forum for flippancy about horses eating coal, or for incoherent remarks such as yours at Section "Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain", below. Communicat (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The "flippancy" about horses eating coal followed your apparently premature announcement that you were done with this discussion, where you alluded to the other editors here being horses led to but not drinking [your] water. The civility has been thin on both sides. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

When I claimed I was done with this "discussion", I meant I was done with discussing it under the section head "Link to www.truth-hertz.net] ". I then started this present "discussion" section headed "WW2 origins of CW", because the discussed issues had evolved into a rather more complex and multi-faceted scenario. This was largely as a result of your disparagement of the relevant source's "wild-eyed" conclusion that the roots of the Cold War are embedded in WW2, and which I have since shown to be a majority position in the former Soviet Union and a currently significant-minority position among a substantial number of published Western historians and researchers. And as a significant-minority position, it merits serious consideration in terms of NPOV / WP:FRINGE rules as already cited but not yet (if ever) resolved satisfactorily through reasoned discussion. You might have noted my use of the word "discussion" in parenthesis, this because of the very limited number of actual participants, and because "discussants" such as HoHum indulge in provocative criticisms that are not supported constructively by concrete fact or citation. Not forgetting Nick-D who seems fond of passing terse and dismissive one-line judgments that are either similarly unsupported and/or just plain erroneous. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, your posts are tl;dr and unclear. Can you please summarize in a line or two what you want changed? I can't tell exactly what you have a problem with here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed all the tags..as its seems there is no need for them since there is no references to back any claims made and most believe only small changes might be needed .Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of my claims have been backed by references. Granted though, my epic gripe has by now become so filled with multiple issues under various section heads that I can't honestly blame anyone at this point for not being able to see the wood for trees. To save everyone the time and trouble of reading the whole damn thing, I'll just say it's not "only small changes" that are at issue. There are of course some relatively minor syntax, grammatical and factual edits needed, but the main proposed changes are significant ones, hence my efforts at achieving consensus via discussion as per wiki rules. To keep it simple:

(1) Entire para 3 needs reworking / correcting and parity sourcing, while retaining brevity.

(2) A minor but significant external link is proposed to a Selective WW2 bibliography regardless of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the actual thesis of the CC-licensed online book from which the bibliography is lifted. It's the accurate, concise and objective Bibliography that matters here, not the subjective thesis (which thesis has given rise to some editors' disapproval, and so it won't be cited, unless others want it to be). Communicat (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain

The Spitfire caption "The Battle of Britain ended the German advance in Western Europe" together with text statement "Germany began an air superiority campaign over Britain (the Battle of Britain) to prepare for an invasion"[63] do not reflect a consensus position. Richard Overy "Battle of Britain 70 years on", in dispelling the David and Goliath myth, states: "Britain had more fighter aircraft and more fighter pilots than the Germans over most of the Battle of Britain". And, "At the end of the Battle of Britain Hitler’s armies still dominated much of Europe, and were poised to dominate more." Communicat (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK was the only place left in *Western* Europe that Hitler had designs on. Trying to gain air superiority with an idiot in charge of the Luftwaffe, against a force that managed to maintain larger numbers of pilots and aircraft doesn't mean they didn't try. (Hohum ^@) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I can see an argument to tone it down. What halted the advance was the English Channel, the BoB denied the German forces the opportunity to gain the Air Superiority, Control of the Air or even Favourable Air Conditions that would allowed any effort to establish an amphibious landing force.

ALR (talk) 12:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I raised the BoB issue mainly because it illustrates how a false premise or a lie (i.e. RAF outnumbered by GAF), when repeated many times in official propaganda and regurgitated endlessly by self-styled historians etc, eventually becomes in the public mind a settled and unquestioned premise, though it can be proved to be a myth. There are many such myths, (at least one of which is currently the subject of dispute on this page). Communicat (talk) 14:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: when I said "agreed", I should have added "with reservations". What bothers me is the misleading Spitfire picture caption that claims the BoB "ended the German advance in Western Europe." Much better, since after all it really is a picture of a Spitfire, would be something along the lines of: "The RAF's Spitfire fighter won the Battle of Britain." As the caption presently stands, unenlghtened readers are misled into thinking the BoB was something to do with Western Europe. As rest of us know, RAF victory in the BoB was essentially about preventing the GAF from destroying English airfields. The BoB text statement (accompanying reference 63) is very simplistic and similarly misleading for ordinary readers. Maybe you'd like to expand and fix it with your above observation? Communicat (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Another Myth is that the Spitfire won the BoB I think you will find there were more Hawker Hurricane squadrons. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, you're quite right. Maybe also worth mentioning that neither the Spit nor Hurricane were anywhere near as fast and effective as Mosquito in nightfighter mode. Communicat (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which makes sense as neither Spit or Hurricane were designed as such. The combination of the (fewer) high end Spits and the many (cheaper) Hurricans proved to be very good at taking out German bomber squadron, with the Spits focussing on fighter support and the Hurricanes taking out the bombers. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Flawed overview -- para 3

The unsourced paragraph 3 at top-page is flawed as regards "... acceptance of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonisation movements in Asia and Africa ...".

"Acceptance" by whom? Certainly not by the main colonial powers, Britain, France, Portugal. When the war ended, Britain and America promptly reneged on their 1941 Atlantic Charter which had lured partisan movements around the world (including Poland) to side with the Allies against Germany and Japan, in return for the promise of "freedom" from colonial rule. When this "freedom" failed to materialise after WW2, indigenous independence movements, with Sino-Soviet help, mounted fullscale liberation wars in Kenya, Malaya, N.Korea, N. Vietnam, Philippines, and later in southern Africa. Not to mention a violent mutiny and bloody rebellion in India.

Para 3 is further flawed by omitting any reference to the crucial, immediate post-war Bretton Woods Agreement to reform international financial institutions, tariffs and trade, etc, which had been identified as among the main economic causes of WW2. Communicat (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to its self proclaied "good article" status, the ww2 article is riddled with other errors and ommissions and double standards in accepting or rejecting citations. The milhist panel -- HoHum, Nick-D, Blinkster etc -- seem to be suffering from an ownership problem The article is "their" turf and anyone who trespasses on it, especially Communicat of late, is trampled upon in jackbooted nazi style. There are many examples in the talk archives. Milhist panely w2ould be put to better use by actually improving-correcting-shortening the artile instead of acting like a bunch of nazis. A more couteous and open minded atitude would be nice. Besides, none of the milhist panel appear to have any historical or editorial qualifications listed on their user pages. At best they seem to be self opinionated computer geeks and not much else. 41.145.238.141 (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You will find that calling people names will not get you far here...Pls simply point out what YOU believe is wrong and find a source for it...We dont care about opinions here only verifiable sources. Moxy (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

USSR and USA at the top?

I find this insulting that they have been put ahead of the UK and France in the belligerents list considering that they joined in 1941 I urge that this should be changed back to something that makes more sense, France and the UK fought much harder in the War than that of the USA And Russia despite what numbers of casualties say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of placement, saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement, and has no place in an NPOV article. Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated. Any one would be fine as a potential scheme for ordering. Subjective boasting of "who fought harder" is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me disagree with the statement that "saying who "fought harder in the war" is an inherently subjective judgement". It is possible to measure who fought harder simply by counting the losses sustained by some belligerent and, more importantly, by losses inflicted by him on its opponent. By both these criteria Britain (and, especially, France) cannot be placed on the top. More importantly, I would say that placement of France along with Britain would be insulting.--188.123.242.211 (talk) 21:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

you fortify Davido488's point here "Length of time involved, casualty rates, scope of involvement, even alphabetical are orders that can be objectively stated" Who was involved in the war longest? Who was most involved, Who Turned the tide in the African campaign at El alemein, who stopped the German advance into the west and maybe even the USA, who repelled the Japanese in Burma, who stopped the German advance in the middle east, in terms of Involvement, Length, and casualties it is no doubt that the UK should come top of the allies belligerents list

It's only fair that France should come Second as France fought extremely well for liberation from the start as one of the first to declare war involved in battles in Vietnam to Africa, losing over a million people. Please take it into consideration86.135.58.219 (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I couldn't of put it better myself really, the UK and France deserve to be above the Russia and the US do to a longer duration and and Span of conflict around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davido488 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. Enough of this nationalism going on here. 8 out of every 10 German soldier killed in the war were killed by the Russians.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 22:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost any metric of involvement will be argued to death. i.e. inflicted casualties, casualties inflicted versus casualties taken, amount of territory taken/recovered, size of forces, resources devoted to warmaking; all the previous factors relative to GDP, length of time engaged in the war, order of joining, most important battles, most distributed global involvement, etc. To argue about any of them simply for the "terrible outrage" of the order shown in an infobox would seem to indicate people are willing to devote more time to arguing than to improving the article.

My suggestion would be to identify the main combatants (for which there will be argument enough), and then list them alphabetically; and then get on with some proper editing. (Hohum ^@) 00:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Enough of the nationalism. Let's keep this article NPOV (FWIW, I hate the USSR. They kicked out my ancestors in 1918)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetically?? What in the world for? The current listing is perfectly NPOV. Its not "nationalist", its based on actual involvement in the conflict. And anyway how in the world would alphabetizing help anything, you cannot very well list all combatants - we'd still have to select the "preferred" ones. Plus the infobox in alphabetic order would be just plain stupid ("Australia and Belgium vs Bulgaria and Italy"). If we really need some determining factor it should be combined troop strength, not the sodding alphabet :P (except for the "Big Three" of course, which should be at the top in the current order regardless of troop strength).

