Talk:World War II/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35 ← Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 → Archive 45

German surrender.

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

The point is though that both Germany and Japan surrendered. Whether one nation was "batter off" than the other in 45' does not make a difference. It seems a bit fair to single both Germany and Japan out as having one be labeled as "disintegration" and the other as "unconditional surrender".--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 15:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
While true and relevant, I think talking about disintegration dilutes the punch and clarity of the final paragraph of the lead. Details like that are better placed in the main part of the article. (Hohum @) 02:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree with White Shaddows. Germany surrendered unconditionally and using different wording for the two main Axis powers suggests that they met different fates, when this wasn't at all the case (it seems relevant to note that Japan was facing near total economic collapse by August 1945 due to the impact of the Allied blockade and bombing campaign). Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
In actuality, by May 8 more than million German troops were able to continue to fight. I don't think Japan was in a better shape by 15 August, taking into account that Kwantung Army (Japanese primary fighting force) had been almost destroyed by that date, Japanese air forces and fleet virtually ceased to exist and most important Japanese cities were destroyed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
(To deviate somewhat from the current Section Head): Despite the problems Japan was experiencing as referred to by Paul above, Japan's well-developed war industry on the Asian continent had remained intact. By relying on an industrial base in occupied Manchuria and Korea, the 700,000-strong Japanese army of occupation in northern China could offer resistance for a long time to come. A major problem facing the Western powers in mid-1945 was how to eject this occupation force at a time when America's own land forces were still no nearer to the Japanese mainland than the two islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, where fierce resistance was met. Russian intervention in the war with Japan appeared to be the only solution. US intelligence was of the opinion that Russia's entry into the war against Japan would "convince most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat". Truman concurred, telling Associated Press that "more than anything else" the West needed the co-operation of the Soviet Union in order to step up the assault on Japan and its conquered territories. Such a move had earlier been agreed between Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill during their historic February 5 meeting at Yalta, when Stalin acceded to Western requests that a reinforced Red Army in the Far East would declare war on Japan on August 8 by launching a two-pronged attack on the Japanese front in Manchuria. A declaration of Soviet participation in the war against Japan would certainly have tipped the balance and forced an almost immediate Japanese surrender. In return for intervention against Japan, it was reluctantly agreed at Yalta that Russia would reacquire territories lost to Japan in 1904, namely the strategic Kurile Islands and the southern half of Sakhalien, as well as recovering a controlling position in the Manchurian region of China. This would place the USSR in a dominant position in continental north-east Asia, having gained an assured stake in Japan's post-war affairs, and thus creating a decisive shift in the world balance of power. The participants at the Yalta conference would also have been aware that the Soviet Red Army, in sweeping through Mancuria and driving southwards down the Chinese mainland, would inevitably co-operate with Mao Tse Tung's communist guerrilla forces, which had participated in the Sino-Japanese war since 1931. Mao had succeeded in increasing communist party membership from 100,000 in 1937 to 1.2 million by 1945. The Soviet presence in northeast China would enable the Chinese communists to move into liberated areas and arm themselves with equipment surrendered by the withdrawing Japanese army, serving in turn as as a catalyst in transforming all China into the world's largest communist state. To cut a long story short, that was arguably why Truman decided to drop the bombs, ie. to pre-empt Russian presence and communist post-war influence in the region.
SOURCES: Gar Alperovitz, "Atomic Diplomacy", The Listener, 10 August 1989, p.6.; Barton Bernstein, (ed.), Politics and Policies of the Truman Administration, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1970; Robert J Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1954, p.112; New York Times, 9 August 1945; Y Larionov, N Yeronin, B Solovyov, V. Timokhovich, World War II Decisive Battles of the Soviet Army, Moscow: Progress 1984, p.452; David M Gordon, "The China-Japan War, 1931–1945" Journal of Military History (Jan 2006) Vol 70 No.1, pp 137–82.
Maybe all this should go into the Atomic Bomb or similar article. Maybe not. Any views? Communicat (talk) 18:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Communicat, you should probably read WP:TLDR :P --DIREKTOR (TALK) 19:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Nobody's forcing you to read it. However, those few discerning individuals sufficiently interested to read it might consider its length to be appropriate to the significance of its contents. Communicat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
What, exactly, is the point of a flood of text, and references, without any suggestion of a change? Again, this is an overview article that doesn't go into any issue in any detail, yet it is still rather long, because even when being very concise on each issue, WWII was extremely complicated. Yes, detail should go to the relevant articles. The Atomic Bomb article is mainly about the bomb itself, there are various other articles about the politics and conflicts of the period, by region, pre, during, and post WWII. Talk about details on those pages? (Hohum @) 20:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
The length of my "flood of text" is more or less consistent with the epic length of the overview article itself. Why doen't anybody complain about THAT, huh? Communicat (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Axis Belligerents

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

Mass rapes

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

I might be missing something, but why would the rapes conducted by German and Japanese troops be out of scope? The soldiers of both countries conducted rapes on a huge scale, and the Japanese government ran a massive sex slavery operation until the end of the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This might be different, because in this case these crimes were supported and appreciated by the panslavic Stalinists 85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

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

To be useful here, your assertion must have an expert source. What author wrote that? Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
The Nazis organised a system of military brothels where captured women were forced to work. Source: Kaputt by Curzio Malaparte, 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.88.119 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
So did the British and the US Army. But Stalinist crimes were different, because it was supposed to terrorized and extinquish the population and slavinize the conquered areas accourding to the Yalta stipualtions - as negotiated with the US and GB. 85.176.225.117 (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing WWII People Pages for Decorated Veterans

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

If he meets the relevant notability criteria (see WP:BIO) then you may wish to start the article - DIY normally works best! ;) regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Not every decorated veteran is 'notable' in an encyclopedia. That Scheffel is an author and used in the WWII in HD series got a spot for him on the WWII in HD, with no information provided, yet. --Habap (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy...

The sentence:

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

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

Decolonisation was not granted willingly by the colonial powers. It was essentially a result of national independence / liberation wars of attrition, waged by indigenous people against the colonial powers, using Sino-Soviet supplied weapons and/or training. In the case of Malaya, the weapons used against British commonwealth forces by the communist-led national independence movement, (essentially the former Malay Peoples AntiJapanese Army or MPAJA), were the very same weapons that had been supplied to MPAJA by British Sprecial Operations Executive (SOE) during WW2, and also weapons captured from the Japanese during the war. WW2, essentially the promise of freedom from colonial rule as contained in the Atlantic Charter, had raised expectations of national self-determination in other British colonies, such as Kenya, where indigenous people serving in the King's African Rifles had also actively supported the Allied war effort. When those expectations were not met, a violent rebellion similarly and eventually resulted in independence being granted reluctantly by Britain. It can and has been argued that America's advocacy and co-signing of the Atlantic Charter was motivated purely through self-interest in anticipation of gaining political, trade and economic influence, which it had previously been denied, in what would become independent former British colonies. America of course didn't have any declared colonies of its own (if one discounts Haiti, Cuba, Puerto Rico and Phillipines, which were de facto American colonies, and with the exception only of Cuba, still are de factor American colonies). In the case of South Africa, independence was not granted by Britain, but was unilaterally declared by SA's now officially redundant apartheid-fascist leaders, as in also the former Rhodesia. But anyway, I think while WW2 may have had some indirect influences on decolonisation, i.e. the false promises of the Atlantic Charter, all this cannot be incorporated into a reworked version of the lede sentence in question. Suffice it to say, as I've done previously, and as Paul rightly observes, the sentence "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..." is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading. Communicat (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Another WP:TLDR. Ironically, you could have cut everything before "Suffice it to say.." (Hohum @) 20:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you the same guy who was earlier preaching to me about civility? Communicat (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the phrase questioned. Unless the main body reflects it, it has no place in the lead currently. (Hohum @) 20:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
No incivility was intended. Think a bit about what active editors do: Make edits, patrol for vandalism, read talkpage edits on their watch lists. Editor A makes a succinct edit suggestion with a simple, readily available and reliable reference. Editor B makes a long diatribe about how much they know abut a subject, but with no concrete suggestion, other than to complain about something. Multiply this by, for some editors, hundreds of watched pages. Consider who gets read positively, and who gets skipped over, or read begrudgingly? (Hohum @) 21:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Re your above claim that I offered no concrete suggestion: I stated quite clearly that the sentence in question "is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading." In other words, scrap the sentence. Did I need to spell it out for you? "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa..
I do concede, however, that what I do need to spell out is that my posting pertained also to a separate and earlier posting (not by me), now archived in archive 38, under the section heading "Self-determination for colonial peoples? Not hardly." That posting, an unsigned comment added by 69.226.238.146 (talk) 21:22, on 15 April 2010 (UTC), refuted the sentence in question ("Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa...") as "completely false", and then went on at some length to explain why. The posting was dismissed cursorily by user Nick-D at 10:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC), who wrote: "The war greatly strengthened the position of and domestic support for decolonisation movements in their own countries/colonies, and so is correct". This implies overwhelming British public support for decolonisation, which supposedly followed as a result. My own posting above refutes that position, viz., "... decolonisation was not granted willingly by the colonial powers. It was essentially a result of national independence / liberation wars of attrition, waged by indigenous people against the colonial powers ...".
Phew. All this discussion just to modify by consensus only one grossly misleading sentence in the lead. At such pace of "improvement", it's going to take about 500 years to improve and/or shorten the grossly overlong overview article. Communicat (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Provide sources when you write your assays.....No matter how much you type people will not care until they see reliable sources. Saying its wrong is just not good enough here try backing-up your view with sources see --> Wikipedia:Core content policies - Wikipedia:No original research - Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources...you still have only provided www.truth-hertz.net as a references for all your rants all the others i cant even find.Moxy (talk) 00:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It's not my fault if you can't find the sources I've labouriously cited in my posting of 18:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC) and elsewhere. Presumably you mean you can't find them on the internet. Not everything that's ever been published is available in digitised form on the internet. Try a visit to the Library of Congress or any good university library. As for sources on Far East WW2 communist-led resistance, my source is Association of Asian Studies and/or the sources cited in my earlier, competent edit that was needlessly undone by Nick-D. My numerous sources for WW2 origins of CW vis-a-vis Manchuria are all provided in earlier posting above in section "Surrender of Germany". And yes, www.truth-hertz.net is a useful source/resource, despite efforts of Blinkster and others to shoot it down. My most recent posting, on decolonisation, did not include sources because the facts and matters therein are such common knowledge and undisputed in most of the non-Anglo Saxon world. But for the rest of you, a good source/resource is British Imperialism and Decolonization: A Chinese Perspective
The short version is: I don't rant. Watch your mouth. Communicat (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
For anyone else who still doesn't get it: The origins of the Cold War are embedded in WW2. The origins of decolonisation are embedded in the Cold War. Both the Cold War and decolonisation are inaccurately referred to in paragraph 3 of the WW2 article, and they should be removed in any reworking of that paragraph. Multiple sources relevant to this proposition have already been provided (and sometimes re-provided) by me in various sections above. In the righthand panel of top-page, the word "Beginning" (of Cold War) should be replaced with the word "Escalation" (of Cold War. Communicat (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be far more correct to say "Meanwhile, the Soviet Union's strong advocacy of the principle of...". Soviet advocacy of self-determination and decolonization was in fact one of the original causes of the war. It is the underlying reason for the collapse of the Tripartite military talks and the resulting Nazi-Soviet pact. Self-determination – as it is now defined – is a purely "Soviet" invention, originating from Lenin. I suggest we change the sentence to something like "Meanwhile, Soviet and US advocacy of...". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. Self-determination was simultaneously (and independently) advocated by both Lenin and Wilson, and I cannot agree that much continuity existed between Lenin's and Stalin's USSR. The reason for tripartite military talks' failure was not the USSR's adherence to the idea of self-determination, but deep mutual mistrust between Stalin and Chamberlain (others believe that Stalin was unwilling to sign this pact ab initio and conducted the negotiation just pro forma, although this POV has less support).
One way or the another, I do not think we need to make a stress on the role of the USA or the USSR in post-war decolonisation, because the countries that obtained independence as a result of WWII (or, strictly speaking, immediately after it) were India and some other former British colonies. I don't see how could Soviet or American positions affect this process. By contrast, liberation of Africa was supported by both the USSR and the USA, however, it took place more than 10 years after WWII, so I doubt we can speak about any strong casual linkage here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Statement is invalid that US supported liberation in Africa. Very opposite is true. American CIA energetically involved in covert operations and counter-revolutionary activities against African liberation movements for many years, all of which is very well documented. China, USSR, Cuba, Libya in roughly that order were main supporters of African liberation aka independence. Communicat (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
"It's not my fault if you can't find the sources I've labouriously cited in my posting". It's your problem because of WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFY. I had trouble tracking them down too. Please provide ISBN, or OCLC for the older works. truth-hertz doesn't seem to be supported by any editor except you. (Hohum @) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you and Poxy that I've better things to do than sit around and make up non-existent names of authors and titles of non-existent books. Suggest you visit British Library Reading Room and/or any good unversity library, e.g. University of London, LSE, etc., where the friendly library staff will help you will find all books / journals cited, if you're really interested, and if they're not traceable online. In the case of The Listener or any other periodical, you'll no doubt find a copy at British Newspaper Library in Colindale. Alternatively, you are free to buy whichever of the cited books are available new or 2nd-hand via Amazon.UK. The burden is not on me to provide you with the ISBN numbers, especially since I'm not citing the sources in an article but rather for purpose of discussion, which is unlikely to result in any subsequent article use or notation after discussion, anyway. Communicat (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Dear Communicat, this page is not a forum. I did not propose to discuss the role of the US in liberation of Africa (the issue only tangentially relevant to the WWII article), my proposal was much more concrete: since decolonisation in general was not an immediate consequence of WWII, and since it would be incorrect to speak about a role of any particular country in that, the sentence should be removed and replaced with something more relevant. Do you have any comments on that? If noone will provide an evidence of the opposite in next few days, I'll remove this sentence from the lede.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
My comment on that sentence has already been submitted: viz., delete the sentence, it is false and misleading. As for replacing the sentence with "something more relevant", I doubt that can be done without reductio ad absurdum. Communicat (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
What about replacement of
"Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa, while Western Europe began moving toward economic recovery and increased political integration."
with:
"Meanwhile, post-war decline of old colonial great powers gave a start to decolonization of Asia and Africa."
Regarding "...while Western Europe began moving toward economic recovery and increased political integration." I think it is a kind of Europeocentrism. Not only Western Europe demonstrated fast economic recovery, Japan also demonstrated explosive economic growth (and expansion to American market); the USSR was growing fast, and its economic influence was growing accordingly. We need to think about rewording of this sentence too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "Meanwhile, post-war decline of old colonial great powers gave a start to decolonization of Asia and Africa." Good try. But the hugely complex issues involved can't be reduced to just one sentence (or even one article, probably). So, I still think it best just to drop it. To give some idea of the aforementioned complexity involved: post-WW2 arms race gave huge impetus to colonial powers' guarding of their access to vital (and hugely profitable) Third World resources. These included not only rubber and tin from Malaya, but more importantly, strategic metals and minerals including uranium (used in nuclear weapons) and vital metals used in manufacture of jet engines and ICBMs. Where ostensible support for post-war "decolonisation" did occur, it was with the covert intention of installing corrupt and easily manipulable puppet regimes that would align themselves with the West. Communicat (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

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

I still don't understand how or what the post-war decline of colonial powers had anything whatsoever to do with "prompting" decolonisation. Please explain, provide references, or better still, just scrap the sentence.Communicat (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, although the casual linkage may be questionable, these events are interconnected: the fact that old colonial powers started to move towards their decline automatically meant that their control of their colonial possessions weakened. One way or the another, we need to tell that all old colonial empires (except Portugal) lost their leading role after WWII and had dissolved soon, and that their former colonies got independence. Although this issue is really very complex, we must tell about that. If the proposed text seems not accurate to you, feel free to propose your version. Remember, however, that it should be a single, concise sentence.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is support of the British case of the linkage by John Darwin, Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, teaching imperial and global history. His book on the subject, Britain and Decolonisation: the Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World ISBN 9780333292563, is cited 122 times according to google scholar. (Hohum @) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes Paul, issue extremely complex. Reductio ad absurdum remains, whichever way one looks at improving that problematic sentence, and for which reason I still maintain it should be deleted. French colonies did not move toward independence, e.g Vietnam, Algeria, had to fight for independence. Belgium Congo, (principal Western supplier of uranium for nuclear weapons) was not allowed to move towards independence. Same goes for South West Africa (now Namibia) under UN mandate. HoHum: your citation re British case is interesting, but Britain was of course not the only colonial power, and so citation does not pertain universally. (Digression: how come Belize to this day remains a de jure Brit colony, also Falklands?) Communicat (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Universality isn't required, a couple of powers decolonizing would support the sentence with the word "some" added, or variations as required. You could just say the British Empire, but it was more widespread than that. Additionally, I don't think Reductio ad absurdum pertains - a summary is a summary, in this article, for almost every issue, we endeavour to link to an article where a fuller explanation can be included. (Hohum @) 13:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In my last posting I should have elaborated that Vietnam, Algeria and also N.Korea had to continue fighting for independence, which fighting had commenced prior to WW2. Same applies to small matter of pre-WW2 Japanese colony China. Waters become increasingly muddied by that problematic sentence at issue. Delete it. As for HoHum;s remark re universality etc, I resubmit that a "fuller explanation" of Britain's role is facetious and irrelevant to wider issues at hand. I have cited self-evident truths that do not require backing by citations. On this matter of self-evident truths, there's wiki rule somewhere or other, which I don't have time to look for right now. Communicat (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

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

It's evident this discussion is getting us nowhere. Communicat (talk) 18:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
If he looks hard enough, Paul will find some critical feedback. (Hohum @) 19:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what: why not just leave the lead as it is, warts and all, (viz., bad grammar, reductionism, obscurantism, bias, unsourced material etc etc). That way wiki can perpetuate its status as a joke among serious historians. Citation? You want a citation? Try Wikipedia: The dumbing down of knowledge —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 01:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
If you don't like wikipedia procedures, either get them changed, follow them or stop editing. This page isn't the correct venue for general complaints. You have had your say, I have had mine, Paul may find a consensus. (Hohum @) 13:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
IMO, the present dispute is mainly about the interpretations of the facts, not about the facts themselves. The facts are: (i) weakening of most old great powers (including loss of former political influence in the world) and subsequent dissolution of their colonial empires; (ii) a gradual process of obtaining of independence by former colonies, which started after WWII. Although we can argue about concrete way WWII affected these processes, everyone, I believe, will agree that strong connection between these events and WWII existed. That is why, I believe these events must be mentioned in the lead, whereas all assertions like "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination..." should be left beyond the scope. A possible solution may be:
"Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline, whereas their former colonies in Asia and Africa started to gain independence.
Since no explicit casual linkage is present in this version, that, hopefully, will make it acceptable for all parties; another important point is that it tells about the decline of old great powers as whole, not only in a context of their colonies. One way or the another, I presented my version only to demonstrate a point, so all its subsequent modifications are welcomed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes your reworking of sentence is acceptable, to me at any rate. Use it. Might be worth adding something like: "Meanwhile too, the war had welded all the diverse ethnic groupings of the Russian nation into a unified whole." (This is why the war is referred to in Soviet histories as "The Great Patriotic War". Communicat (talk) 12:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

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

Well, how about that:
"Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline, whereas their former colonies in Asia and Africa started to gain independence.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Because the decolonization article itself is rather bare in the most relevant sections to WWII, I'd prefer to link to the specific articles. How about:
"Meanwhile, the decolonization of Asia and of Africa began - while the influence of European great powers started to decline."
(Hohum @) 23:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Good, although it is not clear for me why did you swapped the first and second parts. IMO, the decline of old European powers should be mentioned first, because this sentence goes after the sentence about the new players, the USA and the USSR. Obviously, the fate of old major players, European great powers should be discussed immediately after that, and only then can we tell about their former colonies:
"While the United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent future conflicts, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War, which would last for the next forty-six years. Meanwhile, the influence of European great powers started to decline — while the decolonization of Asia and of Africa began..."
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me, I swapped it around because I had a brainfart phrasing it otherwise - which you have managed. (Hohum @) 01:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Western Europe began moving toward economic recovery and increased political integration.

