Talk:World War II/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
WW2 main leaders: priority position
I place US president Franklin D. Roosevelt in the first position of the main allied leaders in the infobox, because the proposal of the Big Four who leaded the Alliance, was his proposal, and US was the greatest military force of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inspirduser (talk • contribs) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stop edit warring. You appear to be ill-informed: the Allies did not have a leader. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I explain the reasons of the positions replacement. It is not about "a leader", but about other criteria, which I explain. Inspirduser (talk) 11:34, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe the verb "leading" about the role of the Big Four in the Alliance, was not a word which descibes the exactly situation. But, the "Big Four" countries were the strongest powers which support all the Allies. So, I believe that the leader of the strongest (during ww2) and greatest supporter allied power, who had done and the proposal of the Four, may be placed at the first position of the main Allied leaders. Inspirduser (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think leaders at the time paid a lot of attention to the protocol involved. For example when Churchill and Roosevelt got together at Quebec, the Canadian Prime Minister was the host for the meeting, and does appear in the photographs, but when the actual talks began no Canadian was allowed in the room. As for the big four summit conferences at Casablanca, Yalta, Potsdam, Roosevelt was very strongly against including France-de Gaulle, and in favor of including China-Chiang Kai-shek, for foreign-policy reasons. Of course it was more than personalities, as the decision on who would have veto powers as permanent members of the UN Security Council suggests. Perhaps an even better and more dramatic example was excluding Czechoslovakia from the Munich conference in 1938, which decided that country's sad fate. Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- ..."the leader of the strongest (during ww2) and greatest supporter allied power"... That depends on the criteria we use. That USA was a huge industrial power doesn't make them the strongest Ally. In reality, WWII was won primarily as a result of land warfare, and in that sense the role of Stalin (actually, of Soviet leadership) was more significant. In addition, the epithet "strongest" is arguably applicable to Western Allies as whole, not to USA.
- Several arguments can be proposed in favor of each of Big Three leaders (btw, the idea of "Four Policemen" was proposed by Roosevelt, but neither Churchill nor Stalin liked it. Therefore, to speak about "Big Four" is Americanocentrism): Churchill was a leader of the power that was the most persistent opponent of the Axis (during 1940, it waged the war virtually alone), Stalin was the leader of the power that made the greatest contribution into destruction of Nazi Germany and its European satellites, and the leader of the power was considered by Nazi as their primary enemy; Roosevelt ... actually, the arguments have already been presented. Similarly, the arguments against each of them also exist: thus, Churchill, despite his outstanding personal qualities, was a leader of the weakest (from a military point of view) power, and he was a democratic leader whose actions killed several millions of civilians in India during a man made Bengal famine; Stalin ... I believe everybody knows about his deeds; Roosevelt was a leader of a country that joined the war after the Axis faced its first major military defeat (under Moscow), and it became obvious that its blizkrieg strategy failed disastrously.
- Therefore, I suggest to leave it in a present state.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Whilst I agree with User:Paul Siebert's conclusion, I think the argument that "...WWII was won primarily as a result of land warfare..." needs watering down. Without naval superiority throughout the war, Britain and her empire would have been beaten long before the US was brought into the war, the Russians would have been starved of the arctic convoys that were essential for war supplies until their military manufacturing effort was established in the east, Rommel's Mediterranean supply lines would have been intact, Operation Torch would not have been feasible, and, the losses of LSTs in Exercise Tiger, if repeated, would have seriously altered the mathematics of the logistical support to D-Day, perhaps prejudicing the whole re-supply effort. I await the imminent publication of The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II by Evan Mawdsley which, I understand, makes similar points to those made here.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I never said naval warfare was unimportant. Yes, survival of Britain in 1940 was equally important to the victory as survival of USSR in 1941. However, naval warfare by itself would never bring a victory, for Germany was essentially self-sufficient, and had she moved all important industry to East Europe (which was quite possible, had she won the USSR), no Allied naval superiority could have any serious effect, there would be no reason to expect the Allies could win.