The current listing is very accurate, the USSR's involvement virtually dwarfs that of all other countries combined. If it weren't for its status as one of the "Big Three" Britain should probably be below China. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I said "main combatants" alphabetically. I've given clear reasons why "level of involvement" can be argued about ad nauseam, and already has been on this talk page, and the infobox template talk page - read the archives. So, again, wasting more time on a minor point of presentation seems to gather more interest than content. (Hohum ^@) 01:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Let's all leave it as it is :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Eighty percent of all German losses were inflicted upon them by the Red Army on the eastern front. The efforts of the Western Allies on the eastern front accounted for only 20 percent of German losses, whereas total losses of the German Wehrmacht were 72 percent of its officers and men, most of them. dying on the Soviet-German (i.e. Eastern) front. Since the British Army deployed no more than 28 divisions as compared with the American army’s 99 divisions, the British contribution to Allied victory must have been in the region of only five percent. As for the Americans: the military potential of the US, as estimated in 1939 in terms of gross national product and industrial production, represented more than 40 percent of the world’s total. Yet that advantage was never translated into a proportionate contribution on the battlefield. The 99 American divisions were overshadowed 4:1 by Red Army divisions.The price paid by the USSR for defeating Hitler on the principal and decisive front of the war was enormous. Well over 40 million Russians, half of them civilians, died — many more than the combined total military casualties of Germany and the Western Allies together. Sources: John Erickson, Stalin's War With Germany, (2 vols) London: Grafton, 1985, where individual campaigns are listed at Vol II, p.1181; Alexander Werth, Russia at War 1941-1945, New York: Avon 1965: Norman Davies, Europe at War 1939-1945: No Simple Victory, London: Macmillan 2005. Forty million Soviet fatalities stated in Stan Winer, Between the Lies, Southern Universities Press: London 2007, 2nd edn, p.87 online edition p.82 citing Professor of Defence Studies at Edinburgh University, on the basis of former Soviet military archives opened to the West in 1994. Communicat (talk) 12:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I must reiterate, let's leave it as it is. There really is no since arguing over the order of flags! I'd rather not have to watch one of the lamest edit wars occur on an article that I am very proud to have promoted to GA status. Wikipedia never seems to be able to keep articles like these at GA level for long and this is why.....--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That's okay with me. I couldn't care less about the order of flags. My posting had more to do with NPOV errors of omission and the apparent Russo-phobia demonstrated by at least one milhist administrator, of which more later. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC

I'm not going to argue on here because if I do I will never stop arguing and will probably be blocked which I cannot be bothered with, BUT Britain may not be ahead of Russia but should be ahead of the United states alphabetically and terms of casualties and war effort, and how high a country is on the belligerent IS relevant, but never mind because we all know this site is full of bias Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else. So just leave it as that I'm not going to bother anymore on this silly article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.58.219 (talk • contribs)

My question above was asked for the same reasons as this. There must be a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed. --Half Price (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why alphabetical ordering was suggested in the first place. But I think the infobox is also a bit of an overview of involved editors, as I am pretty sure for example that small states in Europe like Luxembourg were more involved than e.g. South Africa. Arnoutf (talk) 09:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh? More than 10,000 S.African soldiers (third of the entire SA force in North Africa) were captured by Rommel at Tobruk. SA army threw German army out of German colony South West Africa. SA pilot Edwin Swales VC was posthumously decorated for heroism during the air offensive against Germany. Many other SA pilots were seconded to RAF. Etc. Now, how does Luxembourg compare with that? Communicat (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The alphabetical ordering has one major disadvantage, namely, it is not clear from it which countries were major WWII participants. As a result, Australian pupils come from school being firmly confident that the WWII was a war between Australia and Japan, and that Australia won this war (I am telling about a real example). Another example is the initial Davido488's post (which can be better explained by simple ignorance rather than by Russophobia). It must be clear from the infobox that in actuality the WWII was the war between a handful of major Allied countries (of which only three made a decisive contribution in the the victory) and three major Axis' members (of which only one was the Axis leader). Of course, it would be incorrect to forget the contribution of South Africa, however, it would be even more incorrect to list, e.g. Belgium before, e.g. the USSR.

With regards to "a process of listing belligerents that cannot be disputed", we already discussed this issue before and came to a conclusion that no strict rules exist on that account.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In which case we need some. Otherwise this will happen again and again. Should I take this to any Wikiproject? --Half Price (talk) 14:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact scrap that, Template:Infobox_military_conflict states that "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." Admittedly it also adds "If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article" --Half Price (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That is exactly what I meant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The only obvious objective way to determine it, is to place them in order of time participated. It is the only measure that can be measured without bias. Obviously it would be UK, USSR, USA, France, and so on. If you try and list them in order of importance, everyone will have different measures as to what that means.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "The only obvious objective way to determine it, is to place them in order of time participated. It is the only measure that can be measured without bias." Of course, no. There is a lot of opportunity for bias here. For instance, if we interpret this criterion formally, than the first place should be given to Poland (at war since Sept 1, 1939), although no actual hostilities took place between this country and the Axis during 1940-42. Another example is the Phoney War. Anyway, since the most important consequence of any war is the loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion. It is very strange for me that some quite formal criteria (e.g. formal duration of the state of war) seem less biased then casualties are. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"loss of human lives, it is natural to expect it to be the most objective criterion". Yes but how do we calculate that. What is more loss of human lives, if US military casualties of about 410,000 (0.32% of 1939 population) worse than the approx 500,000 civilian casualties in Greece (about 7% of 1939 pop). Are not the 2,000 casualties in Luxembourg relatively twice as much as those of the US (these 2,000 represented 0.68% of 1939 population). If you say US counts for more, you implicitly say that large countries will always suffer more (even if the 100% of the Luxembourg population would have suffered from genocide there would be far less casualties compared to the US). Even a so-called simple thing as casualties is not. Arnoutf (talk) 16:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Our task is not to calculate relative casualties. We need to provide some objective criterion for absolute (not per capita) military contribution. The country that deployed greater army, sustained greater losses and, importantly, inflicted greater losses on the opponent made greater contribution. With regard to small countries, they by definition cannot be listed first because, independently of relative losses, their military contribution was small.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that casualties are not a good way to see importance of the war, i.e following your rationale the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side, an hence by your reasoning massive casualties on the side of the enemy. I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties. OR why civilian casualties do not count. Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US; if you look at military casualties the Yugoslav partisans (446,000) trump the US (417,000)). So "objectively" the order of allies would be (all casualties USSR, Poland, Dutch East Indies, India, Yugoslavia) or if you limit yourself to military it would be (USSR, China, Yugoslavia, US, UK), if you look at relative death it would be Poland, USSR, Yugoslavia, Greece. Useful to put Yugoslavia before US and UK, not really, but that will be the consequence of the "objective" measure. Arnoutf (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the pinnacle of military strategy would be to emply only unarmed troops (or horse cavalry or light infantery) as that will guarantee you a lot of casualties on your side" Quite the opposite. As I already noted, the losses inflicted on the opponent are more important criterion.

Re: "I do not see why we cannot calculate relative casualties." Because it is irrelevant. We discuss the relative importance of nation's contribution into the war, not who fought harder. The fact that Luxembourg sustained relatively more losses than the USA does not mean its contribution was comparable with that of the USA. The WWII was primarily a war between great powers.

Re: "Casualties alone is no measure for importance of a country (e.g. if you look at casualties USSR (23 Million) Poland (5.7 Million) and Dutch East Indies (3.5 Million) score about ten times more than the US;" That is both correct and incorrect. Dutch East Indies casualties led to only minor Japanese casualties (and, frankly, did not affect a situation in any important theatre of war). Polish casualties were mostly civilian casualties and didn't change German ability to wage the war. By contrast, Soviet casualties (which were accompanied by almost equally high Axis casualties) led to exhaustion of the Axis military machine, a loss of the greatest part of German possessions in Europe, and, eventually, to the victory in the most important WWII theatre. Therefore they are the measure.

Re: "So "objectively" the order of allies would be" Such a reductio ad absurdum is hardly relevant here. My point was that, as soon as we want to invent a single objective criterion for military contribution, military casualties are the most appropriate one. However, as I already noted, the casualties must be military, not total, and, importantly, the casualties inflicted on the opponent should weigh more than the casualties sustained.

However, I never stated that such a single criterion can be universal: it is impossible to use the same criteria for comparison of quite different theatres of war: yes, based on the amount of troops involved, losses sustained/inflicted, strategic importance etc., we can compare, e.g. African campaign and Case Blau (and made quite objective conclusion abou relative importance), however, it is hard to compare, e.g., BoB and Battle of Leningrad.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

To summarise. Of course, it is incorrect to state that the country that sustained greater total population losses made greater military contribution. However, a combination of military losses sustained by a country plus military losses inflicted by the country on the opponent can be a primary criterion when we compare similar theatres of war. Other criteria can be (i) the level of military production; (ii) the country's role in providing military resources for the most important theatres of war; (iii) the technological level of warfare the country was involved in; (iv) political weight the country had during the war and its role in making the most important strategic decision; (v) (you may expand this list if you have any other ideas).

Based on i-iv, both the US and the UK should occupy one of first three positions. However, the USSR also meets these four criteria: the level of military production was high there (the USSR was responsible for production of a lion's share of the armament used in the Eastern Front), technological level was relatively high (the most modern German tanks, artillery and partially planes were produced for the use in the East); political weight of the USSR was enormous during WWII (after 1941).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well your post above argues that casualties sustained alone are indeed not the most suitable objective criterion. I fully agree. Note that it was you who proposed this first. On the other hand, while you correctly argue that most of German advanced tanks were produced for the east, almost all German navy (including U boats) and the most avanced Luftwaffe was deployed against the Western allies. All in all, the inclusion of political weight, level of technology etc. adds additional interpretation which is not 100% objective (let alone the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties).

I do agree based on your analysis that the main allies were indeed the traditional big 3: USA, UK, USSR. Each of the was essential in its own way and I would hesitate to put one over another, for those 3 alphabetic order seems fine to me. Arnoutf (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Note that it was you who proposed this first." I am not a proponent of the use of any single criterion, my point was that, as soon as we decided to use some single criterion the losses would the most objective one. However, I doubt such oversimplification would be correct.

Re the decision to put sustained military casualties over civilian casualties. I see no problem with that because total casualties just show who suffered more, whereas own military casualties show who fought more and, accordingly, the opponent's military casualties show whose military contribution was greater.

Re navy etc. That is correct, and that is one of the reasons why all the Big Three's members can be grouped together (separately from other Allies). However, that is insufficient to say that their contributions were comparable. Obviously, whereas all Big Three's members meet criteria i-iv, the scale and strategic importance of the Eastern Front leaves no doubts that Soviet contribution was far greater. However, there is one more argument that you missed, namely, that from 1 Sept 1939 till 1941 the USSR was de facto (although not de jure) the German ally. Of course, one may argue that during that time the USA were collaborating extensively with Japan by providing her with oil and other resources needed for the war with China, however, one way or the another, Nazi-Soviet collaboration is the only fact that may counterbalance the enormous Soviet contribution into the victory. That is why I cannot unconditionally support the placement of the USSR on the top of the list. Probably the idea of the alphabetical order is not so bad, however, as you probably noticed it does not change the Big Three's order much: the Soviet Union goes first, the United Kingdom is the second, whereas the United States of America occupy the third position. However, if we agree on that the footnote has to be added to the infobox explaining that the Big Three's members are listed alphabetically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, and indeed the Eastern front was a massive drain on German personell and resources. But even that is not as simple (as you already indicate with the Germany-USSR alliance). In the early stages Anglo-American supplies to Murmansk have helped the Russians to stabilise the Eastern front; and in the later stages the massive bombing of German industries has weakened their Eastern tank divisions considerably.