This phrase gives a one-sided picture, because not only Western Europe, but also Japan, the USSR and most ex-Allied and ex-Axis countries (except China) grew fast. The main article states:

"By the end of the war, the European economy had collapsed with 70% of the industrial infrastructure destroyed.[1] The property damage in the Soviet Union consisted of complete or partial destruction of 1,710 cities and towns, 70,000 villages/hamlets, and 31,850 industrial establishments.[2] Economic recovery following the war was varied in differing parts of the world, though in general it was quite positive. In Europe, West Germany recovered quickly and doubled production from its pre-war levels by the 1950s.[3] Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition,[4] but by 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth.[5] The United Kingdom was in a state of economic ruin after the war,[6] and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.[7]
France rebounded quickly, and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernisation.[8] The Soviet Union also experienced a rapid increase in production in the immediate post-war era.[9] In Asia, Japan experienced incredibly rapid economic growth, becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world by the 1980s.[10]
China, following the conclusion of its civil war, was essentially a bankrupt nation.[11] By 1953, economic restoration seemed fairly successful as production had resumed pre-war levels.[11] This growth rate mostly persisted, though it was briefly interrupted by the disastrous Great Leap Forward economic experiment. At the end of the war, the United States produced roughly half of the world's industrial output; by the early 1970s though, this dominance had lessened significantly.[12]"

therefore, it is not clear for me why Japan, China, the USSR, the USA etc were left beyond the scope of the lede.

Regarding political integration, neither NATO nor any other political bloc is mentioned in the Aftermath section, just division of Europe onto the spheres of influence. In addition, not only Western Europe moved towards political integration after WWII.

I propose to change/expand this lede's sentence to reflect not only a West European POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I would suggest though to rephrase rather than expand as the lead is already long. Something like?
"Most countries whose industries had been badly damaged began moving toward economic recovery and across the world political integration emerged in an effort to peacefully stabilise after war relations". Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good ..i am up for this changes..Moxy (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Lead is not "too long". Para 2 contains stuff that's duplicated/repeated in Chronology which follows just two paras later, and it should therefore be edited / deleted / shortened to accommodate other relevant matters of significance. WP:LEAD allows four paras in lead. Current lead has only three paras.
I'll wait another few days, if all foregoing outstanding issues are not resolved thoughtfully by then, I'll request mediation and declare a dispute tag at head of article. Communicat (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about?? would it be possible for you to consolidate your views... Like Lead is not "too long" who and what are you responding to ???Moxy (talk) 12:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
You've disrupted the talk cohesion by placing your comment between my posting and the posting to which my posting refers. My posting was a reasoned response to Arnoutf's claim of 09:52, 15 August 2010 that "the lead is already to long." Are you feigning confusion and / or being deliberately disruptive / unduly argumentative and if so why? (Rhetorical question, don't bother reply.) Communicat (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I said "already long" not "too long". I think the lead should not become longer. Arnoutf (talk) 17:01, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary / overview

Can some knowledgeable and active editor(s) please enlighten me about the reasoning or rationale behind the overview article? Is its purpose to provide a brief summary of the numerous other main articles it relates and refers to? And if so, then the lead of the overview is actually a summary of a summary, which seems a bit odd. Communicat (talk) 13:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

WW2 origins of Cold War

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

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

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

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

The WP:BURDEN is on you to prove that sources that you want to use are reliable, not for other editors to prove otherwise. This article is an overview of WWII, not the Cold War, so it probably isn't the best place to try and include your pet theory anyway. Even if it is accepted, it is very unlikely to get more than a sentence. (Hohum @) 18:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. This is a high level overview of World War II, and certainly not the place to push fringe theories on the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are evading the issue by voicing opinion instead of fact. My postings are not to "push" any theories but to insist that the rules of WP:FRINGE be properly adhered to. WP:FRINGE was evoked in the first place by military history task force member Binksternet on this WW2 talk page, and I assume he knows what he's doing, which is why this "discussion" for the sake of continuity remains on this page. I assume also that the military history task forcers are the same for both WW2 and the CW. I hope to avoid complicating or obscuring matters by now having to move or duplicate the discussion to CW talk page. I also hope to avoid declaring a full-blown dispute, which may be my next logical move. A further logical move would be to invite the authors of WP:FRINGE to elaborate their rules. As already stated twice above, WP:FRINGE, rules that all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article for consistency with NPOV. Communicat (talk) 12:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
The issue isn't being evaded, it's being responded to head on. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU, and wildly misinterpreting WP:FRINGE. Please do go and ask for clarification. (Hohum @) 15:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
At the article Long War (20th century), the idea that the Cold War started within WWII is completely and totally subsumed by the assertion that all the great power wars of the 20th century are basically the same one, extended. The concept that the last century held one long war is not brought up in this WWII overview article, nor does it appear at Cold War, and I think that is appropriate. The proper place to put Winer-et-al's fringe theory is in other articles, ones such as Aftermath of World War II or Effects of World War II (the two possibly merged.) Another possibility is to create a new article about it, like the Long War editors did. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful response, (It makes a change from the gibberish that HoHum keeps posting). My own inclination for appropriate placement, and for reasons not yet elaborated, was more in the direction of "WWII in Contemporary Culture" article. That was where I did originally place the external link to Between the Lies some time ago, which someone then promptly deleted without discussion. My preference for placement in the WW2 article of what you describe as "Winer-et-al's fringe theory", is also based on three factors: (1) The WW2 overview article, in the right-hand panel of the top-page, attributes the "Beginning of the Cold War" to the Allied victory, which "Winer-et-al's minority position contradicts. (2) In the 3rd paragraph of the top-page there is the unsourced claim that WW2 "set the stage for the Cold War", which Winer-et-al's minority position similarly contradicts. (3)WP:FRINGE rules that, for consistency with NPOV, all majority and significant-minority (i.e. "fringe") positions be included in an article (parity of sources).
Various editors including yourself have variously tried to rubbish Between the Lies as "unreliable", "unverifiable", "flawed", "self-published", etc, etc. In view of those dismissive remarks, and to make a point (since the "Burden of proof" of reliability etc evidently rests on me), I submit the following: In recent correspondence between myself and the author and the publisher in question, I've established that Winer's Between the Lies was not self-published. It was published by an independent publisher, Southern Universities Press. Independant publishers are by definition publishers that are outside the mainstream commercial publishing industry, in so far as commercial mainstream publishers employing their own editors etc are profit-driven (they publish essentially books that sell); whereas independant publishers are not profit-driven, their print runs are small, and editing is usually outsourced to specialist freelance editors in their respective fields of expertise. From a quick review of the WW2 overview article's reference sources, I've identified no less than 28 citations to independently published works, (and at least two self-published works, including one item published by an obscure outfit calling itself The Kurdish National Congress of North America). This suggests that double standards are being applied, i.e. it's okay cite independently published / self-published sources in some instances, but not in others, such as myself. (I have also noted at least 15 citations to tertiary sources, which seems rather strange, given that wikipedia is itself a tertiary source citing other tertiary sources).The allegation that Winer's book is not cited in other works, proves nothing. Not all books have been digitised, and digital citation figures apply only to digitised works. I rest my case, for the moment. Communicat (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Please respect WP:CIVIL. Your explanation of Southern Universities Press is dubious at best. There is nothing to suggest they are reliable, or that Winer is. Have you got clarification of WP:FRINGE? (Hohum @) 02:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed, Winer's book Between the Lies and the proposed external link to it are no longer the key issues here. What is at issue (see new section head) is the WW2 origin of the Cold War. You are exhibiting WP:ICANTHEARYOU. As regards WP:FRINGE, I don't need any "clarification". WP:FRINGE makes quite clear the distinction between unreliable fringe theory and substantiated significant-minority position, namely my position, from which I'm not surrendering. If or when necessary, I'll invite opinion from authors of WP:FRINGE as to resolving the merits or otherwise of this ongoing dispute.
As regards civility, discussion pages are intended to improve an article. They are not supposed to be a forum for flippancy about horses eating coal, or for incoherent remarks such as yours at Section "Flawed overview? -- Battle of Britain", below. Communicat (talk) 12:42, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
The "flippancy" about horses eating coal followed your apparently premature announcement that you were done with this discussion, where you alluded to the other editors here being horses led to but not drinking [your] water. The civility has been thin on both sides. Binksternet (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
When I claimed I was done with this "discussion", I meant I was done with discussing it under the section head "Link to www.truth-hertz.net] ". I then started this present "discussion" section headed "WW2 origins of CW", because the discussed issues had evolved into a rather more complex and multi-faceted scenario. This was largely as a result of your disparagement of the relevant source's "wild-eyed" conclusion that the roots of the Cold War are embedded in WW2, and which I have since shown to be a majority position in the former Soviet Union and a currently significant-minority position among a substantial number of published Western historians and researchers. And as a significant-minority position, it merits serious consideration in terms of NPOV / WP:FRINGE rules as already cited but not yet (if ever) resolved satisfactorily through reasoned discussion. You might have noted my use of the word "discussion" in parenthesis, this because of the very limited number of actual participants, and because "discussants" such as HoHum indulge in provocative criticisms that are not supported constructively by concrete fact or citation. Not forgetting Nick-D who seems fond of passing terse and dismissive one-line judgments that are either similarly unsupported and/or just plain erroneous. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Communicat, your posts are tl;dr and unclear. Can you please summarize in a line or two what you want changed? I can't tell exactly what you have a problem with here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and removed all the tags..as its seems there is no need for them since there is no references to back any claims made and most believe only small changes might be needed .Moxy (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Most of my claims have been backed by references. Granted though, my epic gripe has by now become so filled with multiple issues under various section heads that I can't honestly blame anyone at this point for not being able to see the wood for trees. To save everyone the time and trouble of reading the whole damn thing, I'll just say it's not "only small changes" that are at issue. There are of course some relatively minor syntax, grammatical and factual edits needed, but the main proposed changes are significant ones, hence my efforts at achieving consensus via discussion as per wiki rules. To keep it simple:
(1) Entire para 3 needs reworking / correcting and parity sourcing, while retaining brevity.
(2) A minor but significant external link is proposed to a Selective WW2 bibliography regardless of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the actual thesis of the CC-licensed online book from which the bibliography is lifted. It's the accurate, concise and objective Bibliography that matters here, not the subjective thesis (which thesis has given rise to some editors' disapproval, and so it won't be cited, unless others want it to be). Communicat (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no a thing as a minor external link in an article like this. Either a source is reliable, or it is not. If it is we use it as a source, and no external link would be needed, if it is not reliable it is (by definition) not significant ad whatever content would be as useful as that of a Biggles novel. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Subordinate" countries in the infobox

