Talk:World War II/Archive 34

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

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

→

Where link to official WW2 Story???

Where link to http://english.pobediteli.ru/ ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.24.129 (talk) 04:07, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The triple alliance (Britain-France-USSR) and the Axis-USSR talks

During the discussion about the triple talks issue we came to the conclusion that failed talks deserve no mentioning in the article, and this principle is universal ("The article generally doesn't include other things which didn't happen, so there's no real need to include the failed Allied negotiations.")
However, if this concept is not accepted, the consensus is void. That means that the initial version of the Triple talks/MRP paragraph should be restored, and it should be done as a temporary measure until a new consensus is achieved. I don't need to wait for a consensus to do that and this would not be a violation of the policy. If the discussion will take long I'll do that to balance the biased anti-Soviet statement with the moderately pro-Soviet one. I fully realize that this measure is temporary, and we will replace that paragraph with something else in future.

Going back to the topic, I came to a conclusion that we probably were wrong. Both these failed talks deserve mentioning in the article, because their failure had a profound effect on the WWII course.

In connection to that let me remind you the course of the events:

Autumn, 1938. Munich chrisis. Czechoslovakia was forced to cede German populated territories to Germany. France and the USSR guaranteed her territorial integrity.
Spring, 1939. Under German pressure Slovakia declared independence, and immediately after that the rump of the country was annexed by Germany. (Note, there is an error in the present version of the article). France didn't react and the USSR was either unable or unwilling to interfere. However, immediately after that Britain rose a question of the alliance that would involve the UK, France and the USSR.
Spring - August 1939. The talks (including initial consultations) lasted three months, and the agreement (that could prevent WWII's outbreak in 1939) was almost achieved. However the talks stalled in July and were terminated when the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed.

Taking into account the importance of these events, I propose the following modification of the "War breaks out in Europe" section.

In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming bolder. In March 1938 Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers.^[1] Encouraged, Hitler began pressing German claims on the Sudetenland, an area of Czechoslovakia with a predominantly ethnic German population; France and Britain conceded this territory to him, against the wishes of the Czechoslovak government, in exchange for a promise of no further territorial demands.^[2] However, soon after that, Germany and Italy forced Czechoslovakia to cede additional territory to Hungary and Poland. In March 1939 Slovakia declared independence under German pressure and became the pro-German Slovak Republic, whereas Germany annexed the rump of Czechoslovakia to form the German Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia .
Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April 1939, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.^[3] In April 1939 Britain, France and the USSR agreed to start the negotiations of anti-German alliance, whereas Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel.^[4]
In July 1939 the tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks stalled and in August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.^[5] This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.^[6]

I fully realize that because I am not a native English speaker, my English is not perfect. In addition, I never stated that my version is the ultimate truth. Therefore, any modifications and improvements of the proposed version are welcome. As usually, everyone is welcome to modify the text above.

If that version is accepted the failed Axis-Soviet talks definitely have to be in the article. In that case, the following facts should be taken into account:

The negotiation started after Hitler authorized Ribbentrop to invite Molotov for negotiations.
The talks lasted from 12 November 1940 till 14 November 1940. No agreement has been achieved.
The Soviet written counter-proposal (24 Nov) was in actuality a request for concessions from Germany and Japan as a preliminary condition for the Soviet adherence for the pact. The Soviet Union requested for extension of her sphere of influence west, south and east. Therefore, the words "Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements" are not fully correct. On the other hand, I agree that it was not so important who initiated the discussion and who made the last proposal, therefore, my previous version was not satisfactory. To my opinion, it would be better just to say that

In November 1940 Germany and the Soviet Union discussed a possibility of Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member, however the agreement had not been achieved.^[7]

As regards to the economic and border agreement, it should be removed from the article because the Nazi-Soviet economic collaboration has already been mentioned. (By the way, I supported addition of the Nazi-Soviet commercial agreement). We don't have to give undue weight to this subject in such a high profile article.
The border agreement is too insignificant to be mentioned either (we don't speak about every minor border change, e.g. we don't discuss in details Vienna awards).
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The triple alliance (Britain-France-USSR) and the Axis-USSR talks. II

(isn't starting a new section for every talk page comment wonderful?)

Re: "However, if this concept is not accepted, the consensus is void. That means that the initial version of the Triple talks/MRP paragraph should be restored"

Reality (none of which you addressed):
--As mentioned before, the 1939 Deal Issue was RESOLVED and I hesitate to even get back into resolved issues given the long irrelevant meandering discussion preceding its resolution.
--The prior discussion was whether to modify a uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppd=266854946#War_breaks_out_in_Europe large three sentence paragraph including the lead-up to the 1939 deal. The paragraph itself wasn't particularly well-written, and included a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. But getting beyond that, the discussion included whether to address earlier both (i) the 1939 Soviet-German talks and (ii) 1939 UK-France-USSR talks, along with the final deal. The decision was made that, because this is a very high level summary for which limited space is available, only the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would be mentioned in a two sentence description stating the both a deal was reached and its secret protocols, with a link to the article on the deal which includes a description of the negotiations.
--Not only was this two-sentence description including only the final deal far shorter, but the the reader could examine the discussions of all parties in the linked Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article.
--Incidentally, even after this deal was reached, you improperly unilaterally changed the sources without obtaining Talk page consensus and also improperly edited another editors' talk page comments on the matter, for which you drew negative commentary, and still haven't fixed it, much less apologized.

Re: "I don't need to wait for a consensus to do that and this would not be a violation of the policy."

--No, the policy of this page is quite clear: "all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made."

Re: "I propose the following modification"

--You brought up this same suggestion before (actually the version last time was less inaccurate than this one) it was not accepted and the deal Issue was resolved

Re: "this would not be a violation of the policy. If the discussion will take long I'll do that to balance the biased anti-Soviet statement with the moderately pro-Soviet one."

--A simply stunning brazen admission to violate WP:NPOV as well as unilaterally violate the page policy.
--Yet another threat and claims of "anti-Soviet" sentiments. Like this [threat to vandalize another article if your changes weren't made, and this [claim that yet another article was "anti-Soviet"
--This isn't helping your argument, to put it mildly.
___________________________________

A comment. The above message has been written by Mosedschurte. I think no one minds me to do this note.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Response.

First of all, I apologise for using the word lie during our previous discussion. After some meditations I came to a conclusion that you probably really didn't realise that you systematically misrepresented reliable sources.
However, the problem still persists, and your behaviour fits almost all criteria of disruptive editing: the only thing you never did was "disruptive cite-tagging". Therefore it is not surprising that finally my patience has been exhausted and I started to use the uncivil word lie during our dispute. I beg your pardon and I promise not to do that in future.

The problem is, however, that in general your contribution into WP is positive rather than negative, and I don't want you to be blocked for disruptive editing, or to have other similar problems. I support many changes you are doing, and I concede that you are very productive and brilliant writer. Unfortunately, you make many factual errors (I believe, unintentionally), and sometimes, but not very frequently, you are extremely biased, and, once again, you frequently misrepresent reliable sources. The latter can be proved quite easily, although I would prefer to do that (if necessary) somewhere else. I believe that all these issues can be resolved via friendly discussion, however.

With regard to your last comments, let me explain you something. The editors who usually work on that article used to do it in friendly and respectful atmosphere. It is quite normal thing here to put the proposed version on the talk page to give an opportunity to other editors to fix some error, to modify style or to shift emphases. I myself did this many times, and I never complained when someone modified the version I proposed (moreover, it is just a normal way of collaboration). As regards to the alleged improper unilateral changed without obtaining Talk page consensus, let me remind you that it was you who put this text into the article before the consensus on the sources had been achieved. However, I never blamed you in doing this, because I consider this "violation" to be too negligible to focus someone's attention on that.

Going back to the topic, could you please answer the questions I already asked many times in one or another form:
- First, to your opinion, why do the Nazi-Soviet talks deserve mentioning in the article, whereas the triple talks do not?, and,
- Second, why extra emphasis has to be made on Nazi-Soviet economic relations (already mentioned in the article), and on minor border changes?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: "First, to your opinion, why do the Nazi-Soviet talks deserve mentioning in the article, whereas the triple talks do not?"

--I don't necessarily think that, and I explained the issues above at length.

Re: "why extra emphasis has to be made on Nazi-Soviet economic relations"

--There isn't, and I don't think there should be. Actually, I think just a mention of two deals linked in the article now, and there isn't even any mention to the 900 pound gorilla on the issue, the fact that Germany would have been dead in the water in October of 1941 for oil, rubber and manganese if not for the Soviet imports.

Let me cut to the chase. Even though we already link to the Wikipedia article already describing in detail the discussions with France, Britain and Germany, I don't care if we add back in a clause on the prior negotiations (you'll have to get the others to agree), but it obviously is NOT going to be just that there were prior discussions with UK-France that "stalled" and then they did a deal with Germany, as was discussed at length when we came to the last resolution. If you want to re-open this already resolved issue, this would be the way to do it:

Current text (agreed to after resolution, though not the Shore source which was unilaterally added by you against the wishes of both me and another editor:
In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

Your proposed text, which re-opens the issue:
In July 1939 the tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks stalled and in August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

What I would agree to if you want to re-open this already resolved issue:
In August 1939, following [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations}Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany]], the Soviet Union and Germany signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]] that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

That way, a brief mention that negotiations occurred before-hand, and we already link to the article describing them in detail,and this would include a specific link to the article Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations, so the reader could examine them in more detail as well. It also avoids getting into the timing issue entirely, which I understand you have WP:Fringe views about, and I don't even want to come REMOTELY close to going back to long endless reciations (including misinterpretations) of source quotes talking about it, as I had more than my fill of discussions when we resolved this issue before.Mosedschurte (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

WW2 in popular culture?

I was thinking of adding a new section that talks about some of the important video games that take place during the war. What games should be listed? Call of Duty for sure (the first three and the new one, CoD4 takes place is Iraq).

Please don't - this is an article about the war, not fictional representations of it. Such material belongs in World War II in contemporary culture, with appropriate citations. Nick-D (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nick - not in this article please. Skinny87 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It almost goes without saying that a related movie & videogame section (which would be probably longer than this article alone) would be a superfluous unnecessary addition in an article that is already a high level summary.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to add Call of Duty 4 does not take place in Iraq, but in an unnamed Middle Eastern State. The loading maps animations show the storyline taking place all over the Gulf region, including in Iraq and Iran. While the 'capital city' in the game is not in the same location as Baghdad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.179.151 (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it belongs in this article either. Maybe there's somewhere else it can go. Chevymontecarlo (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hermann Rauschning: "Die Entdeutschung Westpreußens und Posens"

Two Times I have tried to insert a link to this article mentioned above. Every time ist was deleted. Rauschning is an excellent wirness for what happened after the first world war in the territories occupied by Poland. He had been made a commissioner for the occupied territories (Reichskommissar für die besetzten Gebiete) by the democratic german government and what he said in his book is true! Dont You know the words of Marshal Joffre that he said pointing on the city of Danzig upon a map: "Here will begin the second world war"? user: Jäger

I didn't revert your change, but perhaps it was, because of prior disputes, this article has a policy that states "all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made".

That sort of a quote sounds like it's better suited for Invasion of Poland (1939) than for a very high level summary article on World War II.Mosedschurte (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for making these remarks! I think that a reference to Hermann Rauschning would fit very well into this article, because the polish atrocities against the germans since august 1919 are crucial for the understandig of what happened 1939. Remember that Gustav Stresemann had already planned an invasion in Poland to protect the germans. "Wir wollen kein Ost-Locarno" he used to say (no reconciliation with Poland). The origin of world war II was Hitlers terror against the jews and the "Liquidierung der Rest-Tschechei" in 1938. But the question of the invasion in Poland in 1939 is more difficult. user: Jäger, March 1st 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jäger (talk • contribs) 21:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mosedschurte; that's too much detail for this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I beg You to read the article "Polen aus englischer Sicht" by Alfred Schickel, which appeared in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) August, 31th 1979. Schickel had discovered reports of british diplomats who had visited poland in summer 1939 about agressive intentions of the polish government against germany.These two diplomates were Sir William Strang and Gladwyn Jebb, who became later secretary general of the UN. The report´s title is: "Visit of Mr. Strang and Mr. Jepp to Poland 13th June 1939." Signature: "Foreign Office S. W. 1,9th June 1939. Gladwyn Jebb." These two men were told by polish officials that the occupation of eastern prussia and of Breslau was planned and that the commander in chief of the polish army Marshal Rydz-Smigly had ordered a painting in june 1939 showing him in full uniform riding on a horse as a conqueror beneath the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. A summary of this article was given by Dr. Albrecht Beck in a letter to the editors of the FAZ, that appeared April 1st 2009 in this paper. You can get it online through the "FAZ-Archiv". The full text of this crucial article is published in Heinz Nawratil "Schwarzbuch der Vertreibung 1945 - 1948". 1,40 MESZ 13 April 2009 user: jäger

These are undeniable facts and important for the understanding of the outbreak of world war II. Therefore it is necessary to install at least a link to the article "Hermann Rauschning". I beg You for permision. Thanks. user: Jäger, May 1st 2009 22,45h MEZ —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself, therefore the statement supported by just a link to the Rauschning article is in actuality unsourced. Please provide a reliable academic source that supports your statement (I believe you are able to find some), otherwise your statement will be deleted.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The source is basically Rauschnings bokk mentioned in the above article. I will try to find a way to include these important facts into world war II. Thank You! user:jäger, 23,55 25. May 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC).