- Regarding "until their military manufacturing effort was established in the east", you are not right: a massive help started to arrive only in late 1942, and by that time USSR already had resolved its major problem. The lend-lease was extremely instrumental, but it was not vital.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I note these remarks - it is a complex subject with the interplay of many factors - some of them seemingly quite small, but ultimately significant. I will be interested to see Mawdsley's arguments on the matter.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course the main allied forces of WW2 were actually three. Yalta's conference also improves that. But the idea of Big Four had also been an actualness. As about my proposal, my point of view about the priority position, is not based to who was more "good" or "bad", neither to who had started the tries about the establishment of an anti-Axis alliance (I believe this point belongs to Winston Churchill and at the past I had propose the place of Churchill to the first position about this point). My point of view is based about who had success the establishment of the alliance and who had give the most support to the Allies and had been the decisive factor who drives the Alliance to the success of the victory.Inspirduser (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello ThoughtIdRetired (talk) and Inspirduser (talk), the article is meant to be a concise overview on World War II. Forums are the best venue for your interest in debatable topics, and concur with (Hohum @) and A D Monroe III(talk) remarks. For instance, Inspirduser (talk • contribs), why any independent Allied country (USA, Great Britain, USSR, etc.), would be LED (i.e., a leader) by another independent country duing world war II is best left to fiction and forums; not this article. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Bigeez (talk), this is not a generally discussion, but a discussion about the infobox. Maybe not so important, but I beleive to the best image of typicall priority.Inspirduser (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hello ThoughtIdRetired (talk) and Inspirduser (talk), the article is meant to be a concise overview on World War II. Forums are the best venue for your interest in debatable topics, and concur with (Hohum @) and A D Monroe III(talk) remarks. For instance, Inspirduser (talk • contribs), why any independent Allied country (USA, Great Britain, USSR, etc.), would be LED (i.e., a leader) by another independent country duing world war II is best left to fiction and forums; not this article. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course the main allied forces of WW2 were actually three. Yalta's conference also improves that. But the idea of Big Four had also been an actualness. As about my proposal, my point of view about the priority position, is not based to who was more "good" or "bad", neither to who had started the tries about the establishment of an anti-Axis alliance (I believe this point belongs to Winston Churchill and at the past I had propose the place of Churchill to the first position about this point). My point of view is based about who had success the establishment of the alliance and who had give the most support to the Allies and had been the decisive factor who drives the Alliance to the success of the victory.Inspirduser (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I note these remarks - it is a complex subject with the interplay of many factors - some of them seemingly quite small, but ultimately significant. I will be interested to see Mawdsley's arguments on the matter.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Whilst I agree with User:Paul Siebert's conclusion, I think the argument that "...WWII was won primarily as a result of land warfare..." needs watering down. Without naval superiority throughout the war, Britain and her empire would have been beaten long before the US was brought into the war, the Russians would have been starved of the arctic convoys that were essential for war supplies until their military manufacturing effort was established in the east, Rommel's Mediterranean supply lines would have been intact, Operation Torch would not have been feasible, and, the losses of LSTs in Exercise Tiger, if repeated, would have seriously altered the mathematics of the logistical support to D-Day, perhaps prejudicing the whole re-supply effort. I await the imminent publication of The War for the Seas: A Maritime History of World War II by Evan Mawdsley which, I understand, makes similar points to those made here.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think leaders at the time paid a lot of attention to the protocol involved. For example when Churchill and Roosevelt got together at Quebec, the Canadian Prime Minister was the host for the meeting, and does appear in the photographs, but when the actual talks began no Canadian was allowed in the room. As for the big four summit conferences at Casablanca, Yalta, Potsdam, Roosevelt was very strongly against including France-de Gaulle, and in favor of including China-Chiang Kai-shek, for foreign-policy reasons. Of course it was more than personalities, as the decision on who would have veto powers as permanent members of the UN Security Council suggests. Perhaps an even better and more dramatic example was excluding Czechoslovakia from the Munich conference in 1938, which decided that country's sad fate. Rjensen (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how changing the order of leaders has any impact on the actual quality of the article. Editors can make arguments based on money, men, causalities, chronology, length of time fought, or whatever, and come up with different orders, to no purpose; because it's all subjective. We can't go by editor opinions, only sources. Since, AFAIK, there's no source possible for order-of-leaders, just leave it as-is as most stable version. If we can't leave it alone, we'll be forced to do some arbitrary way that no one likes, such as alphabetical. Can we all find something more useful to do? --A D Monroe III(talk) 23:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I lost interest in fighting the constant twiddling with order of belligerents in articles - it seems to generally be motivated by chest thumping or a compulsion for "orderliness". Now, unless a change actually affects the quality of the article, I do have something better to do - literally anything else. (Hohum @) 23:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bigeez, my intent was to alert editors to the (?new?) arguments put forward by Mawdsley. They might influence a concise article to the extent of, say, half a sentence - or a just bit of rephrasing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Mawdsley's argument isn't really new, but views on the balance between the various campaigns and factors in deciding the outcome of the war differ. Quite a few historians regard the naval aspects of the war as being under-appreciated, which I think is fair. Modern historians tend to agree that the Axis never had a realistic chance of victory, and many argue a decisive Allied victory was a certainty from about late 1941 onwards (after the USSR survived the Axis invasion). Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- The late 1941 time frame you refer relates to when the economic colossus that was the USA was drawn into the war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. It is generally acknowledged that the turning point with respect to the Eastern Front was Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad the following year. In case you doubt the leading role of the USA, Stalin himself said in 1943
- ”The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.”