I propose we remove all countries that were not completely independent from the infobox, since its getting rather crowded.

  • On the Axis side that would mean removing the puppet states
    • Thailand
    • Manchukuo
    • Slovakia
    • Independent State of Croatia
  • On the Allied side we'd be representing the countries of the British Empire with the British infobox entry (also possibly adding a note clearly stating that Empire troops were involved). This would mean
    • South Africa
    • New Zeeland
    • Australia
    • Canada

I think it would be a good idea to de-clutter the infobox and leave the independent combatants only. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 13:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree decluttering the infobox would be a good thing. I think we should do it slightly different though. My suggestion would be to leave Canada in (as Canadian armies played their own role from D-day onwards).
I agree with all your other deletions, but would suggest to take out additional countries that were rapidly overrun (Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Norway, and Poland) and played no major military role in the conflict on the allied side.
Also Vichy France was officially neutral, but de fact a puppet state of the Germans, and not an axis state, so I would remove them as well. (and perhaps rename France in the allies list to Free French). Arnoutf (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Canada. I thought of that myself, the problem is that the status of Canada was equal to that of Australia, NZ, etc. If we de-clutter the infobox based on level of independence it would seem like "preferential treatment", if you will. I wouldn't seriously mind but from an Australian standpoint, for example, that might seem inappropriate. I think it would be best to treat the Empire countries equally whatever the case.
  • Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands perhaps may grudgingly go based on their brief "Denmark-like" overwhelming. However I do not strongly support the notion, I would merely add "(1940)" to their entries instead of "(1940-1945)". "(1940-1945)" seems rather like wishful thinking.
As for the rest, their inclusion and the length of involvement within the conflict should be imho determined by the strength of the resistance. For example, if we have resistance à la France (minor acts of sabotage/reconnaissance) then no, however if its à la Yougoslavie (military formations numbering in the thousands holding territory and fighting full-scale battles), then yes.
  • Poland certainly warrants inclusion I should say, under any criteria. However, it may be a good idea to add "(1939)" to its entry. Poles in Polish unis within foreign armies such as the (Royal or Red one) certainly do not somehow "prolong" the fight of Poland as a separate combatant authority. However, since I am unfamiliar with the extent of Polish 1940-1945 resistance within Poland itself, I cannot say whether "(1939)" should be added. I cannot agree to its removal from the infobox, though.
  • Greece. To my knowledge the Greek resistance, though plagued with internal conflicts, was still a relatively effective military-style partisan force. If its anything like the Yugoslav Front, I would not move Greece (nor add a note stating that Greece fought only in 1941).
  • France. The problem with renaming the French entry into "Free French" is that France itself fought the Germans in 1940, and then remained neutral 1940-1944 ("Vichy France"). Its a touchy question. Here's what we probably should do, if we really went by the book:
    "Allies:  France (1940)<br /> Free France (1940-1945)",
    and we should of course strike any further mention of (Vichy) France from the Axis column. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree we should remove some countries from the infobox, but it should be the countries like Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway. Australia and (especially) Canada contributed enough to warrant their flags in the infobox. From the standpoint of someone who is interested in WWII (and also a Canadian, I will admit), I can't agree with the flag of one of the three countries that landed at Normandy not being included in the infobox, not to mention the other important roles Canada played in things like the Atlantic and the liberation of the Netherlands. --PlasmaTwa2 23:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Canada was part of the British Empire, I see no reason why it cannot be included in the British entry. Why is then the New Zealand entry to be excluded? No, there is really no reason to list all Empire dominions that took part. India contributed to the victory with very significant numbers of troops just for example.
Also, Overlord itself (with perhaps the exception of Omaha) is vastly overrated in the public mind. Juno Beach in particular was just a standard walkover with Canadians outnumbering Germans 3:1 +air support +naval artillery - the Germans just surrendered. In addition, from a strictly professional historic viewpoint, Canadian units were probably the worst troops in the Allied ranks throughout the entire Normandy Campaign, performing very poorly on the whole (the Falaise Gap comes to mind). Participation in a simple, brief conflict such as Juno is not really something to base infobox inclusion on.
In short, I'm strongly in favor of including British Empire dominions in the British entry, with a note listing the dominions contributing military forces example. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 00:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If we are going to consolidate every British Empire country into one entry, it makes sense to do it like it is in the WWI article and include the United Kingdom as a member of the British Empire. The UK cannot be included in the infobox with every other British Empire country as a footnote to it. That signifies that the Dominions were under direct control of Britain, which isn't true. Each Dominion declared war by themselves and were considered on equal footing to the UK following the Statute of Westminister (At least Canada and Australia since they both ratified it during the War). The UK didn't lead Canada and Australia into the war by holding their hand, so it makes no sense to put them as a footnote next to the UK. As for New Zealand, I don't think it is questionable that, in miltary terms, Canada and Australia were much more important to the war than New Zealand was. --PlasmaTwa2 03:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
And as for India, I'm fairly positive that the consensus years ago (explaining why it has never been in the infobox to my knowledge) is that it was politically controlled by Britain itself; the same as Newfoundland. Canada had control of it's own foreign policy and was de facto independant. --PlasmaTwa2 04:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's a thought. Let's leave it alone. Why remove or add anything? Removing Belgium? Give me a break! See Battle of Belgium, it a GA! Belgium, Holland, Norway and yes Canada/Australia deserve to be included....--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 04:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Canada was part of the British Empire, I see no reason why it cannot be included in the British entry. Why is then the New Zealand entry to be excluded?" Canada was not a part of British Empire (unlike India or Newfoundland). It was a dominion, which declared and conducted a war separately.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of Canada's status as a dominion, but to my knowledge dominions are part of the British Empire? The Commonwealth includes Canada, Australia, etc., and it was formed out of the countries of the British Empire. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 11:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but according to Statute of Westminster 1931 the dominions (by contrast to colonies) became fully independent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I am not questioning Canada's or Australia's or New Zeeland's independence, of course not, what I'm saying is that we might consider including them in the British entry along with the other countries of the British Empire? The " United Kingdom" entry as it stands now does certainly not include only the United Kingdom itself, but also other countries of the Empire. The only goal here is to make the infobox more elegant in representing the combatants, and I thought this might be a good way to introduce brevity into the account. I'm not going to press the issue, though, I do know full well that Canada in particular contributed large numbers to the war effort.
My point is that in grand strategic terms of WWII the British Empire represents one homogeneous entity, an "alliance within an alliance" if you will, and that representing it as such within the British entry may be a good way to shorten the account (5 entries -> 1 entry). I am not (pro-)British and I certainly have nothing against Canada (who does? :), I'm just throwing a proposal on the table. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The infobox is not necessarily about countries per se but about Belligerents viz., combatants, that being so, the infobox might therefore also include the standards (flags) of the Peoples Liberation Army of China, the Yugoslav partisans, the Korean liberation force, and the Vietminh. Communicat (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
The idea is to declutter the infobox, not to add more. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought the idea was to be accurate and objective. The entire article could do with some decluttering. Communicat (talk) 17:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
If we want to be fully accurate we should mention every single country involved, which would include (among many others) Luxembourg and Denmark. We have to find a line between being complete but becoming bogged down in details and excluding too much. I think (and I am Dutch), that the Netherlands can go so can Belgium as this battle of 18 days was of no major influence on the war. France itself was also easily overrun, but perhaps we can keep that as it was one of the great powers. Arnoutf (talk) 18:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm 100% against removing Belgium or the Netherlands. They are mentioned a lot in the article and not having them in the infobox would make readers wonder.....--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 18:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I don't like the idea much either. My proposal was to remove the four Axis puppets and to reorganize the four British Empire dominions into the British entry.
I do, however, think that Belgium and the Netherlands (and Norway, if it stays) need to have the "(1940)" note included in their entries. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
As it has been pointed out, countries like Canada and Australia were not a part of the British Empire unlike for example India and large parts of Africa and were independent countries. Even though I understand the need to perhaps cleanup the infobox I think this would be misleading, as it is incorrect. It's harder to justify countries like Iraq who participated for around one month with little casualties and with little to no impact on the war. Also, in what way can Petain be described as a major Axis leader? If we are trying to remove puppet countries to make the infobox shorter, why then add their leaders? Besides, Vichy was legally neutral for most of their short existence. --Nirvana77 (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree that Petain should probably be removed, perhaps replaced with the Bulgarian Tsar (we have Romania and Hungary). As for Iraq, why not? It was an independent state fighting on the Axis side. If we're removing puppets only I can see no reason to exclude Iraq. After all, Belgium and the Netherlands were actively fighting for a lot shorter period, etc.
While I am aware of the difference between an Imperial dominion and a colony, dominions like Canada and Australia (though undoubtedly independent) were indeed very much part of the British Empire, just as they are now part of the Commonwealth of Nations. I do not see how it is misleading to include them under that heading. The British Empire was very much an "alliance within an alliance" inside the Allies, represented and led by Great Britain (i.e. Churchill), and constituting (in the terms of WWII) a very homogeneous entity. I would like to see a source confirming the statement that Canada and Australia were somehow "not part of the British Empire", as I consider it erroneous. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 21:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I think what he meant by saying they weren't part of the Empire was that they weren't dependant on Britain like India; for example, Canada and Australia declared war themselves, instead of automatically being at war when Britain declared war on Germany. The problem I have with putting Empire countries as a footnote next to Britain is that it gives the impression that they were not independant forces in their own right. Whether or not Britain led the Empire is irrelevant - they were equal members of the Empire and giving precidence to Britain makes no sense when none of the countries you want to place as a footnote were under British control. There are a lot of people who might be offended if the article suggests that an independant country was subservant to another, myself included. If every country was a member of the British Empire, then every country can be listed under the name "British Empire". Labelling these countries as subordinate is as false as saying they weren't members at all. And another thing; please don't edit the template. There is no kind of consensus here yet to change it. --PlasmaTwa2 06:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
So in other words, Canada was a part of the British Empire. For the seventh time, independence has nothing to do with my argument here. I am very well versed in WWII history, if I do say so myself, and am fully aware of the level of independence Empire dominions enjoyed. My argument is that in grand strategic terms of WWII the British Empire represents one homogeneous entity, an "alliance within an alliance" if you will, and that representing it as such within the British entry may be a good way to shorten the account (5 entries -> 1 entry). --DIREKTOR (TALK) 09:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Can you please identify the sources you're using support your view that the self-governing dominions were entirely subordinate to Britain in foreign affairs and defence matters? I can't say that I care much either way, but this does need some justification. It's certainly the case that the self-governing dominions subordinated their defence and foreign policies to Britain in the early years of the war, but Australia largely aligned itself with the US from January 1942 and the war lead to the beginnings of independent Australian defence and foreign policies. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
"Self-governing dominions were entirely subordinate to Britain in foreign affairs and defence matters"?, they were not and I made no such claim. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain what you mean by "My point is that in grand strategic terms of WWII the British Empire represents one homogeneous entity" then and the sources you've consulted which support this view? (though I note that some other sources stress disunity between the Commonwealth/Empire countries). There was significant diversity between the views and actions of the self governing dominions, though I agree that overall they normally acted together. As I said, I don't care that much one way or the other and agree that de-cluttering the infobox is long overdue, but you seem to be arguing on the basis of your personal views as you haven't provided any sources. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