Ending in World War II

In an episode of QI (episode 4 of season 3), Stephen Fry declares that the World War II not end in 1945 as commonly believed but rather in 1990 (because the peace treaty couldn't have been real since Germany didn't 'exist' until 1990). I was wondering whether this should be mentioned, or whether this is too much nitpicking? --BiT (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a reliable source to me. Moreover, Germany surrendered unconditionally in May 1945, ending the war in Europe. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The separation of Germany was not until after Russia put up the wall and closed the borders and the country was only declared in late 1949 Germany existed as a whole country until that point.--82.22.111.33 (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there might be some truth to that but for the reason stated. IIFC, I don't think that the US formally ended the war with Germany until the 1950s and the Soviet Union/Russia and Japan still have never signed a peace treaty. Yes, it's nitpicking. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

It's... sort of true if you squint really hard, as with a lot of stuff on QI. It does require a certain very specific interpretation of the legal status of the pace treaties, and it's not one usually used by historians - it's perfectly sensible to contend that WWI ended in 1919 not 1918, yes, but stating that the war was going on for another four decades is a bit more of a leap. Shimgray | talk | 18:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added some notes on the various treaties to the "Chronology" section. Shimgray | talk | 19:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Neutral Countries in World War Two

Is it just me, or is there little to no information about neutral countries in ww2 in this article? Neutral countries should have a great deal of this article devoted to them. Neutral countries kept Europe from being totally taken by the Nazis. If Spain would have entered the war as Germany's ally, Spain could have helped the Axis take over africa, the remainder of Europe, and potentially the rest of the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingofquestions123 (talk • contribs) 05:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the general points, you'd like to introduce. Remember, this is a high level article and does not deal with the individual experiences of the countries, unless they were in some way unique. --Erikupoeg (talk) 08:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

...and Spain was in no position to help. Franco had a country to rebuild which was war-torn and weak. He would have threatened his regime's recognition from the other nations and would have lost everything that was fought over in the civil war. Spain had little power in 1939.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(@ Berean) - true. Almost no navy (one worn-our and old dreadnought, no carriers, and no cruisers (I think no cruisers, anyway), almost no armor, and next-to-nothing in the air. Brazil had a more powerful navy with its old Minas Gerais, Sao Paulo, Bahia and Rio Grande do Sul.

The most serious country that might have joined the party on the Axis' side would have been Argentina, but they would not have been able to help much because they would have had to cross the Atlantic to help (having to deal with the U.S., Royal, Free French and (eventually, at least) Brazilian navies). The problem with including a country like Spain or Argentina in this article is that they were never really close to joining the Axis; oh sure, Franco may have played around a bit to ensure that Hitler didn't turn around and invade him, but I don't think that he would have joined up. What was the benefit for him? Hitler had already betrayed one ally! :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 15:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well actually Franco sent a platoon of air forces to help the Luftwaffle, but at the same time, there were spanish prisoners on concentration camps. Also Spain wasn't solely neutral, it's situation may look like Finland's, Allied with Axis first, then allied with the Allies after some political talks. I am not entirely sure though.--Andersmusician NO 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You might be intrested in the Blue Division for further information on Spains invovlement in the war.

As for the original poster that is a rather bizare and somewhat groundless position to take; considering this article is about a war why should it then focus on people who did not take part in it? It would be like talking about the Punic Wars and noting the non inclusion of the Celts or something. As for "Neutral countries kept Europe from being totally taken by the Nazis." that is conjecture other than the obvious painting of a swazitika over their country on a map.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

FAC nom closed

I have closed a good-faith but premature FAC nomination of this article. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/World War II/archive3. I have opted not to add this as an event in articlehistory, as it would be of little value there. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Nations that do not acknowledge a global war

In the Tripartite Pact discussion pages, there are statements such as these:

Many nations do not. The war against Japan is named 'The Greater East Asian Conflict' by Asian nations like Japan, Korea, China, Thailand and former colonies including India who changed the term after Independence. Finland, Sweden and Turkey also differentiate the wars differently than we. Alot of Latin American nations(not to mention Spain and Portugal) name the war against Japan instead as 'The Pacific War' as opposed to 'The European War', which makes sense to them given when they declared war on whom-ever. Even Russian history distinguishes them as separate wars, they call the war in Europe as "The Great Patriotic War", not even WW2, and the war in Asia as "The Asian War"(see Slavinsky, Jukes or Oxford).

To focus on just one proof example, European history identifies Finland involved in 3 distinct wars during the same period.

The Winter War we could call The 1939-40 Russo-Finnish War. The Continuation War we could call The 1941-44 Finno-Russian War. The Lapland War we could call The 1944-45 Finno-Nazi War.

Even the former Soviet Republics and our former Allies in Taiwan agree that there were numerous distinct wars, often described as 'foreign interference' in the ongoing Chinese Civil War 1924-49. Korea to Indonesia even Mongolia today teach of numerous wars linked to their independence separate from our terminology.

Right there that's already the majority of the world's population disagreeing with our(let alone American) version of events as a single unified war, including those that were supposedly our allies.

So is this true? Is the Second World War a term that western nations devised that is not widely used by the rest of the world? Is the fact that wikipedia pages about WWII exist in other languages proof that "western historical propaganda" is rampant throughout the world? (Repdetect117 (talk) 02:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

It's perfectly normal that there exist several classifications regarding the individual experiences of nations. Wikipedia should use objective (worldwide) classifications, most of which probably recognise WWII as a conflict between the invasion of Poland and Japanese capitulation. --Erikupoeg (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

There are bound to be national names for the overall conflict, I mean a silly example could be the American Revolutionary War, which we British appear to, more often than not, call the American War of Independence – or simlar. There are countless other examples, although one must admit that sitting here now my minds gone blank.

As for the examples provided the Soviet term, the "Great Patriotic War" was that not constructed as a propaganda name to help construct a fighting sprit among the people? It is somewhat clear that the politicians and the Soviet armed forces clearly saw the war as something far greater than a fight against the Axis forces on the Eastern front as seen from their co-operation with the Western powers on a military level, economic level i.e. lend-lease, and a political level i.e. calling for a second front fighting over the Balkans, Greece and post war Europe and not to mention their commitment to join in the fight against the Japanese once Germany was defeated.

As for the other example of Finland’s Continuation War, one could see this as just another front on the Eastern Front - it wasn’t like they were fighting a completely separate action from everyone else and were supported by German forces at times.

On top of that the British Empire also fought the Anglo-Iraqi war and the fighting in North Africa is sometimes referred to as the Desert War. The latter two are clearly just other campaigns fought by the British Empire in the much larger overarching conflict commonly known as World War Two.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the canonical European example of something with unclear definitions is the Seven Years War vis-a-vis the French and Indian War. Shimgray | talk | 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

By its scale and implication, the French and Indian War was just a small part of the Seven Years War. However, the "Great Patriotic War" was a land theater of war that, in terms of the number of the troops involved and the losses sustained (by both sides), was greater than all other European and Asia/Pacific theatres taken together. Therefore, it definitely deserves a separate name. BTW, the term "Great Patriotis war" wasn't purely a Soviet propaganda's invention: before that war, another Patriotic war took place, namely, the war against Napoleon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Which in itself was a propaganda name was it not? Iirc the usage in the second world war was a propaganda term to unite the population and revisions on Soviet policy to bolster morale like the reopening of churches etc?

Its nothing about deserveing a seperate name, as noted by the original poster lots of countries have different names for their involvement. The British called the fighting in North Africa the desert war, the Finnish called their partipaction the Continuation War, the Soviets on the Eastern Front the Great Patriotirc War. The key event that links them all together is a world wide global conflict between a set of, primarily, two alliances i.e. Having different names for their involvment does not provide evidence that the said country did not acknowledge a global war was underway - as noted by the Soviets being allied with other countries fighting the Germans and later the Japanese and their other diplomatic, militray and economic actions - likewise for the nationalist Chinese, the Japanase the British etc The other example used that India does not acknolwedge a global war seems highly doubtful considering many of her countrymen died in Burma, Singapore, East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa and Italy etc. Prehaps the West did give a name to the global conflict, that was clearly taking place, and named World War Two but find a source that A) Doesnt link a huge chunk of these seperate wars/names for wars/countires involved etc together B) Provides an alternative name for the global conflict that took place.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Without any doubts, there is a big difference between using a separate name for a certain WWII theatre, and refusal to recognize it as a part of WWII. I fully agree that all 1939-1945 conflicts throughout the world stemmed form the central conflict between Nazi Germany (+Japan and Italy) from one side, and the UK/France, then the USSR, and, after that, the USA, from the another. Therefore, although various nations use different names for different parts of the war, all these parts were deeply interconnected and cannot be considered separately, out of the WWII context.
With regards to "western historical propaganda", the rest of the world has to accept that: major WWII participants were Western powers + the USSR + Japan + China, and the focus of the conflict was in the Europe. Obviously, the right to choose a name for the war belongs to the major participants: who cares how neutral countries, like Sweden or Turkey call it?
However, some parts of WWII definitely deserve a separate name. They are Great Patriotic war, Pacific war, Second Sino-Japanese war, Western front, Desert war as well as some others (of course, everyone agrees that they were just parts of WWII. If I am not wrong, even during Stalin's time the Soviet textbooks conceded that Great Patriotic war was just a part (although a major part) of WWII). On the another hand, it is ridiculous to use a separate names for every minor skirmish just to please a national pride of every minor WWII participant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Total War

Considering the Second World War is the greatest example of total war am somewhat surprised to see the term only mentioned within the lead and once in a note. Surely this term should crop up a couple more times throughout the article considering the devastation of economic areas, the attacks (directly and indirectly) on the work forces and the genocides that happened.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WAR WORLD 2 WAS A VERY IMPORTANT YEAR IN HISTORY, THE JAPANSE DELCARED WAR ON U.S ND BOMBED PEARL HABOR & THATS HOW THE WORLD WAR 2 STARTED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.63.182 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Correction to the above, thats how the war in the Pacific started. Please check your facts before making claims. --217.206.99.134 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's clearly joking, or an idiot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.247.204 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the already ongoing war in China which triggered the war in Pacific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.54.219 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Axis advances. Nazi-Soviet relations.

After some break (during which, I believe, the passions have settled) I propose to return to the discussion about the sentence: "The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal; while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter."
I propose to remove it for three reasons:

The sentence is not completely correct. It states that the initiative came from the Soviet side whereas the negotiations were initiated by Hitler;
The sentence is redundant. We agreed that the talks that lead to nothing (i.e. Anglo-Franko-Soviet tripartite talks in 1939) should be removed from the article, and I supported this idea keeping in mind that this rule is universal;
The sentence mentions the Nazi-Soviet economic deal, although the link to the article that discusses the Nazi-Soviet economic relations is already in the article, therefore, we give undue weight to the subject.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I get no comments by Monday, I remove the disputable sentence from the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This was already the subject of extensive discussion above.

In short, I agree that the language is poor and think that it should be changed, but not deleted.

To recap the two issues:

RESOLVED 1939 DEAL ISSUE -The 1939 Deal Issue was resolved. The prior discussion was whether to modify a large three sentence paragraph including the lead-up to the 1939 deal. The prior paragraph itself wasn't particularly well-written, and included a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. But getting beyond that, the discussion included whether to address earlier both (i) the 1939 Soviet-German talks and (ii) 1939 UK-France-USSR talks, along with the final deal. The decision was made that, because this is a very high level summary for which limited space is available, only the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would be mentioned in a two sentence description stating the both a deal was reached and its secret protocols, with a link to the article on the deal which includes a description of the negotiations. Not only was this two-sentence description including only the final deal far shorter, but the the reader could examine the discussions of all parties in the linked Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article.

1940 POTENTIAL SOVIET AXIS ENTRY ISSUE- This regards one sentence in a different section of the article involving two separate issues that occurred over a year later, the October-November 1940 Potential Soviet Axis Power Entry and a separate Commercial and Border Agreement signed six weeks later. This differs in a wide variety of regards, including, just to begin with:

1. foremost in this high level summary article, it is only one sentence. Far shorter than the three sentence full paragraph of the 1939 deal leadup and descriptions before.

2. Moreover, as no final deal was struck, there is no way to direct the reader with a link to an article describing the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry without a short linked mention. In addition, the sentence also describes the separate Commercial and Border Agreement signed six weeks later, and links to that article.

3. Perhaps more importantly, it does not contain a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. like the long old 1939 deal paragraph did. Rather, it just mentions the potential Soviet Axis Power entry in one sentence.

4. Finally, with regard to the obvious importance, as discussed above, the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry has probably been addressed in virtually every source on World War II, many in very lengthy fashion, and no one disputes that it clearly would have meant an Axis victory in World War II had it been inked. It doesn't get much more important than that, while it only is addressed in one half of one sentence now, with a link to the article.

