Talk:World War II/Archive 53

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.

September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.67 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We are not here to discuss various dates and actions to find when WWII started. Wikipedia is built on

reliable sources, with the goal of showing broadly what the literature says about the issue. Binksternet (talk

) 00:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Was it a world war from the very beginning? (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)) answer: 1st sept 1939

Opinions differ. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In the beginning, it was the

TimothyJosephWood

19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

A war between China and Japan was not in itself a world war. 3 September 1939 could be when it became a global conflict as the British Empire declared war, or 23 August 1939 as that was when the Soviet Union agreed to invade Poland in conjunction with Germany. (Jdkd44 (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC))

Well, SJW II was the earliest (AFAIK) full-on conflict where the theater and belligerents flowed directly and uninterrupted into WWII.

TimothyJosephWood

19:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@

Timothyjosephwood:@Jdkd44:Actually when I read one of the most important scholarly work- The Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I [4]. It really claims "the war began in 1937 in China" in its General Introduction part. See the link[5] and read the location 383 in open preview of good read.(Miracle dream (talk

) 15:38, 14 September 2016‎ (UTC))

The questions "When did WWII start?" and "When did WWII become a world war?" are different.

There some definite well-sourced opinions on the first, all stated in the article.

The second question doesn't get much coverage. The problem is there's no agreement on what defines a "world war". Some say only WWI and WWII are world wars, but others include different lists of other wars, based on number of continents, theaters, campaigns, death toll, or some combination, or even have a variable definition based on the size of the "known world" at the time. Based on those conflicting definitions, WWII might be a "world war" starting with the attack on China, or Poland, or Russia, or America, or sometime between these, or sometime after. No one sees much point in trying to pin this down. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

no other war gets confused with WWI or WWII. The dates can vary slightly as major players entered & left. Rjensen (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think what they mean is "when did it cease being a series of regional conflicts and start being a world war". Also, the

TimothyJosephWood

17:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I think AJP Taylor had some thoughtful things to say about this in his "Origins of the Second World War" DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Taylor essentially says that a set of separate, regional conflicts eventually expanded and merged to some extent into WW2. He considers it to have become a "world war" when most/all of the world's major powers became involved. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It was a world war from 3 September 1939 when the British Empire declared war on Germany. This meant every continent in the world was at war. The 23 August 1939 date should be added to the lede, as without the pact with the USSR Hitler would not have been able to invade western Poland. (213.122.144.54 (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2016 (UTC))

I think it would probably be a good idea to beef up the footnote on the start date a bit, and actually give examples of variations in the start date and why. Basically a rehash of this conversation but with ample sourcing. The current footnote is pretty lacking in nuance, and doesn't really give an in depth rationale for why this date is used, or why it should be the most frequent date used by scholars.

TimothyJosephWood

13:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the British empire included every continent means nothing. They weren't all free to choose. DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That is when they joined the conflict, whoever made the decision that they would. Britmax (talk) 21:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Historians define a "World War" as one involving all the great powers of the day. There is some debate about which wars qualify, but the usual candidates include the
  Seven Years War, the Napoleonic Wars, World War I and World War II. They are considered to start when the great powers begin going to war with each other. Under this definition, World War II became a world war in September 1939, when Britain, France, Germany and the Soviet Union joined the war. Hawkeye7 (talk
  ) 21:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Plus the United States sided with the British Empire from the very beginning, as it had in World War I. (JebDilbert (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

Then why do we not say WW2 began in 1937, when China (with US aid) and Japan went to war? I'm not seriously arguing for that date but 'great powers' is undefined above. I'd say Japan probably qualifies, though, given how much attention they got in arms treaties in the interwar period.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

For the same reason that (under this definition) the Great War is considered to end in 1918. It's not enough to have two great powers at war with each other; you have to have multiple great powers at war. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It only became a global conflict when the UK declared war on Germany. China was not a great power in 1937. (JebDilbert (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

But why? What is special about the UK? How can we claim a conflict is 'worldwide' if neither the USSR nor the US is involved? There are plenty of ways to look at this. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

When the UK declared war it meant that every country in the Empire was at war with Germany. The USSR was involved - it had already agreed to invade Poland on 23 August 1939. (JebDilbert (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

No, that is not correct. The self-governing dominions of the British Empire each issued their own declarations of war on Germany (and later on the other axis powers) Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

They were the countries of the Commonwealth, not the Empire. (JebDilbert (talk) 06:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC))

Everyone has their own idea when WWII started (some sources then and some scholars today point to Sept. 18, 1931--look in the archives for the reliable sources that cite that date) and the material on when it really became a World War is even more confusing.

"But why? What is special about the UK? How can we claim a conflict is 'worldwide' if neither the USSR nor the US is involved?"

Because when Britain and France declared war on September 3rd 1939 all THESE (or most of them) pink parts of the world were then at war with Germany. They are situated over the WHOLE GLOBE. That means geographically across the WHOLE WORLD - including the oceans, because Britain had both the world's largest navy, but also the world's largest merchant shipping fleet, ~12,000 ships. It became then A WORLD WAR. See the connection. I've left out the French bits, but they include

French Indo-China

. France also had a navy of considerable size.

Alternatively, it became a World War when everyone at the time started calling it and referring to it as a "WORLD WAR". Which was September the 3rd 1939. Note: This was before either the USSR or US became involved. It was already a WORLD WAR by the time they got involved.

Prior to Sept 3rd 1939 all the other contretemps were mere "regional conflicts" affecting no-one else but the people directly involved. They had no effect on any one else. From Sept 3rd 1939 that all changed.

And BTW, it wasn't the "UK", it was the British Empire. Its armies contributed over 4,000,000 ground troops to the war, and its ships transported the vast majority of the cargoes both from and to the US and USSR. They also transported most of the troops and materiel to the beaches on D-Day. Their airmen dropped a heavier tonnage of bombs on Germany - around a million tons - than all the other air forces dropped on Germany and Japan combined. Their seamen and airmen sank more U-boats and other submarines in "the longest battle of the Second World War" than were sunk by all the other world's navies and air forces combined.

So THAT is what was "special" about the UK and the Empire.

That and going into the war, alongside France, voluntarily. Hardly a trivial thing. Most of the other "allies" waited until they were attacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

That map only shows the British Empire. The French Empire was also extensive, including Indochina and parts of Africa. There is no doubt it was a world war when they declared war on Germany. (By the way, in response to comments above, the dominions of the "British Commonwealth of Nations" were part of the British Empire. It is not true that all the dominions declared war individually. Australia, for example, didn't, and didn't have the power to declare war until it ratified the Statute of Westminster in 1942, after which the Curtin government declared war on every country it could, including Finland.)

People who say that WW2 actually occurred earlier are pretty stupid. Yes, there were precursor conflicts, but where does it end? WW2 developed out of WW1, and WW1 developed out of the Balkans Wars etc. Koreans were fighting Japan since it annexed Korea in 1911. Is that when the war started???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's a collegial comment. There is a legitimate debate, and we would do well to not be too Europe-centric or anglo-centric. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was badly put. I wasn't commenting on specific arguments made here, just the general assertion that the war "really" began before 1939. It's illogical. I know various scholars do that, but it really makes no sense, and all you get is an endless array of different opinions, and all founded on the inconvertable but irrelevant fact that there were precursor conflicts. As already pointed out, it is not Eurocentric to focus on the British and French Empires: they were global. It is a fact that much of Europe and Asia etc was under foreign domination. In fact, I think it is Eurocentric to ignore this.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Easy to win this debate. World War II started on 3rd September. 1st September Germany invaded Poland. If Britain and France had not declared war on September 3rd. If Germany had stopped at Poland. If Hitler had died in a car crash on September 15th. Then nobody would regard Germany's invasion of Poland as WWII. You can not historically insert a date. On September 2nd 1939 nobody alive considered there to be a World War II. On September 3rd War had been declared and that has to be the date for the start of World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.129.44 (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

An illustration of the global nature of the conflict starting in September 3rd 1939 is the Battle of the River Plate which occurred ~7,000 miles from the nearest (if one excludes the Falklands) of the combatant countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 09:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Normally a world war is when a few countries like Germany declares war on Poland and simultaneously Britain and France declares war on Germany. If this was the case which happened WW2 began on 1st September 1939 Malcolm Mak (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As pointed out before there are a host of sources (both reliable and iffy) that clearly state that that WWII stated on September 18, 1931. Simply searching the archives for 1931 is enough to find these references. Heck, some of the references date from when the war was going on with Prelude to War (1942) being the most reliable of the bunch. For those who one more recent reliable sources there are things such as "Chronology September 18, 1931 — Japan invades Manchuria, a region of China. ... Some historians consider the invasion of Manchuria to be the actual start of World War II." - Stein, R. Conrad (1994) World War II in the Pacific: "Remember Pearl Harbor" Enslow Publishers Page 117. When WWII stated seems to be dependent on whoever is writing the book.--2606:A000:7D44:100:6870:1446:6F61:93E6 (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

The key phrase is "some historians". The majority of Western historians say 1 Sept 1939, and en WP is Western. WP must follow the RSs. Since there are definitely reliable opposing views, we should also state them as additional info per

WP:TRUTH by promoting the "correct" date over the consensus of RSs. --A D Monroe III (talk

) 17:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NPOV clearly states "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." (sic) The 1939 start date is a "seriously contested assertion" even Among Western historians (even more so if you count Japan as a "Western" nation as their historians go for the 1931 date) and yet the lede blatantly ignores this part of NPOV as it is biased toward a certain view. And that "although related conflicts began earlier" statement doesn't change the documented fact that for various sources Ethiopia and Manchuria were not "related conflicts began earlier" but the actual start of WWII.--2606:A000:7D44:100:A546:99BA:2128:B644 (talk

) 16:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Is start in 1931 a "seriously contested assertion" -- I don't think so. No one here has named any historian in last 50 years in any country that states 1931 was start of a WORLD war. It was the start of a localized invasion that had ended by 1933. In a separate later operation Japan invaded China in 1937 =- a localized war between Japan & China and no one else. Likewise Ethiopia invasion was local fighting not a world "war" I've been looking and so far have not found a named historian who dates start of ww2 to 1931. Rjensen (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Untrue. Two historian references within that 50 year period were given back in 2014, three years ago:

• Thomas B. Allen (born 1929) is an American author and historian and his 1991 World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 Dover Publications (part of the Dover Military History, Weapons, Armor series) was one of the sources presented for the 1931 date. The actual quote was even given: "World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931..."
• Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr and William Leuchtenburg are two another historians who in his 2009 Herbert Hoover: The American Presidents Series: The 31st President, 1929-1933 stated that: "A clash between Japanese and Chinese soldiers north of Mukden in Manchuria on the night of September 18, 1931, has come to be perceived as the opening shot of World War II".

This could have been found by a simple search of the archive for 1931 and seeing if any of the authors of the referenced works were historians so claiming "No one here has named any historian in last 50 years in any country that states 1931 was start of a WORLD war" without first checking the archive is just sloppy. Heck, William Leuchtenburg and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr.'s book is within the last 10 years never mind 50 and their view was put "here" back in 2014. Always check the talk archives before making a broad statement as given how long wikipedia has been around if something is notable odds are it has been mentioned somewhere in the talk pages along the line. Oh, Spencer C. Tucker a military historian states in his 2016 World War II: The Definitive Encyclopedia and Document Collection that "Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign" --2606:A000:7D44:100:F931:1E7E:367D:5BD3 (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. But the key phrase is still "some historians". Perhaps it deserves some mention per

WP:DUE, but this isn't going to overturn the majority of RSs here. --A D Monroe III (talk

) 19:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

"some historians" comes down to N=1 in English. Schlesinger (really Leuchtenberg) did not say 1931 is when historians say the war started. It's only common in China & Japan (as Tucker notes.) Leuchtenburg explicitly says the war started in Sept 1939 in In the Shadow of FDR: From Harry Truman to Barack Obama p viii. Allen is a real historian and he does say 1931, but in his World War II: the Encyclopedia of the War Years, 1941-1945 (with Polmar) they give 1931 once using the same phrase about railway track (p 202) and then they use 1939 as the starting date at least 15 times by my count (pages xvi, 174, 176, 200, 202, 227, 323, 381, 394, 414, 422, 465, 839, 852, 870) so when he is serious he routinely uses 1939 --as Leuchtenburg notes, no one anywhere in 1931 saw the Manchuria episode as a starting any kind of war. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between rhetorically saying, 'this is when the war really started,' and matter-of-factly using 1931 as the starting date. The implication of this for the narrative are huge. The war would be much longer, the USSR would have entered it before Britain and France etc. There seems a lot of point in acknowledging the precursors to the war, but no point in changing the established dates of the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The mere fact that they are trying to claim a "World War" started in 1931 does not say much about these historian's credibility, especially when it is so at variance with what numerous reputable (and notable) historians have written in the past half-century or so.