With the infobox in mind I'd like to ask a question: was Siam a true puppet state or closer to an "unequal ally" of Japan, similar to the relationship between Hungary and Germany? --DIREKTOR (TALK) 22:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just it, I cannot find any clear description of Siam's status. It was undoubtedly in an unequal relationship with Japan, but so were Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria with respect to Germany and they were not puppets. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 12:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
My understanding is that Thailand (as the country was named at the time) was independent but under Japanese dominiation. I'll check my copy of the Oxford Companion to World War II when I get home - it should have an article on the country. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you can see how the case is somewhat borderline, "independent but under Japanese dominiation" :). Look forward to clarifying this. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 23:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The Oxford Companion to World War II entry on Thailand states that, in essence, the country was aligned with Japan after the first few days of the Pacific War, but remained an independent country. Its armed forces briefly resisted the Japanese invasion and then played a minor role in the Japanese invasion of Burma in early 1942 but didn't see any further combat. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to www.truth-hertz.net

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

The link looks unsuitable to me. It appears to be a self-published website, and there's no need to give prominence to a single book, particularly in such a high-level article as this one. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I just answered this same post at Talk:Strategic bombing during World War II#Link to www.truth-hertz.net, where I noted that the book, the author and the web link are all dismissed by the guideline at WP:FRINGE. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
To answer Nick-D: Appearances can be deceptive. Why not assume good faith? Alternatively, why not verify whether or not it's a self-published site by contacting the publisher Southern University Press via the contact link provided at the site in question?
To answer Binksternet: I think you should be referring to WP:EL and not WP:FRINGE as you've done. This discussion was meant to be about an external link, not an article, which is the function of WP:FRINGE. But since you've raised WP:FRINGE, I'm okay with broadening the discussion. Interestingly, WP:FRINGE with regard to real or perceived fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / other (call it what you like) positions, states: NPOV requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article. Why is it that content of the main WW2 article and all its related sub-articles deal exclusively with majority i.e. Western positions? (Strikes me as a major flaw in an otherwise excellent and high-level article). WP:FRINGE also rules that In general, Wikipedia should always give prominence to established lines of research found in reliable sources and present neutral descriptions of other claims with respect to their historical ... prominence. And: ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. So, it follows that the existing WW2 article and sub-articles seem to have a serious NPOV problem in so far as they exclude all reference to "other"-type positions which deviate from those of dominant majority-position type editors. But to return to the question of reliable sources, WP:FRINGE further rules that "reliable sources on Wikipedia include ... books published by university presses (and)published by respected publishing houses. The download-linked book in question and under discussion is published by Southern Universities Press, London. Enough said.
By the way, it might be worth bearing in mind that today's "fringe" position can sometimes become tomorrow's majority position. Take the Battle of Britain for instance, which was once described by mainstream historians and others as "a heroic victory of the few against the many", when in fact, as latter-day historians have now established beyond doubt, RAF fighters at the time of that battle vastly outnumbered those available to the Luftwaffe (Sources available on request). It might also be worth bearing in mind that what is seen as a fringe / minority / "other"-type position in the West can also be a consensual mainstream / majority position outside of the Western cultural and political sphere of influence, i.e. in socialist countries. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I am unable to determine who is behind Southern Universities Press in London. They appear to me to have published a handful of scholarly psychology texts, and Winer's book, but nothing else that I can find. They are not very prolific. Certainly, the press has not published any WWII histories, or any other histories, so I do not see their ability to properly manage a work such as Winer's. I wonder if the press has been compromised.
Here's a flavor of the wild-eyed prose in the book: "Many historians and ideological managers of Western society—teachers, journalists and the like—would in future years attribute the commencement of the political Cold War between East and West to the Berlin blockade of 1947. They are all wrong, though the myth survives to this day. The fact is, the origins of the Cold War are firmly embedded in World War II, when Churchill and his elite cabal secretly waged a shadow war against communism under the guise of fighting the Nazis and 'helping' the Soviet Union."
Winer gets many of his facts and figures wrong, and draws conclusions that are flawed. In other scholarly works, Winer is not cited at all; a poor indication of his reputation among other historians and scholars. I still say the book is not appropriate for this article. Binksternet (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
WP:ELNO says not to include "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting."
A quick look shows the contents massively differ from what respectable sources say, so I believe it is factually inaccurate. So, what can you provide to support Stan Winer being a respectable historian, and that book in particular being reliable? A review by a respectable body would do. (Hohum @) 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Far as I'm aware, Winer's book Between the Lies does not aspire to be a history, but rather an investigative work. As the site in question explains: "... Between the Lies, has exhumed a large body of evidence that somehow managed to escape the censors and the incinerators." Several hundred references to reliably published and impeccable sources, and an extensive bibliography are provided to support his thesis. But never mind all that for the moment. More noteworthy with regard to the editor's comments above is the dexterity with which they've managed to evade the cogent WP:FRINGE issues raised in my preceding post, which I don't have time to repeat again. Read them for yourself. The fact of the matter is that significant fringe / minority / alternative / revisionist / theories do exist, and since their existence is an indisputable fact, it should as a matter of NPOV be stated in the WW2 article or sub-articles. Apart from Winer's effort, there are many other reliable, well-researched books etc about WW2 that deviate radically from the lame, so-called "respectable" and officially endorsed accounts of grand strategy and of what happened and why. (Titles and authors available on request, in the unlikely event that you're interested). I suspect that the reason why editors such as yourselves prefer to pretend such works don't exist, or to simplistically dismiss them as "propaganda" is because recognition of those works would mean a whole lot of extra work to remedy the omissions and correct the "NPOV" of the existing WW2 and related articles. Trying to engage constructively with editors of that ilk is an excercise in futility. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. This discussion in now closed from my end. Communicat (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
On the contrary, the sources used appear far from impeccable, and the conclusions deviate so far from those of high quality sources that it is misleading and factually inaccurate, so per WP:ELNO it's not suitable. I haven't called it propaganda or pretended it doesn't exist, I have just pointed out its flaws, and the lack of credibility of the publisher - which you either ignore, embrace, or even seem to think of as benefits.
Cogent and fringe are mutually exclusive, by definition.
You can try and feed a horse with coal, but it's unlikely to eat any. (Hohum @) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Your pedantry does not merit a thoughtful response. Communicat (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
There was a Southern Universities Press in the US during the 1950s and 1960s, but it appears to have no relation whatsoever to the self-publishing endeavor that they've used. It sounds authoritative and intellectual, which is generally a dead give-away that it's not. Interestingly, the Hera Trust is ALSO located at 12 McLeod Court, London SE22 8NS. (try putting London SE22 8NS, United Kingdom into Google maps and you'll see the set of apartment buildings that exist in SE22 8NS, behind "The Grove Tavern", the reference to McLeod Court can be found using this street-name reference. Sure seems like a generic self-publishing location to me. Bad news, Stan. If you're the only one who believes your stuff, it's likely you're wrong, not smarter than everyone else in the world. --Habap (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
You may be right about self-publishing, but I do not know if this is related to the "Hera Trust". The link you provided connects the Hera Trust to Cristina Odone, who's husband hardly shares any of the POV of Stan Winer, even if both of them maybe fringe and conspiracy theorists. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I suspect that it is the same business that published both works and that they just use different names for different works. Further research reveals that McLeod Court is the name of the building and that "12" is the number of the flat in which this publishing house operates. So, apparently not a long-lived, reputable publisher, nor one that engages in rigorous peer-review. (Binkster, the psychology texts were published by the US-based SUP in the 1950s and 1960s, they only share the name, not their history.) --Habap (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Are you people trying to get Wiki Foundation sued by Stan Winer and/or Southern Universities Press for libel/defamation? (Wiki Foundation possibly has lots of money to pay compensation settlement for damages). I've already deleted the defamatory remarks once, and am not interested in editing wars, so I'll let it remain, and Wiki Foundation can ban the above users and pay damages to whoever may want to litigate. You have the address, so why don;t you contact the publisher direct to get his/her side of the story before shooting your mouth off? There's also an email link at the website in question.
And no, my name is not Stan Winer, nor is independent publishing the same as self-publishing (i.e. vanity publishing), and nor have you addressed the issue raised of double-standards as regards the numerous other independent publishers (27 of them) cited in the WW2 article notations, including at least one memoir which is supposed to be disallowed by wiki rules. Get real. Communicat (talk) 12:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: I thought this was a deadhorse issue and had already moved on to more interesting things. Since some editors and an administrator are keen to revive the issue as they've done, I;ll wait a few more days and if it's not resolved thoughtfully and convincingly by then, especially the issue of double-standard notation, I'll request mediation or arbitration together with multiple other unresolved matters in different sections below. Communicat (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
You can hardly bring this to arbcom over a few sources and wordings in an article like this. Good luck trying to get them to hear this case. You never tried any other mediation. Furthermore, you cannot bring in 10-15 other people here who are disagreeing with you into an arbcom case. You'd have to bring in everyone who had a hand in the GAN and possibly the reviewer.--White Shadows Nobody said it was easy 16:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
He's free to try arbcom, although it does seem inappropriate. The issue about the publisher is about reliability of the book. This "independent" publisher doesn't seem to have any reputation with historical works, not does the author, he isn't cited widely (or much at all), and peer review is lacking, nor were any forthcoming on request. WP:LEGAL may be of interest to involved parties. (Hohum @) 18:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that stating that it "seems like a generic self-publishing location" was defamatory. Please let me know what laws we would be violation of and in which court you think they could be tried. You stated that