Re alphabetic order; I share you concern, but as any other criterion seems to spark nationalist tendencies I see no alternative. One thing I wondered about, why are we talking about Soviet Union instead of USSR and not about United States and United Kingdom, that seems a bit inconsistent to me. Arnoutf (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that it should be the USSR, rather than the Soviet Union. In which case, if going by it alphabetically, it should be the United Kingdom first, United States second, and USSR third. --MILLANDSON (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what is the reason for use of abbreviation in one case (the USSR) and full names (United Kingdom and United states) in others?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing Dispute -- expressions of interest invited

Senior editor Moxy at his userpage gives this message to editors: "Please stop tagging (adding templates) to the top of every article you read and actually take the time and fix the problems." Now that's all very well and good. But, having followed that advice and actually taking the time and trouble to fix problems at WW2 overview page, (see View history entry 17:53, 5 August 2010), I've now simply had my edit reverted arbitrarily by milhist administrator User:Nick-D (see View history entry 22:47, 5 August 2010). This despite the verifiable fact that I'd first proposed the changes clearly and courteously at section headed Flawed overview? - Para 3 on this discussion page, without receiving any response to my proposed changes from User:Nick-D or anyone else. So, after a few days without feedback, I simply followed Moxy's advice and labouriously fixed the problems, only to have the edit reverted by User:Nick-D. It's not the first time he's done this kind of thing. I'm happy to work productively and co-operatively but have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in puerile and unproductive editing wars with evidently disruptive administrators. Do well-intentioned people really have to go through all this $h1t in order to improve an article? Communicat (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I was astounded to find that nothing leapt out at me as particularly poor about Communicat's recent edit (diff) to the lead. It's unusual to splatter prominent dispute and NPOV tags over such a minor difference though. Perhaps Nick-D could say what his objections are in more detail. (Hohum ^@) 19:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe some astute editor will do reversion to my proper earlier version. Still no word from the esteemed User:Nick-D. Maybe they do things differently in the land of Oz.Communicat (talk) 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Below are my commentaries on some Communicat's edits.

1. "The war was fought between the Allies -- America, Britain, British Commonwealth forces and the Soviet Union -- against the Axis powers: Germany, Italy and Japan."

Comment. The sentence fully ignores the role of other Allies, especially, Poland, France, China, as well as other European Axis members, especially Romania. It is also worth mention that Britain was a part of Commonwealth. My proposal is:

"The war was fought between the Allies — primarily British Commonwealth and the United States, as well as the Soviet Union — against the Axis powers, primarily Germany, Italy and Japan." Yes, that's good

Let me also note that this sentence (both old and new versions) reproduces the first lede's sentence:

"... which involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers, organised into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. "

We have to discuss how to avoid this repetition. Well spotted. Should have seen it myself the first time

2. "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. "

Comment. The Communist supported resistance movement was a real fighting force mostly in Yugoslavia; the role of resistance in France or Italy is usually exaggerated. Resistance in Poland was supported by non-Communists or even anti-Communists. My suggestion: remove from the lede. See further discussion, esp. Far East groups, below in section "Anti-communist prejudice".

3. "British wartime leader Winston Churchill, in his voluminous history of World War II , depicts a generally cordial relationship between the Western allies and their Soviet allay."

Comment. Churchill was hardly a professional historian, his writings can be considered partially as memoirs (a primary source), so we cannot rely upon them too much. My suggestion: remove. A lot of people DO unfortunately rely on them volumes. But yes, remove source if you're a purist, as all good editors should be. Lots of other secondary sources available to support same premise, viz., cordial relationship.

4. "Documents declassified after the war provide a different perspective. In secret wartime correspondence between Soviet leader Josef Stalin and Churchill, Stalin complained repeatedly that by land, sea and air, the Western allies were failing to use their military forces to good effect while, as a result, the Soviet Union suffered appalling losses on the eastern or Russian-German front. "

Comment. Declassified documents are primary sources. secondary source Introduction by editor Richardson (which refers to docs in mainbody of book) can be source ref. If not, the same docs can probably be found in Hinsley somewhere, if one only has the time to look for them ... The lede cannot devote a space to discussion of them. No, "discussion" is not proposed. Just a one-sentence mention.Discussion of tension between the Big Three's members hardly deserves mention in the lede. The implications are so vast and important that I consider it worthy of mention. In addition, introduction of the dead wikilink into a good article is hardly a good idea (especially, taking into account that the name is not common). Not common in the West. Standard in the former Soviet Union. My suggestion: remove. My suggestion: disambigulation warning.

5. "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war. "

Comment. It is incorrect to present this POV as a national POV. Many western historians (e.g., Glantz, Bellamy et al) share this point of view. All the more reason to say so. My general suggestion regarding ##3-5 is: add a brief description of WWII theatres along with discussion of their relative importance. Space problem. Maybe an entire section to itself? But, article already tooooo longgggg and needs trimming overall. Rather you than me.::::"Revisionist historians propose that, because of the wartime tensions that existed between Stalin and the Western leaders, the roots of the Cold War can be traced to events in World War II. "

Comment. I am not sure we need to discuss the revisionist point of view for at least two reasons: firstly, to discuss the revisionist POV, one have to present a mainstream point of view; secondly, I am not sure if we need to discuss the roots of Cold War in the lede of the article about the WWII.

Conservative mainstream view has entered the ideologically conditioned (Western) collective psyche to such an extent that it hardly requires further regurgitation. So, in interests of NPOV, I think revisionist view might merit at least a brief airing.

My general conclusion is that, although some Communicat's points (which have been put forward by him on the talk page) are valid, it would be premature to support the changes made by him. I propose to discuss these prospective changes on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2010

Thanks for taking time and trouble to comment thoughtfully. My responses for ease of reference are reds above. Communicat (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As a quick comment, the problems with the material added in these edits were. 1) The text on the nations involved in the war (which now seems to be resolved) Small matter of copy editing 2) the claim that "The Allies were supported militarily by communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe" is simply wrong - while communist groups played the key role in the resistance in several countries, the Communists didn't 'lead' the resistance in western Europe which was coordinated by the various governments in exile located in Britain. My use of term "communist-led" is clarified in Section below headed "Anti-communist prejudice". Greek resistance had no contact with monarchist government in exile which they intended to overthrow anyway. Italian resistance had no govt in exile. Italian communist-led partisans, the only partisan force that actually managed liberate enemy-occupied territory, insignificant? 3) The armed resistance movements in most of Japanese-occupied Asia were fairly small and unimportant. Korean / Vietnamese / Chinese (Mao's) resistance "small and unimportant"? Hmmmm. The Philippino resistance movement was probably the most significant of them, but it was not 'communist led' as it was coordinated out of General MacArthur's headquarters. Filipino resistance was conducted on the ground by groups operating in enemy occupied territory and completely cut off from communication with McArthur. 4) The material on Churchill's memoirs is simply out of place in this very high-level article on the war - you may wish to add it to Winston Churchill as historian Not memoirs as such. Taught as "history" in many schools. But never mind. Debatable point. 5) the claim that "Russian historians contend that the Eastern Front was the principal and decisive front of the war." is also out of place in this high-level article and ignores the fact that most western historians now agree with this view in relation to the war in Europe, If there's East-West consensus on decisive front, then surely this merits some acknowledgment, not for the sake of knowlegeable historians but for the benefit of less informed mortals who rely on wiki for enlightenment, though it's obviously not correct for the war in the Pacific (where the American offensive through the South-West and Central Pacific was decisive). Digression. 6) the material added to the 'Chronology' section was wordy and seemed to suggest that the USSR didn't participate in the war until it was invaded by the Axis in 1941. I didn't write it. Material was moved to Chronology because of repetition and to make space for reworked 2nd / 3rd pars. Moved material needed cleanup, as stated. I'm not going to engage with your rude comments about me beyond observing that reverting edits is part of normal editing, and wasn't performed in my role as an admin. Rude comments: I merely reacted to your own rude and defamatory comment that I'm trying to air "pet theories". The fact remains that I cited WP:FRINGE concerning the rule that equal weight must be given in an article to all reliable majority and significan-minority positions in support of NPOV. Discussion, what there is of it, has carefully circumvented that matter and otherwise appears to be leading nowhere. So what's the point in discusing it further, I wonder. (User Paul Siebert Phd excepted) Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Many Thanks but I don't agree with most of your observations. See bolds above. Communicat (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You might find it helpful to note (1) "Philippino" (your word) should correctly be Filipino. (2) The word "Front", as in "principle and decisive front", means the forward position of an army in battle (Oxford English Dictionary). The Pacific war, which you refer to, was a Theatre, not a front. Communicat (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please reformat your response so that it's not in the middle of what I wrote? This makes it very difficult for other editors to follow what I posted and your response. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You presume to have the authority to speak on behalf of "other editors", (who've not complained). I see no diversionary need to "reformat" my responses above. In fact, it's the least confusing way to address directly and lucidly the multiple points at issue. Instead of presuming to complain on behalf of "other editors", why don't you just DEAL with the issues? Which of course you have not. Communicat (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Although Nick-D has no authority to speak on behalf of other editors, he is probably right: it is really rather difficult to follow. To demonstrate this point, try to imagine how the initial post would look like if Nick-D responded in the same manner you did (by wedging his comments between your comments on his text). In addition, it is generally recommended to avoid using bold text, which may be interpreted as shouting. I don't think that was your intention.

I believe the problem will be resolved if you post (or re-post) concrete proposals, namely, which concrete pieces of text should be modified, how concretely should they be modified, and what sources support the changes you propose.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Duplication / cleanup

Para 2 duplicates info and should be moved to Chronology section after cleanup. Sentence too long and unsourced. I fixed this in my earlier edition (see History) which was then reverted by admin. Maybe someone else should try, seeing as admin doesn't like my edits. Communicat (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Anti-communist prejudice

In the very lengthy WW2 article there is only one very brief mention of a communist-led resistance movement (Yugoslavia), whereas in fact there were communist-led resistance movements throughout Europe and the Far East. They made a significant contribution to the Allied war effort by sabotaging enemy supply lines, rescuing downed pilots, and collecting and conveying intelligence to the Allies. The exclusion of these movements from the article reflects clear anti-communist (i.e. POV) prejudice.