I suspect that if a "World War" had broken out in 1931 then people in the rest of the world might have noticed it, as an event such as the start of a World War would have received at least a passing mention in the newspapers and newsreels of the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Beginning of World War II

My 'historical' understanding is that World War II started when US entered into the war after attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec 1941.

Germany declared war on U.S., Japan declared war on U.S through its act of aggression, and US declared war on Japan. With a series of declarations of war against one nation against another it became a world war - hence WWII.

Countries either aligned with either the Axis or Allies or became neutral it then became a World War. To categorise WWII beginning in 1931 is an absurd historical portrayal, to

In its strictest sense to define World War in contrast to WWI a truly global conflict existed with axis, allies and neutral parties

From above - Taylor essentially says that a set of separate, regional conflicts eventually expanded and merged to some extent into WW2. He considers it to have become a "world war" when most/all of the world's major powers became involved.

By 1941 USA had become a superpower it was not engaged in WWII in 1931, 1939 or 1940. A true date is effectively Dec 8th 1941 when all global players had a need to identify which side they were on and in a pure definition would become a world war — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.67 (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Historical dilettantes of various stripes have numerous opinions as to when World War II “really” began—even amid World War I, during which the Russian Revolution broke out in 1917. Some say that the harsh terms of the Treaty of Versailles, finalized in 1919, assured that an aggrieved Germany would inevitably resume the “War to End All Wars.” Some say the first act of World War II was Japan’s 1931 invasion of Manchuria in blatant defiance of the League of Nations, while similar claims are made of Italy’s 1935 invasion of Ethiopia. Some might cite 1936 for Adolf Hitler’s risky but successful occupation of the Rhineland combined with the Spanish Civil War, while others might bring up Japan’s 1937 invasion of China. Notwithstanding all such claims, the official date for the start of World War II remains September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland.

As for the United States’ official involvement in the European war, while President Franklin D. Roosevelt had long been seeking a way to override American isolationist sentiment to go to war against Hitler.

December 11, 1941—after which the U.S. Congress promptly agrred to enter US into war.

The generally accepted date therefore it would appear is September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.234.67 (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

In what way was it a "World War" in Sept 1st 1939 when the only countries involved were Poland and Germany and the only fighting going on was in Poland itself.

Word War II began with the declaration of war by France and the Britain on Sept 3rd, 1939. Which is also the start date of the longest continuous military campaign of World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is this category missing in the article? --201.253.28.223 (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

'The great powers first clashed directly when Germany assaulted France in May 1940, but the major obstacle to the European Axis would be the coalition of the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth, with campaigns including the North Africa and East Africa campaigns, the aerial Battle of Britain, the Blitz bombing campaign, and the Balkan Campaign, as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic.'

Seems odd to pointedly assert what the first major obstacle for the European Axis was. (i) First of all wasn't it an alliance rather than a coalition? (ii) It wasn't just the UK & Commonwealth, but also Yugoslavia, Greece, the Free French and others. The highest-scoring Allied fighter ace in the Battle of Britain was Czech. (iii) Many if not most historians would argue that the first major obstacle was the Channel, not the British, etc., per se. The British did not provide a major obstacle to the Invasion of France. One could counter that it was the Royal Navy in the Channel that did it, but my main point is that this is way too point-y for the lede. (iv) Great Powers should use capitals; but why the need to point out by analytical emphasis their first clash anyway? (v) Lower down, it says Berlin was captured by Soviet troops - to be precise it was captured by the Soviets and 200,000 of their Polish Communist allies, who raised at least two Polish flags at the end of the battle, one of which may have gone up before the Soviet one: [6]

-Chumchum7 (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This text does seem rather unclear, and saying that the UK was in a "coalition" with the Commonwealth is outright wrong. They were actually the same legal entity in a number of key ways (most notably, the UK directly ruled most of the empire, including India, with only the white Dominions being independent), and functioned like an alliance in practice. I'm not sure what's meant by it. The British Commonwealth was indeed the Axis' main "obstacle" (a confusing word in itself) from June 1940 to 21 June 1941, but this is an odd way of putting things. I'd suggest changing this to something like "The great powers first clashed directly when Germany successfully invaded France in May 1940, which was followed by the North Africa and East Africa campaigns, the aerial Battle of Britain, the Blitz bombing campaign, and the Balkan Campaign, as well as the long-running Battle of the Atlantic". Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, strike that. I see that this text was recently added without discussion, along with some other confusing and poorly-sourced material, and I've reverted it out pending further discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, Australia didn't have its own foreign policy in 1939, so the Commonwealth was neither a coalition nor an alliance.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

The revert was merited. The section still needs improvement, and that's perhaps what prompted the addition in the first place. I'm adding a point (vi) that there is also error and Eurocentric POV at 'The war continued primarily between the European Axis powers and the coalition' because the Asian Theater

1939–40 Winter Offensive and the Hundred Regiments Offensive are conventionally categorized as part of WWII, with over 100,000 casualties. It's correct that the Commonwealth was neither a coalition nor an alliance, but the UK was in alliance with Greece, etc. I will make an edit to the section in an attempt to address these issues. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 12:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

But my primary concern was to remove this language of "supplied by the Soviet Union" which is misleading non-NPOV. As I documented in the section by that title above, they supplied only a tiny fraction of Axis oil. The Dutch and Danes exported more overall supplies to Hitler, and the Swedes provided his iron ore. Just like those neutral countries, the USSR provided no material *aid* to the Reich. They traded with it and made Germany pay through the nose for every ounce of product, just as the US did when it traded with Hitler and Tojo up until Pearl Harbor day. I put a talk section up about this nearly a week ago now and no one's opposed it.GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

This phrase has been in the article for years, as such it represents consensus so you might have a hard time trying to remove it. For what it's worth we have an article on the

German-Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940) which states Germany imported millions of tons of Soviet raw materials required for warfighting (not just oil) in exchange for Nazi Germany's military tech, money, etc; this was also in the context of the vast Soviet annexations in Eastern Europe as agreed to by Nazi Germany. So the clause "supplied by the Soviet Union" isn't really misleading non-NPOV, in fact it's verifiably relevant. Granted, it does touch a raw nerve: the extent of Nazi-Soviet cooperation is a matter of scholarly, international and emotive debate. We mere Wikipedians are not going to win or lose it, either way. We must make our article compatible with all sides, and incorporate any controversy about it in analysis lower down the article. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 15:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Chumchum7 -- it represents the consensus of RS. Rjensen (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the article has to reflect the consensus of RS literature and the data, not that of Wikipedia editors. So what justifies mention of this *in the lede*, especially under a standard wherein the

Fall of France and the Phoney War

are considered of insufficient importance? The guideline is actually that controversial issues be kept out of the lede unless they are properly contextualized. Controversy is just another word for non-consensus, after all.

ChumChum7 very rightly raised the issue of Eurocentricity. I think we should consider if Anglocentrism (deriving from our common Anglophony) is influencing our attitude towards these edits. That is, it touches a raw nerve to be reminded that for the first eight months of the war, England was continuing to avoid confrontation with Hitler, and that prior to September 1939 the British Empire was doing more business with Germany than the Soviets were. Far more reassuring to cling to a sense of cultural and moral superiority and point the finger east.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't yet seen any self-identifying British editors here have a problem with content about the Phoney War, and you can make a perfectly reasonable case for it to be emphasized more in the lede. But let's not get too personal or assumptive about our fellow Wikipedians here (and there are some Irish people who would disagree that speaking English must mean that you have a British axe to grind, and that you then must grind it by casting aspersions about Joseph Stalin). Please also note I said the content was Eurocentric, not that any editors are. Moreover I'm not convinced that British superiority and 'finger-pointing' about Stalin is necessarily what's going on here. Besides, it would have to be a pretty ignorant Brit who even tried it, given it was Churchill who justified the British alliance with Stalin by saying: “If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil." -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to mention the "Phoney War" in the lead, and especially not in the context suggested (eg, the false claim that France and the UK "largely stood aside" during this period: they did not, and the IWM source GPRamirez5 is citing doesn't state this: it states that the western Allies were on the strategic defensive, and needed time to build up their forces, which reflects the general view in histories of the war). Abusing other editors as GPRamirez5 doing is totally unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(vii) "On 22 June 1941, the European Axis powers launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theatre of war in history, which trapped the major part of the Axis military forces into a war of attrition." Inaccurate to say 'the major part of the Axis' because that's failing to account for Japan. Also the RS don't concur that this campaign was attritive (as they say WWI and Napoleon's 1812 was), which would mean that that the Axis were defeated because they ran out of resources. That came later. Afair most historians put the outcome of the campaign down to inferior German versus superior Soviet military leadership, which explains both Stalingrad and Kursk. In terms of numbers though and where the war was won, there's no doubt that RS concur the Western Front was a side show compared to Eastern Front, which is where Germany was decisively defeated. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've just reverted some more unagreed changes to the lead. Can we please seek consensus on significant changes here before they're added per the longstanding convention? Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Please propose the solution that you have in mind. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

It would definitely be good to leave out "coalition" as this is misleading. We could just say UK and the British Commonwealth. But "British Commonwealth" is a bit misleading at that point. It is really the British Empire. So UK and the British Empire or just the British Empire. I agree that "major part of the Axis military forces" should be changed as it leave out Japan. Why not a major part of German forces? (I know that other Axis powers were involved, but they are less important.) But was the Eastern Front really a "war of attrition"??? The Battle of Kursk? Yes, there were aspects of attrition, but there were also decisive victories on both sides. This is just an opinion. I also don't see why we should mention Japan's war with Japan, but not the invasion of Manchuria, or the annexation of Korea.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Given that the lead is already much too long (six paragraphs instead of the standard three amounting to 763 words), I'd suggest that any changes resulting from this discussion also seek to streamline what we have - or at very least not make it longer. I agree re: 'coalition' - the usual formulation is something like 'Britain and the British Empire' (noting that the 'Commonwealth' was largely a PR concept at this time). Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from that this is designated as a 'good article' and it has actual errors in the lede: prior to Pearl Harbour the war was certainly not 'primarily' fought by any formulation the British Empire; UK or Commonwealth. Measured by fatalities it was primarily fought by China; and to also editorialize out the fighting by the Yugoslavians, Greeks, Norwegians, Free French and others is unencyclopedic narrative history. Anyway, to assert who 'primarily' fought is an odd, pointy categorization that would equally justify a line saying that it was the Soviets, not the Brits and Americans, who primarily fought against Nazi Germany in the war as a whole. One solution is to simply refer to the 'Allies' instead of pushing the importance of the British and/or the Commonwealth, who did not stand alone, as many historians work hard to try to explain. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

The British Empire was the world power primarily fighting Germany at that point. China was not in the same war (as discussed ad nauseum). China was fighting Japan, not Germany. Britain was fighting Germany, not Japan. I think streamlining would be a good idea. There is a lot of unnecessary detail, like Hitler's suicide.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