That said, I AGREE that it should be changed and currently could leave an inaccurate impression that the Soviet Union was the only interested party in the transaction, stressing their final draft agreement. You had earlier suggested changing the sentence, but your suggested change would have stressed Germany's initial impetus for talks rather than that the Soviets put forward the final draft agreement. I would change it to the following:

Current (stresses Soviet last offer and silence):"The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter." (36 words)

Your earlier proposal (stresses initial German offer):"Germany tried to involve the Soviet Union in the Axis Pact, however the the sides failed to come to agreement upon the conditions for the Soviet adherence to the pact, so the talks stalled in November 1940." (37 words)

My proposal stressing neither:"Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement." (33 words)

Both the potential Soviet Axis Power entry and B-C Agreement definitely deserve mention and a link for the reader to learn more, but I don't see more than half a sentence each in a high level summary article like this.

I have no problem with changing the sentence, but not outright deletion. All of this was also discussed at great length, such as here, here, here, here and here.Mosedschurte (talk) 05:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I see no problem to re-insert the amended version along with mentioning of Triple negotiations. You version seems good, although the economic and border agreement is redundant: not all agreements deserve mentioning in such an article. In addition, the link to the article dealing with Nazi-Soviet economic relations is already present in the previous section. That is sufficient. I propose to leave the first part of the sentence, an I fully support the idea to introduce this truncated sentence into the article. Simultaneosly, the sentence about another failed talks, the triple negotiations, should be re-introduced. If you agree, let's discuss.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

--I have no problem with the amended version obviously (I drafted it a month ago and posted it here in the long discussion on the matter), but it would be both parts (no need to cut the B-C agreement). Since this was brought up over a month ago, I didn't see anyone else exhibit a problem with it either.

--The separate 1939 Deal Issue was resolved. As I stated above, even though it's been resolved, I wouldn't have a huge problem adding back in a sentence (don't know if Nick-D would mind). You had previously put forth a suggestion which would be a no go (and I'm n not going to bother re-debating for the billionth time the timing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact issue), but if you want to re-open this already resolved issue, this would be the way to do it without getting into timing either way and providing a link for further info:

Current text (agreed to after resolution):
In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

Your proposed text, which re-opens the issue:
In July 1939 the tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks stalled and in August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

What I would agree to if you want to re-open this already resolved issue without the various timing issues either way:
In August 1939, following [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations}Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany]], the Soviet Union and Germany signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]] that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

That way, a brief mention that negotiations occurred before-hand, we already link to the article describing them in detail, and this would include a specific link to the article Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact negotiations such that the reader could examine them in more detail as well.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First. We (you and I) interpret the achieved consensus in different ways, and it is sufficient, for any reasonable man, to conclude that the issue in actuality has not been resolved. Take a little break and familiarise yourself with WP:DE.

Second. As I already pointed out, I am ready to discuss everything. I proposed no concrete text about triple talks, because I think that the last version proposed by me two months ago devoted too much space to the subject, so I was waiting for your proposal. I am not satisfied with your version, however. Again, it implicitly pays more attention to one of schools, the so called German school. There is no unequivocal evidences so far that political negotiations between France, Britain and the USSR went in parallel with secret Soviet-German negotiations. (Under political I mean the negotiations that started in June and effectively stalled in late July).
With regards to Soviet-German negotiations, the statement is redundant, because, obviously, more or less prolonged negotiations are needed for signing any political agreement. If the USSR and Germany signed a pact on 23 Aug, they definitely discussed it before that. The article tells nothing about negotiations preceding signing all major treaties (for the obvious reason discussed above), so I don't think the Nazi-Soviet negotiations should be mentioned here. By contrast, the triple talks have to be discussed because, although the talks themselves took plase, no agreement has been signed. Not signing the agreement was the important factor affecting the course of the whole war, so these unsuccessful negotiations (as well as Nazi-Soviet negotiations in 1940), have to be mentioned in the article. Summarising all said above I conclude: (i) everyone agrees that triple talks started in June and stalled in late July. (ii) obviously, the USSR and Germany signed the pact in August. Therefore, I propose just to write about these two facts:

"Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April 1939, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.^[8] In July, Britain, France and the Soviet Union started unsuccessful talks about possible anti-German political alliance.
Shortly after the Franco-British pledged to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel.^[9] In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.^[10] This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.^[11]"
In addition to greater neuthality and factual correctness, this version is more readable: the first para tells about future Allies, whereas the second - about the Axis.

Third. You haven't demonstrated the relevance of the B-C agreement. I agreed to introduce the link to the previous Nazi-Soviet agreement, and I think that is enough. Otherwise, we will need to tell about collaboration between Nazi Germany and private companies owned by Western (mostly American) citizens: as you know, in Western democraties (in contrast to totalitarian regimes), no intergovernmental agreements are necessary to pave a way for broad international economic cooperation. My opinion is that B-C is redundant (one economic treaty is already in the article), and it creates a biased picture.

Fourth. Based on all said above, as well as on the fact that the discussion lasts unacceptably long time with minimal progress, I propose to follow more formal ways of WP:dispute resolution. For a while, I remove the disputable sentence. You may introduce it back, however, in that case I will have to place the tag into the section that will inform the reader that the section contains not neutral statements and, therefore, is a subject of a dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "the issue in actuality has not been resolved."

--EXACTLY. This is why one would not place only a fact in about prior "unsuccessful" UK-France negotiations occurred, though technically true (the USSR obviously chose Germany) implying a sequential failure.

--I'm really not trying to be difficult, and I have already provided a more neutral statement of the 1940 Axis talks sentence (actually, I did last month too) than that that already exists in the article (and has been in for many months at least), and am also willing to even include in a statement on the UK-France-German talks with the Soviet Union, even though that issue was resolved before. Also, just because a fact is correct does not mean it should be added in isolation. As an illustration, here's an example of another absolutely accurate statement I would also not use:

Another accurate version I wouldn't use: "In August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, shocking British and French negotiators then in Moscow negotiating with the Soviets that were unaware of Nazi-Soviet negotiations."

--Again, I wouldn't want to add just that fact in isolation either, even though it is technically correct.

--Also, separate issue, but the sentence you proposed further suffered from chron issues with the sentence between them.

Unlike the Nazi-Soviet Axis talk/B-C Agreement sentence, which is in the article and has been the subject of discussion for a month, this 1939 deal was long ago was resolved in favor of no mention at all, especially with a link already to the article on the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article which discusses all talks. However, as stated, I don't have a problem adding in a single clause that does not refer to the timing of negotiations with all parties:

Proposed without the various timing issues either way:
In August 1939, following Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

The mention of talks is there, very short and with a link to the article discussing them. It can't get any more neutral in statement, and short for a summary article, than that.

Re: "You haven't demonstrated the relevance of the B-C agreement. I agreed to introduce the link to the previous Nazi-Soviet agreement, and I think that is enough. Otherwise, we will need to tell about collaboration between Nazi Germany and private companies owned by Western (mostly American) citizens."

--This would be yet a different third issue now being raised. And, honestly, what do "private companies owned by Western (mostly American) citizens" have to do with the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement containing additional secret protocols about Lithuania, addressing the Volksdeutsche issue and expanding trade in key military-use raw materials and weapons between the countries in 1941? And not to go down this rabbit hole, but didn't the U.S., even before it fired a shot, adhere to a blockade of Germany starting during the September 1939 German-Soviet invasions of Poland kicking off the war?

--In short, you're obviously free to start another Talk Page section dealing with some third issue of U.S. companies doing business with Germany, though I'm not sure what the point would be, especially given that I seriously doubt (despite Stalin's conspiracy claims in ''Falsifiers of History'') that they were doing so (or at least in any significant degree) after the September 1939 invasions of Poland starting the war (respecting the British blockade). I would guess that any such trading (if it even existed) would be dwarfed by the massive Soviet sale of raw materials powering the German war machine from 1939 to 1941, but I haven't really examined any post 9/39 U.S. trading (if it exists).

Re: "You may introduce it back, however, in that case I will have to place the tag into the section that will inform the reader that the section contains not neutral statements and, therefore, is a subject of a dispute."

First, re "introducing it back", it's been there for months. I only reversed your recent delete. If you want to place a tag in a section because it continues to mentions the German-Soviet Axis talks and B-C Agreement, as it has more months, that's up to you. I really don't suggest going about approaching Wikipedia editing that way, but you obviously don't have to listen to my suggestions. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "If you want to engage in WP:DE" There is nothing about WP:DE. If the section contains the statement I (justifiably, to my opinion) consider questionable, and the discussion lasts too long, I have a right to follow the normal dispute resolution procedure. And, to my opinion, the reader must be informed that some statements in the article are a subject of the ongoing dispute.

Re: "Unlike the Nazi-Soviet Axis talk... etc" - this fragment is a pure example of the refusal to get a point. I have explained why the issue has not been resolved; you maintain that it is resolved without providing any additional arguments. I doubt you will gain anything by this wikilawyering.

"What do "private companies etc". Hoc est simplicissimus: in totalitarian countries, especially in the Stalin's USSR, international economic collaboration is always mediated by government, usually via commercial agreements. By contrast, in democratic countries, private companies are quite able to do that directly. Of course, the Soviet oil was very important for Germany (ironically, according to Ericsson, your lovely author, the recources obtained by Germany from the USSR were marginally helpful during the German invasion of France or Battle of Britain, although they facilitated Barbarossa). However, the development of the synthetic fuel industry (production of petrol from Ruhr's coal) had enormous impact on German capabilities to conduct prolonged war. I write that because during the work on that article I tried to find sources that demonstrate the effect of capture of Ploesti oil field by the Soviet on German war capabilities. To my big surprise, I found that the effect was much less pronounced, because fuel in Germany was produced from coal using a synthetic procedure developed in close cooperation with American provate companies. Another example is cooperation of IBM with Nazi regime.
I don't want you to understand me incorrectly: the link to Nazi-Soviet commercial agreement was introduced into the article quite justifiably. I supported that, and I will oppose to any attempt of others to remove it. However, additional mentioning of Nazi-Soviet econimic cooperation is redundant, and it creates the biased picture, partially because the level of this cooperation was not too high, and because economic cooperation with other countries is beyond the scope of this article.

Re: "...implying a sequential failure..." I didn't understand your point. The talks started in June, reached the high point on 8 July, and stalled by the end of the month. The first documentary evidence of the decisive turn to Germany was dated by July 28. In other words, if we use solid documentary sources, we must accept that the failure was sequential. All other theories belong to specialized articles. BTW, thank you for pointing my attention at the Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiation article. This perfectly biased (although well written) article, that contains many synthetic assertions, deserves multiple tags. I'll introduce them there in close future.

In summary, the "War Breaks out" section sould be modified like this:

"Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April 1939, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.^[12] In July, Britain, France and the Soviet Union started unsuccessful talks about possible anti-German political alliance.
Shortly after the Franco-British pledged to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel.^[13] In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.^[14] This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.^[15]"
(Changes proposed by me are italicised)

and the "Axis advances" section should contain you sentence without B-C, although I would make it even shorter, namely:"Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement."

With regards to the first change, it contains neither chronological nor factual errors: triple negotiations took place and they were unsuccessful. MRP was signed in August.

We don't need to go in such details that "trading proposed written agreements" in such an article. With regards to omission of B-C, my explanations of why it should be omitted are presented above.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break (for edit link)

Re: ""Unlike the Nazi-Soviet Axis talk... etc" - this fragment is a pure example of the refusal to get a point. I have explained why the issue has not been resolved;"

--There is a misunderstanding here. I'm not saying the Nazi-Soviet issue was previously resolved. I know that you disagree with the way it is stated, and I think we both agree that it is not stated in a neutral fashion, and I suggested a proposed change with which you appeared to generally agree:

Current text (which I agree stresses Soviet last offer and silence):"The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter."

My proposal to change the existing sentence, stressing neither side's impetus:"Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement."

Rather, I'm saying that the 1939 deal paragraph was resolved.

--And, again, even though that 1939 deal issue was resolved, I'm still willing to discuss going against what we had previously agreed to to add back in a short clause stating that negotiations with all parties occurred before signing, with a link to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations to permit the reader further information should he/she desire such.

Re: "By contrast, in democratic countries, private companies are quite able to do that directly."

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult, but I think that this is a third issue. You're obviously free to open a Talk Page discussion on that. I'm not saying that to be rhetorical, especially if there was some large post 9/39 trade around the British blockade, and especially if there is a Wikipedia article on it. I don't think there was, but I really don't know. I certainly haven't researched 1939-1941 U.S. trade in detail.

Re: "In other words, if we use solid documentary sources, we must accept that the failure was sequential."

--Paul, I don't want to re-debate this, but the political talks were merely suspended pending the military talks THAT WERE ACTUALLY GOING FORWARD IN MOSCOW (By the way, that was at the Soviets' request). They were sitting in Moscow when the M-R Pact was signed, completely stunned by the announcement that Stalin did a deal with Adolph Hitler. Nor is there even agreement on whether the political talks stalling pending the military talks even occured before the Nazi-Soviet talks started up -- in fact, given the timing, the former very well could have actually been caused by the latter, though no one knows.
--Seriously, I'm not harping on including the rather stunning nature of what went down between 8/19 and 8/25 with the Allied negotiators in Moscow (or the late July overlap issues either, or the prior alleged hints by some of political deals going back to May), nor do I really think this article needs to go into it at all, or even state that such negotiations were concurrent with the German-Soviet talks.