There were of course some populist (i.e. non-communist) resistance groups like Force 136 in Malaya, and a populist group in Greece, and nationalist resistance elsewhere e.g. China, (before the split with Mao), but even these groups were led mainly by communists. Non-communist (i.e. populist / nationalist groups were largely ineffectual and NOT a fighting force worth considering by comparison with the communist-led groups (some of which were also comprised of populist or nationalist members. (In Italy communist-led groups even had devout Catholics as members). Hence my use of the term "communist-led".

The text and sources that I provided in a lead paragraph of disputed article that was reverted by Nick-D (see above) are relevant. There are various other reliable sources on this topic, which I can provide if necessary. The point I'm making is that deliberate exclusion from the WW2 article of virtually any mention of communist-led resistance(except the one very brief mention re Jugoslavia), is proof of anti-communist bias. Could it be that the unsigned comment added by 86.135.58.219 above has some validity, when he remarks: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." ? Communicat (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure how this constitutes "anti-communist prejudice". Most countries had quite diverse resistance movements and not very many had resistance movements like Tito's, which fought so openly. The only (European) exception is possibly the Polish one, which was NOT communist lead, but comprised mainly of conservatives and nationalists. If you look at the other occupied countries (France, Benelux, Denmark, Norway) the resistance movement was less visible. And just as importantly, they were mixed, sometimes with extensive internal differences - sometimes outright fighting each other. Nevertheless, they played important roles in the war. Allied operations counted on Danish resistance movements to derail German supply- troop- and ressource transports, of which Denmark was rife. The Resistance Movement in Denmark was largely conservative, as communists were concentrated in the cities or had escaped to Sweden. The communists did perform a large number of operations - especially in the cities where they were concentrated, and were the closest to an "armed resistance" (in the Yugolslavian sense) Denmark came. Rather than speculating in the political rationale behind each resistance movement in the WWII article, this should probably be discussed in an article on that subject and largely kept out of the WWII article. I didn't note any other mentionings of Resistance Movement political philosophy other than Tito's Yugoslavs. Would that constitute anti-conservative prejudice?--Nwinther (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

AFAIK, the scale of the resistance movement in Europe (except in Yugoslavia and, probably, Poland) was grossly exaggerated. I would say, a support of Nazi by local population in most European countries was more pronounced than resistance was. Therefore, if we decide to tell about resistance in Europe, we also have to devote at least the same space to collaborationism.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As an overview article, it is unrealistic to go into any detail for any single issue, the current level seems appropriate. This article links to Resistance during World War II at the top of the Occupation section, that article would be a better place for reliably referenced details. (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As far as resistance goes, we basically have three countries,

• Yugoslavia, where whole division groups were engaged in combating Partisans in battles involving hundreds of thousands of men.
• Poland
• Greece

The strategic significance of all three is negligible compared to conventional warfare, of course. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All above is relevant for a better edit, but no-one above takes heed of resistance in Far East viz., China (12 million killed) Malaya, Philippines, Indonesia, Burma, and Hong Kong where anti-Jap partisans collected and used against the enemy many weapons and other materiel abandoned by retreating British troops after Jap invasion and British surrender. The rest of the weapons obtained in Malaya as elsewhere were of course via SOE airdrops. Significance of guerilla warfare (especially jungle fighting) is that one guerilla could tie down about 25 to 50 enemy troops, thus diverting enemy resources away from other engagements.

Main reason why I brought partisan resistance into the editing equation, was because of the false and unsourced assertion in existing Para. 3 about decolonisation (see Decolonisation section above). I deleted entirely that falsity, (and also the mention of Cold War), because I intended inserting into the "Aftermath" section the facts that Britain and America had lured indigenous resistance movements to support the Allies through promises of post-war independence from colonialism (see Atlantic Charter). When post-war independence failed to materialise, all hell broke loose in Brit colony of Malaya, and in American neo-colony Philippines. Important aftermath issue not mentioned in existing Aftermath section.

Piecemeal, stop-and-start editing can be very frustrating in that respect -- especially when administrators such as Nick-D assume bad faith or whatever, and revert editing without first engaging in any discussion about proposed edits. (In my other life, I'm accustomed to editing 10,000 word manuscripts at one sitting).Communicat (talk) 19:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want others to assume your good faith, try assume good faith too. I believe there are explanations of Nick-D's behaviour others than assuming bad faith. I suggest you to copy a section you want to modify on the tal page, to make changes you want, to wait for comments from others and, when all criticism is addressed to move the modified text into the main article. It is a rather long procedure, however, taking into account that this article is generally in a good shape, and that this is a 10th most visited WP article, this way is probably the most optimal.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Noted. Good idea. Communicat (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Direktor above is wrong when he says Yugoslavia, Greece and Poland are the only ones worth mentioning. He forgets that Italian (communist-led) partisans liberated part of northern Italy and were poised to do more. Which resulted in the infamous Operation Sunrise -- OSS director Alan Dulles's (now well-documented) secret surrender negotiations with Nazi SS general Karl Wolfe, to prevent post-war communist influence in Italy. Communicat (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the same commie baddies who murdered John Birch? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Nah,I'm talking about wiki WW2 article anti-communist prejudice / POV bias through omission. To continue where I left off above, re significant communist-led resistance as missing from the article in question: The Operation Sunrise agreement between SS Gen Karl Wolf and Western Allies was that German army in N. Italy would surrender quietly to Western Allies thus preventing further German defeats by communist-led partisans, and thereby denying post-war influence to communists. It also allowed the Wehrmacht to quickly move a couple divisions from Italian front to the Soviet-German or eastern front. (Declassified docs reveal Stalin was outraged. Another example of WW2 origins of Cold War). Meanwhile, in SE Asia -- Korea & Vietnam anti-Japanese (and anti-French Vichy) communist-led resistance continued as it had throughout the war. So, when we talk about communist-led resistance, (and the WW2 origins of Cold War) it might be worth bearing in mind that Tito's partisans were not the only ones who saw action. Communicat (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure killing an armed man is a murder?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

With a name like Communicat, one must wonder why he's bringing up supposed "Anti-communist prejudice" in this article. Look, the article is neutral enough to pass a GAN. I see no justification of any "Anti-communist prejudice".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 23:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How then do YOU account for all the above-mentioned POV bias through omission? Never mind. Rhetorical question. As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?); but those standards fall well below those of other people including me. Not to mention the standards of whoever it was that posted the above-mentioned comment: "... we all know this site is full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." Communicat (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If this site is indeed "...full of biased Americans trying to make everything done by America look that bit better than everyone else." then would you mind explaining why it is written in British English?--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Because Americans don't know how to spell properly. Communicat (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I take that as an attack and an offense to my nation and it's people. I'm American and I voted for this article to be written in British English.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 01:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, not an attack. Just an attempt at sense of humour. Where's yours? (he he) Communicat (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

As for passing a GAN, I don't know about the "standards" of whoever it is that passes a GAN, (probably wiki itself?) --> I would like to draw your attention to the VERY VERY detailed GA review of this article See -->Talk:World War II/GA1 ...,becasue you have now just insulted everyone involved that worked on getting the article to GA status over 4 months. (Ps you are taking to most of them now)..Just be careful pls -- we understand your frustrated. Lets get you to list all the refs you have for a statment you wish to change and lets see if they outweigh the current statement and its references... Moxy (talk) 04:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've already listed laboriously and at length all the numerous references I have for statements / non-neutral POV edits I suggested changing. Maybe you didn't notice them the first time, but I'm not going to bother repeating them for you. Read for yourself evolution of this discussion over past period of two weeks or more. Also read Nick-D's bad faith assertion that wiki is not the place for me to air my "pet theories". They are not personal "pet" theories. They are carefully considered assertions supported by attributable facts, which wiki administrators and others prefer to ignore. Don't be so touchy, but thanks for your interest anyway. Communicat (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) +

Um Communicat, this really is highly inappropriate and could get you blocked. Lets keep it civil (not everyone in the US watches Fox News ;). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Re blocking: Yes, that would be a convenient way of getting rid of me so that unresolved isssues can simply remain unresolved, as they currently are. Besides, I don't care if anyone wants to block me. I'll simply open another account using a different username and IP. How about helping to discuss / helping resolve the multiple and complex issues. Would be much appreciated. Current section is about anti-communist prejudice. Separate preceding sections are also relevant. Glad to learn that not everyone watches Fux News. Thanks. 13:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Communicat (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You bring it on yourself with your own behaviour. Please stick to talking about ways to improve the article instead of throwing out accusations and making "jokes" in bad taste. If it's too much for you to show which reference is for which addition, "again", then don't be surprised if people ask for them. (Hohum ^@) 13:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That is called socking Communicat and will not only get you blocked but possibly (actually likely) banned.--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:40, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Socking? Where? Who's the sock, who's the sockmaster? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's just a reference to the last post by Communicat that said "I'll simply open another account using a different username and IP" :)--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 16:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sock, block. Who cares. For convenience of Moxy and HoHum, 3 and 4 postings above, and anyone who might have missed evolution of this disupute, here repeated is my earlier posting of 18:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC) under section "WW2 origins of CW", including references as requested above by Moxy:

EXTRACTBinksternet, in his posting of 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) in the talk section above, headed Link to www.truth-hertz.net, ridicules the proposition contained in Winer's book Between the Lies, that " ... the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union." In fact, that historical premise has been around for a long time. Not only does it reflect a majority position in Russia, which bore the brunt of the fighting in Europe during WW2, but it is view shared to one degree or another by a substantial number of very well respected Western historians as published by very well respected Western publishers. They have drawn much the same conclusion, namely that the roots of the Cold War were buried deep in WW2. They agree on the basis of impeccable documentary research that by land, sea and air, the Western Allies generally failed to deploy their overwhelming military advantages to good effect while Russia suffered appalling losses as a result, on the eastern and decisive front of World War II. See Vladimir Petrov (ed.), Soviet Historians and the German Invasion, Columbia: University of South Carolina Press 1968, p.286; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984; Gar Alperovitz, "How Did the Cold War Begin?" in Walter LaFeber (ed.) The Origins of the Cold War 1941-1947, New York: John Wiley 1971; DF Fleming, The Cold War and Its Origins: 1917-1960, New York: Random 1961' Wilfred Burchett, Shadow of Hiroshima, London: Verso 1983. Stan Winer, in Between the Lies, in Chapter 4 titled "The Missing Front", elaborates that position further in citing, among others, the memoirs of Red Army commander Georgi Zhukov to support the proposition that the roots of WW2 are firmly embedded in WW2. Wiki editors, in their "wisdom" and without providing concrete evidence to support their allegations, arbitrarily refute all the foregoing documentation as "flawed", "unreliable", or "fringe". ENDS EXTRACT