- From W. Averell Harriman and Elie Abel, Special Envoy to Churchill and Stalin, 1941-1946, Random House, N.Y., 1975, p. 277. —Nug (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- There were at least three turning points at EF: Battle of Moscow (a failure of the Reich's blitzkrieg), Battle of Stalingrad (it became clear that USSR would not lose), Battle of Kursk (which demonstrated the USSR would win). US contribution became important only in late 42, so it affected only the later turning point.
- Regarding Stalin's words, do you really believe Stalin is a man whose words should be trusted?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Of course Stalin was making a point in his favour with his comment on the necessity of Lend-lease to the USSR - which of the national leaders in WW2 would not have said a similar thing in the same circumstances? More relevant is that the early Arctic convoys probably had the most effect - both in morale and materials. Yes, less material and less useful material was delivered (e.g. some of the British tanks did not work in cold conditions) - but in the context of desperate need, these convoys were very important. Note that there were 7 Arctic convoys before the USA was attacked by the Japanese - and US involvement took a little while to get established. The more immediate result from the Japanese attacks on British and American territories in the Pacific was that it enabled the USSR to move troops from the Soviet Far East to face German troops - moving before the actual attacks due to good Soviet intelligence, and so affecting the later stages of the Battle for Moscow.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- If not for the material aid given by the USA, the Battle of Kursk may have resulted in a Soviet defeat. It was US steel that allowed the Soviet Union to build the quanities of tanks required. As Georgy Zhukov stated in 1963:
- "When we entered the war, we were still a backward country in the industrial sense as compared to Germany . . . Today [in 1963] some say the allies didn’t really help us . . . But, listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war . . . We did not have enough munitions, [and] how could we have been able to turn out all those tanks without the rolled steel sent to us by the Americans? To believe what they say [in the U.S.S.R.] today, you’d think we had all this in abundance!"
- And not just steel, but 350,000 tons of aluminium for Soviet aircraft manufacture and aviation fuel (1.5 times more than the total Soviet domestic production) to power them, as well as hundreds of thousand of combat related vehicles, trucks, etc. --Nug (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Not defeat, just stalemate. They had enormous reserves, two fronts. They used it for subsequent counteroffensive. In worst case scenario, the offensive would be much less impressive. Anyway, American help was not a charity: by doing that they avoided several battles in Western Europe that would be much more bloody than the Battle of the Bulge. American trucks and Shermans in the East were saving American lives in the West.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- If not for the material aid given by the USA, the Battle of Kursk may have resulted in a Soviet defeat. It was US steel that allowed the Soviet Union to build the quanities of tanks required. As Georgy Zhukov stated in 1963:
- Of course Stalin was making a point in his favour with his comment on the necessity of Lend-lease to the USSR - which of the national leaders in WW2 would not have said a similar thing in the same circumstances? More relevant is that the early Arctic convoys probably had the most effect - both in morale and materials. Yes, less material and less useful material was delivered (e.g. some of the British tanks did not work in cold conditions) - but in the context of desperate need, these convoys were very important. Note that there were 7 Arctic convoys before the USA was attacked by the Japanese - and US involvement took a little while to get established. The more immediate result from the Japanese attacks on British and American territories in the Pacific was that it enabled the USSR to move troops from the Soviet Far East to face German troops - moving before the actual attacks due to good Soviet intelligence, and so affecting the later stages of the Battle for Moscow.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- The late 1941 time frame you refer relates to when the economic colossus that was the USA was drawn into the war after the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbour. It is generally acknowledged that the turning point with respect to the Eastern Front was Germany’s defeat at Stalingrad the following year. In case you doubt the leading role of the USA, Stalin himself said in 1943