--Rather, if you want to add back in a sentence, I'd just steer clear of all timing issues either way, with a link to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article on the topic for readers to examine the issue. That's why I suggested stating it as such:

Current text (agreed to after resolution):
In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

Your proposed text, which re-opens the issue:
In July, Britain, France and the Soviet Union started unsuccessful talks about possible anti-German political alliance. Shortly after the Franco-British pledged to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel. <ref>"Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', p. 674.</ref> In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp. 608–9.'</ref>

My proposal to add back a 1939 deal negotiation sentence without the various timing issues either way:
In August 1939, following Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

That's all I was saying.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

And, to be clear, I'm not saying it has to be my text as written at all. My text is just one proposed piece to change.

Rather, in short, I'm saying:

(a) Reversing the prior 1939 deal resolution :

-- I'm actually willing to re-open this already 1939 already resolved issue, mostly because you appear to desperately want a clause in the article about the negotiations before hand and I don't have a huge problem with that.

--But I suggest that we make the statement NEUTRAL with regard to timing, not stressing the stalling of political talks or the concurrent military talks going forward at the time (or July overlap issues, or even earlier alleged hints).

--Avoid any dispute by just stating that everyone was negotiating with a wikilink to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations to direct the reader for further information.

(b) Changing the existing 1940 Nazi-Soviet Axis talks and 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement sentence:

--I agree that the current wording can imply that the Soviets were the main party pushing for talks

--I put forward language to change it, but I don't think that the B-C agreement should be deleted because of its importance in settling several issues and increasing key trade for German and Soviet war materials.Mosedschurte (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mosedschurte, I appreciate your attempts to explain your point, however, there is no misunderstanding here. The 1939 issue was resolved keeping in mind that the major idea the consensus was based on (failed negotiations should not be mentioned in the article) is valid for the article as whole, not for that section only. However, if you refuse to remove the other failed negotiations from the article you thereby break the previously achieved consencus, and you cannot refer to it during the present discussion.

I agree with you that the Nazi-Soviet Axis talks should be in the article. However, it requires to re-introduce the triple talks, because they were at least equally important. If you and I agree upon these two major points, let's discuss the details.
It would be a sign of a good will from your side is you removed for a while a disputable sentence you re-inserted recently. Since the triple talks are not mentioned in the article at all, it would be correct not to mention Nazi-Soviet talks (1940) too. I believe, we re-introduce both of them in close future.

I don't see any reason why my version re-open the issue, at least you provided no reasonable explanation for that your statement. My version just states that the triple talks were started after Germany annexed Czech republic, and that they were unsuccessful. Why do you think that re-opens the issue? Because they weren't mentioned in the context of Nazi-German talks? Don't think it is necessary.

Re: "but the political talks were merely suspended pending the military talks" Not correct. The military talks started to fill the pause. In any event the military agreement would have no effect until the political agreement was signed. In addition, you misinterpreted the Soviet position. The Soviets requested military talks to start to fill the pause in political negotiations. I know no documents that confirm that the Soviet refused to renew political talks untill the military agreement is achieved. I would say, the reverse was true: the military agreement could not be signed before the political one. The political talks stalled indefinitely. It that situation that meant effective termination: when you house is in fire, a proposal of delayed help means a refusal to propose any help. The situation in Europe was developing in leaps and bounds, it was clear that Hitler would take some very decisive steps in close future. In that case any procrustination in talks meant termination of talks (although non formal one).
I agree that in August the USSR conducted both military talks with France/UK and the non-aggression talks with Germany, and it was definitely not a fair game. But during the political talks, no negotiations took place between Germany and the USSR (although some consultations, mostly regarding economic deas took place).
Based on all said above, I don't see why and how my version re-open the issue.

Re: "...but I think that this is a third issue..." I wouldn't say so. Currently, the economic cooperation is mentioned only four time in the "War breaks out" to "The War becomes global" sections: Nazi-Soviet economic agreement, B-C agreement, cash and carry and the American oil embargo. Only the last one is absolutely necessary, because it explain the real reason behind the Japanese decision to attack Pearl harbour. The first one is important, and I supported it. Mentioning of the cash and carry is aimed mostly to please American national pride: to demonstrate early involvement of the country into the conflict, although I don't think mentioning of the cash and carry is necessary. And the last one is B-C. Do you think Nazi-Soviet economic collaboration to belong to the most crucial economic contacts between major WWII participants? I don't think so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:"The 1939 issue was resolved keeping in mind that the major idea the consensus was based on (failed negotiations should not be mentioned in the article) is valid for the article as whole, not for that section only."

--The two issues were completely different, and the 1940 German-Soviet Axis Talks and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement were already in the article.

--To recap, re the Resolved 1939 deal, the prior discussion was whether to modify a large three sentence paragraph (rather poorly written, too) including the lead-up to the 1939 deal. The discussion included whether to address earlier both (i) the 1939 Soviet-German talks and (ii) 1939 UK-France-USSR talks, along with the final deal. The decision was made that, because this is a very high level summary for which limited space is available, only the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would be mentioned in a two sentence description stating the both a deal was reached and its secret protocols, with a link to the article on the deal which includes a description of the negotiations. Not only was this two-sentence description including only the final deal far shorter, but the the reader could examine the discussions of all parties in the linked Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article.

--Re the separate 1940 German-Soviet Axis Talks and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement, these events one year later were already in one sentence in a different section of the article. As previously discussed, they differed because:

1. In a highh level summary article, it is only one sentence. Far shorter than the three sentence full paragraph of the 1939 deal leadup and descriptions before.

2. Moreover, as no final deal was struck, there is no way to direct the reader with a link to an article describing the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry without a short linked mention. In addition, the sentence also describes the separate Commercial and Border Agreement signed six weeks later, and links to that article.

3. Unlike the old 1939 deal paragraph, the one sentence does not contain a lengthy analysis of why deals were struck or not struck, "mistrust", "apprehension", "collective security", etc. like the long old 1939 deal paragraph did.

4. Finally, with regard to the obvious importance, as discussed above, the potential Soviet Axis Pact entry has probably been addressed in virtually every source on World War II, many in very lengthy fashion, and no one disputes that it clearly would have meant an Axis victory in World War II had it been inked.

Re: "I would say, the reverse was true: the military agreement could not be signed before the political one. The political talks stalled indefinitely. It that situation that meant effective termination: when you house is in fire, a proposal of delayed help means a refusal to propose any help. The situation in Europe was developing in leaps and bounds, it was clear that Hitler would take some very decisive steps in close future."

--That's an interesting take, but the fact remains that the political talks were stopped pending the military talks going forward -- at the Soviets' request.

--Moreover, those talks DID go forward in Moscow. I won't belabor the gory details of the shock when they were told a deal with Adolph Hitler was struck, you know it. Nor do I really think that should be gone into in this high level article either.

--As well, re timing there is the further issue of July overlap and alleged earlier hints (and, no, I'm not saying everyone agrees on them either), neither of which I think time should be spent on either.

Rather, I would propose not getting into ANY of that, and just stating that the everyone negotiated, with a link to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations article.

Is the issue that you think that people might read my proposed sentence as implying concurrent negotiations? If so, why not just insert a clause that they were "not necessarily concurrent" to completely clarify that no such statement either way is made. For example (obviously without the bold formatting):

To add back a 1939 deal negotiation sentence without the various timing issues either way:
In August 1939, following Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany 'that were not necessarily concurrent, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

That's about as straight forward as it gets taking not stance on the timing issue.

Re: "Re: "...but I think that this is a third issue..." I wouldn't say so. "

A discussion of some clandestine American corporate trading around the UK 9/39 blockade -- and I'm not even aware that that occurred to any significant degree -- would definitely be a separate issue from the 1941 German-Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement. I don't even know the timing of any such purported clandestine trade (if it even happened), which would largely determine its place in the article. This would likely be in a completely separate paragraph from the B-C Agreement.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:"That's an interesting take, but the fact remains that ..." The facts, or the sources state that: "Now, possibly because of the deteriorating European situation, he made the military agreement the priority, insisting that this should be signed simultaneously with the political one, saying the Soviet government was unanimous on this." (Watson's article, p. 711) That doesn't mean that the military negotiations were a limiting factor. Molotov just proposed to prepare the military agreement to sign both agreement simultaneously. In addition, Watson states: "After some prevarication, the British and French representatives agreed that military negotiations might commence, providing a joint communique was issued saying that the three governments believed that sufficient agreement had been achieved in the political conversations to permit this. Molotov, who emphasised that the military agreement was more important than the political one, agreed to consider this." In other words, although military talks were the priority for Molotov, the Western powers weren't going to sign anything before political agreement was achieved. However, Molotov never stated that he agreed to renew political talks only after progress was achieved during military ones. In other words, your statement is absolutely incorrect, whereas my statement is based on the very reliable source.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

Re:"In other words, your statement is absolutely incorrect, whereas my statement is based on the very reliable source."

--I'm not trying to start anything, but that makes little sense given the quotes of just Watson alone, and no one said they were a limiting factor -- just that they should go ahead first. In fact, I don't want to go down this, but you basically just blasted the head off of your own argument with that first Watson quote alone, though I frankly don't think it's worth getting into on this page.
--Moreover, it clearly doesn't matter -- the military talks obviously went on regardless of their importance relative to the political talks. The point being that it's not worth belaboring their concurrent proceedings up until the point of German-Soviet pact finalization (or the July-Aug overlap, or earlier alleged hints, none of which really matter here). All of that should be left to the other article.

--I suggested another modification above that explicitly made it clear that concurrent talks didn't necessarily occur for the purpose of this article. (though, of course, they were with just the military talks alone, forgetting the July overlap and earlier hints). I.e.:

"In August 1939, following Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany 'that were not necessarily concurrent, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence"

Mosedschurte (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there are two well known and well established facts (i) triple negotiation started in June and stalled, and (ii) Molotov-Ribbentrop pact has been signed in August. My version tells about that plainly, leaving the question of "parallelness vs "sequentialness" beyond the scope. In connection to that, could you please answer the following question: what concretely is incorrect in my version, and which issue does it re-open?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could you both please make your messages more concisely? No-one is going to read posts as long as those above. It would also be helpful to seek external views. Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, Nick. It wasn't my intention to renew a prolonged discussion, and, as I already wrote, I will be glad to get a third opinion on the subject. If I am not wrong, the major issue has been resolved: both Mosedschurte and I agree that both triple negotiations and Nazi-Soviet talks must be in the article, so the only thing we need is a consensus about the details. Concretely:
(i) I propose to mention triple negotiations in a context of dissolution of Czechoslovakia (this event gave an impetus to Britain, France and the USSR to try to revive the idea of collective security), whereas Mosedschurte proposes to write about them in a context of Nazi-Soviet talks, that re-opens the issue of the Soviet-German talks that, according to some sources are believed to take place in parallel with the tripartite ones.
(ii) I strongly oppose to the idea to include Border and Commercial agreement, because these sections mention the economic relations very infrequently (only four times, two of them relate to Nazi-Soviet cooperation). This creates a biased picture. Mosedschurte maintains that the Border and Commercial agreement was very important, however, his arguments are unclear for me.
It would be great to get a third opinion about the subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I proposed Mosedschurte to remove a disputable sentence from the article until the dispute has been resolved. However, he ignored my proposal. Taking into account that the dispute lasts unacceptably long time, I placed a neutrality tag in the section. I hope that will accelerate achievement of the consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, Nick. If you just look at the blockquotes, you'll see the various current and proposed text without having to read everything. Just to be clear, there are two separate points:

(1)RESOLVED 1939 DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MOLOTOV-RIBBENTROP PACT PARAGRAPH

This was This was resolved in favor of cutting it to just a 2-sentence paragraph.
The prior discussion was whether to modify a large three sentence paragraph (rather poorly written, too) including the lead-up to the 1939 deal
The decision was made that, because this is a very high level summary for which limited space is available, only the final deal, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, would be mentioned in a two sentence description stating the both a deal was reached and its secret protocols.
Not only was this two-sentence description including only the final deal far shorter, but the the reader could examine the discussions of all parties in the linked Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article.
I am actually willing to re-open this, though we all agreed to resolve this long ago. Paul has suggested added text. This is the state of the text:
Current text (agreed to after resolution):
In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a [[Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact|non-aggression pact]].<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

Paul's proposed text, which re-opens the issue, but makes it appear as if all discussions were sequential (and they weren't by every single historian, by the way):
In July, Britain, France and the Soviet Union started unsuccessful talks about possible anti-German political alliance. Shortly after the Franco-British pledged to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel. <ref>"Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', p. 674.</ref> In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.<ref>Zachary Shore. ''What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy.'' Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.</ref> This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp. 608–9.'</ref>

My proposal to add back a 1939 deal negotiation sentence without the various timing issues either way:
In August 1939, following Soviet discussions with Britain, France and Germany that were not necessarily concurrent,, the Soviet Union and Germany signed a non-aggression pact that included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.<ref>"Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., ''Oxford Companion to World War II'', pp 608–609.'</ref>

Should it be too ponderous to deal with, I'd also be fine leaving it as, per our prior agreement.