References for Operation Sunrise being a further instance of WW2 origin of CW, as mentioned in my comment posted 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC) in this current section, are Bradley F Smith and Elena Agarossi, Operation Sunrise: The Secret Surrender. New York, 1979; R Harris Smith, OSS, Berkely: University of California Press, 1972, pp.114-121 </ref>. The Operation Sunrise referred to here is not to be confused with the so-calledOperation Sunrise of a completely unrelated wiki article. Moxy, feel free to ask if you need further already cited info that you might have missed. Communicat (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS:All this has to do with disputed words "setting the stage for the Cold War" in Para 3 of overview article. It's not a consensus position among researchers, because others say Cold War had its origins in WW2 (and still other say Cold War began when Western Allies invaded Soviet Union in 1917. Also user Paul Siebert above has additional references in regard to WW2 origins of CW. Long story. Communicat (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In spite of your references this is still no more than a fringe theory. Besides that, this thread opened with a reference to communist lead resistance movements, not the efforts of the USSR which is something else entirely. Arnoutf (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

All that phrase sais is that the two main players in the cold war area (USSR and USA) emerged as the only superpowers with the other great powers (UK, Germany, France) being reduced; and those being the countries leaing in the cold war. The mainstream view is still that the cold war started after WWII; and the mainstream view is that of Wikipedia. And anyway this has not been discussed in this thread before. Please stick to your own point "communist led resistance" and stop adding additional issues irrelevant to that point. Arnoutf (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That's purely a matter of opinion, yours in this instance, and not a matter of fact. Read and comprehend fringe properly. My posting that opened in this thread, which you complain about, is a response to Moxy and Hohum several postings above. Please follow the discussion accurately, including all the interrelated section heads, if you want to avoid confusion. The issues raised, including decolonisation which in turn concerns resistance movements affected by Atlantic Charter promises, all relate directly or indirectly to the continuing disputed para.3 of article. And no, the mainstream view is not supposed to be that of wiki, according to wiki's own rules, as I've pointed out to several others involved in discussion. All reliable majority and significant minority positions must be stated in an article in terms of fringe. As I said, read it properly. Also please support your assertions with concrete references (as I've done), if want to avoid being accused of opinionation and disruption. Thank you. Communicat (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Each separate thread is a discussion on its own and should be discussed in a coherent way. Mixing different topics from different threads is creating confusion. This is even worsened by screwing up the chronology of arguments (which you did with your PS above).

Indeed besides the mainstream relevant minority positions should be mentioned (the word 'relevant' being essential), but not in the lead section.

Nobody disagrees the roots of the Cold war were buried deep in WWII but roots are not the same as the actual thing. You could even argue (as some well respected historians do) that there was only one war in the 20th century, which lasted from 1914-1991, with long periods of cease fire, or at least limited open warfare.

Additionally, you seem to see a Western complot against the Soviets, but the opposite position can be taken as well. Count the number of communist states in Europe in 1930; count the number of democracies in 1930, count them again in 1950 and consider which side forced their view onto Europe. Arnoutf (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, count of 1. Democracy wasn't very popular in the interbellum Arnoutf. The only real democratic state in Europe in 1930 that switched to communism after WWII was Czechoslovakia. Poland - authoritarian (Pilsudski), Yugoslavia - a royal dictatorship, Romania - virtual fascist dictatorship, Bulgaria - dictatorship of the tsar, Baltic states - authoritarian, Hungary - ultra-conservative authoritarian (dictatorship of the regent). Ok, maybe Estonia's No.2, I'm not sure. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup democracy -1 or -2 to communism, 0 to authoritarian (Italy to democracy, Spain to authoritarian), communism +2 from democracy, 7 (mentioneed by you) from authoritarian to communism. Hardly a western conspiracy playing out. Communism +9, democracy -2. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So, could you provide a few passages from these books, with page numbers, to support the impact of specifically non Yugoslavian communist led resistance forces - which this thread is apparently about? (Hohum ^@) 21:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I could do that, but there now doesn't seem much point in doing so. I really can't see myself getting anywhere with this lot. Even a simple, straight-forward copy edit for clarity is immediately undone by he who needs to protect "his" turf from intrusion. So, what's the point in expending further time and energy on this project? I can see where some editors are coming from, what their political attitudes are and the constant obstructionism I can anticipate from them, and I don't have time for it. Communicat (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would put all the information on who backed resistance movements (whoever they were backed by and fighting) in the article on resistance and just note the existence of resistance movements in this very long article. But that's just me. Britmax (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good suggestion. For my part, all I really wanted was just half a sentence in the lead, to say that communist-led resistance groups around the world supported the Allied war effort. To that end, I've written about 10,000 words of discussion, still without getting anywhere at all. To hell with it. Communicat (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I suggested including additional information in that article, earlier in this thread, and encourage it. It will still need reliable references.

When anyone tries to add even a sentence to the tenth most popular article on wikipedia, they need it to either be completely uncontentious - i.e. correcting grammar - or if it's changing meaning, to have very solid references. Dozens, if not hundreds of other editors have managed that for this article. Yet when asked for specifics you say you'll give up.

Instead of trying to simply add "that communist-led resistance groups around the world supported the Allied war effort" - with a good reference, you instead make accusations that the entire article has anti communist prejudice, splattered tags on it, and made a far more substantive edit.

If you take a more measured approach, and make a good case without polemic, you will get a lot further. (Hohum ^@) 02:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll do my best not to be provocative, or to be provoked by semi-literate retards ( don't mean you). Meantime, I'm not saying that the entire article has anti-communist prejudice. I'm saying it's lopsided in some respects that appear to reflect bias through omission. As for tags, they sometimes seem the only way to get someone to sit up and take notice. Seems to have worked so far, e.g. decolonisation issue has at last been resurrected. Of which more later. Communicat (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

German surrender.

Whether the Germans surrendered or not was irrelevant, their fighting capabilities were rendered nearly nil by the time the western and soviet forces met at the Elbe river. This is my rationale for omitting the obvious in the intro and replacing it with 'disintegration of the german war effort'. I do not say the same for the Japanese as their homeland was still in their hands and they still had the capacity to continue the war by the time they had surrendered. -Ecko1o1 (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The point is though that both Germany and Japan surrendered. Whether one nation was "batter off" than the other in 45' does not make a difference. It seems a bit fair to single both Germany and Japan out as having one be labeled as "disintegration" and the other as "unconditional surrender".--White Shadows ^{Nobody said it was easy} 15:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

While true and relevant, I think talking about disintegration dilutes the punch and clarity of the final paragraph of the lead. Details like that are better placed in the main part of the article. (Hohum ^@) 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with White Shaddows. Germany surrendered unconditionally and using different wording for the two main Axis powers suggests that they met different fates, when this wasn't at all the case (it seems relevant to note that Japan was facing near total economic collapse by August 1945 due to the impact of the Allied blockade and bombing campaign). Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

In actuality, by May 8 more than million German troops were able to continue to fight. I don't think Japan was in a better shape by 15 August, taking into account that Kwantung Army (Japanese primary fighting force) had been almost destroyed by that date, Japanese air forces and fleet virtually ceased to exist and most important Japanese cities were destroyed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

(To deviate somewhat from the current Section Head): Despite the problems Japan was experiencing as referred to by Paul above, Japan's well-developed war industry on the Asian continent had remained intact. By relying on an industrial base in occupied Manchuria and Korea, the 700,000-strong Japanese army of occupation in northern China could offer resistance for a long time to come. A major problem facing the Western powers in mid-1945 was how to eject this occupation force at a time when America's own land forces were still no nearer to the Japanese mainland than the two islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, where fierce resistance was met. Russian intervention in the war with Japan appeared to be the only solution. US intelligence was of the opinion that Russia's entry into the war against Japan would "convince most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat". Truman concurred, telling Associated Press that "more than anything else" the West needed the co-operation of the Soviet Union in order to step up the assault on Japan and its conquered territories. Such a move had earlier been agreed between Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill during their historic February 5 meeting at Yalta, when Stalin acceded to Western requests that a reinforced Red Army in the Far East would declare war on Japan on August 8 by launching a two-pronged attack on the Japanese front in Manchuria. A declaration of Soviet participation in the war against Japan would certainly have tipped the balance and forced an almost immediate Japanese surrender. In return for intervention against Japan, it was reluctantly agreed at Yalta that Russia would reacquire territories lost to Japan in 1904, namely the strategic Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalien, as well as recovering a controlling position in the Manchurian region of China. This would place the USSR in a dominant position in continental north-east Asia, having gained an assured stake in Japan's post-war affairs, and thus creating a decisive shift in the world balance of power. The participants at the Yalta conference would also have been aware that the Soviet Red Army, in sweeping through Mancuria and driving southwards down the Chinese mainland, would inevitably co-operate with Mao Tse Tung's communist guerrilla forces, which had participated in the Sino-Japanese war since 1931. Mao had succeeded in increasing communist party membership from 100,000 in 1937 to 1.2 million by 1945. The Soviet presence in northeast China would enable the Chinese communists to move into liberated areas and arm themselves with equipment surrendered by the withdrawing Japanese army, serving in turn as as a catalyst in transforming all China into the world's largest communist state. To cut a long story short, that was arguably why Truman decided to drop the bombs, ie. to pre-empt Russian presence and communist post-war influence in the region.

SOURCES: Gar Alperovitz, "Atomic Diplomacy", The Listener, 10 August 1989, p.6.; Barton Bernstein, (ed.), Politics and Policies of the Truman Administration, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1970; Robert J Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1954, p.112; New York Times, 9 August 1945; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984, p.452; David M Gordon, "The China-Japan War, 1931–1945" Journal of Military History (Jan 2006) Vol 70 No.1, pp 137–82.

Maybe all this should go into the Atomic Bomb or similar article. Maybe not. Any views? Communicat (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Communicat, you should probably read WP:TLDR :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody's forcing you to read it. However, those few discerning individuals sufficiently interested to read it might consider its length to be appropriate to the significance of its contents. Communicat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

What, exactly, is the point of a flood of text, and references, without any suggestion of a change? Again, this is an overview article that doesn't go into any issue in any detail, yet it is still rather long, because even when being very concise on each issue, WWII was extremely complicated. Yes, detail should go to the relevant articles. The Atomic Bomb article is mainly about the bomb itself, there are various other articles about the politics and conflicts of the period, by region, pre, during, and post WWII. Talk about details on those pages? (Hohum ^@) 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The length of my "flood of text" is more or less consistent with the epic length of the overview article itself. Why doen't anybody complain about THAT, huh? Communicat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous post, which answers your question before you asked it. We try and keep it as short as reasonably possible. Indeed, nobody forces us to read it, but don't be surprised when less people do because its unnecessarily long. You are posting in the hopes that people will read your comments, but people have finite time and active editors often have many articles on their watch lists. (Hohum ^@) 20:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy...