- Mawdsley's argument isn't really new, but views on the balance between the various campaigns and factors in deciding the outcome of the war differ. Quite a few historians regard the naval aspects of the war as being under-appreciated, which I think is fair. Modern historians tend to agree that the Axis never had a realistic chance of victory, and many argue a decisive Allied victory was a certainty from about late 1941 onwards (after the USSR survived the Axis invasion). Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Bigeez, my intent was to alert editors to the (?new?) arguments put forward by Mawdsley. They might influence a concise article to the extent of, say, half a sentence - or a just bit of rephrasing.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Since nobody has responded I can only assume that everyone agrees that the USA played a central and crucial role in WW2, not only supporting the Soviets with vast quantities of resources that Zhukov himself acknowledged that without which they could not have continued the war, but also provided significant aid to Britain and China, as well as fight in both the Pacific and European theatres. It is not coincidence that in all the big 3 meetings Roosevelt is always pictured as sitting in the central postion. That said, one way of ordering of the leaders could be based upon the number of conferences they attended based upon the List of Allied World War II conferences, with Churchill first with 16 meetings, Roosevelt second with 12, Stalin third with 7 meetings attended. --Nug (talk) 21:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
PS, can somebody fix this talk page, it seems to be broken after Eli Bigeez added his multiple drafts. --Nug (talk) 22:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Alternatively you could order the leaders by a simple parameter that cannot be disputed: in order of how long each was the leader of a country fighting in WW2. So that would be Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt. (1,903 days, 1,416 days and 1,222 days - if my arithmetic is correct.) This highlights the problem of any sort of ordering - because it rapidly becomes clear that 2 major players were not in charge when decisions were taken about the use of atomic weapons - nor was the aftermath of sorting out war affected regions influenced by these 2 leaders.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt. Agreed for many reasons. Not sure we need to include Chinese leader at all (too unimportant).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Length of participation would put China on top. Also, given Zhukov's acknowledgement of the importance of material aid in the war effort, we must also consider the fact that between 1939 and 1941 Stalin similarly supplied Hitler with resources and and oil, the Luftwaffe was in partly fueled with Soviet oil during the Battle of Britain. Given that, and the role the USA played, Stalin cannot be ranked ahead of Roosevelt. --Nug (talk)
- ...and Japanese Ari forces were fueled by American fuel during Japanese invasion of China. I think the leaders should be judged based on their personal role, not only based on the role of their countries. In connection to that, Churchill's personal role is more important than the role of Britain. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well the USA did eventually impose an oil embargo on Japan. But I do agree that the order as Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt is better than the current. --Nug (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- ...and the oil was so vital to Japan than they attacked Pearl Harbor. Frankly, I've just realized that the order of leaders does not have to be the same as the order of combatants. I myself was uncomfortable to see Stalin at the first position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- If one is campaigning for Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt - one could take into account that it was the British Government that issued the ultimatum to Nazi Germany following their invasion of Poland. Though Churchill entered the war cabinet only on 2 Sept, after the invasion, he was one of the 6 people in Britain involved in the decision to declare war. With Chamberlain dithering, he was the focus, on the evening of that day, for the "bewildered rage" by some senior politicians at the delay in declaring war; just after midnight, he phoned the French ambassador to put pressure on them to declare war. It is the ultimatum of the morning of 3 Sept, and the German lack of response to it, that started the European part of WW2. Churchill's influence in these opening days of war are indicated by him being the second MP invited to speak in parliament following Chamberlain's statement to the nation at 11:15 on 3 Sep - Churchill was preceded only by the Liberal Party leader.