(2)MODIFYING THE CURRENT 1940 DEAL SOVIET-AXIS AND B-C AGREEMTN PARAGRAPH

Paul wanted to delete the current text describing the 1940 German-Soviet Axis Talks and German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement.
Again, I didn't have a problem with a change, and I actually agree that the current text perhaps gives an inaccurate impression that the Soviets had the impetus. Thus, I suggested:
Current text (which I agree stresses Soviet last offer and silence):"The Soviet Union expressed interest in joining the Tripartite Pact, sending a modified draft to Germany in November and offering a very German-favourable economic deal while Germany remained silent on the former, they accepted the latter."

My proposal to change the existing sentence, stressing neither side's impetus:"Germany and the Soviet Union negotiated and traded proposed written agreements regarding Soviet entry as a fourth Axis member but never reached an agreement, while they later entered an economic and border agreement."
Paul, thereafter, agreed with the first clause of my suggestion, but wants to delete altogther the mention of the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement.
Paul's argument is that it's current inclusion means, of economic relations, "two of them relate to Nazi-Soviet cooperation".
Not only does this make no sense in determining what goes into an article, but it's probably actually 4-5 mentions too few. For example, in the Massive Nazi-Soviet economic relations that occurred in 1940-1941, not only should be the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement be mentioned, but NOT MENTIONED as well right now, for example, is that such Soviet supply of key raw materials was was vital to even start Operation Barbarossa, and also NOT MENTIONED ANWYHERE is the German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1939) signed along with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which Stalin may have considered even more important than the Pact itself.
Should it be too difficult to deal with, I'd again be fine to keep it as is, though I'd prefer a change to take away any possible implication that the Soviet Union took the impetus in talks. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

________________________________________________________

The article does not discuss any negotiations for very obvious reason: signing of some pact or alliance implies more or less prolonged talks before that. The explicit mentioning of some talks is needed only when no agreement was signed as a result, i.e. when the talks were unsuccessful. Molotov-Ribbentrop negotiations were successful, therefore there is no need to mention them, the very fact that MRP was signed is self-telling. In connection to that, I don't think my version to re-open any issue: it just presents pure facts without any hypotheses or interpretations:
(a) Hitler annexed Czech republic and converted Slovakia into its satellite
(b) Almost immediately France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence.
(c) A month after both Britain and the Soviet Union started consultations regarding a possibility of anti-German alliance.
(d)Then the negotiations started and stalled.
(e) The USSR and Germany signed a pact.

Statements (a) to (e) are well established facts and they are summarised in the following two paragraphs:

"Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April 1939, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.^[16] In mid-June, Britain, France and the Soviet Union started unsuccessful talks about possible anti-German political alliance.
Shortly after the Franco-British pledged to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel.^[17] In August 1939 Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact.^[18] This treaty included a secret protocol to split Poland and Eastern Europe into separate spheres of influence.^[19]"

By contrast, the question of secret Nazi-Soviet negotiations is very disputable, it is a hypothesis that lacks a solid documentary base, and many scholars think that there were no secret talks before August, in other words before the triple talks had stalled. Therefore, the Mosedschurte's version focuses a reader on the disputable question and gives undue weight to the German school's views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to get snowed by this, but Paul is referring to indefinitely stalled (but not told no deal) POLITICAL talks ONLY (interestingly, stalled at the same time as the German-Soviet talks started to ramp up).

Lest anyone think that there were not German-Soviet Pact talks concurrent with UK-Soviet-French military negotiations, including military UK-France-USSR negotiations IN MOSCOW going literally right up until the day the deal was okayed, one click, many examples therein:

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact negotiations - If there are any questions at all, just read the article (and any sources cited therein) and all of these issues are answered. Repeatedly.

In fact, it even includes such goodies as the shocked UK-France team still in Moscow -- having no idea that the Soviets were even negotiating with Hitler, much less doing a deal with him, desperately approaching the Soviet negotiator the day after the deal was signed, and being told to go away.

By the way, I don't propose adding any of that to THIS high level summary article either -- the link the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article describing the negotiations by all parties is suffiient. I'm just pointing out how silly the idea is that all UK-France-USSR negotiations were over prior to the German-Soviet negotiations -- or just stating anything like a stall of political negotiators in isolation without further explanation.

That's why I proposed not including timing issues on overlapping or concurrent negotiations either way, just to avoid the issue -- it needn't even be dealt with in this article, and if it were, it would most definitely include the shocked military guys in Moscow (and it shouldn't even include them).Mosedschurte (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The question of silliness of that idea is beyond the scope of our discussion: my version does not discuss this issue at all. If you read it carefully, you should see that the only thing it states is: Britain, France and the USSR started to talk, but finally the Soviets signed the pact with Germany. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, but you're adding just one fact, and one alone -- the talks started in June and were "unsuccessful." Paul, we went through this debacle, and it's just another way to attempt to get in this fake sequential nature of talks point.

As an easy illustration, and there are a thousand like this, in terms of accuracy, you could just as easily state the following perfectly accurate fact, which I also wouldn't include in isolation:

Another accurate version I wouldn't use: "In August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact, shocking British and French negotiators, then in Moscow negotiating with the Soviets, that were unaware of Nazi-Soviet negotiations."

I wouldn't insert either of those facts alone without further elaboration. Rather, as I'd just state that they had all negotiated, and leave it at that.

Everyone already agreed to resolve not to include anything before. I stated that I would be willing to re-open with the idea of adding a clause stating that all parties had negotiated. Not adding facts in isolation to shade back toward some notion of a sequential only talks.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to add that all parties negotiated: the fact that MRP was signed already means that Germany and the Soviet did negotiate. "Unsuccessful" doesn't mean that they were terminated, just that there were no success.
If you want to mention shocking British and French negotiators, then we have to do the same in the story about Munich agreement: the Soviet Union was shoched, and the Litvinov's team lost many points, that, eventually lead to his dismissal and to Stalin's turn towards Geramny. But do we really need in that in this article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:"We don't need to add that all parties negotiated"

We don't have to mention any negotiations at all, and we already provide a link to the reader, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact article linked in this article, describing the negotiations in detail of ALL THREE PARTIES (UK, Germany, France) with the USSR. That's the way the article is now.

Re: "then we have to do the same in the story about Munich agreement"

Munich? Where is that even brought in? Paul, here's what we have to do re threats of "we have to": absolutely nothing. This isn't a threat fest of inclusions of facts in other areas if a fact that you don't like is included. In fact, on that note do you even realize the huge (some shocking) items that aren't even mentioned, that I've never even brought up, e.g., Soviet invasion and annexation of northern Romania, the Katyn Massacre political football, etc.? Right now, the article actually describes the entirely of the Soviet invasion and annexation of Estonia, Latvia and Lituania into the Soviet Union as, and I shit you not, "By June 1940, the Soviet Armed Forces completed the occupation of the Baltic States." Not that I've even suggested changing this. Actually, now I'm sort of curious who drafted that language.Mosedschurte (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!! - July 24, 2008 Not that it's a big deal, but the actual change is pretty funny, especially given that I just gave an example of this above. Mosedschurte (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact still has problems and needs in a serious work. In addition, we theoretically can replace everything with the links. However, everybody agree that some major things should be stated in this article explicitly. Is the very fact of triple negotiations important enough to be stated explicitly? The answer is "yes". Is Molotov-Ribbentrop pact even more important? Without any doubts, the answer is "yes". Are failed Nazi-Soviet talks important? If we answer "yes" on the first question, then the answer must be "yes": they were as important as the triple talks. However, the fact that many, although not overwhelming majority scholars believe that some secret contacts took place between Germany and the USSR in April-July is not as important as these three. The answer will be "no". We cannot include Nazi-Soviet secret talks for two reasons: (i) it is just a hypothesis, although a popular one; (ii) it is difficult to tell this story in few word, because the subject is too complex.

With regards to your LOL, I see no reason for that your reaction: On July 24 I found several sources on that account and placed the appropriate fragments into the article. It was word-by-word what these sources state. These sources are very reliable, so I see no problems with that. Of course, by present moment I've read much more sources and I know that other points of view exists on that account, and I concede that the authors I cited were somewhat pro-Soviet. However, their opponents do not look too trustworthy.

In contrast to you, I do not select only those sources that support my POV. I am really want not to win the dispute, but to establish truth. For instance, after our last discussion in the Estonia in WWII talk page I've read about 12 reviews on the Roberts' books. These reviews, written by reputable historians, weren't completely laudatory and now I believe I know all Roberts' strengths and weaknesses (and now I am not ready to accept all his statements unconditionally). However, the fact that his books have been reviewed by so many scholars demonstrates that he is not a marginal writer. And, although I concede that some of your arguments are reasonable, I cannot accept your point of view because your arguments in general are not strong enough.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

eventually

Section break

Re: "However, the fact that many, although not overwhelming majority scholars believe that some secret contacts took place between Germany and the USSR in April-July is not as important as these three. The answer will be "no". We cannot include Nazi-Soviet secret talks for two reasons: (i) it is just a hypothesis, although a popular one; (ii) it is difficult to tell this story in few word, because the subject is too complex."

--I think I've made this clear, but I'm not suggesting putting any of that in this article, nor anything about the timing of the individual the UK-France-Germany talks, which is irrelevant in a high level summary like this. Everyone already agreed to resolve not to include anything before, which was fine, especially since a link was provided to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which provided a more thorough recounting of ALL PARTIES' negotiations.
--I agreed that maybe we'd consider going back on the prior agreement to make a change that merely stated the existence of talks with ALL PARTIES in a way that would specifically avoid timing issues. That was it. Not to sneak in a fact in isolation that earlier negotiations occurred that were "unsuccessful" in that prior chron sentence (and, of course in fact, negotiations proceeded right up until the finalization of the M-R Pact). Or some fact making them look otherwise.

Re: "In contrast to you, I do not select only those sources that support my POV. I am ready to accept an opposite POV if the arguments seem convinsing."

--First, as a general matter, I would avoid accusations regarding other editors.
--Second, as a more specific matter, I would REALLY avoid such accusations were I you. Do you want me to count up the number of times I've cited Geoffrey Roberts compared to your citing of almost anyone else on Wikipedia? I don't think you want me to make that tabulation. I've probably added 50-100 cites by Roberts alone on Wikipedia. Honestly, just on the LOL edit of yours above, it was to E.H. Carr, whose Wikipedia article itself states at the top literally "Known for For pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history". I'm not even picking out other edits, that was just the last link to an edit of yours on this page.
--I'm not trying to pick on you, but I would stop with these sorts of accusations.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I'm not suggesting putting any of that in this article" Did I understand you correct that you propose to remove all unsuccessful negotiations from the article?

Re: "Not to sneak in a fact in isolation that earlier negotiations occurred". I didn't propose to write "earlier". If you read me carefully, I proposed to write that triple talks started, but eventually the Soviets signed a pact with Germany. The word "unsuccessful" is needed because otherwise it would be unclear for readers why the Triple alliance wasn't signed.

Re: "I would avoid accusations regarding other editors" Agree. Unfortunately, I can't, because in that concrete case the accusations are justified. You cited Roberts a countless number of times, however, you neither accepted one of his major conclusion, namely, that the USSR played a double game only in August, when it became clear for the Soviets that the triple alliance wouldn't be signed in more or less near future. Instead, you use quotes from Roberts to support the statements of Nekrich and other Roberts' opponents. That is WP:SYNTH, and that is a gross the violation of WP policy.

Re: "just on the LOL edit of yours above, it was to whose Wikipedia article itself states at the top literally "Known for For pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history"". As the experienced WP editor, you should know that WP cannot be a source for itself. I looked through a number of reviews on Carr's books. According to these reviews, written by reputable scholars and published in top level peer-reviewed journals, Carr was one of leading experts in the history of Soviet Russia. He was very reputable historian, probably, one of the most prominent British historians. Therefore, I am even thinking to re-insert him back. I can provide quotes from these reviews if needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You: :Re: "However, the fact that many, although not overwhelming majority scholars believe that some secret contacts took place between Germany and the USSR in April-July is not as important as these three. The answer will be "no". We cannot include Nazi-Soviet secret talks for two reasons: (i) it is just a hypothesis, although a popular one; (ii) it is difficult to tell this story in few word, because the subject is too complex."

Me: "I think I've made this clear, but I'm not suggesting putting any of that in this article, nor anything about the timing . . . . I agreed that maybe we'd consider going back on the prior agreement to make a change that merely stated the existence of talks with ALL PARTIES in a way that would specifically avoid timing issues "

You: "Did I understand you correct that you propose to remove all unsuccessful negotiations from the article?"

When was that even remotely suggested?

Re: "As the experienced WP editor, you should know that WP cannot be a source for itself."

--EH Carr & "pro-Soviet" The article on E.H. Carr correctly states at the top "Known for For pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history".

--I don't want to belabor the point, but you claiming that I -- who actually site Geoffrey Roberts repeatedly -- refuse to site

Re: "I would avoid accusations regarding other editors" Agree. Unfortunately, I can't"

--I'm beginning to come to realize that, such as here, and then followed by embarrassment.