That would make complete sense if the article higher up defined WWII as exclusively a European conflict against Germany (and presumably Italy) up until Pearl Harbor, but it doesn't yet do that. The article says that the conflict between China and Japan started earlier than the outbreak of the war, but not that it is distinguished from it from the outbreak of the war. The casual reader currently sees Japan and China as participants from the start, that perception is our responsibility: The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937,[5] but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939[6] with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom. I really sympathize if you've discussed this ad nauseam (been there, know how it feels): it's frustrating for all of us that the discussion hasn't resulted in the article being better worded to prevent further confusion. So it's high time for a decision: the lede must clearly state whether Japan and China did or did not participate in WWII from 1 Sep 1939. Also, on the inclusion of who was 'primarily' fighting Nazi Germany and when, from 22 June 1941 to 8 May 1945 it was the Soviet Union, with 11 million fatalalies, compared to 0.4 million American and 0.4 million British Empire & Commonwealth - a factor of 28:1:1. Number of fatalities are by no means the only way of measuring this: The Big Three are on the record discussing whether the Western Allies were choosing not to 'primarily' fight Nazi Germany, so that the USSR had to. It's an effective strategy called bait and bleed that the Brits and Americans were excellent at. As Truman said: "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible." The lede is currently skewed to include one 'primary' fighter and not the other. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Please suggest specific textual changes. We're not here to debate the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Dear Nick, please note above I invited you propose the solution that you have in mind, after your revert of my suggested textual changes, which you can see in the article history. So really, the ball is in your court. I've accepted your revert and I'm waiting with patience, and I look forward to your specific suggestions with great interest. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Aside from fixing the 'coalition' wording issue noted above, I'm not suggesting any changes at present. If you want to, please suggest specific changes for other editors to consider. Nick-D (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would like to respectfully second the change from Commonwealth to Empire. As far as I can tell, the international commonwealth designation didn't exist at this time.GPRamirez5 (talk) 11:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick, thank you for the explanation. To clarify, the specific change I am suggesting is the content that was reverted, here: [7] -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:17, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we need the extra detail added in those edits, noting again that I think the lead is already much too long and detailed. I also don't see a significant problem with the lead's balance of the Pacific vs the European theatre (and I'm more interested in the Pacific than Europe), and the best way to handle any such imbalance would be to reduce rather than add detail from it IMO. Nick-D (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I would say no, Japan and China were not in WW2 till 1939 [correction: 1941], because they were not part of the international conflict. In any case, we should avoid implying that Britain and its empire were at war with Japan from 1939. This is false, though it is a common misconception.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack, thank you for stating your case. At heart the solution is for the lede to clearly define WWII as either (i) a European conflict that extended to Asia after at Pearl Harbor or (ii) an ongoing conflict in Asia that on 1st September 1939 became a World War, because of the start of conflict in Europe. For what its' worth, my preference is the second formulation as it's what I have seen is verifiable, general understanding in the RS. I can quote them, and will defer to whatever turns out to be broad consensus here. If we do settle on the first formulation we firstly need to cut down on the considerable content lower down the article covering Asia prior to Pearl Harbor, as our guidelines are that the lede summarizes the article. Secondly, this still wouldn't justify the editorialization that the British 'primarily' fought Germany prior to Barbarossa without saying (as GPRamirez5 (talk) has rightly pointed out) that they primarily did no fighting at all for the eight months of the Phoney War, that Yugoslavia primarily fought Germany in the Balkan Campaign and that Germany was primarily fought by the USSR from the day Barbarossa began. If we're on a mission to cut down, then the solution here is to cut the word, as PPOV. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

The second formulation is eccentric and misleading. For the umpteenth time, Britain and France did not declare war on Japan in 1939. It is highly misleading to suggest this, to suggest that Britain, France, and Germany entered into an ongoing war in Asia in 1939. They didn't. (And by the way, though the war started in Europe in 1939, it was never a purely European conflict because Britain and France had worldwide empires.) But I don't think we need to tailor-make the article to one interpretation, and I don't think we have to remove content relating to Asia.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time? I never proposed that the article should suggest Britain and France declared war on Japan in 1939. On the contrary, I am proposing it should state more clearly that there were separate conflicts in Asia and Europe from the start of WWII. The point that Japan wasn't at war with Britain and France from the start is moot: at times throughout the conflict, plenty of WWII combatants were only at war with some and not others. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, including China at the start of the war isn't eccentric. Please take a look at this verifiable, mass-publication source dedicated to an Oxford University historian's account of it: [8] We ought to be just as careful about using words like 'eccentric' point of view on history as we ought to be about using 'Anglocentric' or 'racist'. In China many of the 1.379 billion people think WWII started in 1937, in Russia and America many people think it started 1941. These are all legitimate, subjective perspectives just as the 1939 date is. This article says it's 1939, not because The British Empire is the point of reference for world history, but because the world is. Wikipedia guidelines are to represent neutral, worldwide point of view. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

At CNN it is even more explicit: "China was the first country to enter what would become the Second World War" [9] - Chumchum7 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also, historians don't define a World War as a war with a worldwide empire's involvement. If that were the case, every single war involving the British Empire would be termed a World War. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Nick, thank you, you think the lede is too long and detailed. It's actually full of detail from beginning to end, so cutting some detail leaves other detail, creating imbalance. So if you want it to be short, the solution is a re-write. One solution is to simply state the Great Powers involved, its ~50 million deaths, that it was a consequence of WWI and racism and was a final challenge to the legacy empires, that it lead to a nuclear world, decolonization, American hegemony in the west, Soviet control of Eastern Europe and a Communist China. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

And please don't be shy of showing us what you do have in mind for a shorter lede. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Also our first photograph, top left, has been there for years. It shows Chinese troops, fighting the year before this article says the war began, let alone before Pearl Harbor. Proof Evidence that we've had consensus of Chinese involvement from the start. But still, it needs to be fixed for accuracy: either we revise our definition of when the war started, or we replace it with a photo of Chinese troops after our current definition of when the war started. As it stands, our lede is contradicting itself in several places. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting that the inclusion of a picture is proof of consensus on the "start date" on WW2 is extremely thin on credibility. Lets stick with what the majority of the best reliable sources say, and if there are notable exceptions or complexities, note that in the body of the article. (Hohum ^@) 15:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

You're right, it's not proof: I meant to say evidence of consensus, given that the photo has been at the top of this article for many years. To clarify, I am not talking about a start date for WWII. I'm talking about including China as a belligerent from our start date of 1 September 1939. I would like to find out if there is general consensus on that. Because it's verifiable that historians are saying China was already involved in WWII from the conventional/traditional start date in 1939. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

China and Japan had a low level conflict in Sept 1939-- it was not "world" and it was just barely "war". That said I think Sept 1939 DID bring in much of the world as never before and works well. Rjensen (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

So to clarify

1939–40 Winter Offensive had around 90,000 casualties.) -Chumchum7 (talk

) 17:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

the text now says "The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937,[5]: --maybe try: "Japan aimed to dominate East Asia and had been at war with China since 1937. Historians generally merge it into WW2 starting in Sept 1939." Rjensen (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

One of the most important scholarly work- The Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I [10]. It really claims "the war began in 1937 in China" in its General Introduction part. See the link[11] and read the location 383 in open preview of good read. I think there is also a choice to separate the start date to two in the lede, one for Asia and the other for Europe. For example, the amalgamation of two separate conflicts, one beginning in Asia, 1937, as the Second Sino-Japanese War and the other beginning in Europe, 1939, with the invasion of Poland. (Miracle dream (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2017‎ (UTC))

Thank you, Miracle dream (talk). So to clarify, you support including China as a belligerent in WWII from 1st September 1939? -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Chumchum7. Yes. Actually, I suggest to add 1937 as the start date of ww2 in Asia. As I mentioned above, "The Cambridge History of the Second World War" even claims the World War 2 began in 1937 in China. Miracle dream (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2017‎ (UTC)

Let it be noted for the record that ChumChum7 has just reverted the administrator's edit. He's misleadingly claimed to be reverting my revision, but that is not the case. Ironically he invokes Nick's words as he does this, seemingly oblivious to the point that Nick effectively pressed the reset button with that revision.GPRamirez5 (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Steady on, GPRamirez. As far as I'm aware we're all equal editors, and are working as a community without hierarchy. As far as I was aware I undid your change, nobody else's. And I did so in good faith, in keeping with my understanding that we're discussing changes on the Talk page first. I have also engaged with you in discussion about your proposed change, on this page, and have supported your proposals as emphasized above. Take it easy, we're all friends here. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

"...my understanding that we're discussing changes on the Talk page first."

That's cool Chumchum7. Can you replace User:Nick-D's revision until we've had a chance to consense on any changes to it then?- GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

That I'm an administrator isn't relevant here: I have no more or less say on the article content than any other editor, and can't use the tools except in obvious cases of misconduct regarding this article as I'm very much

WP:INVOLVED. Nick-D (talk

) 03:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

GPRamirez, as far as I can see you are responsible for this edit, not anybody else. You need to establish consensus for it. I reverted it because I don't see that it reflects consensus: Rjensen above says of my rationale, "I agree with Chumchum7 -- it represents the consensus of RS." But still, this is open for discussion, which is your right. How long was the clause in the lede before you cut it? Working this out may help us come to a resolution. Also, please note that prompted by your sentiments, I added the Phoney War, my edit was reverted for the same reason. -Chumchum7 (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• To go back to the point raised by Chumchum7, I think there is an issue but it's not with the word "primarily" but with the expression "The war continued...". The paragraph starts off: "The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937..." Later, it says: "The war continued primarily between the European Axis powers and the coalition of the United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth...". Clearly, "the war" refers to the war in Europe and surrounds; however, it could be misinterpreted as including the war in East Asia. I think either we should make it clear that it is the "war in the West" that is referred to, or move the statement about Japan elsewhere.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, this is much about the terminology and phrasing, which is currently contradictory and confusing in the lede (and really should not be, with 'Good Article' status). Additionally editors clearly do have a varying reading of RS consensus on when the Asia theater of WWII starts, the above formulations (i) 7 December 1941 (we need a RS saying China entered the War on that date, please) and (ii) 1 September 1939 (we have RS for this, above). Wikipedia is not a democracy, though a vote on this might eventually be a helpful way of gauging a tendency of opinion. Before we do that, perhaps there is a way of encyclopedically including both formulations, rather than asserting one. Such as, for example:

The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937.[5] But the world war is traditionally said to have begun on 1 September 1939[6] with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and the United Kingdom; some historians say the Asia theater starts on or before that date, others say the separate conflict between China and Japan can only be categorized as part of the war from when the British Empire and America were attacked by Japan in 1941. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail for the lead IMO. "Traditionally" also implies that such a view is antiquated, which I don't believe is the case. The current text here looks fine to me: it reflects the standard accounts of the war. We have a whole section on the discussion around the dates, and don't also need to also do this in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need a discussion about dates in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, so no disambiguation in the lede. In that case the trouble remains, existing excess of detail prompts further detail for balance and clarification. Nothing in our current definition of the War indicates China should be excluded prior to Pearl Harbor, meanwhile we include details such as the Blitz. Either we reduce all detail, or provide a stronger definition of the scope of the war (a clear assertion of whether or not Asia is included from the start), or we provide balanced detail. Nick you've indicated you would like to reduce all detail, it would be helpful to see what your low-detail lede would look like. As I say, one solution is to simply state the Great Powers involved, its ~50 million deaths, that it was a consequence of WWI and racism and was a final challenge to the legacy empires, that it lead to a nuclear world, decolonization, American hegemony in the west, Soviet control of Eastern Europe and a Communist China. In principle that can be done in one paragraph. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jack has an elegant solution to the line, using the clause 'the war in the West' to differentiate from the Asia theater even as the long-term consensus on its start date is pending. I support us using it, though together with accommodating for Yugoslavia leading the Allied defense in the

Battle of Greece

etc., by cutting the word 'primarily' (this would also remove the prompt for the word to be used again elsewhere, such as for the Soviet role against Germany later in the war). So:The war in the West continued between the European Axis and Allies, with campaigns including...