- So, of the 3 Allied leaders, Churchill was the only one who was able to consider whether to declare war and was influential in the making of that decision. Stalin and Roosevelt were leaders of countries that were attacked. (account of Churchill's involvement taken from Andrew Roberts' 2018 biography Churchill - walking with destiny) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, Winston Churchill was not in the British cabinet until after war was declared. He was a back bench MP and largely ignored by the government throughout the 1930's. He only entered the cabinet when he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939; and did not become Prime Minister until May 10, 1940. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mediatech492, the chronology of Churchill entering the cabinet is covered quite precisely in the source that I mentioned. It says "...on Friday, 11 September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland. Chamberlain drew up a list for a War Cabinet of six, which included Churchill as minister without portfolio. He did not, however, declare war...". Then: "[On Saturday 2 September] ...He invited Churchill to No. 10 to offer him a place in the War Cabinet, which Churchill accepted at once, expecting an immediate declaration." In the evening of the same day, Chamberlain makes his first public speech since the invasion to the House of Commons. The reason for Churchill's silence in the Commons in response to this, we infer (and his biographer implies), is due to him having accepted a job in cabinet. Churchill spends the rest of the night in various bits of political manoeuvring in an attempt to secure a declaration of war. He has political allies in this and they visit Churchill. The declaration was at 11:15 the next morning. After speeches in the House, in the context of a suggestion to Chamberlain that "Churchill would be a very dangerous member of the cabinet [as a minister without portfolio]", Churchill was offered first lord of the Admiralty (which he accepted). This is all precisely laid out on pages 457-459 of Andrew Roberts' 2018 biography Churchill - walking with destiny ISBN 978-0-241-20563-1
- Do note, also, my earlier remarks about Churchill being the second member of the House to respond to Chamberlain after the declaration of war. Though in the wilderness before, there was a steady and quiet rehabilitation of Churchill in the months preceding the declaration. The main point, though, is that Churchill was in the Cabinet on the day war was declared and he had access to Chamberlain and others to present his views on the matter - and those views are quite plain: that war should be declared.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:37, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- All that proves my point. It was nothing more than any backbencher could have done at that point in time. In fact probably less since Chamberlain was determined to keep him out of such decision making, since he already knew what Churchill's position would be. Churchill's ""rehabilitation" (sic) came after the fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mediatech492, your basic point is that Churchill was not in the cabinet at the moment when war was declared. I have given you an impeccable source that states that he was a minister without portfolio at this point. If that is not enough for you, we will just have to agree to disagree.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Other than the fact that your "impeccable" (sic) source is wrong. We have nothing to disagree about. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- User:Mediatech492, your basic point is that Churchill was not in the cabinet at the moment when war was declared. I have given you an impeccable source that states that he was a minister without portfolio at this point. If that is not enough for you, we will just have to agree to disagree.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- All that proves my point. It was nothing more than any backbencher could have done at that point in time. In fact probably less since Chamberlain was determined to keep him out of such decision making, since he already knew what Churchill's position would be. Churchill's ""rehabilitation" (sic) came after the fact. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- No, Winston Churchill was not in the British cabinet until after war was declared. He was a back bench MP and largely ignored by the government throughout the 1930's. He only entered the cabinet when he was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty on September 3, 1939; and did not become Prime Minister until May 10, 1940. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- ...and the oil was so vital to Japan than they attacked Pearl Harbor. Frankly, I've just realized that the order of leaders does not have to be the same as the order of combatants. I myself was uncomfortable to see Stalin at the first position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well the USA did eventually impose an oil embargo on Japan. But I do agree that the order as Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt is better than the current. --Nug (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- ...and Japanese Ari forces were fueled by American fuel during Japanese invasion of China. I think the leaders should be judged based on their personal role, not only based on the role of their countries. In connection to that, Churchill's personal role is more important than the role of Britain. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the time Churchill was in cabinet is really important. Churchill as a person made much greater relative contribution into a victory than Britain as a country In contrast, Stalin as a leader made much smaller contribution than USSR as a country. One example: just imagine what would have happened if Hess were not arrested, and his flight lead to a British-German piece treaty? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- To illustrate the importance of Britain not conceding in 1940, this is the view of Admiral Harold Stark USN ". . . you may recall my remarks the evening we discussed War Plans for the Navy. I stated that if Britain wins decisively against Germany we could win everywhere; but that if she loses, the problem confronting us would be very great; and, while we might not lose everywhere, we might, possibly, not win anywhere." (memorandum, 12 November 1940) (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.) To illustrate the risk that Britain might sue for peace in 1940 - without the efforts of Churchill - Roberts' biography of him (ref above) states "Had Halifax negotiated a peace treaty with Hitler in the summer of 1940, there would have been a majority in both Houses of Parliament to approve it, and Royal Assent would not have been refused." (p980) The narrative goes on to explain that it was Churchill who headed (and, more importantly, created) the national courage not to do this. Roosevelt has the credit for engaging in a neutrality that supported Britain, but his trust and respect for Stalin (once they were allies) went a long way toward allowing the Iron Curtain to encompass so many countries freed from the Nazis - this naivety created damage that lasted, at the very least, for the remainder of the 20th century. Stalin, of course, has the discredit of having been an ally of the Nazis until he was attacked by them.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stalin definitely was not Hitler's ally, especially after mid 1940, when USSR occupied and annexed Baltic states, which was seen as a hostile act by Hitler. The rest is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