The book, which remedies some prevailing historical myths about WW2, was published by a reputable academic publisher. So it was presumably subjected to academic peer review prior to publication

The location and low output of the publisher argues against your statement that it is a "reputable academic publisher". From what I have seen so far, I have doubts that there is any academic peer review (it is common for peer reviewers to be quoted in praise of the work on the back cover. Anyone ever seen the back cover? Comunicat, if you have an image of that, submit it to Amazon. (I suspect the reviewer, William Stiner, is actually Stan Winer, but that's just me....) Sadly, Amazon has no copies of the book to sell.
My reference to "Stan" was not directed at you. It was directed at Stan Winer in case he ever reads this page. If your first name is also Stan, my apologies for lumping you together. --Habap (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Also, it might be prudent to review Wikipedia:LAWSUIT#Perceived legal threats in reference to my comments being "defamatory". --Habap (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and unfortunately, I think you are woefully incorrect about "Wiki Foundation possibly has lots of money to pay compensation settlement for damages". It would be like getting blood from a turnip. --Habap (talk) 20:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I've exchanged emails with the publisher and I think we can feel pretty well-insulated from any complaints from him. Nice fellow, but he did swrite that he doesn't consider it a publishing business. --Habap (talk) 13:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Reply to all the above: I have my view, you have yours. Mine differs substantially from yours. Important POV, sourcing, and other issues are at stake. They have already been identified and detailed by me, and they remain unresolved and/or evaded by all the editors concerned. The key issues will be repeated and detailed comprehensively by me in my request for mediation in accordance with all the appropriate wiki procedural rules, which some of you appear to have misinterpreted and/or misrepresented.
To user Habap above: If your argument is weak, don't try to embellish it with lies. Refer to relevant Amazon page where you will see that, contrary to your false assertion, the 2nd edition of the book Between the Lies is readily available in both new and 2nd hand copies. Further, the "reviewer William Stiner" whom you incorrectly name is actually one William Steiner, apart from other falsities that you have conjured up. Brevity prevents me from detailing them all at this time and place.
To give some background of my original good-faith intention: I submitted the external link to wiki milhist article because, in my view, the link seemed a useful public domain resource -- fully a third of the work consists of citations and annotations citing an impressive array of reliable sources. The online 1st online edition of the book first appeared in 2004 on the wellknown political site www.coldtype.net where I first came across it. In subsequent correspondence with the respected editor of that site, I learned that the online version has been downloaded nearly two million times, without any complaint or negative criticism being generated. Since then, numerous other sites around the world, such as Scribd, and also a Chinese translation of the work, have made pirated copies available. In short, the work has received a very wide readership from an international community of interest, with no attendant furore that I'm aware of, (apart from some reactionary wiki editors). Communicat (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
PS: Having now taken trouble to find the book at my local library, and to answer Hohum's appeal of 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC) somewhere above, "... what can you provide to support ... that book in particular being reliable? A review by a respectable body would do: The back cover (2nd edn) presents some favourable print-media review excerpts including one from Rhodes University in South Africa. Same review is quoted at truth-hertz.net website for your ease of reference. Communicat (talk) 18:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
When checking the relevant amazon page supplied by you[1] I have to conclude that the book is not readily available at all. The "new" book seller is Pro Bono books which is new seller on Amazon (with 0 transactions) and has only 6 google hits none of which is its homepage[2]; which probably makes it unlikely that this bookseller is truly in business. The 'used' seller (quartermelon) states in their offer that are not in fact shipping a used version of the book published by SUP, but will print the book on demand for you[3].
In other words the claims made in your text "where you will see that, contrary to your false assertion, the 2nd edition of the book Between the Lies is readily available in both new and 2nd hand copies." are not true. Perhaps a more modest tone rather than accusing other editors of false assertions would be in place, especially when you are presenting an argument that does not fit the facts. BTW Amazon.com (US) lists one bookseller that claims to sell it[4] Arnoutf (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd love to see an image of that back cover. Could you take a photo? Or better yet, let me know which library it is and I'll ask the\ librarian to do it for me. Any idea when the reviews were published? --Habap (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way, Rhodes Journalism Review appears to be a student-published journal. All of the issues appear to be online in PDF. I only glanced, but I'm not sure where they publish their book reviews. I'll investigte further later. --Habap (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the whole discussion is flawed. I personally think that any edit of this article should be made based on a number of sources to confirm that these edits reflect majority or significant minority views. That is especially the case for the book we discuss, because, according to Communicat, this book "remedies some prevailing historical myths about WW2" (i.e. is a revisionist book). I think all revisionist writings should be excluded from this summary style article, unless it has been demonstrated that these revisionist writings reflect a significant minority views. The latter fact could be proven, e.g., by providing several (at least 3-4) reviews on this book written by professional scholars, which are published in some peer-reviewed journals, or by giving references on some historical articles which cite this book. Unfortunately, I was unable to find even a single such a proof so far (in jstor and google scholar databeses). In my opinion, Communicate should use his energy for searching this proof, because the burden of evidence rests with him. It would be good to have such an evidence, because some Winter's points look valid, however, I don't think we can speak about usage of this book in this particular article as a source until the evidences of its acceptance and notability have been provided.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said. Binksternet (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
This section / topic, because it was resurrected by some editors at such a late stage, and because of current page length, is probably in imminent danger of being moved to the archives. So, first things first: can the relevant administrator or whoever does these things, please ensure that this section is not archived before I reply in proportionate length to the recent postings above? If not, should I copy and paste everything in its cohesive form to the bottom of this existing page? Communicat (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I found the Guardian review. The quotation is the only flattering line in the review.

Governments bending the truth and misleading the populace to pursue their own cryptic geopolitical agendas - it didn't start yesterday. Winer studies a long 20th century, from 1898 to the present, of propaganda, deliberate provocation and undeclared hostility, during wartime and the "peacetime" of global proxy wars. There is much that is interesting here on official psychological strategies and the herdlike collaboration of journalists. There is also much that is on the extreme edge of revisionism, such as the peculiar notion that Churchill (referred to with repeated sneers in phrases such as "Churchill and his cronies") deliberately prolonged the second world war. Winer tends to subscribe to the we-can-do-no-right school of parapolitical study, so he also derides any sort of "humanitarian intervention", such as that which eventually halted genocide (he calls it a "civil war") in former Yugoslavia. It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name. A noticeable recurring flaw in this style of argument is to criticise any action as immoral if it has undesirable consequences, without ever trying to weigh the likely consequences of inaction.