Longer term, a nutshell lede would remove the need for any weighing up of individual details, from Hitler's suicide to the invasion of Sicily in addition to the invasion of Italy, to the postwar membership of the UN Security Council, which gets four lines, to the pushing of

Eurosceptics

fundamentally disagree with. It could be:

World War II (often abbreviated to WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945, although related conflicts began earlier. It involved the vast majority of the world's countries — including all of the great powers — eventually forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. It was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 50 million to 85 million fatalities, most of which were civilians in the Soviet Union and China. It included massacres, the deliberate genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, starvation, disease and the first use of nuclear weapons in history. The conflict was a consequence of World War I and the rise of totalitarian power. It lead to the decolonization of the European empires, American hegemony in the West, Soviet control of Eastern Europe and a Communist China. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

While something like that could certainly help with streamlining the lead (for instance, by combining the first para and the very short second para), given the length of the article 1 para wouldn't be enough. Three to four paras would be a good target. If other editors are interested in this option, I'll have a go at drafting something over the Christmas period. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. A broad overview of the war, clearly delineating the European and Pacific theatres, avoiding controversy, and avoiding the urge to mention every significant event in the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Great. Let's have a go at this: what exactly needs to be added to my stem lede above? Our already less detailed infobox is a good precedent of less detail improving stability. As soon as we go into chronological overview, complexity starts. On delineation, one mainstream academic historian does it like this: "With the invasion of Poland, the conflict already raging in China thus spread into the heart of Europe to become the Second World War."[12] Then Miracle dream referencing The Cambridge History of the Second World War saying World War 2 began in China. And the two theaters are directly interrelated: historians of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact including Timothy Snyder emphasize the factor of the Soviets wanting to re-direct Japanese aggression from the Soviet Far East to China; they say the Asian conflict is one of the causes of the Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland. Now, while neither China nor Japan was at war with the European belligerents up to 1941, nor was the Soviet Union or America. Even choosing which powers to delineate for the reader is a detail that prompts debate about what the reader needs to know in the lede. This is why we need to get it to an absolute detail-free minimum. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about delineating the different theatres on a basic factual basis. School students and American politicians read this page. Yes, the Sino-Japanese War affected the invasion of Poland. The Armenian Genocide affected the Jewish Genocide. What about the invasion of Ethiopia? Korea? India? The lead needs to be simple and concentrate on the immediate facts. We need a clear overview.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

On Romania as largest supplier of Nazi oil in 1939-40, not the Soviet Union, see The Devils' Alliance by Roger Moorhouse

The very page that claim was linked to has

Please refer to my reply below at 15:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC). At a lede of this size, I also support your inclusion of the Phoney War and the Invasion of France, and have edited in support of your rationale here [13] and here [14]. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

In your reply below you suggest that oil is not an important material to the campaign. Please identify what you consider important raw material(s) to be and check in the table referenced above which countries supplied them and when. Cheers! -GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary in the lead. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact is mentioned anyway. This does give a false impression about the amount supplied by the USSR.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jack. This doesn't need to be covered in the lead. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I've asked this before and would appreciate an answer: how long has the clause of content been in position? I will defer to consensus, as I've also said, and knowing how long there has been consensus on this will help reach a resolution. Rjensen says it represents the consensus of RS. Its removal would trigger a whole revision of the very detailed, imbalanced and confusing lede, as I've explained at the bottom of the 'Querying' section below.-Chumchum7 (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The current linking / language in the lead does not make sense to me:

• [[German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940)|Supplied by the Soviet Union]], from late 1939 to early 1941, in a series of campaigns and [[Tripartite Pact|treaties]], Germany conquered or controlled much of continental Europe...

This seems to suggest that the Soviet Union-provided materials provided for the entire occupation of Europe. This seems undue and / or overstating the case. Plus the Easter-egg wikilink. I support the removal from the lead. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

UN Security Council, and the current personal opinion of EU leadership, distributed for political PR purposes. As the Royal Navy blockaded Europe, Soviet supplies became vital for the German war machine, most sources say. The USSR supplied almost 100% of German manganese (for steel production)[15] grain for bread, lumber for construction and re-supply of the Asian cotton that went into uniforms and the rubber than went into boots. It also supplemented the Romanian oil supply to a significant degree, when previous trans-Atlantic supplement from Mexico was cut off.[16] Page 208 of our Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 by Edward Ericson shows percentage of German imports coming from the Soviet Union: rising to over 50% of total German imports from July 1940 through June 1941, peaking in September 1940 at 87.5% of all German imports. -Chumchum7 (talk

) 06:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The book’s title misleads...It implies sinisterly that Stalin began to give succour to Hitler from the first months of the Nazi regime. The subject is trade, not aid, and the period before 1939 is considered purely as background. The fault is not the publisher’s since Ericson’s PhD dissertation bears the same title.

And the core ingredient of steel is iron. Nazi iron came primarily from Sweden, by land. GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I see a rough consensus for removal at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Mention the pact, but the details of the trade partnership belong in the body of the article, or in other articles. It also implies that Stalin supported Hitler's conquest of Western Europe, whereas he was appalled by it, dreading that he was next. And it was a trade partnership, so you could equally say that the USSR was "supplied" by Germany. It's unnecessary and misleading in the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Removed -- pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Good change, thanks Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

The lede should mention the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on 8/9 August 1945, having remained neutral until then. (MangusWi (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC))

Well, it mentions the invasion of Manchuria.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

GPRamirez, as far as I can see you are responsible for this edit, not anybody else. You need to establish consensus for it. I reverted it because I don't see that it reflects consensus..

With RS, I pretty much have established consensus for it by citing a recent, critically-acclaimed, and anti-Stalinist book, Devil's Alliance, which calls the perception of Nazis using Soviet oil in 1939-40 "vastly exaggerated," and notes the actual usage as 3 percent. But consensus isn't even necessary since, as noted above, controversial material doesn't belong in the lead—It's sufficient to record controversy. And among editors, we cannot speak of reasonable consensus when RS have been summarily dismissed by ChumChum7 and RJensen on the basis of argumentum ad populum rather than intellectually engaged with.

Also in regards to a lead,

neutral low countries were bigger exporters to Hitler

. In its 1939 attacks, Germany was likely using more British material than Soviet, as per The Economist:

Britain tried through most of the 1930s to conduct business as normally as possible with Germany...Germany was, after India, Britain’s best customer and a prosperous Germany would, they claimed, be good for British business and would enable supposed Nazi moderates to exercise a stabilising influence. In consequence, the German war machine continued to be fuelled with oil and armed with metals from British sources.

If there are any factual objections, you can hash them out at the "Supplied by Soviet Union" section above. Cheers, GPRamirez5 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

GPRamirez, another editor has already said that abusing other editors is unhelpful, and I'm still picking up an adversarial tone here; you will sooner influence people if you adapt. If there's no change, I'll follow

On a lighter note, and icymi, if you feel strongly about Western hypocrisy about the Soviet Union, let me recommend the head of BBC History Laurence Rees, World War Two Behind Closed Doors for your Christmas reading. It is totally unsparing on this matter, and calls for greater self-awareness and less mythologizing among Brits and Americans about how the war was won. It would support content in this article on the Soviet Union's primary role in defeating Hitler, the postponement of D-Day by at least a year, the Phoney War and Yalta. It's also mainstream. Enjoy. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

1. I stated that historical consensus was not necessary for *exclusion* from a lead due to the issue of balance. Where substantial controversy exists (and that controversy hasn't even been addressed in the article body) then an assertion should be omitted from the lead. Your invocations of reichsmarks, tonnage, and exchange rates only further demonstrate that the issue is too complex and controversial for the lead.

2. You, my brother, are the first one who pointed to the German-Soviet Trade Agreement page to support your argument. In the spirit of good faith, consistency, and fair play, let's preach what we practice.

3. It is an abuse of WP:Assume good faith to use it to disqualify criticism of a logical fallacy or suppress reasonable debate. A criticism of a method of debate is not a character judgment.

4. Presuming to know what I am presuming about you is itself a presumption. It is not so much a matter of presuming bad faith as doing you the service of assuming you are too intelligent to make the errors you're making. For instance, in this conversation, you're surely aware that WP:SYNTH and such don't apply to Talk conversations, they apply to article edits only. You also must be aware, as I've kept the focus on trade, that the subject here is not the broad category of "Nazi-Soviet relations" but who-if anyone-qualifies as the primary supplier of war material to Germany from 1939-40, and that egregiously widening the category functions as a way of changing the subject. Please return this conversation to the appropriate section. Cheers, GPRamirez5 (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Whilst Britain may have been trading with Germany leading up to the war the point is that Germany wasn't actually at war with anyone at the time. And the trading stopped when Germany invaded Poland. It didn't carry on supplying Germany with the supplies Germany needed to invade other countries, until it was itself invaded.

A June 1940 Flight article with "first world war" in reference to 1914-18 here: [18], another 1940 one with "... since World War I" here: [19], and a July 1941 issue with "the world war" here: [20]

And a February 1939 editorial on the prospects of war - " ... almost inevitably it would be another world war" here: [21] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 13:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Germany wasn't actually at war with anyone at the time.

People have this funny habit of forgetting that Czechoslovakia was a sovereign nation in 1939. Interesting that Stalin is pilloried for bloodless-but-aggressive coups in the Baltic states, but Hitler gets a free pass for doing the same thing a few months earlier. Most interesting.-GPRamirez5 (talk) 15:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• It correctly tells that the war "lasted from 1939 to 1945". It also tells correctly about some prewar events, such as Munich Agreement and many others. I do not see anything seriously problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Germany never declared war with Czechoslovakia merely occupying it without a fight. Thus as I wrote above Germany wasn't legally in a state of war with anyone at the time.

Britain was (and is) governed by law and it is not for any British government to prevent its citizens trading with any foreign country just because it may not like what that foreign country is doing, without parliament first passing laws giving the government legal powers to do so. Such laws require justification, such as the offending country being in a state of war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

My question is centered on the approach/method/steps the editors of this article developed to form a consensus on the start date of WWII. How did the editors here resolve this issue? I was hoping to employ the same approach with the article

Nothing special I'm afraid: from memory, it involved just a bunch of regular talk page discussions. I'd suggest looking through the talk page archives for this. They can be searched via the box at the top of this page. Nick-D (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

27.56.92.249 (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

reliable source if appropriate. No request was made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?