- Any tension caused by the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was eased by August 1940 and in January 1941 an update to the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty was signed that settled it -Nug (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, all visible tensions were resolved, but Barbarossa planning had already started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- ....but I don't think Stalin knew about Barbarossa until it happened, despite warnings originating from British intelligence.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- According to Roberts, Stalin decided to respond to Ribbentrop and send Molotov to Berlin to figure out what Hitler's plans are. He suspected they prepare something. Even an official Soviet historians claimed Stalin was expecting Hitler's attack, but he expected it to occur in 1942.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:12, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- ....but I don't think Stalin knew about Barbarossa until it happened, despite warnings originating from British intelligence.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 15:31, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, all visible tensions were resolved, but Barbarossa planning had already started.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Any tension caused by the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was eased by August 1940 and in January 1941 an update to the German–Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty was signed that settled it -Nug (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Stalin definitely was not Hitler's ally, especially after mid 1940, when USSR occupied and annexed Baltic states, which was seen as a hostile act by Hitler. The rest is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Proportions (as a new part and headline)
Stalin called the war "The Great Patriotic War" or something in line with that. Largely the USSR was his creation (as a new constitution), and despite of being guilty of participation of the outbreak, if using pure facts - it's still no lie that the 1941-45 war between Nazigermany and Stalin's USSR was a far worse military conflict when compared to all other war scenes 1939-45. At least within Europe. British author Norman Davies (in "Europe at War 1939-1945. No simple victory") has illustrated this well, I think. The seven most deadly battles and campaigns all involved Germany and USSR only. Both in killed soldiers an by man-months in front service, this part of the Second World War was about 10 times worse than all other together. Which was a huge surprise to me. So I would like to propose a "Proportion part" with a headline about this issue. (Not necessarily with that specific title, but still)
Davis lists the following battles and running campaigns in top of a death tally:
- Operation Barbarossa, Battle of Belarus I, Smolensk I and Moscow 1941 - 1,582,000 killed soldiers
- Stalingrad 1942-1943 - 973,000
- Siege of Leningrad 1941-44 - 900,000
- Kiev, July to September 1941 - 657,000
- Operation Bagration 1944 - 450,000
- Kursk 1943 - 325,000
- Berlin 1945 - 250,000
These can be compared to (same source)
- El Alamein 1942 - 4,650
- Operation Market Garden - 16,000
- The Ardennes offensive 1944 - 38,000
- Operation Overlord 6 June to 21 June 1944 - 132,000
- Invasion of France 1940 - 185,000
Davies counts killed soldiers on each sides together, but by nationality in another list - with the USSR in top with 11,000,000 killed soldiers which is more than all other together. Romania (!) had 514,000 soldiers killed, the UK 144,000 and the US 143,000 (both in Europe only). Used man-months (the sum each soldier during one month of front service) points in the same direction. At all fronts but the German-USSR , about 45 million man-months were used in combat. To be compared to 406 million between Germany and the USSR.
Boeing720 (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think that such a section (or similar material integrated into existing sections) would be a good fit for this article - it would come across as random information. The World War II casualties article provides detailed coverage of the war's death toll, and an article listing the death toll of the main battles seems useful (though I'd note that estimates of the number of casualties in most battles differs greatly, so more than one source would need to be consulted). Nick-D (talk) 21:19, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything wrong with giving an overview of the war, including statistics like that. I note, however, that there is already a Casualties section.Jack Upland (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus in previous discussions and edits to the article has been to not note the casualties for individual battles and campaigns. The main reason for this is that it would take up too much space (the article is already over-sized), especially as ranges of figures would need to be given for most events. This is better covered in the more specific articles than this overview article. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that this overview article doesn't give much of an overview. It's mainly narrative without much perspective.Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- But somehow bring up the difference between the Germany-USSR war, compared to Europe & North Africa ? Are Davies' figures sensitive ? I just thought the pure warfare no longer was off-topic, not at least as Davies is British. My intention was not to reduce Allied efforts in the west. And all the statistics I showed here and other in Davies' work isn't for the article. I was thinking of a few sentences only. But this was just a suggestion. I can see a problem with a new headline - it will most presumably grow, but I couldn't quite find any suitable headline. Never mind. Thanks both of you. Boeing720 (talk) 11:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think the problem is that this overview article doesn't give much of an overview. It's mainly narrative without much perspective.Jack Upland (talk) 01:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- The consensus in previous discussions and edits to the article has been to not note the casualties for individual battles and campaigns. The main reason for this is that it would take up too much space (the article is already over-sized), especially as ranges of figures would need to be given for most events. This is better covered in the more specific articles than this overview article. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Redundant References in the lead