--I would bring the level of rancor and flat out false accusations down.Mosedschurte (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

E. H. Carr studies are not pro-Soviet any more. I do not recommend to re-introduce this controversial statement into the article about him. Although after WWII Carr's political views were somewhat pro-Soviet, Carr's historical works were not ideologically motivated. Otherwise, he would never be regarded as one of the most prominent British historians (along with Toynbee, Taylor and some others).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You mean the edit where you yourself just deleted it, and then listed a bunch of authors that not only didn't state that he wasn't pro-Soviet, but themselves intimated it?Mosedschurte (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I looked through several reliable secondary sources and found that the phrase "Known for pro-Soviet studies in Soviet history" is misleading. He is known for studies in Soviet history, and he remains to be one of the most prominent historians of the USSR. A prominent historian can be neither pro- nor anti-, otherwise he is not prominent one...--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

strange heading

why does it say Nazi-parading-in-elysian-fields-paris-desert-1940 over the picture of nazi solodiers in paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.189.67.59 (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not in the article. It's the file name of the image file that automatically pops up only if you run your pointer across the image (or click into the photo image file itself).Mosedschurte (talk) 06:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

World War II/temp

World War II/temp seems to be an old work in progress effort which I don't think should be laying around forever and plan to delete. Would anyone be interested in keeping the contents of it in their userspace before I do so? henrik•talk 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

misinfo on WWII page

there is misinformation about the allied leaders on the World War II page. The part just above "the Allies close in" section. Someone who knows how to use this edit function should fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osexton (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediteranen operation... British POV

In that article a lot of british Mediterranean victory (like Cape Matpan) was cited . It's ok but what about italian operation? What about for example "Alexandria Raid" giving Italy naval supremacy in in the east-central Mediterranean?

I found a lot of source like that:

"Consequently, the Alexandria Fleet remained for many months without any battleships, and it was forced to abandon any further open activity. In fact, Admiral Cunningham wrote that his Fleet now should have to leave it to the Royal Air Force to try if they could dispute the control of the Central Mediterranean with the enemy's fleet.(...) In fact, it opened a period of clear Italian naval supremacy in the east-central Mediterranean." Bragadin, page 152"

I think some modifications are necessary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firestorm81 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Declaration of war on "Nazi Germany"

This wording is incorrect. No country declared war on Nazi Germany. They all specified Germany. Wallie (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Who won?

It might seem blindingly obvious to many people, but perhaps the first 500 words of this article should mention that the Allies won and the Axis lost? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.56.252 (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Check the conflicts tab. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.6.247.204 (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Have to agree with the first poster - the intro has to include the Allies' victory. A mention in the infobox is not enough. If noone objects, I'll add a sentence in a day or so. --hippo43 (talk) 16:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

War article without maps?

How can we have a war article without maps? The war involved much territorial acquisition / loss by the nations involved. How is it that this article lacks any maps?Dogru144 (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Which maps do you suggest that the article include? Nick-D (talk) 08:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is plenty. [1] From complete overview of the combatants of both sides such as [2], to the given combatants of every important time over the course of the war. It might be suitable to include the one with the overview at least. -GabaG (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Distinct lack of vital terminology

As I was browsing Wikipedia Review, as I do sometimes, I came across this thread: [[3]], and the user Emperor made a damn good point. Why does this article seem to be so lacking in vital areas, and yet concentrates on areas that should, at most, be relegated to a sentence or footnote? For example, we have an entire paragraph on Canadian and French use of German POWs which needs to be shortened, yet no mention of the Bataan Death March. And where's the mention of the Blitz on London during 1940? And why isn't there more on Iwo Jima and Okinawa? And I won't even start on the fact that the Gestapo aren't mentioned, or the phrase anti-semitism doesn't even appear. Can we start to work on solving these issues, please? Skinny87 (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A ton of work went into drafting the text of the article, so the changes will need to be discussed here first. I agree that the 'Concentration camps and slave work' section needs a total re-write (the over-emphasis on a minor war crime in Canada and the weak wording around the Gulags need to be fixed). The article has been deliberetly written at a high level so I think the coverage of Iwo Jima and (to a lesser extent) Okinawa is adequate. Nick-D (talk) 08:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to make any non-discussed changes, but surely the Blitz and Bataan Death March can be mentioned, given their importance? Skinny87 (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, what wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll get back to you in a little bit if that's okay - RL is a harsh and demanding mistress. Skinny87 (talk) 08:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Does anyone think this article should belong in Category:Adolf Hitler? I know this may be a bit of a sensitive question, but just after people's views on this. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be over-categorisation - while Hitler bears more responsibility for the war than any other individual, he was one of dozens of national leaders involved in the war and this article has very little material on him. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The "neutral" US

"Throughout this period, the neutral United States took measures to assist China and the Western Allies."

Does anyone else see the absurdity of this statement? The United States were "officially" neutral, at best. -- 80.145.213.126 (talk) 19:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"While declaring itself officially neutral, the Unites States actively supported China and the Western Allies throughout this period." would be much more appropriate, as there were truly neutral countries which either did not participate or were swallowed up in the conflict without actively assisting other parties while technically neutral. PetersV TALK 19:38, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The difference between the first and the second sentences is the difference between a half-full and half-empty glasses. With regards to "actively assisting other parties", let me remind you that the primary reason for the attack of Pearl harbour was the Americal oil embargo. In other words, in 1939 Japan was obtaining 80% of her oil from America, and that oil was so desperately needed for Japan that after few months of embargo she decided to attack the USA. Therefore, it would be correct to say that, although the USA didn't assist Hitler during 1939, they activelly assisted the Japanese in their war against China and to the Chinese in their war against Japan. Such a behaviour fits the definition of truly neutral country. It would be correct to say that it was the oil embargo that marked the de facto abandonment of the American neutrality strategy. However, this event belongs to the next section ("The war becomes global"), so the present version of the sentence (that tells about 1939 events) seems absolutely correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

the chapter "concentration camps and slave work" is ill-named! most Jews, Romas, Gays etc, were exterminated in "extermination camps" that were build just for that, not mere "concentration camps", like the ones built by the Japanese in the far east or even the US for Japanese.

anyone who visited a death camp, such as Aushwitz, and indeed anyone who was exterminated there would be extremely ofended by the chapter's name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.99.224 (talk) 09:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Western Allies entry into Germany

The article currently has the following sentence: "In February, the Soviets invaded Silesia and Pomerania, while Western Allied forces entered western Germany and closed to the Rhine river."

Aachen, a city in Germany, fell to the US 1st Army in October 1944. Not all Allied forces 'closed to the Rhine river' during February. I will edit this unless I am missing something. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand it correct, the sentence we discuss tells about the events after the battle of Bulge, namely, about massive Western Allied invasion of Germany and Soviet invasion of Silesia and Pomerania. Since the Soviet offensives started earlier, I believe it would be more correct to tell about them first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, except that the sentence as written seems to say both western and soviet forces entered Germany in Feb 1945. In fact both Soviet and western forces were in Germany (albeit on a smaller scale) as early as Sep / Oct 1944. So we should clarify in some way, perhaps in the section above discussing the fall 1944 campaigns. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:00, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. However, since the 1944 incursions were of small scale, I don't think we have to mention them explicitly in such an article. (Of course, if you disagree, let's discuss it.) Btw, there are some other things that have to be fixed in the section. For instance, "while in late April Soviet forces stormed Berlin; the two forces linked up on Elbe river on April 25" creates an impression that the Elbe day was after the battle of Berlin ended. In actuality, the Soviet troops enveloped Berlin and linked up with Western allies. The battle of Berlin ended later. Probably, we can change it like that:

"In February, the Soviets invaded Silesia and Pomerania, while Western Allied forces invaded western Germany, closed to the Rhine river, and crossed it north and south of Ruhr, encircling a large number of German troops. After taking bridgeheads over Oder river the Soviet halted their drive towards Berlin, advancing to Vienna. In early April the Western Allies finally pushed forward in Italy and swept across western Germany. In late April Soviet forces renewed their offensive to Berlin, enveloped the city and linked up with Western forces on Elbe river on April 25."
In addition, I think a couple words are needed about the battle in Berlin, that started on April 23 and ended on May 2, and Hitler's suicide should be mentioned in that context.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction on Superpowers

I'm not trying to start an endless debate here, but I have some critique on this sentence:

"After the war ended in 1945, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the world's superpowers."

Generally the British Empire was still regarded as a superpower in 1945. By my knowledge, they ceased to be called such only after the fiasco at the Suez Canal in 1956. The SU and US became "the" world's superpowers only in the 1950's (or after 1949 as they became the two nuclear powers). Wiki1609 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a main contributer to the WWII page, and I haven't seen the source for this statement, but yeah, the British Empire was still a superpower until the Suez crisis. Though, one could argue that the Soviet Union was still a superpower before it got nuclear weapons due to the size of it's sphere of influence it controlled at the end of WWII. But, I think that if the source states that both US and SU were superpowers after WWII, and it's a reliable source where the statement isn't OR or SYN, then unless someone can find another source, the British Empire shouldn't be added in. Deavenger (talk) 23:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that the sentence is problematic. Really, the entire "Superpower" concept is problematic for a tertiary source (like Wikipedia) because the secondary sources use the terms so dramatically differently (economic/military/political), and conditions changed so dramatically over time (1945 vs. 1946 vs. 1947 vs. 1953, vastly different). For example, obviously Britain was still militarily one of the world's top powers (in terms of navy, RAF and army) and had a higher per capita GDP than almost every country in the world besides the U.S., while that economic lead faded over time. Also, within 2 years, the U.S. army had actually shrunk drastically to something like only 10-15% of its WWII size. Meanwhile, the Soviet Union had the largest military by far by 1947 (including high quality armored divisions), but it had also suffered horrible damage from war with the Nazis (and essentially Nazi war crimes post-Barbarossa in property and life destruction) leaving it economically in terms of per capita GDP one of the weakest (if not the weakest) economy in all of Europe. All of these things also changed dramatically year by year following the war.

In short, when more descriptive language is available re military, economic and political prowesss, I try to use such terms when editing rather than vague terms like "superpower" which have drastically different meanings by secondary source author. But it's especially problematic for post-WWII era descriptions (1945, 1946-1950, etc.), because things changed so quickly year-by-year. Usually, better, more specific and descriptive language is available from the secondary sources for use.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not a native English speaker, so please correct me if I am wrong, but the sentence: "After the war ended in 1945, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the world's superpowers", contains no statements that the USSR and the USA became the only world's superpowers immediatelly after the war. It just states that two new superpovers emerged, leaving the question about the fate of the old ones beyond the scope. Therefore, I see no problems and no contradictions there.
(BTW the idea that not only the USSR, but the also USA became superpowers only after WWII seems correct, because before the war the USA's tremendous economic power wasn't complemented by neither military power nor political influence. The situation changed after WWII and due to WWII.)
--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is correct that the sentence does not use the word "only." By using the definite article "the" ("the world's superpowers") it refers to a specific group, implying, in short, that they were the only superpowers. It would be more safe to say, instead (and probably more relevant for purposes of the article), the following: ""After the war ended, the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States possessed the world's three most powerful military forces and, by 1952, were the only countries to possess nuclear weapons." That's really what sets up the next sentence, the Cold War (and France going nuclear in 1960) - the same three western powers squaring off with the Soviets. Mosedschurte (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. As the WWII article is to talk about WWII and immediately following WWII, which was pretty much the Cold War. We can just use what Mosedschurte's sentence and let the Cold War article deal with superpowers. Deavenger (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are too focused on nuclear weapon. In actuality it played much less decisive role than many non-specialists use to think. Even during WWII, not two american nuclear bombs had the most devastating effect but the Allied bombing campaign that relied on conventional, mostly incendiary, bombs. And, similarly, not the 1949's nuclear test marked the Soviet membership of the club of superpowers but her army that was capable to reach Brest in a couple of weeks. And you probably know that Zhukov's expeiments near Totsk demonstrated that nuclear weapon is inefficient against infantry. In addition, I don't think nuclear weapon helped France to return her superpower status she lost in 1940.
One way or the another, I propose to limit ourselves with minimal modifications of the lede. What about that version?

"After the war ended in 1945, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as new world's superpowers." By getting rid of "the" we state what we really should do, namely, that two new suprepovers emerged, without any concretisation how many superpowers existed right after WWII, and how the decline of old superpower proceeded after the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of war crimes, why are the Japanese American internment camps listed as war crimes, when that is not the accepted interpretation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.146.50 (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Impact of the War

Concentration camps and slave work

The article statement: "About 270,000 of these Javanese laborers were sent to other Japanese-held areas in South East Asia. Only 52,000 were repatriated to Java, meaning that there was a death rate of 80%.[224]"

Source statement: "The worst abuse, however, was the forced mobilization of some 4 million--although some estimates are as high as 10 million--romusha (manual laborers), most of whom were put to work on economic development and defense construction projects in Java. About 270,000 romusha were sent to the Outer Islands and Japanese-held territories in Southeast Asia, where they joined other Asians in performing wartime construction projects. At the end of the war, only 52,000 were repatriated to Java."