) 17:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2018

This edit request to World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

27.56.92.249 (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at
  WP:UNPROTECT
  . A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

In the Infobox, as Results of WW2, shouldn't there one item making mention of the great changes which followed in some nations, being direct or proximate indirect results of it:
- the Partition of India
- the Chinese Civil War
- the Korean War
etc Spettro9 (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, but in my opinion they are not proximate enough to be worthy of mention, especially not in the infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

The Infobox links to Aftermath of World War II, which covers this, though there isn't much reference to India. I agree that the events you mention did mainly result from WW2, except for the Chinese Civil War which started in 1927.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45) section, link on "while the Soviets advanced to

Done. Thank you. Paul Siebert (talk) 07:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The Genocide etc section says: " In accordance with the Allied agreement made at the Yalta Conference millions of POWs and civilians were used as forced labour by the Soviet Union.[369] In Hungary's case, Hungarians were forced to work for the Soviet Union until 1955.[370]"

Can anybody explain me a reason why do we need to speak about Hungarians separately? Hungary was the Axis power, and its POWs were treated in the same way as other POWs. The article will benefit if the second sentence is removed. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I would suggest

WP:BB. Gog the Mild (talk

) 15:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• Remove: seems odd to call out just one Axis power in this manner. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice: There is an article on POW labor in the Soviet Union which is not yet linked from the WW2 article. Instead, Foreign forced labor in the Soviet Union is linked. Perhaps candidates for a merger? --Prüm (talk) 22:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure this statement

"At the Casablanca Conference in early 1943, the Allies reiterated the statements issued in the 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, and demanded the unconditional surrender of their enemies."

is absolutely correct and I don't know if it is needed at all. First, it was the meeting of Western Allies only, so the sentence is somewhat misleading. Second, although Roosevelt proposed the concept of unconditional surrender, it was not anonymously supported even by the Britain. It was the Tehran conference where all Big Three leaders agreed upon the unconditional surrender concept. Source: J Roberts, Stalin at the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conferences, Journal of Cold War Studies Volume 9, Number 4, Fall 2007

In connection to that, I also disagree with the way Tehran conference is described in the article. It should be separated from the Cairo conference, and one or two sentences should be devoted to the explanations of what the Allies decided there, and about the acceptance of the unconditional surrender principle. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

A bigger problem is that the 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which the USSR did assent to, does not mention unconditional surrender as implied. 98.143.76.91 (talk)

Agreed. It's also notable that FDR essentially announced the unconditional surrender policy by himself at Casablanca (apparently taking Churchill by surprise), and various sources note that it didn't have much force at this time as a result. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The article says:

"In addition to

Soviet POWs of the Germans died during the war.^[2] Richard Overy gives the number of 5.7 million Soviet POWs. Of those, 57 per cent died or were killed, a total of 3.6 million.^[3] Soviet ex-POWs and repatriated civilians were treated with great suspicion as potential Nazi collaborators, and some of them were sent to the Gulag upon being checked by the NKVD.^[4]

"

I see some problems here. "In addition to Nazi concentration camps ... " implies they either have been mentioned before (they haven't), other they deserve less attention that other camps (they doesn't). Moreover, this sentence equates Soviet and Nazi camps, which is incorrect for two reasons. First. High mortality in Gulag in 1942-43 is a direct consequence of the war (Soviet civilians suffered from malnutrition too), whereas Nazi camps deliberately created unbearable condition for prisoners. That means Gulag was especially deadly during the war because of the war, but Nazi camps were deadly because they were specially designed for that. Second, the most famous Nazi camps were not concentration camps (Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor and some others), but death camps, and their primary goal was to kill people. That is an important point. In addition, the next sentence that tells about Soviet POW's is misplaced, because it follows the sentence telling about Gulag. It should be moved to the previous paragraph. I also found several repetitions, for example, Soviet POW figures are given twice.

I propose the following version of the first two paragraphs where different themes are not mixed and internal logic is restored:

The German government led by

Soviet POWs were kept in especially unbearable condition, and, although their extermination was not an official goal, 3.6 million of Soviet POWs out of 5.7 died in Nazi camps during the war.^{[2] [3]} In addition to concentration camps, death camps

were created in Nazi Germany to exterminate people at an industrial scale.

Nazi Germany extensively used forced labourers. About 12 million Europeans from German occupied countries were used as slave work force in German agriculture and war economy.^[4]

Soviet

other countries occupied in 1939-40 by the USSR, as well as of the Axis POWs.^[6]

By the end of the war, most Soviet POWs liberated from Nazi camps and many repatriated civilians were detained in special filtration camps where they were subjected to NKVD check, and significant part of them was sent to Gulag as real or perceived Nazi collaborators.^[7]

Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Looks good. One more thing: I believe the

Displaced persons camps in post-World War II Europe in the early stages also had a high mortality, as did the transports and forced evacuations of Germans from Eastern Europe (and doubtless other nationalities as well). Not sure how this would enter the picture, belonging to the immediate aftermath of the war rather than the war itself. --Prüm (talk

) 05:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree fully with the intent of this change: the current wording is sloppy at best, and at worst is an attempt to imply that the USSR was just as bad as Nazi Germany (as I understand it, the general view is that both were very bad, but Germany was significantly worse). Regarding the second para, it wasn't just eastern Europeans who were used as forced labourers: huge numbers of western Europeans and Italians were also so used. I'd suggest not using the word "employed" in this context, as it implies that they were paid when they were actually slaves. The issue of post-war expulsions is covered in the 'Aftermath' section, and shouldn't be presented alongside wartime war crimes. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Nick, I changed the draft. Is it better?Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a reason why the Nazi and Soviets camps should be compared (does this mean I agree or disagree with you?). The thing they have in common is that they both had POWs. But I disagree with the view that the Soviets wanted the treat the POWs right and that only food shortage killed them. The Soviet Union had not signed the 1907 or 1929 Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and they had no intention to treat POWs according to those standards. With the death marches and stuff you can't say they weren't being deliberalitely killed. --Pudeo (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, out of 90,000 of German POWs captured at Stalingrad only 5,000 survived. However, most of them were already sick, frostbited or wounded by the moment they were captured. Yes, the Soviets did not provide needed medical help or food, but free population of the USSR was starving too. Mortality in GULAG increased sharply in 1942-43 and amounted to 20% annually. By saying that, I do not imply USSR "wanted the treat the POWs right": they used their labour, which is not allowed by Geneva conventions. However, POWs were not treated especially badly, just as bad as Soviet prisoners were treated. That is the difference.

By the way, is it just a comment, or you propose some changes to the draft?Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Mostly just a comment: the Western allies treated POWs right so from the Allied side the Soviet Union should stand out. Which I think it fairly well does in your draft, but I was cautioning not modify it at towards the potential "Soviets wanted to treat them good" side. But I would propose this change to the draft: mention the number of 3.6 million German POWs dying. That's a significant number which is sourced in the present version. --Pudeo (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

When I put a draft on the talk page, everybody is usually welcome to edit it (if a rationale is provided). However, the figure of 3.6 million contradicts to official figures of German military losses (3.76 million) and Overmans data (4.5 million). These data include KIA, MIA and POWs died in captivity. I would like to see your source. Can you please drop a reference?Paul Siebert (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, 3.6 million is the number for Soviet POWs killed - I misread the original chapter (actually your draft is more clear in this because it breaks it down to different paragraphs). The number of German POWs killed (350,000-1 million) perhaps then should not be mentioned because it's not as significant and the estimation varies so much depending on whether the Soviet records are trusted. --Pudeo (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"The number of German POWs died". It seems 1 million is the difference between Overmans and official figures. I don't think we need specifically mention German POWs, because other GULAG deaths are not mentioned. By the way, I saw statistics, war time mortality was much higher, which means unbearable conditions (more severe that before and after the war) were not a result of intentional policy, but the consequence of the war.

If noone has other comments or suggestions, I'll probably move the text to the article tomorrow.Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of the worst famines in human history like the Bengal famine of 1943 happened during war-time so war-time conditions aren't necessarily alone a Get Out of Jail Free card. The mortality rate in the gulags indeed quadrupled during the war-time, but it was 5 % even before the war so the system was built so that a portion of the forced labourers would succumb (which doesn't make them death camps, anyway). --Pudeo (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct.Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed sometimes ethnicity is mentioned in the article without any obvious reason. For example, I've just removed the statement "The largest portion of military dead were 5.7 million ethnic Russians, followed by 1.3 million ethnic Ukrainians " from the "Casualties" section, because statistics says that all ethnic groups in USSR sustained approximately similar military losses (in relative figures).

I suggest to examine the whole article and to remove an information about ethnicity when it is irrelevant. For example, it is absolutely relevant to mention Jews in the "Genocide" section, but it would be irrelevant to mention them separately in the section devoted to military losses (the percentage of KIA/MIA Jews was roughly the same, in relative figures, as of other ethnic groups).

-Paul Siebert (talk) 17:14, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. One could perhaps say … N Soviet citizens, of which M were ethnic …. --Prüm (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What idea such mentioning would suppose to convey? That the word "Russians" or "Ukrainians" should be mentioned? I doubt our goal is to please someone's nationalism.

IMHO, the ethnicity should be mentioned only when it is relevant. For example, Jews were killed by Nazi because they were Jews, Japanese were detained by Americans because they were Americans of Japanese origin", but Russians were killed because they were Slavs, not because they were Russians. Therefore, it is correct to mention Slavs, Jews, Japanese, but not Russians (in the context of killing, of course).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, it is always relevant to some extent. The Nazis' preferred victims, behind Jews and Gypsies, would be Poles, Serbs and Russians (not sure about the order). One can easily see that they also suffered most severely. Ukrainians were, at least initially, treated with much more leniency than, say, Russians or White Russians. The other peoples of the Soviet Union were even given the opportunity to serve alongside the Wehrmacht, quite regardless of race. So, in short, the Nazis' racialist ideas were not really that coherent. --Prüm (talk) 15:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

In this context, Jews, Gypsies are relevant. Poles are relevant because in means not ethnicity, but nationality (citizenship), actually under "Poles" all gentile population of Poland is meant.

Serbs are also relevant, because Yugoslavia was split on two parts: a Nazi puppet state of Croatia and occupied Serbia, so "Serbs" means "population of Serbia".

Russians are NOT relevant in this case, because all Eastern Slavs were targeted in the same extent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It seems this summary article is supposed to tell about large scale events only. I don't think minor facts and figures belong to it. For example, the Casualties section that tells about millions killed civilians and military, also explicitly mentions 22,000 Polish POWs executed by the USSR. I agree, a link to Katyn should be in the article (it is a significant event, despite its relatively limited scale; it poisoned, and continues to poison the relationships between there two countries), but the statement should be re-worded.

In general, I suggest to check the way all figures are presented in the article. It is simply ridiculous when 3 million and 15 thousand are mentioned in the same paragraph. Usually the revision will not require removal of the information, just re-wording.

And, I suppose, our reader is proficient in school arithmetic, so we don't need to say:

"Of the total number of deaths in World War II, approximately 85 per cent—mostly Soviet and Chinese—were on the Allied side and 15 per cent were on the Axis side."

Just

"Of the total number of deaths in World War II, approximately 85 per cent—mostly Soviet and Chinese—were on the Allied side"

would be sufficient.

-Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I take your point, but many highly educated people don't understand statistics. For example, they were good at history but not good at maths in school. We shouldn't presume that readers have a greater proficiency in maths than the editors who wrote the page!!! That being said, I would support a rewording based on logic.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

We should maintain a balance between providing figures and keeping the article readable. If we remove marginally informative figures that may make a life of a reader who is not proficient in school arithmetic worse, but it will help a general reader understand the text. The article is redundantly long, and we need meticulously clean it from redundant details when possible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not presume the editor who wrote "85 per centwere on the Allied side and 15 per cent were on the Axis side", was not proficient in Math. I think they simply didn't care about making the article as short as possible. In the article like this one, every word matters. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the caption to the map says:

Post-war Soviet territorial expansion resulted in Central and Eastern European border changes, the creation of a Communist Bloc and start of the Cold War]]

It is not completely accurate and redundantly long. The border changed during the war (USSR annexed many territories in 1939-40). The term Central Europe is not compatible with Eastern Europe, these definitions partially overlap. The caption provides links that are already present in the article. In addition, the caption implies some changes occurred in other parts of Europe, but I am not aware of it. In addition, I am not sure creation of the Eastern Bloc was the sole reason for the start of the Cold War.

I suggest a shorter and more neutral caption:

"Post-war border changes in Europe. Creation of the Eastern Bloc."

-Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, does Eastern Bloc really refer to only the Eastern and Central European communist states? I'm not so sure. Countries like Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, … come to mind. --Prüm (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The current capture contains a link to the same Eastern Bloc article, so I don't understand your point. Do you propose just:

"Post-war border changes in Europe."

? --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact was formed in 1955, I believe? That was years after a new Cold War had been mutually declared.