The sentence:

"Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..."

seems not to be completely correct and relevant to the lede. Firstly, the main article devotes only one para to decolonisation, and the exceptional role of the US in decolonisation is not mentioned there (we need either to bring the article in accordance with the lede or vise versa). Secondly, I am not sure if a consensus exists that decolonisation was a direct and immediate result of WWII and, in particular, that the US advocacy of self-determination principle was crucial for that. Thirdly, it is not completely correct to emphasise the role of the US because other countries (e.g. the USSR) also made major efforts to support decolonisation in Africa and Asia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Decolonisation was not granted willingly by the colonial powers. It was essentially a result of national independence / liberation wars of attrition, waged by indigenous people against the colonial powers, using Sino-Soviet supplied weapons and/or training. In the case of Malaya, the weapons used against British commonwealth forces by the communist-led national independence movement, (essentially the former Malay Peoples AntiJapanese Army or MPAJA), were the very same weapons that had been supplied to MPAJA by British Sprecial Operations Executive (SOE) during WW2, and also weapons captured from the Japanese during the war. WW2, essentially the promise of freedom from colonial rule as contained in the Atlantic Charter, had raised expectations of national self-determination in other British colonies, such as Kenya, where indigenous people serving in the King's African Rifles had also actively supported the Allied war effort. When those expectations were not met, a violent rebellion similarly and eventually resulted in independence being granted reluctantly by Britain. It can and has been argued that America's advocacy and co-signing of the Atlantic Charter was motivated purely through self-interest in anticipation of gaining political, trade and economic influence, which it had previously been denied, in what would become independent former British colonies. America of course didn't have any declared colonies of its own (if one discounts Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Phillipines, which were de facto American colonies, and with the exception only of Cuba, still are de factor American colonies). In the case of South Africa, independence was not granted by Britain, but was unilaterally declared by SA's now officially redundant apartheid-fascist leaders, as in also the former Rhodesia. But anyway, I think while WW2 may have had some indirect influences on decolonisation, i.e. the false promises of the Atlantic Charter, all this cannot be incorporated into a reworked version of the lede sentence in question. Suffice it to say, as I've done previously, and as Paul rightly observes, the sentence "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..." is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading. Communicat (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Another WP:TLDR. Ironically, you could have cut everything before "Suffice it to say.." (Hohum ^@) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you the same guy who was earlier preaching to me about civility? Communicat (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the phrase questioned. Unless the main body reflects it, it has no place in the lead currently. (Hohum ^@) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

No incivility was intended. Think a bit about what active editors do: Make edits, patrol for vandalism, read talkpage edits on their watch lists. Editor A makes a succinct edit suggestion with a simple, readily available and reliable reference. Editor B makes a long diatribe about how much they know abut a subject, but with no concrete suggestion, other than to complain about something. Multiply this by, for some editors, hundreds of watched pages. Consider who gets read positively, and who gets skipped over, or read begrudgingly? (Hohum ^@) 21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Re your above claim that I offered no concrete suggestion: I stated quite clearly that the sentence in question "is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading." In other words, scrap the sentence. Did I need to spell it out for you? "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..

I do concede, however, that what I do need to spell out is that my posting pertained also to a separate and earlier posting (not by me), now archived in archive 38, under the section heading "Self-determination for colonial peoples? Not hardly." That posting, an unsigned comment added by 69.226.238.146 (talk) 21:22, on 15 April 2010 (UTC), refuted the sentence in question ("Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa...") as "completely false", and then went on at some length to explain why. The posting was dismissed cursorily by user Nick-D at 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC), who wrote: "The war greatly strengthened the position of and domestic support for decolonisation movements in their own countries/colonies, and so is correct". This implies overwhelming British public support for decolonisation, which supposedly followed as a result. My own posting above refutes that position, viz., "... decolonisation was not granted willingly by the colonial powers. It was essentially a result of national independence / liberation wars of attrition, waged by indigenous people against the colonial powers ...".

Phew. All this discussion just to modify by consensus only one grossly misleading sentence in the lead. At such pace of "improvement", it's going to take about 500 years to improve and/or shorten the grossly overlong overview article. Communicat (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources when you write your assays.....No matter how much you type people will not care until they see reliable sources. Saying its wrong is just not good enough here try backing-up your view with sources see --> Wikipedia:Core content policies - Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources...you still have only provided www.truth-hertz.net as a references for all your rants all the others i cant even find.Moxy (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my fault if you can't find the sources I've labouriously cited in my posting of 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) and elsewhere. Presumably you mean you can't find them on the internet. Not everything that's ever been published is available in digitised form on the internet. Try a visit to the Library of Congress or any good university library. As for sources on Far East WW2 communist-led resistance, my source is Association of Asian Studies and/or the sources cited in my earlier, competent edit that was needlessly undone by Nick-D. My numerous sources for WW2 origins of CW vis-a-vis Manchuria are all provided in earlier posting above in section "Surrender of Germany". And yes, www.truth-hertz.net is a useful source/resource, despite efforts of Blinkster and others to shoot it down. My most recent posting, on decolonisation, did not include sources because the facts and matters therein are such common knowledge and undisputed in most of the non-Anglo Saxon world. But for the rest of you, a good source/resource is British Imperialism and Decolonization: A Chinese Perspective

The short version is: I don't rant. Watch your mouth. Communicat (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For anyone else who still doesn't get it: The origins of the Cold War are embedded in WW2. The origins of decolonisation are embedded in the Cold War. Both the Cold War and decolonisation are inaccurately referred to in paragraph 3 of the WW2 article, and they should be removed in any reworking of that paragraph. Multiple sources relevant to this proposition have already been provided (and sometimes re-provided) by me in various sections above. In the righthand panel of top-page, the word "Beginning" (of Cold War) should be replaced with the word "Escalation" (of Cold War. Communicat (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be far more correct to say "Meanwhile, the Soviet Union's strong advocacy of the principle of...". Soviet advocacy of self-determination and decolonization was in fact one of the original causes of the war. It is the underlying reason for the collapse of the Tripartite military talks and the resulting Nazi-Soviet pact. Self-determination – as it is now defined – is a purely "Soviet" invention, originating from Lenin. I suggest we change the sentence to something like "Meanwhile, Soviet and US advocacy of...". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect. Self-determination was simultaneously (and independently) advocated by both Lenin and Wilson, and I cannot agree that much continuity existed between Lenin's and Stalin's USSR. The reason for tripartite military talks' failure was not the USSR's adherence to the idea of self-determination, but deep mutual mistrust between Stalin and Chamberlain (others believe that Stalin was unwilling to sign this pact ab initio and conducted the negotiation just pro forma, although this POV has less support).

One way or the another, I do not think we need to make a stress on the role of the USA or the USSR in post-war decolonisation, because the countries that obtained independence as a result of WWII (or, strictly speaking, immediately after it) were India and some other former British colonies. I don't see how could Soviet or American positions affect this process. By contrast, liberation of Africa was supported by both the USSR and the USA, however, it took place more than 10 years after WWII, so I doubt we can speak about any strong casual linkage here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Statement is invalid that US supported liberation in Africa. Very opposite is true. American CIA energetically involved in covert operations and counter-revolutionary activities against African liberation movements for many years, all of which is very well documented. China, USSR, Cuba, Libya in roughly that order were main supporters of African liberation aka independence. Communicat (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

"It's not my fault if you can't find the sources I've labouriously cited in my posting". It's your problem because of WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY. I had trouble tracking them down too. Please provide ISBN, or OCLC for the older works. truth-hertz doesn't seem to be supported by any editor except you. (Hohum ^@) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I can assure you and Poxy that I've better things to do than sit around and make up non-existent names of authors and titles of non-existent books. Suggest you visit British Library Reading Room and/or any good unversity library, e.g. University of London, LSE, etc., where the friendly library staff will help you will find all books / journals cited, if you're really interested, and if they're not traceable online. In the case of The Listener or any other periodical, you'll no doubt find a copy at British Newspaper Library in Colindale. Alternatively, you are free to buy whichever of the cited books are available new or 2nd-hand via Amazon.UK. The burden is not on me to provide you with the ISBN numbers, especially since I'm not citing the sources in an article but rather for purpose of discussion, which is unlikely to result in any subsequent article use or notation after discussion, anyway. Communicat (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Communicat, this page is not a forum. I did not propose to discuss the role of the US in liberation of Africa (the issue only tangentially relevant to the WWII article), my proposal was much more concrete: since decolonisation in general was not an immediate consequence of WWII, and since it would be incorrect to speak about a role of any particular country in that, the sentence should be removed and replaced with something more relevant. Do you have any comments on that? If noone will provide an evidence of the opposite in next few days, I'll remove this sentence from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My comment on that sentence has already been submitted: viz., delete the sentence, it is false and misleading. As for replacing the sentence with "something more relevant", I doubt that can be done without reductio ad absurdum. Communicat (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What about replacement of

"Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa, while Western Europe began moving toward economic recovery and increased political integration."

with:

"Meanwhile, post-war decline of old colonial great powers gave a start to decolonization of Asia and Africa."