Considering this a a GA standard article there seems to be a lot of redundant references in the lead section. I suggest removing most of them in order to meet MOS:LEADCITE to assist in maintaining its GA status. Spy-cicle (talk) 00:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Which ones do you propose removing? I agree with this, but am curious what change you're proposing. Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, to the best of my knowledge, a lead is just a summary of the article, its abstract. Normally, everything what a lead says is supposed to be explained in the article (and referenced). Therefore, all references should be removed. If some statements that are present in the lead do not correspond to what the main text says, we should modify the main text and move the references.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to cite everything in the lead, nor to remove all references from it. It's a balance which WP:LEADCITE articulates well. (Hohum @) 01:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't write "must be removed", however, the less references the better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, there is no requirement to cite everything in the lead, nor to remove all references from it. It's a balance which WP:LEADCITE articulates well. (Hohum @) 01:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Since every reference is something that is obvious or more extensively talked about in the article I suggest removing all of them except the refence in note b. Spy-cicle (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I suggest not to remove anything, but to move each reference to the relevant part of the main text. If there is no relevant text in the main article, we should edit the main text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Actually, to the best of my knowledge, a lead is just a summary of the article, its abstract. Normally, everything what a lead says is supposed to be explained in the article (and referenced). Therefore, all references should be removed. If some statements that are present in the lead do not correspond to what the main text says, we should modify the main text and move the references.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
No mention of Huff-Duff
It is surprising that this article has no mention of Huff-Duff and its influence on the Battle of the Atlantic. I make this comment particularly in the light of Evan Mawdsley's The War for the Seas, wherein you would find for example:
"When it became possible in 1942 to mount high-frequency DF (HF/DF, or ‘huff-duff’) on board escorts – something the Germans thought technically unlikely – this became a very important tactical tool."
I suggest that the article is amended to read:
"Notable examples were the Allied decryption of Japanese naval codes and British Ultra, a pioneering method for decoding Enigma benefiting from information given to the United Kingdom by the Polish Cipher Bureau, which had been decoding early versions of Enigma before the war.
[suggested insertion follows]
The use of High-frequency direction finding on Allied [??British??] warships, believed to be technically unfeasible by the Nazis, was of high importance in the Battle of the Atlantic.
[end insertion]
Another aspect of military intelligence was the use of deception, which the Allies used to great effect, such as in operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard."
Some modification to this may be needed to take in the role of HF/DF in the Pacific war, where it was also important.
I note, in passing, that Signals intelligence seems a little chaotic in explaining the usefulness of huff-duff on escort ships, so following that link from this article would probably leave the reader none the wiser about a device that was a war-winning weapon - especially when the U-boats were using codes that were not being broken.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see no reason to mention this. We can't mention everything.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see that my earlier comments were less than clear - the major method of finding a U-boat before it attacked a convoy was with HF/DF. Even if it wasn't sunk, it was forced to submerge and therefore could not intercept the convoy. The superficial view of the Battle of the Atlantic is that code-breaking was the major tool in avoiding and/or attacking wolf packs - but all the while that codes could not be broken, U-boats were being sunk or chased (and thereby suppressed) thanks to HF/DF. The article mentions the Leigh Light - essentially an offensive anti-submarine weapon to catch U-boats on passage to their area of operations. HF/DF, by comparison, was directly protecting the convoys. Whilst the Leigh Light was influential, it became obsolete once better radar was available. HF/DF was valuable from as soon as it started to be used on escorts right through to the end of the war. Books on the fine detail of the Battle of the Atlantic (such as Alan Burn's The Fighting Captain - about Walker and [[HMS Starling]) make totally clear that HF/DF was the main tool in finding U-boats.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Big four allies and Big three axis
We already have the major axis and allied leaders, why not combatants too? It puts it more in line with the WW1 article without cluttering the infobox. - Roddy the roadkill (talk) 00:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- The current infobox reflects the results of a long-running discussion, and has been stable for several years. Please don't change it again unless a consensus to do so develops. Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Britain and France declaring war etc
Based on a discussion last year, I recently altered the text to "France and Britain declared a war on Germany. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada also joined the war". But I'm not really happy with this. Is there any reason not to say the British and French Empires entered the war? The current wording ignores the contribution from Indians etc to the war effort.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think "France and Britain, along with their empires, declared war on Germany. As part of this, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada joined the war." "along with their empires" includes the British and Indian Empires, as well as the French one, and listing the major British dominions is justified on the basis of their semi-independence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's good.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
- Changed.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that's good.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes you’re right SukaMaster (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Strength figures in the infobox
I've just removed the strength figures which had been recently added to the infobox. I note that there was no previous discussion of this, and the editor who added them didn't even use an edit summary. My rationale for removing this is: a) this hadn't been discussed b) this seems to not be in line with the various previous discussions of the infobox, where most editors favour keeping the infobox simple c) some of the figures were not referenced, including the claimed totals d) some of the references offered were of a low quality (such as a Belarus tourism website!) or it is not clear what is being cited (such as the Chinese-language title). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
New collage for the infobox
It seems reasonable to me that there is room for improvement on both the WW1 and WW2 infoboxes, their montages specifically. I propose this new one for World War II.