I was especially amused by "It's this sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name." --Habap (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The review in the Morning Star is far more accurately portrayed by the quotation provided "If this unnervingly convincing analysis is correct, beware hydra-headed fascism." That paper was originally the product of the Communist Party of Great Britain and now says that the programme of the Communist Party of Britain underlies the paper's editorial stance. --Habap (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, the latter fact is not too convincing: the fact that X is supported by Y, who is known to be a villain, tells nothing about X. The problem with Winer is that he is superficial: he considers just one hypothesis and devotes almost no attention to alternative explanations, various pro et contra, etc. Despite the number of good sources and correct facts, the book resembles more a propaganda article, rather than real history study. I found only one review on this book written by a scholar and published in a peer-reviewed journal (Tiffen, R. Stan Winer Between the Lies: Rise of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex; John Pilger (ed.) Tell Me No Lies: Investigative Journalism and its Triumphs. Australian journal of international affairs, 2005, v. 59, p. 563) which comes to the same conclusion:
"So this book fails to achieve either of two worthwhile aims: none of its cases are explored in sufficient depth to break new ground in a compelling and original way, so even on those few topics where the book has promising things to say (e.g. on British Strategic Air Command being out of control in World War II), the topic is passed over too quickly. But neither do the great array of cases that it touches upon form any coherent pattern, so that there is no sense in which each part is contributing to a greater sum."
In any event, unless the examples of the opposite have been provided, this book should be considered as an example of not too carefully done revisionist study, which is not supported so far by other scholars. Nevertheless, although Winer's major hypothesis has not been confirmed so far, the facts and sources he cites are correct and reliable.--Paul Siebert (talk)
The reason to examine the source of the reviews is that Comunicat asserts reliability based on "The back cover (2nd edn) presents some favourable print-media review excerpts including one from Rhodes University in South Africa." Since the two favorable reviews are not peer-reviews by historians and the third review is actually unfavorable, the reliability of the book comes back into question. --Habap (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I also found the RJR review. Slightly different wording is used in the quote than in the review, but not substantively different. I was mistaken in believing it was student-published. Their website clarifies that it is edited by a senior lecturer in their Journalism department. at truth-hertz:

Paints a picture of the shameless symbiosis between capitalists - some selling information for profit, others selling weapons for profit and all depending on implicit approval of a fearful, angry or confused population.

in RJR:

But then again, perhaps because he was painting a picture of this beast called propaganda, he needed to show that the Bush phenomenon is not new, but is rooted in the shameless symbiosis between capitalists – some selling information for profit, others selling weapons for profit and all depending on implicit approval of a fearful, angry or confused population.

The review spends a lot of time talking about the Iraq war and not much about the book, but it is a favorable review. Note that it is reviewed in a journalism periodical and not by historians. --Habap (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless altogether I think we now can conclusively decide that this is a source of at best dubious reliability and should not be used. Since there are many 1000's of books and articles on WWII, lets move on and close this chapter. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
To reply briefly to some of the above, not necessarily in their chronological order or scale of perceived importance, and to add some comments of my own:
(1) To arnouft: the "link" you claim was provided above by me is not same the link that I provided. It is some kind or redirect link. I don't know what you're playing at. The correct link, which I gave you in the first place is repeated
here again
In any event, even the redirect link to Pro Bono which you misrepresent, states clearly that the book is "in stock". The correct link to relevant amazon page says the same: "In Stock. Four days delivery." Only the 1st edn hardback is stated as being "out of stock". Habap similarly claims falsely: "Sadly, Amazon has no copies of the book to sell." What the two of you are trying to prove? That the book doesn't exist, and/or nobody thinks it's worth selling? From the tone and content of your arguments, I suspect you're simply trying to destroy my credibility, and to some degree or another, much the same applies to most of what has been said by other editors under this topic. Could this have anything to do with matters concerning some of my ongoing postings in other talk sections on this page? If not, then why did you resurrect this topic after it had already been closed for several weeks? You and others have made it very difficult for me to accept any good-faith intentions on your part.
(2) It may be recalled that, contrary to what others may claim, I have not made any attempt whatsoever to cite the book in question as a source for anything in the WW2 article. I first submitted it as an external link to the World War II in contemporary culture article, which I considered to be perhaps the most appropriate article relative to the public domain on-line book's sociological/cultural subject matter. When that link was promptly deleted, and because the book contains a lot of other unique material related to WW2 military strategy and tactics among other things, I then externally linked the www.truth-hertz.net site to the WW2 overview article, with similar lack of success.
(3) As for the independent publisher Southern University Press (SUP) which I happen to know is headed by veteran sociology / cultural studies Prof. G. Dench, who edited and published the hardcopy version of the work in question, and which publisher is certainly not in the self-publishing i.e. vanity publishing business (where clients pay publishers to publish their work): In recent correspondence with Prof. Dench, he describes SUP's rationale thus:
"Free speech and debate are important, something which publishers (and universities) in former times used to recognise as their duty to promote. But that was then. So I help provide an alternative to authors who have difficulty in having their work published by mainstream publishers. That was the case with Between the Lies, which is a study in the sociology of mass communications relative to how the Second World War and Cold War are usually portrayed in the academic and other mass media."
(4) Rhodes Journalism Review, which provided a favourable review of the work in question, is published by the department of communications studies at Rhodes University. It is Africa's leading academic institution specifically in the fields of conflict studies and communications studies. The Review is edited by a professor of communications studies. The book in question was authored by a veteran journalist with experience as a war correspondent, so he probably knows a few things about military matters.
(5) Revisionism: is an established historiographic, academic, analytical paradigm. So why these efforts to disparage it? Beats me. Said disparagement reflects general POV bias, which is inappropriate for any astute and objective wiki editor. There are rightwing revisionists, centrist revisionists, and left-leaning revisionists and revisionists of every shade of opinion in their private or public lives, but revisionism has nothing to do with individual political bias or ideology. It is an analytical position, that's all it is. There is no wiki NPOV policy to disqualify a source on the simplistic basis of "revisionism".
(6) Paul above observes: The problem with Winer is that he is superficial: he considers just one hypothesis and devotes almost no attention to alternative explanations. True. This is probably because, as Winer states somewhere in the Introduction to the hardcopy edition, all the mainstream viz., so-called "alternative" explanations as referred to by Paul, have already been provided over and over again ad nauseam by mainstream academic historians who themselves have ignored alternative i.e. Western revisionist and non-Western accounts. Paul further states: Winer's major hypothesis has not been confirmed so far, (but), the facts and sources he cites are correct and reliable. Winer's hypothesis might not have been confirmed so far, but neither has it been disproved.
(7) One editor in this discussion has already declared without my concurrence and on behalf of other involved editors "we can now conclusively decide that this (meaning Between the Lies), is a source of at best dubious reliability and should not be used." In other words, further discussion is pointless, even though it has evaded the real issues; and the real issues, in my submission, are as follows:
(8) The key issue according to my version of the dispute is the misapplication of wiki policy in relation to POV, double standards in sourcing, and other related matters. When it suits some active milhist editors, independently published works are acceptable for citation. When it doesn't suit them editors, independently published sources are disparaged, derogated and disallowed on the basis of a range of pretexts. Consider for instance reference no. 271 of the WW2 overview article, which reference has been allowed; then consider www.truth-hertz and/or Between the Lies, which is disallowed even before any attempt might be made by me to cite it as a source. There are other examples. Not to mention completely unreferenced (mainly pictorial) works that are cited as sources in the WW2 refs, which then become wiki secondary sources, which in turn may then be cited by others who are under the possibly mistaken impression that the sources they are citing are reliable secondary or tertiary sources, and so on, thus notionally polluting the information stream. Moreover, not a single Soviet or any other non-capitalist society source is contained in the entire list of WW2 article notations, some 334 of them in all. Even if a Soviet source is cited rarely in discussion only, it is falsely deemed inadmissable by some editors because the cited source "can't be found on the internet." In other words, "only digitised sources are allowed." Which, of course, is obstructive and sheer nonsense. Moreover, wiki rules state that opposing / controversial viewpoints must be included equally in wiki articles. Furthermore, "Consensus" as rightly defined by wiki, must not be restricted to only a handful of editors (in this case a small cabal of self-styled military historians), but can and should also take into account the wider (wiki) community.
(9) Since discussion has now been concluded (as declared by Arnouft) without my concurrence, my request for mediation will be drafted in due course and submitted accordingly to the relevant committee. If this section is archived before mediation, I'll retrieve and repost it. If a POV dispute tag is removed before mediated resolution (or arbitration if necessary), a disciplinary complaint will be lodged. Communicat (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I’d like to respond to some of these points
As to (1), the link Arnoutf provided is on the page you link. Follow your own link, then click on the words “these sellers”. You’re splitting hairs when you say it’s not the same link. In regards Amazon having none, I apologize, as I obviously must have only looked at the first edition’s non-availability. However, the fact that Pro Bono is identified by Amazon as “Just Launched” and has no feedback makes one doubt that they’ve had any sales of any books, let alone this one. As already noted, the other seller is a print-on-demand seller. My impression is that the book is one that few are interested in buying and may be obscure enough to be irrelevant.
As to (3), I also corresponded with Professor Geoff Dench and his reply to me was similar.

I don’t really have a publishing business. Where friends are having problems with mainstream publishers – which in UK is mainly to do with pressures for political correctness – then I sometimes help provide an alternative. Free speech and debate are important, and what publishers (and universities) used to recognise a duty to promote. But that was then.