Let me see… what about: Post-war occupation effectively brought much of Central and Eastern Europe into the Soviet sphere of influence, the border of which became known as the Iron Curtain? --Prüm (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Too confusing. Germany was occupied completely, but only a part of territory was transferred to Poland and USSR. Moldavia was annexed (actually, it was an interesting story, because Moldavia had never been an part of Romania before 1918, and Romania took it in the same was as Russia recently took Crimea: moved military forces there, neutralized local parliament members and initiated a referendum among ethnically close population. This annexation has never been recognized by the USSR, and, by the way, by the US), and so on. The map is not supposed to tell the history of the whole World War II in Central Europe, it just tells about post war border changes (the section is about war's aftermath).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

May be "Soviet occupation zone in Europe and post-war border changes"? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually that is also not completely correct, because part of Austria was in the Soviet zone too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Do we even need this map? The war led to significant territorial changes around the world (eg, Germany's western borders were adjusted as well, and there were massive changes in Asia with the breakup of the Japanese empire in 1945 and the collapse of the colonial empires over the next few years). The war also led to the creation of a fairly unified western bloc spanning Europe, North America and the Commonwealth dominions, which hadn't existed in 1939. I'd suggest removing it. Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a double feeling. From one hand, you are right, from another hand, border changes in Central Europe, in contrast to other parts of the world (except, probably, Kuril Islands and a small archipelago in a Yellow Sea), provoked some conflicts that have not been resolved even now.

I would make a caption shorter (I already proposed my version) and leave it, although I will not object to map removal either.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This section contains two paragraphs that are poorly connected. It also contains a reference to the primary source (avalon project), which is not desirable to have in this article, and I am not sure conversation between Hitler and Ciano is so important: we describing the course of events, not what Hitler, Stalin, Churchill thought about that. In addition, since the current version of the section discusses unsuccessful negotiations (there was a consensus in the past that we avoid that), I think the tripartite Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations deserve mention. The current version does not make clear that "spheres of influence" were not defined in the Soviet-German pact, only in a secret protocol. I propose to merge these two paragraphs as follows:

In August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact,^[1] a non-aggression treaty with a secret protocol. The parties gave each other rights to "spheres of influence" (western Poland and Lithuania for Germany; eastern Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia for the USSR). It also raised the question of continuing Polish independence.^[2] The agreement assured that after the attack of Poland Germany would not have to face the prospect of a two-front war, as it had in World War I.

The situation reached a general crisis in late August as German troops continued to mobilise against the Polish border. In a private meeting with the Italian foreign minister

Count Ciano, Hitler asserted that Poland was a "doubtful neutral" that needed to either yield to his demands or be "liquidated" to prevent it from drawing off German troops in the future "unavoidable" war with the Western democracies. He did not believe Britain or France would intervene in the conflict.^[3] On 23 August Hitler ordered the attack to proceed on 26 August, but upon hearing that Britain had concluded a formal mutual assistance pact with Poland and that Italy would maintain neutrality, he decided to delay it.^[4]

"The situation reached a general crisis in late August as German troops continued to mobilise against the Polish border. In August 23, when tripartite negotiations about a military alliance between France, Britain and USSR came to an impasse[5], Soviet Union signed a non-aggression pact with Germany.^[1] This pact had a secret protocol that defined German and Soviet "spheres of influence" (western Poland and Lithuania for Germany; eastern Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Bessarabia for the USSR), and raised the question of continuing Polish independence.^[2] The pact neutralized the possibility of Soviet opposition to a campaign against Poland andassured that Germany would not have to face the prospect of a two-front war, as it had in World War I. Immediately after that, Hitler ordered the attack to proceed on 26 August, but upon hearing that Britain had concluded a formal mutual assistance pact with Poland, and that Italy would maintain neutrality, he decided to delay it.^[6]

-Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I somehow don't like the part with the impasse. The negotiations just failed, catastrophically so. What about after the ultimate failure of tripartite negotiations …? The reason was, of course, the bitter enmity between Poland and Russia, built up over centuries. --Prüm (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It was not a failure. The negotiations were still continuing by Aug 23, but they were really slow. The parties still declared the need of an alliance, but they were unable to resolve key issues (indirect aggression, Polish refusal to allow Soviet troops to pass through its territory, etc. It was an impasse, but formally it was not a definite failure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

All that was still happening at that stage was both sides kept telling each other (for months on end) that neither could accept the wishes of the other. The negotiations had failed even as early as smth. like early summer or even spring 1939? One should also remember that Voroshilov, who conducted the negotiations on Stalin's behalf, was one of his all-time favourites, just like Molotov. --Prüm (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

No, that is incorrect. Britain and France were telling that they would not accept Molotov's interpretation of the "indirect aggression" term, and the political talks were paused (not stopped) in July (which was not early summer). Later, the Soviet side requested that a military talks to start, which discussed military aspects (i.e. practical aspects) of the prospective alliance (with a goal to sign both political and military documents simultaneously in the case of a progress would be achieved in political talks. Military talks started in August, and they were still in progress when Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed. (France was still pushing on the Poles, because France was more interested in an alliance with USSR that Britain: there were no La Manche between Germany and France).

Again, that was just an impasse, not interrupted negotiations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Negotiations could not have stopped in early summer or spring, because William Strang, head of the Central Department at the British Foreign Office and former counsellor in Moscow, who was a head of British delegation, arrived in Moscow on 14 June only. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, since I see no objections, I am intended to implement proposed changes tomorrow. 21:00 EST. Please, comment if something is wrong with the proposed text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The fragment:

" From late 1939 to early 1941, in a series of campaigns and treaties, Germany conquered or controlled much of continental Europe, and formed the Axis alliance with Italy and Japan. Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned and annexed territories of their European neighbours, Poland, Finland, Romania and the Baltic states."

Is not completely accurate. Some sources say it was the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Eastern part or Romania and Baltic states that convinced Hitler to start planning Barbarossa. Hitler considered annexation of Baltic states by the USSR as an aggressive act and Barbarossa was a response on it (Source: H. W. Koch Operation Barbarossa-The Current State of the Debate. The Historical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 377-390.) In other words, Hitler did not consider annexation of Bessarabia or Baltic states was stipulated by the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (he believed USSR was allowed to install friendly regimes there, to keep military bases, but not to occupy and annex.) In addition, the second sentence partially repeats the first one.

I suggest this:

"From late 1939 to early 1941, … through a series of campaigns of conquest and by

the Axis alliance with Italy, Japan and several Central European states. The USSR occupied and annexed territories of its several neighbours ( Eastern Poland, Eastern Finland, Romanian Bessarabia and the Baltic states) that were in its sphere of influence according to the non-aggression

pact with Germany."

-Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest: … through a series of campaigns of conquest and (in a lesser part) by diplomatic means, Germany gained control of … I am not a native speaker, however. --Prüm (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree, except "in lesser part" is incorrect. Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Finland (not an Axis country, but an ally) - all of that was a result of diplomacy. In contrast to Stalin, Hitler was using diplomaitc means masterfully.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

BTW, I've just realized the Axis included not only Germany, Italy and Japan. Added to the draft.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that he was masterful at all. Just like Stalin, he mainly relied on brutal force. That there were some diplomatic successes does not mean they were due to Hitler's genius or smth. like that. Perhaps one could see Stalin as the more successful of the two in this regard, seeing that he survived Hitler by 8 years and with his "empire" still intact, being ~10 years his senior. --Prüm (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Under "Hitler" I mean Nazi leadership in general. Hitler was not masterful, but Ribbentrop was. Litvinov was also a very good diplomat, but he was a member of "Lenin team", so his vision of Soviet foreign policy had little support from Stalin. In contrast, Ribbentrop had a full freedom of manoeuvre, so Germany had a lot of sincere allies in Europe, whereas Stalin preferred to occupy neighbours and politically subdue by a brute force.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

And I would disagree Stalin was more successful, taking into account a recent revival of Nazism in some post-Communist states. Many Central Europeans see Hitlerism as less evil that Stalinism, and I think the reason was that Hitler's foreign policy, in some aspects, was more soft and flexible.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the current text is fine. It represents the consensus view of historians and is easy to understand. If we acknowledge the views of a minority of revisionists, this should be in the body of the article, not the lead.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is the revisionist minority views in the proposed modification?

As far as I know, it is a mainstream viewpoint that Hitler's decision to start "Barbarossa" was triggered by occupation of the Baltic states, which was considered by him as unfriendly act and violation of the non-aggression pact. That point of view was mainstream at least since 80s, so by no means it can be revisionist (it is impossible chronologically). Of course, local historians who are focused on the history of their own countries do see both "mutual assistance" agreements with USSR and subsequent occupation as the direct consequence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. But military historians who see a broader picture do see it. By forcing the Baltic states to sign "mutually assistance" agreement, Stalin was acting in a full accordance with the pact. By occupying the Baltic states, Stalin violated the pact (at least, from Hitler's point of view), and that was the step that affected Hitler's decision to attack USSR.

I already provided my source, and I can provide more. If you disagree, provide your sources, please. I would prefer to see the sources where Nazi-Soviet relations are being analyzed in details. The sources about the history of the Baltic states are narrow and biased, they do not see a big picture, and many of them make a usual post hoc ergo propter hoc error.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It is easy to see I haven't cherry picked sources. Just type [origin of barbarossa directive hitler] in google scholar. These sources are the same sources non-biased Wikipedian would find if they decided to familiarise themselves with WWII history.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Since there is no further comments from Jack Upland, I assume I addressed this concern, and I was able to demonstrate the proposed change are in agreement with mainstream vision of the origin of operation Barbarossa. Actually, it is in agreement with what historians say about the circumstances of occupation of the Baltic states in 1940: in his "Stalin's war" Roberts writes that fall of France causes panic in Soviet leadership, who realised the USSR is the only rival of Nazi Germany in Europe, and they decided to put the Baltic states and Bessarabia under more strict control by fully occupying and annexing them. If no other comments/objections will be made until Wednesday 21:00 EST, I'll implement the proposed change. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

You can change it if you want, but I'm uneasy about the way this is heading. Hitler himself in his Last will and testament of Adolf Hitler did not say that Barbarossa was in response to Stalin's annexation of the Baltic states. According to Alan Bullock, "As before the Polish campaign, Hitler convinced himself that Germany had been forced to act first in self-defence. But the documentary evidences establishes that the detailed planning for Operation Barbarossa made no provision for having to meet a Russian attack... Confidence in the German camp was high because all reports showed that the Russians were ill-prepared to defend themselves, leave alone launch an offensive... Unlike Hitler... Stalin did all he could to preserve it [the Pact]"(Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives, 1993, p 751).--Jack Upland (talk) 07:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

What you are saying does not contradict to what I say. Hitler didn't see an immediate military threat in occupation of the Baltic states or Bessarabia, but he was displeased with Soviet actions, and he ordered a start for planning Barbarossa. Koch says:

"In the meantime Russia liquidated the Baltic states, a process completed before the campaign in the west had ended and watched with disquiet by the Germans, especially as the Russians occupied a small territorial strip around Mariampul in Lithuania which had originally been consigned to the German sphere of influence in 1939. With that the Russians bolted the door to German access to the Baltic countries. Russia's annexations also had economic consequences. Seventy per cent of the exports of these three countries had been absorbed by Germany, mainly wheat, butter, pork, dairy produce, flax, wood and oil. A German foreign office assessment of the situation recorded that 'the stabilization of the Russian influence in these territories signifies a serious danger for us in so far as these essential supplies are concerned '. .... Hitler, and Ribbentrop for that matter, had interpreted 'spheres of interest' rather literally, neither of them expecting the total destruction of the sovereignty of the states concerned".

However, thanks to your comments, I found another problem with the proposed text: whereas it is more accurate about the Baltic states and Bessarabia, it is less accurate about Poland. I'll probably think more about that, and I will not be implementing this change change so far. Thank you for your comments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

World War II ended for the USA on December 31,1946. President H.Truman Proclamation 2714. Cbudt13 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a

reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs}

) 23:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I notice we give just the day, September 1st, but we don't discuss the hour. First, there's plenty of sources for 0445 (ex. David T. Zabecki (1 May 2015). World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia. Routledge. pp. 1663–.