The purpose of the infobox montage should be to show some of the important events and battles. And also to bring attention to striking images, most images should be on the fighting and the men involved. Both add more photos but no to the point I feel dilutes it. Both the new ones I suggest are chronologically order from clockwise top-right. I previewed it with the new description below and same image size as the previous montage, it did not convolute the infobox. Making it I prioritized the wide nature of the conflict: the bombing campaign, the introduction to the nuclear age, colonial troops, the turning point, naval combat ranging from the last battleship duels in history to the carrier reigning supreme and even ethnic cleansing defined this war, and I think that should be reflected while still showing off many major events of this war.
I would like a consensus on this Paul Siebert, Spy-cicle and Nick-D -- Roddy the roadkill (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- In my opinion, although this collage is aesthetically better, it gives a totally Amiricanocentric view. I don't think we should use it. The idea to add a Holocaust picture, especially this iconic one is good.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- One missing element is something that portrays the huge industrial production that supported WW2 - this is surely a major part of this conflict: the winners being the side with the ability to produce military equipment at the greatest rate. However, pointing this out suggests that the subject probably defies any concise summary.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Do you mean the American perception of the war? Because only 4 of the 10 events depicted are connected to the United States.
- As a further explanation for the choice of photos, and things that might not be obvious: I wanted to cover the most diverse set of events and combatants possible to convey the scale and widened of the war. Featured in one way or another are French, British, German, Japanese, Chinese and American forces. The Eastern Front gets representation (two images) the Mediterranean campaign gets representation (1 images) as does the western front (1 image) China front (1 image) the battle of the Atlantic (1 image) and the pacific war (1 image). Bombings and Airpower were a major feature of this war, and the end of the war in both Europe and Asia are depicted with the conquest of Berlin and the atomic bombing respectively.
- Major landmarks like the Great Wall and Brandenburg gate show off famous locales effected. The choice of the ghetto uprising not only gives the Holocaust representation but also the resistance movement in Europe. And also depictions of soldiers from Germany, China the French Empire, the Soviet Union as well as civilians, while the US and British are represented more thru equipment, which reflects there more industrial nature. Obviously not all things can be covered but It’s a reasonable cross-section of the war. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Although the images by themselves may be fine, there's too many images in this proposal. Even 6 is really more than really necessary, but the result of compromises of calls to include multiple editor-favored viewpoints. Remember the sole purpose of the lede image: to immediately inform the reader they have the right article. The lede image should contain what's needed to uniquely depict and identify WWII, distinct from any other possibly related subject, and no more. If that takes a montage, then so be it, but more than 4 images starts to shrink their size beyond easy immediate recognition, and produce more clutter and distraction than help to the reader. Unless there's a specific problem with the current lede image that can be stated and debated here, I see zero benefit, and some harm, in this proposal. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello A D Monroe III(talk), agreed with you and Paul Siebert. The consensus seems to be "less is more." Otherwise, too much clutter. I forgot to mention ... your earlier recommendation on alphabetising the "Major Allied/Axis" leaders in the info box is best. What ever happened to that suggestion? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Far too many images. The current six is the most I would want to see. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hello A D Monroe III(talk), agreed with you and Paul Siebert. The consensus seems to be "less is more." Otherwise, too much clutter. I forgot to mention ... your earlier recommendation on alphabetising the "Major Allied/Axis" leaders in the info box is best. What ever happened to that suggestion? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
- Although the images by themselves may be fine, there's too many images in this proposal. Even 6 is really more than really necessary, but the result of compromises of calls to include multiple editor-favored viewpoints. Remember the sole purpose of the lede image: to immediately inform the reader they have the right article. The lede image should contain what's needed to uniquely depict and identify WWII, distinct from any other possibly related subject, and no more. If that takes a montage, then so be it, but more than 4 images starts to shrink their size beyond easy immediate recognition, and produce more clutter and distraction than help to the reader. Unless there's a specific problem with the current lede image that can be stated and debated here, I see zero benefit, and some harm, in this proposal. --A D Monroe III(talk) 22:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)