To me, that first sentence is key. Also, since he’s a sociology/cultural studies expert, historical works are not his normal field. That lessens the value of having him as an editor.
As to (4), RJR is a journalism review magazine. Having accolades from journalists is not the same as having them from a panel of peer-reviewing historians.
As to (5), you are correct that the work should not be rejected just because it is considered “revisionist”. However, the fact that one of the three reviews they cite on the back cover actually derides the work as the “sort of thing that gives conspiracy theory a bad name” indicates that even left-leaning newspapers consider his work unsatisfactory.
As to (6), just because Winer's hypotheses have not been proven wrong in the mind of one editor doesn't make them true. In fact, I refer to that Guardian review (i.e. it's merely bad conspiracy theory).
As to (8)I would favor going through all of the 334 sources and removing the ones that are of equally low quality. If the 227 you refer to is Edward Kantowicz’s Coming Apart, Coming Together, (published by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company) I likely concur on removing it. It looks like it was cited for a very obvious point that I wouldn’t think would need citation and comes from an independent publisher that focusses on religious works. Saying that we should include Winer because there are equally dubious sources is not a logical argument. We should strive to remove everything that is of dubious quality.
I'm intrigued by the mediation idea. --Habap (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Re arnoutf link: No, not splitting hairs. Just giving one example of various attempts to discredit / negate my credibility through falsification and similar. If you or anyone else really wants it, I suggest buy the book direct from amazon.co.uk, not via one of its newly launched subsidiary outlets. Excellent service. Book readily available. No problem. Your stated "impression" is incorrect.
Re non-historian editor / author. History, especially military history, is much too important to be left to the "historians". Interesting discussion about this from time to time at History News Network. Consensus among more enlightened historians is that history must be multi-disciplinary.
Re RJR: It's edited by academics. My comment above re multi-disciplinarity serves likewise.
Re "conspiracy theory" as per Guardian review: It seems highly unlikely to me that any book criticising mass media, and news print media in particular, will receive any glowing reviews from the same print media that the book analyses critically, even or especially British "left-leaning" media. Same applies to most academic media, etc, etc, and maybe even wiki, which is itself of course a mass communication and information medium.
Re reference sources: No, the ref I meant is the one citing self-publisher North Amrican Kurdish Association (whatever that is). It's just one of around 27 dubious sources that I've noticed via quick review. You still seem to miss the point, however. Forget Winer's "unreliable" book for the moment. Not even one identifiably socialist / Marxist / revisionist source among more the than 300 mainstream sources listed. Read rules on parity of sourcing, opposing-controversial positions, etc, etc. Raises important NPOV policy issues.
Re mediation: Don't hold your breath. Without presuming to prejudge the outcome, and based on the tone and content of preceding discussion, my instinct is that mediation is most unlikely to succeed. Procedure demands that dispute resolution must first exhaust all other means, including discussion and mediation, before proceeding finally to arbitration. Discussion got nowhere, people still missing / evading the essential points, so mediation next, before arbitration as last resort. Communicat (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If history is far too important to be left to the historians, perhaps surgery is far too important to be left to surgeons.
The real point about the Guardian review is that it is included as praise for his book, but is actually a negative review. It makes one suspect that positive reviews by anyone were hard to come by. Otherwise, why quote from a review that labels your work as giving conspiracy theory a bad name? Neither the use of that praise nor the paraphrasing of the RJR review are good signs about the critical acclaim of this work.
OK, dump the Kurdish one as well. Keep coming up with more that are lousy and they will get removed. Find a socialist/Marxist/revisionist work that is reliable and I’d be glad to see it included. Much of my final year as an undergraduate was spent on a paper about the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Marxist theory, so I most certainly don’t reject something just because the author is a Marxist. One of my favorite recent purchases is from Ralph Ingersoll, who may well have been a Marxist himself. I think that the Kurdish one, just like Winer and Kantowicz, was included to advertise the source and it's inherent bias.
I'm certain there must be some works written by the many Soviet authors who had access to the Smolensk archives that are worth including, but I never got very far in my Russian courses (it's all gone from my head now). Don't despair. Well-researched and well-written works by authors I don't agree with will pass my review. --Habap (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You cannot buy the book directly from Amazon; you can pay through Amazon but they will send your order to the listed booksellers an mediate for you. Amazon explicitly does not guarantee excellent service for books (like this) they do not stock themselves; but will refund and handle complaints. (I have ordered books this way before through Amazon). Amazon is not the seller, the only sellers provided are the print on demand and the very new bookshop without findable own homepage. So indeed, it is splitting hairs. It does not matter much, but you provided Amazon as evidence for the book being readily available. All I did was look at your evidence and easily found that it is not as strong as you suggest. You can accuse me of what you want, but that will not give your argument any merit.
I am all for mediation; I am not sure what the dispute is; but apparently you feel that many editors (among them myself) are out here to get you. A condition for mediation would of course be that all editors (including Communicat) will agree to accept the outcome before any such effort is undertaken; especially on all issues where mediation goes against their ideas. Arnoutf (talk) 20:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Why are the two of you so obsessed with that book? The book is not at issue. The reviews are not at issue. Amazon is not at issue. SUP is not at issue. What is at issue are major and advanced policy differences. Take the time to read and comprehend the subsequent threads that evolved after the initial thread under this section heading was first discontinued, (before being suddenly and unexpectedly resurrected by Hapab et al), and you might understand exactly what IS at issue, and why it has stalemated. Or else just read the summary para.8 of my 00:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC) posting above. Or the section headed "Anti-communist prejudice", inter alia.
There is no point at this late stage for Hapab to suddenly start offering to look for marxist sources etc and revising the entire article and its references, in order to belatedly try bringing the article properly in line with policy. That is something that could take a very long time to accomplish -- especially since it will be endlessly obstructed on a range of pretexts by those who think they know it all, just as my own attempts have thus been consistently blocked. What is needed is a lucid and binding affirmation / understanding of policy, and an open undertaking by certain editors / administrators to adhere single-mindedly and objectively to policy. This will hopefully be the outcome of arbitration, which is now probably inevitable. In the meantime, Arnouft might be best advised to read the rules properly, because he clearly does not understand them.
Unless anyone has anything really ground-breaking and constructive to say, I'll not be responding any further to editors postings here. Any silence on my part should however not be taken as concurrence. 41.30.115.26 (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2010 (UTC) Communicat (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what mediation is. It is a way to resolve a problem by involving a third party in the discussion. If you do not commit yourself to the suggestions of this 3rd party before any such effort, I see no benefit whatsoever spending my time on mediation, so there cannot be mediation with me as I will not involve myself with the mediator. Oh, and if someone is obsessed with the book it is you, you alone did raise Amazon, so do not put obsession with us. Arnoutf (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

The thread appeared to re-gather interest after I reverted your deletion of another editors entry, which bore your edit comment that it was defamatory to someone, which it didn't appear to be. It seems you are more interested in this thread than anyone else, based the volume of your posting.

If this thread does get archived, which will only happen if its dormant for over 20 days, there is no reason to repost it on account of pending mediation, a diff of your last post will be enough to show that you made it, and the entire thread would be complete in the archive anyway - the entire point of an archive.

edit: If you make a "disciplinary complaint" (whatever you think that might be), in the event of a tag being removed - reflecting the general agreement of interested editors that is was spuriously placed, don't be surprised if your own behaviour is examined. (Hohum @) 01:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. Thread you refer to is closely intertwined with the contents and meaning of other related threads. I shall save in my files a definitive version of this page containing all the relevant threads, for presentation if necessary to whoever mediates / arbitrates. If mediation / arbitration is in progress, that means dispute is unresolved. Arbitrator has final say about such things, not "interested editors" such as yourself. And no, I won't be surprised if my own behaviour is examined and deemed understandable, given some of the more noteworthy provocations directed at me. 41.30.41.113 (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Communicat (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I think Hohum is referring to Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot. I would suggest you read that before seeking arbitration or similar. Arnoutf (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Who benefits from global violence and war: uncovering a destructive system". Marc Pilisuk, Jennifer Achord Rountree (2008). Greenwood Publishing Group. p.136. ISBN 0-275-99435-X
  2. ^ The New York Times, 9 February 1946, Volume 95, Number 32158.
  3. ^ Dornbusch, Rüdiger; Nölling, Wilhelm; Layard, P. Richard G (1993). Postwar Economic Reconstruction and Lessons for the East Today. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. p. 29. ISBN 0262041367.
  4. ^ Bull, Martin J.; Newell, James (2005). Italian Politics: Adjustment Under Duress. Polity. p. 20. ISBN 0745612997.
  5. ^ Bull, Martin J.; Newell, James (2005). Italian Politics: Adjustment Under Duress. Polity. p. 21. ISBN 0745612997.
  6. ^ Dornbusch, Rüdiger; Nölling, Wilhelm; Layard, P. Richard G (1993). Postwar Economic Reconstruction and Lessons for the East Today. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. p. 117. ISBN 0262041367.
  7. ^ Emadi-Coffin, Barbara (2002). Rethinking International Organization: Deregulation and Global Governance. Routledge. p. 64. ISBN 0415195403.
  8. ^ Harrop, Martin (1992). Power and Policy in Liberal Democracies. Cambridge University Press. p. 23. ISBN 0521345790.
  9. ^ Smith, Alan (1993). Russia And the World Economy: Problems of Integration. Routledge. p. 32. ISBN 0415089247.
  10. ^ Harrop, Martin (1992). Power and Policy in Liberal Democracies. Cambridge University Press. p. 49. ISBN 0521345790.
  11. ^ a b Harper, Damian (2007). China. Lonely Planet. p. 51. ISBN 1740599152.
  12. ^ Kunkel, John (2003). America's Trade Policy Towards Japan: Demanding Results. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 0415298326.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Archive_39&oldid=1136223350"