Regarding "...while Western Europe began moving toward economic recovery and increased political integration." I think it is a kind of Europeocentrism. Not only Western Europe demonstrated fast economic recovery, Japan also demonstrated explosive economic growth (and expansion to American market); the USSR was growing fast, and its economic influence was growing accordingly. We need to think about rewording of this sentence too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Meanwhile, post-war decline of old colonial great powers gave a start to decolonization of Asia and Africa." Good try. But the hugely complex issues involved can't be reduced to just one sentence (or even one article, probably). So, I still think it best just to drop it. To give some idea of the aforementioned complexity involved: post-WW2 arms race gave huge impetus to colonial powers' guarding of their access to vital (and hugely profitable) Third World resources. These included not only rubber and tin from Malaya, but more importantly, strategic metals and minerals including uranium (used in nuclear weapons) and vital metals used in manufacture of jet engines and ICBMs. Where ostensible support for post-war "decolonisation" did occur, it was with the covert intention of installing corrupt and easily manipulable puppet regimes that would align themselves with the West. Communicat (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I would suggest a minor change to: "Meanwhile, the post-war decline of the colonial great powers prompted the decolonization of Asia and of Africa." A single sentence is entirely in line with the overview nature of this article. (Hohum ^@) 22:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand how or what the post-war decline of colonial powers had anything whatsoever to do with "prompting" decolonisation. Please explain, provide references, or better still, just scrap the sentence.Communicat (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, although the casual linkage may be questionable, these events are interconnected: the fact that old colonial powers started to move towards their decline automatically meant that their control of their colonial possessions weakened. One way or the another, we need to tell that all old colonial empires (except Portugal) lost their leading role after WWII and had dissolved soon, and that their former colonies got independence. Although this issue is really very complex, we must tell about that. If the proposed text seems not accurate to you, feel free to propose your version. Remember, however, that it should be a single, concise sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is support of the British case of the linkage by John Darwin, Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, teaching imperial and global history. His book on the subject, Britain and Decolonisation: the Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World ISBN 9780333292563, is cited 122 times according to google scholar. (Hohum ^@) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes Paul, issue extremely complex. Reductio ad absurdum remains, whichever way one looks at improving that problematic sentence, and for which reason I still maintain it should be deleted. French colonies did not move toward independence, e.g Vietnam, Algeria, had to fight for independence. Belgium Congo, (principal Western supplier of uranium for nuclear weapons) was not allowed to move towards independence. Same goes for South West Africa (now Namibia) under UN mandate. HoHum: your citation re British case is interesting, but Britain was of course not the only colonial power, and so citation does not pertain universally. (Digression: how come Belize to this day remains a de jure Brit colony, also Falklands?) Communicat (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Universality isn't required, a couple of powers decolonizing would support the sentence with the word "some" added, or variations as required. You could just say the British Empire, but it was more widespread than that. Additionally, I don't think Reductio ad absurdum pertains - a summary is a summary, in this article, for almost every issue, we endeavour to link to an article where a fuller explanation can be included. (Hohum ^@) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

In my last posting I should have elaborated that Vietnam, Algeria and also N.Korea had to continue fighting for independence, which fighting had commenced prior to WW2. Same applies to small matter of pre-WW2 Japanese colony China. Waters become increasingly muddied by that problematic sentence at issue. Delete it. As for HoHum;s remark re universality etc, I resubmit that a "fuller explanation" of Britain's role is facetious and irrelevant to wider issues at hand. I have cited self-evident truths that do not require backing by citations. On this matter of self-evident truths, there's wiki rule somewhere or other, which I don't have time to look for right now. Communicat (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

When editors can't agree on what's evident, it isn't. (Hohum ^@) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's evident this discussion is getting us nowhere. Communicat (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

If he looks hard enough, Paul will find some critical feedback. (Hohum ^@) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Tell you what: why not just leave the lead as it is, warts and all, (viz., bad grammar, reductionism, obscurantism, bias, unsourced material etc etc). That way wiki can perpetuate its status as a joke among serious historians. Citation? You want a citation? Try Wikipedia: The dumbing down of knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like wikipedia procedures, either get them changed, follow them or stop editing. This page isn't the correct venue for general complaints. You have had your say, I have had mine, Paul may find a consensus. (Hohum ^@) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, the present dispute is mainly about the interpretations of the facts, not about the facts themselves. The facts are: (i) weakening of most old great powers (including loss of former political influence in the world) and subsequent dissolution of their colonial empires; (ii) a gradual process of obtaining of independence by former colonies, which started after WWII. Although we can argue about concrete way WWII affected these processes, everyone, I believe, will agree that strong connection between these events and WWII existed. That is why, I believe these events must be mentioned in the lead, whereas all assertions like "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination..." should be left beyond the scope. A possible solution may be:

"Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline, whereas their former colonies in Asia and Africa started to gain independence.

Since no explicit casual linkage is present in this version, that, hopefully, will make it acceptable for all parties; another important point is that it tells about the decline of old great powers as whole, not only in a context of their colonies. One way or the another, I presented my version only to demonstrate a point, so all its subsequent modifications are welcomed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes your reworking of sentence is acceptable, to me at any rate. Use it. Might be worth adding something like: "Meanwhile too, the war had welded all the diverse ethnic groupings of the Russian nation into a unified whole." (This is why the war is referred to in Soviet histories as "The Great Patriotic War". Communicat (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I like the content, but can you change the presentation so that the decolonization links for Africa and Asia are less obfuscated? I don't think it's evident to the reader that they would link to decolonization articles. (Hohum ^@) 18:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Axis Belligerents

Even if Vichy France was is some aspects a puppet state of Germany, Vichy France was legally a neutral state that did not participate directly in the war actions after 18/06/1940. As so, it should not be among the axis belligerents. The actions of the army of Vichy France in Dakar, Algiers or Syria were essentially acts of self defence of french territories against foreign troops (in these cases, the Allies)... as was the scuttling of the french fleet in Toulon (against the germans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.29.123.146 (talk) 06:58, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead: problems

1) Grand strategy: war is essentially about fighting, and fighting is predicated by grand strategy. Grand strategy of main belligerents should be brought into the lead (and then amplified in article).

2) Partisans: involvement of partisan / guerrila resistance in support of Allied war effort should be mentioned (after identifying main Allied particpants at start of new / reworked para.2). Tentative wording could be: "The Allied war effort was militarily supported by communist, nationalist, and populist armed resistance groups and movements around the world, the most active and successful of which were the communist and/or communist-led resistance organisations."

(Editors note: The latter included: Maquis in France which provided valuable intelligence on enemy disposition, etc; Yugoslav partisans under Tito; ELAS-EAM in Greece; Italian communists in N. Italy; Mao's guerillas in China; Kim ilSung's guerrilas in north-east Korea; the Viet Kong and Vietminh against French Vichey and Japanese forces in Vietnam; and the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Army in Malaya. Foregoing assertions are self-evident / undisputed truths, and as such do not require source attribution. English language Sources are available for European resistance, less so for Far East / Indo China resistance, in respect of which many non-English language sources -- especially Mandarin -- ARE available, but with attendant translation problems for wiki and and other mainstream English-language publishers.)

3) The last sentence of 1st paragraph (which is too long, and same applies to preceding 1st sentence of same para) states ..."it has been estimated etc". Estimated by whom? Better wording would be: "Official estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

4) 3rd paragraph: "...setting the stage for the Cold War ..." Has been already agreed in earlier discussion that roots of CW were in WW2. Should therefore read: "escalated the Cold War which would last for ..." Communicat (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. IMO, many people take for granted that the Axis started the war because it was evil, so no additional explanations are needed. That is incorrect, so at least a brief overview of each party's plans and intentions, as well as of their change during the course of the war is needed. Since the article's The War Becomes Global section states that:

"Hitler's objectives were to eliminate the Soviet Union as a military power, exterminate Communism, generate Lebensraum ("living space") by dispossessing the native population and guarantee access to the strategic resources needed to defeat Germany's remaining rivals."

and

"Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific; the Japanese would then be free to exploit the resources of Southeast Asia while exhausting the over-stretched Allies by fighting a defensive war."

a mention of Nazi New World Order, Japanese Great Asia Co-Prosperity Zone is needed in the lede (as well as probably the mention of the Axis' anti-Communism, Nazi anti-Semetism etc.) However, I would go further and added similar description of each party's global plans to every WWII section (probably, with subsequent modification of the lede).

Re 2. Since partisan resistance has been only briefly mentioned in the article, I don't think it deserves mention in the lede. Try to modify the article first (although I personally think on additional details about partisan movements are needed in such a summary style article).

Re 3. Removal of weasel words (as well as a passive voice) is welcomed. I propose "Estimates of fatalities range from 50-million to 70-million killed."

Re 4. Disagree. The present wording is more neutral, because not all sources agree that CW was an immediate result of WWII. The present wordings means that new players emerged that were a CW's key participants. It leaves the question about the CW's start date beyond the scope, which is quite neutral and does not contradict to any existing source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

re (I). What I meant was precis of military strategy per se; viz., along lines of "Britain's strategy was to disorganise and break the will of the German people through mass aerial bombardment, before attempting to launch any concerted ground attack on the European mainland. The Wehrmarcht's strategy against the USSR was an encircling movement aimed at separating Moscow from the rest of Russia. Italy's was blah blah. Japan's was (repeat as stated succinctly in the above quote you gave). Your other comments are valid.

re (2) Only Yugoslav communist resistance is mentioned in article, and it is refered to no less than six or seven times. No mention whatsover of very substantial Far East / Indo Chinese communist resistance. Conclusion: Eurocentric bias.

re (3) Agreed.

re (4) Okay then, leave the CW's start as is, but lead must mention start of the East-West nuclear arms race, which was of course a central feature of the CW. Communicat (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Seems too detailed for the lede, although we can discuss introduction of that into the main article;

Re 2. Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 1: Might strike you as "too detailed", but military strategy is highly relevant, conspicuously absent from current lead, and of central importance to any article on war, especially a lead intro. Hence, Lead should be expanded to accommodate military strategy, because lead is probably first thing people read and strategy is arguably the main thing they're interested in. Rest of article on related sub-issues should be substantially shortened to accommodate longer lead. As for Re 2, above: I think you'll find the "Chinese editors" referred to are in fact Taiwanese editors whose views are possibly tainted by biased anti-communist political agenda. Communicat (talk) 14:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

re 2: Eurocentric bias? Incidentally, this war was primarily a European war (a European proudly exclaimed while realizing that the two wars destroyed Europe beyond recognition or true recovery :). With all respect to the Second Sino-Japanese War, it can (and often is) easily be considered a separate conflict. No WWII history book I've read covered it in detail. Most you'll hear is "in Burma the British needed to keep the supplies running" or "a lot of Japanese resources were committed to the war in China". The Americans would easily have won without the Sino-Japanese War since the Pacific was won with naval and air power above all. Even if the Japs had occupied the whole of China, there'd be fighting in India but there wouldn't be any Japanese victory, but I digress. Even if we disregard all the above, to my knowledge the Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war, holding their regions from the Japanese (albeit being more aggressive towards the Japs than the Kuomintang). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "knowledge" is faulty, re the 'Communist Chinese primarily fought a "regular" war,'. See:

Mao's Guerilla Warfare chapter six And yes, you do digress somewhat, but nobody's perfect, hey? Communicat (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Re Paul comment above: Please, read a Second Sino-Japanese war talk page. Many Chinese editors question the role of Chinese Communists in resistance to JIA. IMO, the present article should not contradict to the SSJW article unless you provided a very reliable sources as a support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

This is obfuscation and has no bearing on the matters at hand. There is nothing in this present discussion that contradicts the SSJW article in any way, though it may contradict some of the bellicose and UNsubstantiated TALK by dissidents on that article's talk page, which you are now presenting as a supposedly reliable source. I'm wasting my time trying to engage any of you in reasoned discussion. Communicat (talk) 10:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much any modern military strategy would disagree that grand strategy is about fighting, To refer back to Clausewitz, War is the delivery of foreign policy objectives by means of coercion. Initially the grand strategy was to force a withdrawal, although that very quickly became decapitation of the Reich.