To be honest, the difficulty you have in the text above with identifying an unambiguous single time in the literature, would in my view be already more than enough reason to NOT name a specific time, at all, at least not in this high level overview article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Summer time (i.e. DST) was re-introduced in Germany in 1940 (de:Sommerzeit references the relevant law, which specifies GMT+1 in winter and GMT+2 April-October). There was no summer time in 1939. At least Timeanddate.com claims there was no time difference between Berlin and Warsaw in 1939: [26] [27]. So the difference may have other reasons. —Kusma (t·c) 10:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That seems an excessive level of detail for this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D It makes Wikipedia look like it's trivia-hunting Rjensen (talk) 10:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Taking into account that there is no agreement that the WWII started with invasion of Poland (many authors believe it started earlier in Asia, or later, in 1941, and we have a separate section about that), this redundant accuracy may give a start for another round of debates, because some people may find this article too eurocentric.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree — excessive level of detail.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change:

It included massacres, the genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, premeditated death from starvation and disease, biological and chemical warfare, and the only use of nuclear weapons in war.

to:

It included massacres, the genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, premeditated death from starvation and disease, biological and chemical warfare, and the only use of nuclear weapons in war, for now. 2A02:A311:8265:7800:5CFD:4663:BEE9:8057 (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: unnecessary. NiciVampireHeart 14:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I see several "page needed" tags in the references to journal articles. As far as I know, no exact page is required for journal articles, just first and last page numbers. The exact page number is required only for books. I propose to remove these tags from article references.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

quite right. in many online services you get the journal article in one long stream with no page divisions. Rjensen (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

In addition, even printed journal articles are often short (fewer than 10 pages) so the burden of finding the information by reading the whole thing is not that large - compared to having to go through a full 1,000 page book. That is why most scientific citing styles (like APA) do not ask for pagenumbers for journal papers (unless a specific quote is used). And neither should we. Arnoutf (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Template:Cite journal clearly provides for single page numbers to be provided. A lot of referencing styles do too. While sometimes online it might be impossible to provide pinpoint page numbers, it is still desirable to provide them. The issue is not just the "burden of finding the information". It's about verifying. That's why we have citations. Even if a journal article is relatively short, it is reasonable to ask editors to specify exactly what page they got that fact from, if they can. I've certainly faced the issue of searching through page after page looking for support for a contentious claim, and not knowing whether my search was thorough enough to say the claim was unsupported by the source. I think one page is manageable. After that, it is not reasonable to expect volunteers to expend energies trying to verify information. If some editor has asked for a page reference, that is reasonable, and the tag should remain until the reference is supplied, or the information verified in some other way.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The template's description says that it can be filled by a bot if DOI is provided, and the bot takes "author's name, journal name, date, volume, issue, pages, etc." automatically. Since DOI contain just first and last page number, that is what is expected to be in the references if a bot fills it. I don't think WP has different rules for bot and human written references. Anyway, page numbers have already been provided in this article, so I do not understand why this duplication is needed.

In addition, articles, in contrast to books, are devoted to some narrow aspect of some topic, so it is desirable to read the (short) article in full, because a statement may be misleading when it is taken out of a context. That is why providing a concrete page is redundant. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I removed this [28], for several reasons. First, this sentence is not in the best context. Second, I believe, we came to agreement we don't need to give numbers of that type (why exactly these 40,000 victims deserve an explicit mention, and the victims of other bombing are not?). Third, it is redundant, because the "Western Europe/Atlantic and Mediterranean (1942–43)" section already discusses strategic bombing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Hamburg is especially important because its the first time that either side got the firestorm effect that causes vastly more casualties, because it burns the oxygen out of underground shelters. Dresden 1945 also. I think that never happened in Berlin or Cologne or the other major cities, and it happened only once in Tokyo. See http://www.onlinemilitaryeducation.org/posts/10-most-devastating-bombing-campaigns-of-wwii/ Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I understand that. My question is: there were many terrible events during WWII when several tens of thousand people were killed in one day. Why exactly are Hamburg inhabitants mentioned here explicitly? What was a strategic importance of this particular bombing (as far as I know, all bombing until early 1945 had just minimal strategic consequences)?

The only difference between bombing of Hamburg and, for example, Tokyo was that Hamburg was just a first example. However, it was not the most devastating bombing raid. German bombing of Stalingrad in August 1942 or American bombing of Tokyo in 1945 were more deadly. What is the reason to mention Hamburg and not to mention Tokyo, Dresden, Stalingrad or Coventry? Maybe Hanburg is more appropriate for the "War crimes" section?--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

If we don't already have it, the article should note instead that the bombing campaign against Germany began to be a major offensive from mid-1943. Hamburg was probably the single most devastating attack on a German city during the war (more killed than at Dresden and a much more economically important city destroyed), but it marked the start of the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Historians always stress the "first" -- especially when the results were so unexpected. The Allies used Hamburg as their model and tried repeatedly to copy it. Rjensen (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that few words can be added about Hamburg when the article tells about the start of the bombing campaign. My point was that the sentence I removed was in a wrong place, and we should not mention the number of killed explicitly is we do not do that for other events (including the events other than bombing raids, because it was just one example of mass killing).--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I added Hamburg back to a more appropriate place and reworded it. Check if everything is correct. I think one sentence should be added here about efficiency of this campaign, which was not impressive unlit early 1945. Does anybody have any idea on that account?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The term was originally coined to describe the USA, the USSR, and the UK - until the Suez Canal crisis in 1956. Granted, that's only 11 years, but I still think UK should be mentioned in this sentence. Thoughts?2605:E000:6300:8300:1B0:6004:280E:655E (talk) 05:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree--Britain in 1945 still had an empire and naval power. It was in better economic shape than USSR. Rjensen (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Any chance of some sources? As well as or instead of editors' opinions? I have a personal opinion on this, but I don't see why Wikipedia should be interested in it. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

https://assets.pearsonglobalschools.com/asset_mgr/current/201329/EdexcelA2Geogsamplepages.pdf

"Superpowers are able to infl uence policy on a worldwide scale, and often in different regions at the same time. The term was fi rst used in 1944 by T.R. Fox, in his book The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union – Their Responsibility for Peace. These three nations fought on the same side in the Second World War, but afterwards became involved in a battle for economic, political and military power. At the end of the war, the British Empire covered about 25% of the world’s land area and had 25% of its population. However, its power was in decline, whereas the USA and USSR were emerging as the new superpowers. " Also, the wikipedia page for Superpower itself briefly talks about it with sources. 2605:E000:6300:8300:1B0:6004:280E:655E (talk) 07:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

What is being proposed here? The sentence in the title of this section is in the infobox and is uncontroversial. It doesn't seem to be specifically referenced in the article at present, but finding such references would be trivial. It's certainly true that the UK remained a 'superpower' in the years immediately after the war (until economic realities and the end of empire burst that particular bubble), but so what? Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. The emergence of the USA and the USSR as superpowers is a "result" of the war. Britain as a superpower isn't.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be more accurate to say "Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as "rival" superpowers". They were already technically described as superpowers before the war ended, the only difference after the war is that they were rivals not on the same side. Lucasjohansson (talk) 00:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The development of atomic bombs seems to be a neglected in this article. It is mentioned twice in the lead. Then, in the body, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki gets two sentences. (Less than than the internment of Axis civilians in North America.) There's no mention of the lives lost, but there is mention of the potential lives that might have been lost in an invasion. There's also no mention of the destructive power of the bombs. Incidentally, Casualties and war crimes mentions "mass bombing" of cities, but not the atomic bombs. Advances in technology and warfare makes passing reference to "the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons". More space is devoted to cryptography and jet planes. Aftermath mentions an "arms race", without specifying nuclear weapons. And I think that's it.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the role of atomic bombing in Japan surrender was less important than most people think. See Robert A. Pape "Why Japan Surrendered", nternational Security Vol. 18, No. 2 (Fall, 1993), pp. 154-201

Paul Siebert (talk) 07:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue of why Japan surrendered is separate. The point is (1) a lot of people died, (2) it was a major advance in technology and military destructive capability. Facts are stubborn things, as Heinrich Hoffmann once said.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) The number of people died was not impressive if you compare it with the amount of other civilian victims of conventional bombing raids or from other causes (e.g. siege of Leningrad)

(2) There is a separate section in the article devoted to the advances of technology and warfare.

Thank you for pointing my attention at this issue. Actually, two sentences is even too much. This sentence "The Allies justified the atomic bombings as a military necessity to avoid invading the Japanese home islands which would cost the lives of between 250,000 and 500,000 Allied servicemen and millions of Japanese troops and civilians." explains the reason behind the decision to drop the atomic bomb, whereas other steps taken by the Allies or the Axis powers remain unexplained. As far as I remember, there was a consensus to remove all explanations of this kind from this high profile summary article. If noone explains me what was a specific reason to keep this explanation, I'll remove this sentence.

In addition, if a reason will be provided why we should keep this sentence, we will also have to add the information that the same estimate of possible losses forced the US leadership to ask the USSR to declare war on Japan. Currently, the article says nothing about that, but if the reason for atomic bombing requires a separate explanation, Soviet invasion requires it too.

Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No reason to keep the justification of atomic bombing has been provided. Since nobody minds, I remove it.-Paul Siebert (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

As I stated, the section on Advances in technology and warfare only makes a passing reference to the atomic bomb. Whatever you do to the lead, the lack of information about atomic bombs in the article is strange.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

How exactly had atomic bomb affected the course of the war, and what other information about it is needed in this article?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:42, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Atomic energy was a major advance in technology, but it's barely mentioned. I don't think there's any serious dispute that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were important events that happened during the war. They just seem to have been largely forgotten here. The problem is that people come to Wikipedia for information, and I think it's perverse to tell them more about the Italian invasion of Ethiopia than the atom bomb. You keep coming back to how the atomic bomb affected the course of the war as if that's the only question. It's not. Even so, the article by Pape that you keep citing doesn't really support your argument. He says, "The second and final change to the emperor's views was caused by the Hiroshima bomb"; it was the "catalyst" in his decision to surrender (p 185). The Hiroshima bombing, of course, occurred before the Soviet declaration of war. In an article like this, we need to deal with what happened. We don't have the space for hypotheticals and rationalisations. Hence, if the Hiroshima bombing led to the Japanese surrender, then the Hiroshima bombing is notable, even if they would have surrendered anyway. And if many people think the atom bomb won the war (which they do), then it's notable, even if that's not true.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it was a major advance, as well as von Braun's missiles were (a whole American and, in less extent, Soviet space programs resulted from them). Zuse's computer was equally important advance, and so on. However, this article is about the war, not about that. You propose to support an old stereotype that the nation which develops nuclear weapon first automatically wins. This is true for Civilization games, not for real life.

Regarding Pape, whom I am keeping citing (I think, it would be more polite to say "You cite", but English is not my mother tongue, so I probably misunderstand these nuances), you didn't read it carefully. Hirohito was not the only decision maker, a "war party" in Japanese leadership was led by the Army, and its core was Kwantung army; the war party was stronger that Horohito, but its positions were totally unaffected by bombing, because the headquarter, industrial and military bases were in Korea and Manchuria. Neither conventional nor atomic bombing convinced them to surrender, but Soviet invasion did, because it crushed the last argument of the war party.