Issue: the conslusion in the article - "meaning that there was a death rate of 80%".

Discussion: Nowhere in the cited article section dealing with the included material does the cited source state or infer that there was an 80% death rate. This is a conclusion on the part of the Wikipedia author. There can be a miriad set of reasons why only some 20% of Javanese were repatriated and death is only one. With no statistics to indicate anything of the 80% un-repatriated the conclusion is unwarrented.

199.244.214.30 (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

I'm not really clear on what this sentence means -

"Many belligerents were at war before or after this date, during a period which spanned from 1937 to 1941, as a result of other events." I guess the point is that many countries joined the war at different times and for different reasons, but this sentence is pretty ugly as it stands, and it's not clear at all what "during a period which spanned from 1937 to 1941" means. I suggest we change it to something like "Many countries were already at war before this date, as a result of other events, and many who were not initially involved joined the war later." Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 16:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Chronology errors

In this section, you list the several debated "start" dates of WWII. This is a good idea. Then, you skip to the debated "end" dates of the war. This is also a good idea, but what happened in the middle?

I believe that either the title should be changed (because this is not chronology, rather it is beginning-and-end points), or you should basically relist the table of contents under chronology, because chronology, connotated by the reader, implies the sequence of events throughout a particular event.

Again, either the title of the section should be change or the content of the section should be changed to suit the section title.

M93samman (talk) 21:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC) m93samman

May 27, 2009

"Impact of the War"

In the section of "Impact of the War" under subsection "Homefront and Production", the years 1938-41 were referred to. This was not the "aftermath" or "impact"99.7.210.0 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)m93samman

Impact of the war - end of empire

There is a story to be told about the end of the era of Empires - German, French, Italian, British. There is a good case, for example, that the 'capital' spent in fighting the war was the assets and goodwill of the British Empire, and that after the war the empire dissolved more rapidly than it might otherwise have done. Britain never quite understood the loss of resources, and continued for half a century to strut upon the stage as though still a world power, to the eventual total impoverishment of its people. Not sure where to find suitable source material, other than my memories and the story of our lives.... Brunnian (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

recent Hippo43's edits

I reverted recent Hippo43's edits because during his copy-editings he shifted some accents, introduced dead links and even misinterpreted some sources. For example, the Hippo43's version states "Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic offensive of its own,^[20] Barbarossa forced the Soviet supreme command to adopt a strategic defence. "
This statement is not supported by the source. In actuality, the source (Cynthia A. Roberts) states:"Nevertheless, the Red Army maintained the posture of a powerful and agile organis- ation in June 1941, expecting to launch rapid and powerful counter-offensives against a German invasion force."(page 1294). Since the difference between an offensive and a counter-offensive is obvious, the change made by Hippo43 is a direct misinterpretation of the source, whereas the previous version ("Although before the war the Red Army was preparing for a strategic counter-offensive,^[21] "Barbarossa"' forced Soviet supreme command to adopt a strategic defence. ") reflected the source correctly.
I don't understand and I don't support some link changes. For instance, the link to concrete intelligence data (the data obtained by Richard Sorge) was replaced by intelligence data in general. The link to the article telling about Soviet POWs taken mostly during Barbarossa, appeared to be removed.
This goes far beyonf just copy editing.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide the detailed analysis of all changes made by Hippo43. To my opinion, it would be better to do what I did before, namely, to copy the whole section to the talk page, to discuss all changes there and, after consensus is achieved, transfer the modified version to the article.
Although the style of the article can and should be improved, we have to be sure this doesn't lead to factuall errors.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, but kept the most recent edits and the points you made above. The level of some of the English was really poor, so I did some very minor copy-editing, which I'm sure has improved the article. There were also a number of very misleading piped links - I cleaned some of these up, in line with WP:Piped_link#Intuitiveness. Two examples, 'Ukraine' was pipe-linked to 'Army Group South', and 'strategic counter-offensive' was pipe-linked to 'strategic offensive' - as you pointed out, the difference between the two is obvious. In the latter case I didn't check the source because I was only fixing the problem with the link - I don't think there are others where the meaning of the sentence has substantially changed. I've left the link to Richard Sorge for now, but in my view a phrase like 'intelligence data' should be linked to an article about intelligence data, not an article about an individual.

I don't agree with moving suggested text here, as nobody owns this article. If you want to change specific points, you are free to do so, but the fact that you don't find it convenient to look at each of them is not sufficient reason to revert en masse. If you think there are any errors, I am happy to discuss them. --hippo43 (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not about ownership but about convenience to discuss new changes. I prefer to polish certain section on the talk page and, when all comments of all involved parties have been taken into account, to introduce it into the article. That was the way this section has been written.
With regards to links, in my view the link to e.g. intelligence data should pipeline to the intelligence data, namely, to the concrete intelligence data, not to the definition of the term.
This broad scope article should contain as many links to the WWII related topics as possible, instead of the links to common definitions, because the readers are quite able to type "intelligence data" by ourselves.
With regards to your modifications, I'll try to look at them in close future.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. You might prefer the 'convenience' of discussing changes in advance, but that suggests a degree of control freakery that isn't reallly consistent with a wiki. These are minor changes, and you are the only editor who has objected in the last few days, so it doesn't seem a very contentious area. Some of the language was not good enough for an English encyclopedia, so needed to be corrected - it clearly hadn't been 'polished' in advance.

As for piped links, I agree we should link to as many relevant topics as possible. However, the guideline on these is fairly clear, so we may need to use a little more text to make these more explicit. --hippo43 (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to agree to disagree. I agree with you in that concrete case. I looked through the recent changes you made and I agree they were minor ones. There are few things I am not satisfied, but these details are not crucial, so I'll fix them a little bit later.
With regards to guidelines, please keep in mind that there is a big difference between guidelines and policy. Guidelines are not obligatory to observe. We cannot "use a little more text to make these more explicit" in this concrete (huge) article, so the pipes' style I propose seems to be a solution in that concrete case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Due to this article's very high profile (it's the 31st most visited page today, for example) and the fact that most of its current text was drafted in an intensive exercise involving many editors, there's a long-standing convention that significant changes be discussed first. There's a comment to this effect at the start of the article and many examples of such discussions on this talk page. Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise there is such a comment, but this 'convention' is not one that I agreed to, and nor did most others. It is not a policy or a guideline - in fact, it is essentially contrary to one of the five pillars ('Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit.') It also implies ownership by the editors who took part in the drafting process. Given that this article is also semi-protected, and editors are free to amend/undo/improve any changes others make, it strikes me as pretty unnecessary, as well as hardly welcoming. While I agree with the intention - 'this is a popular article, so please discuss significant changes first' - I feel the comment is maybe seen by some as a license to revert minor improvements without any thought. I'm open to persuasion on this, but I think we should remove it. --hippo43 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the inability of people (not you specifically Hippo, of course) to actually discuss changes first on the talkpage led to the retirement of an excellent editor because of all the hassle he got in his superhuman efforts to try and maintain this article at a good standard. Skinny87 (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. It is not a policy or a guideline, it is just a politeness towards your predecessors. As I already told I see no problem with most Hippo43's copy edits, except with those that are not copy edits in actuality...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Skinny, I don't know the circumstances, but it's obviously sad if an editor calls it quits over disagreements on a talk page. However, as editors we can't really expect others to discuss things in advance - it's just not required in Wikipedia, and suggests a degree of control freakery and ownership.

Paul, I'm all for politeness (in others at least, if not myself!) but the way this comment is phrased now is not really polite. For example - "all significant changes should be discussed on the article's talk page BEFORE they are made" Says who? Is that really polite? We should also show politeness to our successors, so I suggest we change the comment to something more civil, while preserving the intent.

How about "As this is a high-profile and high-traffic article, please discuss significant changes on the article talk page before you make them. Please note that this article describes the war at a very high level, and there will probably not be support to include detailed information on individual elements of the war (eg, battles, individual countries experiences and notable people) in the article."? Thoughts? --hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author of the original note, and I much prefer your proposed wording. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

People might find it helpful to read the directly relevant Policy on this: Wikipedia:Editing policy#Talking and editing.

"Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes and fixing problems. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes - nobody owns articles."...

vs

"Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first. With large proposed deletions or replacements, it may be best to suggest changes in a discussion"...

Hohum (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's also in line with the common 'bold, revert, discuss' cycle. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

References in the lede?

I noticed someone started to add references into the lede. However, according to guidelines such sourcing does not need to be within the lead section itself: the facts presented in the lede are not controversial and the sources in the body support them. I propose to remove references from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Nick-D (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Background

German references from early 1930s are hardly appropriate to describe WWII that took place later. This is pure OR. Hence I removed the thing [4]. Biophys (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Your explanation is unclear. Why the use of German sources fits the definition of OR? In addition, the source is used to describe a pre-war situation in Europe, not WWII itself, so it seems relevant. With regards to reliability, please, prove that the newer sources refute the facts presented there. The burden of evidence rests with you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I do not really think sources from early 1930s should be used to explain reasons of World War Two. Use of German sources in general is OK, but not the sources written before the actual conflict. It does not make any sense. Tymek (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This source doesn't explains the reasons of WWII, it just presents (possibly) important facts about pre-WWII situation in Europe. If, in your opinion, these facts are marginally relevant or non-reliable, please explain (with sources) your point more concretely.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree: sources from before the war aren't suitable for use in an article written in 2008 and 2009, especially when the author of one of the sources (Hermann Rauschning) was a member of the Nazi party at the time! Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. There is no shortage of sources from after the war. Also, English sources would be preferable, if they are available, as this is aimed at readers of English. --hippo43 (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The events described, the expulsion of Germans from territory they saw as theirs, could well have contributed to the animosity felt in that country and have been part of the tension leading up to WWII, and the timing of these events mean that a German 1930's source should not IMO be rejected on principle. The writers membership of the Nazi party does not automatically make him wrong. The danger with post World War II accounts is that they do tend to be written by the winners. Britmax (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

There are no shortage of post-war sources written by objective historians - including German historians - which can be used to reference the lead-up to the war. Even if the writer's political allegiances are ignored, he obviously couldn't attempt to explain what caused the war nine years before it broke out. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, but he could be a source to verify that Germans were ejected from former parts of Germany, whatever the outcome. Britmax (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a bit like using Soviet "versions" of history for the Baltics. There the Finns attacked the Soviet Union, the Baltic peoples erupted spontaneously to throw off 20 years of bourgeoisie rule, etc. Either a source is credible regarding a period of history or it's not. Reading a source and then debating amongst ourselves which parts might apply that might be factual never leads to anything good. It's not the place in this article, but "Nazi historiography of World War II" is as valid and worthy a topic as "Soviet historiography of World War II". PetersV TALK 14:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the real problem here is too much focus on this one aspect of the background. The previous two sentences ("In the aftermath ... massive reparations") cover the big picture - three subsequent sentences about Poland expelling Germans, with no mention of other specifics, is just not appropriate. In a wider article (about German nationalism, remilitarisation, the effects of Versailles etc) I would have no problem with this source, but not in this short section. --hippo43 (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I can not understand the reasons why my revision was cancelled. Please look what I have said under Nr.5 on this talk page. Gustav Stresemann, who intended to regain the lost geman territories by force was not a member of the nazi Party, but a nobel-laureate for peace. The polish atrocities against gemans continued until 1935, when the nazis concluded a non-aggression treaty with Pilsudski. After Pilsudskis death the situation got worse again. The Foreign Office Document, which I mentioned in Nr. 5 on this page, proves, that the polish government of that time planned to invade Germany. The commander in chief of the polish army, Edvard Rydz Smigly, who was a painter too, painted himself in june 1939 riding on a horse in victorious pose and in full uniform under the Brandenburg Gate. On the talk page of the Rydz-article someone mentioned, that he had seen this picture in 2003 "hanging in the warshaw-palace". Adolf Hitler caused the second world war through the terror against the jews and through the "Liqiuidierung der rest-Tschechei". But the war against poland is another thing. An encyclopedic article which does not mention the polish atrocities against the germans from 1919 to 1939 will be suspected to be mere anti-german propaganda. user:jäger 0,40h 16. june 2009 CET —Preceding undated comment added 22:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC).