ALR (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Following the Casablanca Conference the Allied goal was actually to force the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan by destroying their ability to continue the war. Any changes of leadership (via decapitation) wouldn't have had any impact on this. Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler-Stalin Pact: Stalin invaded the Baltic Countries according to the stipulations he negociated with Hitler and alledgedly did in consent with his Western Allies. The crimes against the Baltic Nations is an important part of the total crime.

The article should reflect this crime as well and not duck the question of crimes against the Baltic population.

Additional the following attack of Stalinist Red Army on Poland an Finland must be mentioned.

Of course Hitler's totalitarian government, as well as lot of people in the Governments of Western countries such als GB and the USA were supporting Stalin's crimes, but wikipedia is not the right place to sugarcoat theses historic facts as happens now.

85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

All those actions by the USSR are mentioned (with links to the specific articles) in the 'War breaks out in Europe' section. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Re ALR posting above re "...disagree that grand strategy is about fighting..." You'll notice in preceding talk that I subsequently modified my wording "grand strategy" to "military strategy". A top-level and much visited military history article that omits any reference to military strategy does merit some constructive criticism, don't you think?. Communicat (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this but...

I've noticed that nowhere on wikipedia is there an artice or list that even tries to be a comprihensive list of all WW2 articles. I know that making this woould be quite a task but it should be done

Again, sorry if this is the wrong pace for this but i didn't know where else to put it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.162.38 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. Attempts have been made to bring together the key articles on the war in the Index of World War II articles and Outline of World War II articles - I hope that they're helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Communist-led resistance

Discussion has become so desultory and threatened by TL/DR, so I'm starting new section to revisit as yet unresolved issues previously raised. Here are sources / substantiation for communist-led resistance, (editors have questioned effectivness of communist-led partisans and/or berated me for not providing source references):

China: McArthur cited in Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, (9 vols) Tokyo and New York: Dondasha 1983, Vol VII, pp.201-2 describes anti-Japanese communist guerillas as "only body of fighting men in China worth mentioning." US president Truman, describing effectiveness of communist guerillas: "If we told the Japanese to lay down their arms immediately (after surrender) and march to the seaboard, the entire country would be taken over by the communists. We therefore had to take the unusual step of using the enemy as a garrison ...” Harry S Truman, Memoirs, (2 vols), New York: Doubleday 1956, Vol II, p.66.

Korea: Communist anti-Japanese resistance is described in Jon Halliday & Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988, Chap.1

Greece: Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980; Prokopis Papastratis, "The British and the Greek Resistance Movements EAM and EDES", in Marion Sarafis (ed.), Greece: From Resistance to Civil War, Nottingham: Spokesman 1980, p.36

Italy: Sources already provided.

Europe general: Sources already provided.

Malaya: Sources already provided.

Phippines: Nick-D has sources, no doubt. Communicat (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You make no suggestions for actionable improvements to the article, so I have no idea what you expect from this. Also a statement like "Italy: Sources already provided." has no meaning in this thread which should be understandable as a stand-alone discussion.

The previous discussion on this exact same topic (Anti-communist prejudice) seems to have died a natural death 5 days ago, so please do not try to revive this dead horse. Arnoutf (talk) 13:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it has not died a natural death. Far from it. Nor is it my problem if Nick-D and others have thus far been unable to deal cohesively with the unresolved points at issue -- see postings of Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC) and my responses Communicat (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC) under section "Editing dispute". I have made several actionable suggestions towards improvements. How about making some actionable / useful / thoughtful contribution yourself, towards improvement of the lead? Communicat (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Do not ever again change your posts AFTER a response has been given. This is unacceptable behaviour as you falsify the answer response structure of talk pages, and can, if you want to make look the editors you are talking to look as if acting in bad faith.

With regard to an actionable suggestion, where exactly in this thread "communust-led resistance" have you proposed an actionable action to the improvement of the article? Arnoutf (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK what is it your trying to change this time -- what are thsi refs saying??. Moxy (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• China: "McArthur cited in Kodansha Encyclopedia of Japan, (9 vols) Tokyo and New York: Dondasha 1983, Vol VII, pp.201-2 describes anti-Japanese communist guerillas as "only body of fighting men in China worth mentioning." - You would like to do what with this? as its a pov by one person..
• "Harry S Truman, Memoirs, (2 vols), New York: Doubleday 1956, Vol II, p.66." - we are to add what to were and how??
• "Korea: Communist anti-Japanese resistance is described in Jon Halliday & Bruce Cumings, Korea: The unknown war, London: Viking, 1988, Chap.1" Interesting and we do what whit this one??
• "Greece: Bruce R Kuniholm, Origins of the Cold War in the Near East, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1980; Prokopis Papastratis, "The British and the Greek Resistance Movements EAM and EDES", in Marion Sarafis (ed.), Greece: From Resistance to Civil War, Nottingham: Spokesman 1980, p.36 " - again not sure what we can do if we cant read the pages in question or are told what its for!

Response to Arnoutf re ... unacceptable behaviour as you falsify the answer response structure of talk pages, and can, if you want to make look the editors you are talking to look as if acting in bad faith If you read the history editing summary, you'll see that I merely added few more sources which I'd earlier forgotten to include. This change was in no intended to "falsify the response structure" nor was it intended to have a bad-faith effect on you or anyone else. There was a save-page editing conflict that prevented me posting the additions prior to your rapid response. In any event, please accept my apologies if I've hurt your feelings. My actionable suggestions which you inquire about were originally and clearly defined in related section headed "Anti-communist prejudice", which you might care to refer to. Those who've followed attentively / participated in the relevant discussion thus far should have no problem in understanding the pertinence of this present thread.

For the edification of Moxy above: I'm not trying to change anything "this time", as you irately put it. Instead, I'm still pursuing my earlier endeavours (see section Anti-communist prejudice, and later comment re Eurocentricism somewhere else above and other closely inter-related discussion about improvement of the lead). I'd proposed inclusion in a lead paragraph of the fact that the Allied side was actively supported by communist-led resistance groups around the world. My associated edit of the lead, (following Moxy's order of "don't put tags, just fix it") was rapidly undone and reverted by Nick-D. Further obstructionism from various other editors were to the effect that resistance was not communist-led, that resistance support was not worth mentioning because resistance was non-existent or negligible, and that I must provide sources to support any position to the contrary. I've now done all that. Take it or leave it. I'm outta here. Communicat (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose to split the issue onto 2.5 parts:

1. Was the contribution of the partisan movement as whole into the Allied war efforts big enough to be mentioned in this summarystyle article? (of course I exclude Yugoslav partisans, who in actuality was a serious fighting force that tied down considerable Axis forces, and Polish resistance; both of them do deserve mention)
2. Did Communists play a leading role in the partisan movement?

(and one subquestion): What about pro-Axis partisans?

IMO, the problem is that the dispute is mainly focused on #2, whereas I still am not sure if we need to discuss partisan movement (except Yugoslavs and Poles) at all (due to its relatively low military contribution), and, if we decided to do that, why should we restrict ourselves with pro-Allied partisans only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

@communicat: 40 minutes between your post and my response can hardly be seen as a "rapid response" for a high traffic article like WWII. Also, this is not the first time you have been changing posts after responses to the post, so while in this case it was not very problematic, the pattern is seriously worrying me indeed.

@communicat: If you think this is part of another thread you should include it to that post. Treating the whole of a talk page as a single topic discussion smells a lot towards claiming ownership. The interested uninvolved editor should be able to respond to each single thread, and your claim that involved editors will understand goes against the idea that everyone can edit (THE main idea of Wikipedia).

@PaulSiebert, I agree with your arguments. Resistance movements were in general ineffective (although their after-war claims are rather more grandiose; with the exceptions of Yugoslavian and early Polish attempts).

More in general Even if communist resistance was perhaps stronger than most, they tended to be isolated in Western Europe and not leading. In the Netherlands (which did not have a strong resistance movement) for example, fundamentalist Christian and communist were among the fiercest resistance movements (as for both Nazism went against their core beliefs) but they did not like each other at all; let alone that either conceded leadership to the other. Arnoutf (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, you are irritating and disruptive. Please stop your personal attacks on me, assume good faith, and get on with the more interesting business of improving the lead. Communicat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

To Paul: Not being an intelligence agency, it's impossible for me to quantify "proof" of extent of either non-communist or communist partisan contribution -- just as, by same token, it's not possible to quantity contributions of individual regular armies (see discussion at above section "US, USSR at top"). Besides, aside from actual fighting and tying down of enemy troops, how does one quantify the value of every shot-down Allied pilot rescued, every assisted escape of POWs, every piece of intelligence provided to Allied high command about enemy movements and disposition, and suchlike non-combatant resistance activities?.

The sources I've provided above and preceding, when considered collectively, indicate substantial communist-led resistance contribution that merits mention as proposed. Proposal does not suggest any fullblown discussion, just half a sentence, after identifying key belligerents, saying "Allies were supported by mainly communist-led partisans around the world". Polish resistance numbers are far outweighed by collective numbers of communist partisans.

I concur, Polish resistance was multifarious, was not fully communist-led, (and even included anti-communists and very active Jewish resistance group not usually mentioned in the literature). Chinese communist guerillas, by contrast, were very large and prominent factor in overall resistance equation. (To quote SSJW article, communist guerilla force estimated at more than a million combatants, and see also McArthur and Truman quotes provided above).

I think that answers your (1) and (2) above. As for pro-Axis partisans: now there's a relatively tiny and highly insiqnificant partisan grouping (including post-war nazi White Wolves) certainly not worth mentioning in summary. Communicat (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me but your remarks and actions in this and other threads are uncivil, assuming bad faith, and disruptive at the same time towards me to a degree none of my justified questions and remarks are. So basically in the light of your most recent response I cannot say more than SHUT UP you re going all that is Wikipedia by accusing me of all the thing you are doing to me at least several magnitudes more.

Basically, I never assume bad faith, but if the editor is confusing rather than illuminating whatever (s)he is suggesting that is sometimes hard to keep to. In the light of this large and over-arching article you have done nothing to suggest that the rather marginal resistance movements (except perhaps (notice this word) Yugoslavian partisan) require any mention in the lead, so my suggestion would be to stop listening to any suggestion you make and leave the lead as it is (which is an actionable suggestion). PS in my experience editors blaming other editors being the first in a discussion to explicitly question good faith of other editors tend to act in bad faith in 99 out of 100 cases......... Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Get a life Communicat (talk) 19:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)