But the war against poland is another thing - You... are ... being... serious?!?!?radek (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You have proposed including this material several times, and no-one has supported it. Please stop adding it. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You Nick-D are not completely right. Objections were of three types: (i) the material is poorly sourced; (ii) the material gives unneeded details; (iii) the material is unrelated to the origin of WWII. I fully disagree with (iii) because, if the facts described by Rauschning are true, they seem to have a direct relation to WWII outbreak; I agree with (ii), I think the text can be shortened to fit one small sentence, or a half a sentence. And I am not sure about (i): I failed to find any articles in academic journals that support proposed text, although I didn't do exhaustive search. If user:jäger will be able to provide good references and will propose a better and more concise wording I see no problem to include his material into the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Even if more concise wording was proposed, I'd still object on the grounds that this is unnecessary detail for this section. It is only one part of a much more complex picture, and should not be included unless material is included on all aspects of the roots of German aggression in this period. --hippo43 (talk) 19:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you replaced "German aggression" with "Nazis' rise to power" I would fully agree. In connection to that, what do you think about adding few words to the end of the first sentence, that explained the linkage between the consequences of German defeat in WWI (including persecution of the Germans outside post WWI Germany) and Hitler's rise to power?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Including spurious claims of "German persecution" based on Nazi sources violates non-RS, it's mostly OR, it's is UNDUE, FRINGE and is an obvious case of WEASELing in a POV (in this case trying to come up with excuses for Nazi aggression). So I obviously don't think any "few words" need to be added here.radek (talk) 08:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's pretty much my view as well. This is a very high level article and doesn't need to cover this kind of material which would best belong in Causes of World War II - if it can be sourced to a reliable publication. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a straw man arguments. I wrote "if the facts described by Rauschning are true" (i.e. are supported by reliable academic sources). BTW, if noone find any independent confirmation (I couldn't so far) the question about German persecutions is closed. However, the question of the reasons of Nazis' rise to power remains open. It is important to explain in few words what concretely lead to that. Even if we leave Rauschning beyond the scope, other reasons still need to be described.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

PS. One more example of a straw man fallacy. I believe, by writing: "if you replaced "German aggression" with "Nazis' rise to power" I would fully agree" I made myself clear enough. I am not "trying to come up with excuses for Nazi aggression" (that would be absolutely ridiculous) but I insist on the need to describe a mechanism of conversion of a developed, civilised western sociery into the barbarian tyranny. How does it relate to POV or WEASEL?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the famous german periodical "Vierteljahreshefte für Zeitgeschichte" 1970, 2. Heft, April, the expulsion of the germans from western prussia is mentioned on page 155 ff. It is available through google scholar as a pdf-document.user:jäger 01:05, 24 june 2009 (CET) On goolgle books I found the volume "Italien und Oberschlesien 1919-1921 Dokumente zur italienischen Politik in der oberschlesischen Frage 1919-1921" Edited by Andreas Kiesewetter 2001. The volume is about the so called polnish upheavals. On page 71 acts of violence against the germans are mentioned. The italian troops who tried to protect them were attacked and 19 of them were killed by the polish "insurgents" (page 61).user:jäger 00:45, 25 June 2009 (CET)

This article downplays America's role in WWII

I'm sorry, but this article significantly downplays America's role in WWII. We have the Brits, the Chinese, the Japanese, and the Soviets shown at the very top of the article, then 5 pictures of the Brits, 6-7 pictures of the Germans, 6 pictures of the Soviets, and 3 pictures of the Japanese. General Eisenhower is shown only once and there is no mention that he was the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe. He is only shown with a group of "Supreme Commanders", including Generals De Gaulle and Montgomery. American troops are only shown twice, and once are only referred to as the "Allied Invasion of Normandy". This is also the case with most of the description of the western European campaigns, which, without the American troops, would have been impossible.

I recognize I may be driven by partiality to my own country, but I believe historical accuracy or at least balance, is wanting. This article makes it seem like America played only a bit part in the war, when in fact, the bombing of Pearl Harbor (mentioned in this article as only one of three significant attacks) was, at minimum, a significant turning point in the war as was recognized by world leaders on both sides at the time. D-Day, another decisive turning point, is mentioned only briefly, and there is no reference to the crucial, predominant role played thereon by the Americans, not to mention the fact that Eisenhower, an American, led the operation. As far as I can see (and please forgive me, I may be missing something) the only mention of the U.S. or the Americans prior to 1944 is Japanese interment camps (1942), American neutrality and opposition to the war prior to 1941, and "dubious American naval command decisions" in 1942. There is mention of Americans being sent in to "eliminate Japanese forces from the Aleutians" but again, most of the American effort is subsumed in under the heading of the Allies, even when it was the Americans playing the primary role. I suppose this is true for all "allied forces" but I believe the importance of the American effort to the balance and ultimate outcome of the war is massively understated.

Look, before you reply: I understand WWII was fought largely in Russia by the land powers. And of course I realize the US entered the war two years after it officially "began". I know we Americans have our own narrative of what happened (just as all countries do), but what is described here seems to me incomplete. At minimum, there should be a mention of the decisive consequences of Pearl Harbor, and the important role played my the Americans (not just the "Allies") in the European and Pacific campaigns. If I'm a twelve year old kid reading Wikipedia to find out what happened in WWII, this article tells me the Americans played only a peripheral role. I understand most countries suffered more casualties than the US, but I think our role is badly downplayed here. I would be happy to add more detail on Pearl Harbor, D-Day, and Eisenhower's role if people approve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dflandro (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the article deals with the war in date order, it's unsurprising to me that the US isn't featured during the early part. From "The tide turns" onwards it appears to get many mentions. Zhukov only gets one mention yet he was fighting three or more times as many German forces for a longer time than Eisenhower. The article is a brief overview of the entire war, and can't go into detail of every aspect - there are many links to other articles. Obviously the US was of significant importance. If you can can make useful additions I am sure they will be welcome - but bear in mind the entire war should fit inside the recommended article size. Hohum (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The coverage of the US appears perfectly adequate to me - this is a global history of the war, and doesn't focus on individual countries, much less individual generals such as Eisenhower. All the war's main battles are dealt with briefly, and there doesn't seem to be any need to expand upon the battles which were particularly significant to the US - the coverage of the Battle of Kursk is about the same as the Battle of Midway, for instance. You may wish to focus your efforts on the Military history of the United States during World War II article as it needs a lot more work than this one. Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Hohum. I believe noone will argue that two major defeats were inflicted on Axis before the US entered the war (I mean the Battle of Britain and the battle of Moscow)

Re: "the bombing of Pearl Harbor ... was, at minimum, a significant turning point in the war..." Politically, yes. But did it cause immediate change of a military balance? No. According to the sources (I can provide the ref to the articles from historical journals upon request) Hitler was pleased when the US officially entered the war. According to him, it would facilitate naval warfare in Atlantic. His opinion on the Japanese military capabilities was rather low, the only task Japan had to accomplish during 1942-44 was to preserve her fleet in Pacific. The rest would be done by Nazi Germany, according to him.

Re: "...there is no reference to the crucial, predominant role played thereon by the Americans..." There is no such a reference because it was not the case. Firstly, by June 1944 Wehrmacht was just a shadow of its former self due to devastating defeats in the East. Secondly, even after D-day more Axis troops fought in the East than in the West (about 60% of Axis troop were on Eastern front, and 40% elsewhere, not only in the West Europe). Thirdly, even after D-day the hostilities were more intense in the East (just compare post D-day battle of Northern France with Bagration, one of four major Eastern front operations during summer-autumn 1944).

Re: "If I'm a twelve year old kid reading Wikipedia..." I agree, the kids, whose major source of information about WWII are Hollywood movies will be shocked after reading this article. However, to my opinion, the role of the US is even slightly overstated, concretely, in the "Tide turns and "Allies gain momentum" sections.

Re: "I would be happy to add more detail on Pearl Harbor, D-Day, and Eisenhower's role if people approve." How do you see that if even Stalingrad, the largest and the most important WWII battle, have been only briefly mentioned? You correctly write that "WWII was fought largely in Russia by the land powers", however, the two above mentioned sections pay more attention to the Pacific theatre than to these land battles. Is it correct, to your opinion?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. "the important role played my the Americans (not just the "Allies")" This is the idea I fully support. I always prefer to use concrete country's name instead of vague "Allies" (when possible, of course).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem with not using 'Allies' is that there were remarkably few campaigns fought by the Western Allies which only involved a single country. The US central pacific campaign of 1943-44 and the strategic air campaign against the Japanese home islands in 1944-45 are the only campaigns conducted solely by the US I can think of off the top of my head. At the level this article is written at it would be impractical to separate all the western Allies involved in each campaign. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

That is why I wrote "when possible". However, in some battles American troops played a decisive role (e.g. in the Battle of Bulge, according to Churchill). To my opinion, the fragment:"On December 16, 1944 German forces counter-attacked in the Ardennes against the Western Allies." should be modified to reflect that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet even then British forces were involved both on the ground and in the air. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert: As a devils advocate, if we think in terms of importance of events - does any battle on the Eastern Front after 1942 really matter? Even if Hitler had an office in the Krimlin in July 1945, it was all over once Truman began dropping atom bombs? StevenWT (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

You step into the realm of speculations here. However, your question has concrete answers.
Firstly, military value of atomic bomb (as compared to the conventional bombing) was dramatically exaggerated (see Ward Wilson. The Winning Weapon? Rethinking Nuclear Weapons in Light of Hiroshima. International Security, Vol. 31, No. 4 (Spring 2007), pp. 162–179)). Many historians believe now that Soviet entry into the war (in addition to the US bombing campaign) was needed to convince Japanese leadership to surrender unconditionally (See Why Japan Surrendered. Author(s): Robert A. Pape. International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201, Sadao Asada. The Shock of the Atomic Bomb and Japan's Decision to Surrender: A Reconsideration. The Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1998), pp. 477-512.). Obviously, in Europe the A-bomb's effect would be even smaller.
Secondly, "if Hitler had an office in the Kremlin in July 1945" I doubt Truman's main objective was to manufacture A-bombs: had the Germans defeat the USSR, move their military industry towards Ural and seize (together with Japan) trans-Siberian railway, thereby establishing a land connection with Manchuria, the Axis would become invincible and the US would be doomed, because: (i) Since the main Axis military industry would be out of reach of US bombers, the Allied bombing campaign would lost its efficiency. (ii) The resource base seized in the USSR would eliminate the major German industry's bottleneck (Ericsson), and eliminate the US industrial superiority. (iii) Land connection between Japan and Germany would make exchange with military materiel possible thereby compensating for the US technological superiority over Japan. (iv) Baku oil fields would provide sufficient fuel desperately needed both for Germany and for Japan for naval warfare. (v) Victory over the USSR would allow Japan to use her elite one million Kwantung Army somewhere else in the Pacific, thereby tipping the balance in Burma, China or Pacific islands. And, last but not least, I am not sure who would make A-bomb first in this situation, taking into account that about a half of Nobel prise winners lived in Germany by 1939, that the Germans were the originators of the atomic project, and the first electronic computer, jet fighter, and ballistic missile were developed in Germany, not in the US.
Summarising all said above, I have to conclude that "if Hitler had an office in the Kremlin in July 1945", the first city destroyed by A-bomb would be New-York, not Hiroshima...
--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

PS. Do not delete other's posts. It is a gross violation of WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't use this talk page for conjecture unrelated to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Siebert: Thanks for a very insightful, thought provoking answer. Did I erase a post? If so it was inadvertent. StevenWT (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course, a part of what I wrote was an exaggeration. The truth, as usually, lies somewhere in the middle...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dflandro. My ideal article would look something like this: World War II. It's not all that different from how this article looked just a few years ago. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it significantly downplays America's role. Perhaps a bit more (1-2 sentences more) could be said about the key Atlantic shipping campaign/U-boat hunt that essentially kept island Britain alive and a bit more could be said about the Normandy breakout and surprisingly quick 3rd Army advances (until, ahem, Ike pulled the brakes) that heavily pressured the Nazis and led to a few events. I already added a sentence on the last-ditch Nazi attempt at the Battle of the Bulge, but there is really isn't room for any more discussion.

The article addresses a massive complex world war occurring on numerous continents, oceans and fronts. As such, it must be summary in nature and no one event can be addressed in more than a few sentences.Mosedschurte (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Collier, Martin; Pedley, Philip. Germany 1919-45, pg. 144
^ Kershaw, Ian. Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis, pg. 173
^ Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870-1940, pg. 330
^ "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p 674.
^ Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.
^ "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp 608–609.'
^ Geoffrey Roberts Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953. Yale University Press, 2006 ISBN 0300112041, 9780300112047, pp. 57-60.
^ Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.
^ "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.
^ Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.
^ "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'
^ Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.
^ "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.
^ Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.
^ "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'
^ Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.
^ "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.
^ Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.
^ "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'
^ Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293–26.
^ Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293–26.

[1] Collier, Martin; Pedley, Philip. Germany 1919-45, pg. 144

[2] Kershaw, Ian. Hitler, 1936-1945: Nemesis, pg. 173

[3] Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870-1940, pg. 330

[4] "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p 674.

[5] Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0195182618, 9780195182613, p. 108.

[6] "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp 608–609.'

[7] Geoffrey Roberts Stalin's Wars: From World War to Cold War, 1939-1953. Yale University Press, 2006 ISBN 0300112041, 9780300112047, pp. 57-60.

[8] Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.

[9] "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.

[10] Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.

[11] "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'

[12] Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.

[13] "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.

[14] Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.

[15] "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'

[16] Lowe, C. J.; Marzari, F. Italian Foreign Policy 1870–1940, p. 330.

[17] "Pact of Steel", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, p. 674.

[18] Zachary Shore. What Hitler Knew: The Battle for Information in Nazi Foreign Policy. Published by Oxford University Press US, 2005 ISBN 0-19-518261-8, 978-0-19-518261-3, p. 108.

[19] "Nazi-Soviet Pact", in Dear and Foot, ed., Oxford Companion to World War II, pp. 608–9.'

[20] Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293–26.

[21] Cynthia A. Roberts. Planning for War: The Red Army and the Catastrophe of 1941. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 47, No. 8 (Dec., 1995), pp. 1293–26.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]