You absolutely correctly noted that Hiroshima and Nagasaki catalysed the decision to surrender, but had you learned Chemistry well (which is rare in an Anglophone world, alas) you should have known that a catalyst never shifts the equilibrium state: it only facilitates its achievement. Defeat of the Japanese navy PLUS devastating conventional bombing of Japanese cities (actually, there were virtually no good targets remaining in Japan by 6th of August but four intact cities) PLUS imminent destruction of Kwantung army after Soviet invasion - these were three factors that shifted equilibrium to the surrender side. Atomic bomb was a true catalyst: it facilitated the process of comprehension of the need to surrender. But it was just a catalyst. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your lesson in politeness! As a catalyst, the atomic bomb is important. I don't have a problem with the lead. It's just the rest of the article as I noted in my original comment.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

In another article (authored by one Japanese scholar, I can find it if you want) I found the idea that the bomb gave the Japanese a pretext for surrender: "we were fighting bravely, and we were ready to die hard, but this bomb is a kind of vis major that we cannot withstand, so we have no option but to bow". But that was good for internal propaganda, it was not a real factor.

Anyway, I sincerely do not understand what additional information should we put in the article about the nuclear bombing: we do not mention the lives lost in much more devastating events, why should we make exception here? Regarding your other points, if we discuss possible losses of Americans during the invasion of Home Islands, we need to add a discussion of the reason for Soviet invasion of Manchuria (it was due to Roosevelt's request, and it was dictated by the same reason), the discussion of why did Western Allies procrustinated with invasion of France, and so on. The article creates an impression of some chess game, it pays little attention to real battles and tells about various negotiations and considerations instead. That is hardly correct. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:16, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the possible American losses — that was a point I raised in my original comment. That really improves the situation. I accept we probably can't include the death toll of the atomic bombs because we don't do so for other events. If we discuss the role of the atomic bombs in the surrender, we are digging up a hornet's nest. I think the mention in Advances in technology and warfare needs to be expanded, but I'm not sure how to word it at the moment. It would be good to tie this to the subsequent Cold War and the threat of nuclear war...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Agree. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a double feeling about this edit [[29]]. As far as I know, there was a very limited usage of chemical and biological weapon during WWII. Do we really need to mention it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

We should not let our personal standpoint influence the way the article is written. If you were Chinese, for example, your feelings about this would quite probably be totally different. --Prüm (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea on how my personal point follows from my post. I am just asking some concrete question: I am not aware of examples of massive usage of chemical warfare during WWII, and I am asking if any information is available about that (I mean, not occasional, but massive usage). Regarding biological weapon, I know Japan was developing it. Did they use it massively (at least, as massively as chemical weapon was used in WWI)? If yes, please, provide the sources. If not, do we need to write about that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a point worth noting that WW2 was indeed the first conflict in which the whole spectrum of A, B and C weapons was applied. If you want to and can disprove this, go ahead. --Prüm (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Japanese use of chemical and biological weapons in China wasn't on a large scale. Unless sources demonstrate otherwise, this does not belong in the lead as it risks giving readers the impression that there was considerable use of such weapons. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

To me it's not necessarily the scale that matters, even had it been so small as you suggest. It's the way of thinking behind the decisions to use these weapons that (I hope) should give anyone who reads this at least some cause for reflection. (This is notwithstanding the knowledge that in sum, probably more people were killed by "conventional" means than by WMD.) --Prüm (talk) 08:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The use was small-scale, and experimental. Let's not be misleading.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I've removed this from the lead, per this discussion. Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The article says, "By early February 1943, the German Army had taken tremendous losses; German troops at Stalingrad had been forced to surrender". This suggests there was a general surrender at Stalingrad, as there was at Singapore (for example), but that is false. The Germans were given a chance to surrender before the final assault, but they rejected this. General Paulus was captured (he denied surrendering), but this did not initiate a surrender of all troops. Many troops fought to the death. See Battle of Stalingrad#Soviet Victory. I think it would be better to say all troops were either captured or killed, rather than give the false impression that there was a general surrender.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

From memory, the cauldron was cut on two parts, and each of them surrendered independently, although Paulus claimed he was unaware. But the surrender negotiation did occur (in the south pocket, General Schmidt was a negotiator, and Karl Strecker was in the north). Paulus asked for permission to surrender from Hitler, but Hitler promoted him to fieldmarshal instead, implying he expected Paulus to commit suicide.

I think there is a more general problem with this story. Case Blau and the battle of Stalingrad was an extremely important event, its scale was enormous, and the number of casualties (from Soviet side) exceeded the combined military losses of USA in all theatres of war from 1941 to 1945, and German military losses were greater that the total losses European Axis sustained in all theatres (except Eastern front) during the whole WWII. However, the description of this battle, which was a turning point of the whole war, creates an impression it was just one of many battles fought in 1942-43.

I believe it would be correct to expand this story and tell more about strategic implications of these events, and to more explain details of different phases. For example, the Operation Winter Storm, a failed attempt to break the encirclement of 6th Army, had the scale comparable with the Second battle of El Alamein, but it is completely ignored. The battle of Caucasus is not mentioned at all, the battle of Voronezh (it had a huge scale, about 50 Axis divisions attacked the city), and so on. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Individual groups surrendered when all hope was gone, but there was no general surrender, as I said. Paulus quite pointedly said he was not surrendering on behalf of the troops who continued to fight on. It was quite different from the surrender of Singapore, France etc. I think the text gives a false impression.

I agree on the second point. It's part of the way this article is constructed. The battles of El Alamein — a British victory — is considered equivalent to Stalingrad etc. I think some indication of the scale of the Battle of Stalingrad (and associated battles) would be good. However, we have to be mindful that this article is just a summary.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Did I understand you correct that you propose to replace "surrendered" with "captured"?

Yes, it is, but it currently contain a lot of minuscule or marginally relevant details that blur the actual scale of events. I think two solution to this problem are possible: to expand a story about really important events, or to purge the article from less important details. Let's think about that together.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think "captured and killed" or something like that is better than the current text which implies that after taking tremendous losses, the German Army surrendered.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure I understand the difference: one of two pockets had no communication with Paulus, and its commander did surrender. In another pocket there was a de facto surrender, although Paulus didn't ordered it. Anyway, that was just a small part of the whole 6st army, which was destroyed before. In other words, what happened can be described as: "The German 6th armyy sustained tremendous losses, the remaining German troops were captured". I propose to expand this story, because it is one of the central WWII events, and we can change the wording to reflect these nuances.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a better wording: "The German 6th Army sustained tremendous losses, and the remaining German troops were captured". The point I was trying to make is that the 6th Army as a whole did not surrender. I don't know what fraction of troops were captured and what fraction of troops were died, but a lot were killed in battle or died of wounds and frostbite etc and the remainder surrendered or were captured based on their own decisions or the circumstances of battle. The current wording really distorts the reality for the ordinary reader who knows nothing about the actual battle.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

In Europe, it is commonly agreed that World War II started in 1939 with the Nazi and Soviet invasion of Poland. This directly lead to Great Britain and France declaring war on Nazi Germany due to a guarantee of Poland's borders. It can be argued this is the true start of World War II since it is the point in which the Axis and Allies are clearly and legally formed by process of who is at war with who.

However, there is an argument to be made for the 1937 Marco-Polo incident along the border between Japanese-controlled Korea (Manchukuo) and the Republic of China to be the "true" start of a direct chain of events that were an enduring conflict of World War II, significantly raised global tension, and had a major influence on the military and political policy of Allied and Axis powers. Most articles refer to the 1937 Marco-Polo incident as the start of the Second Sino-Japanese war, but if one considers the conflict in China during World War II to be a part of it, that would mean the breakout of hostilities between China and Imperial Japan marks the start of World War II.

The United States had major goals in China during the war. The first of these being to aid the Republic of China in their fight against the Imperial Japanese Army, a fight which never militarily repulsed the IJA from China. The United States also did not want to support the Chinese Communists. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, were under severe pressure of a two-front war with Nazi Germany and the Imperial Japanese Army. The IJA's defeat at Kalkhin Gol (1939) at the hand of famous Soviet General Zhukov lessened these fears, but they were still significant in the mind of Stalin considering that Kalkhin Gol was not a decisive victory. It can be argued this played a part in Stalin's Non-Aggression Pact with Hitler, as the Non-Aggression Pact was arranged at the exact same time as the Battle of Kalkhin Gol and was a major reason that the Imperial Japanese Army ceased their offensive given they were now bound by alliances to be non-aggressive to the Soviet Union. This Non-Aggression pact was a major reason that Operation Barbarossa took the Soviets by such a surprise in 1941.

This conflict also triggered the chain of events that included the Battle of Kalkhin-Gol, the IJA's invasion of India and subsequent ground-war with major Allied forces, and general out-of-control takeover of South-East Asia and Pacific Islands. The Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy competed with each other throughout the war; it is this competition that drove one or the other to more and more conquests in pursuit of greater glory than the other. They often did so against the advice of Japan's government or Emperor Hirohito (of Japan) himself. This ultimately lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor which brought the United States into the war. It is difficult to imagine a truly World War with participants from all hemispheres without the Marco-Polo Incident and subsequent invasion of China in 1937.

Content given for review and discussion from fellow Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CCC:78D0:472:8FBF:506E:7068 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

We've already discussed this at length. The consensus view is 1939.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:42, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The article says "In accordance with the Allied agreement made at the Yalta Conference millions of POWs and civilians were used as forced labour...."

Can anybody confirm the source explicitly says usage of civilian forced labor in Soviet Union was authorized in Yalta? And, by the way, which civilians are we talking about? For example, were German civilians sent in Gulag? I am not aware of that, and I doubt the cited source says so. Please, explain. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes it is true. At Yalta, Stalin insisted that German labourers be used to rebuild industry and infrastructure in the Soviet Union that had been damaged in the war. The Western Allies also sometimes used POWs in forced labour roles as well. Read the articles on Forced labor of Germans in the Soviet Union and Forced labor of Germans after World War II. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My question was about civilians. Do you have any evidence forced civilian labour was used? I know that some German specialists were moved to the USSR and they participated in military R&D, but, as far as I understand, the article means something else? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I checked (a source is "Against their Will", Memorial), about 300,000 of German civilians, including local Nazi activists were used as forced laborers in the USSR. That means, "millions of POWs and civilians" is an exaggeration.Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I am not sure that it is. 300,000 civilians plus nearly 2 million German PoWs is, just about, "millions of POWs and civilians". Arguably plus 270,000 ethnic German civilians from outside the German pre=war border. More arguably plus over 1 million ethnic German civilians from inside the USSR who were gulaged. But it would be better to be more precise, given that we seem to have the sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

If some regime killed 10 people and exiled 2000, would it be correct to say "thousands were killed or exiled"?

The German civilians from the territories annexed by Poland or Czechoslovakia were deported to Germany, not to the USSR. Regarding ethnic Soviet Germans, they were not sent to Gulag (just look at the Gulag statistics). They were displaced to Central Asia, or kept in detention camps (in the same way American did with their Japanese compatriots) during the war and then released. They were not used as forceful laborers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:04, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"it would be better to be more precise, given that we seem to have the sources" Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that civilians were unsually interned in

etnic Germans already living in the Soviet Union before the war. --Prüm (talk

) 23:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That is also my understanding. After the war the USSR held huge numbers of POWs, but civilians were essentially displaced. I question whether the reference from the Hungarian 'Minorities research' is a reliable source BTW - it's not clear who published it exactly, or the author's credentials. It doesn't support the claim regarding Yalta. Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Given this discussion, I will remove the statement. Also, we need to bear in mind the context, which implies some kind of equivalence between this issue and the Jewish genocide. Like the internment of the Japanese in the USA, the treatment of the German POWs in the USSR was bad, but it was among many bad things that happened during the war. It's just not on the same level.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Further to the discussion about Stalingrad not having enough weight, these are some topics that I think are given too much weight:

• Background and Pre-war events — this seems unnecessarily extensive
• North African campaign — too much detail
• Aleutian campaign
• Borneo campaign (1945)
• Internment of Japanese citizens etc — not significant enough to included with the Jewish genocide
• Is use of deception an advance in technology?

I'm sure there are many others.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The 'Pre-war events' section could certainly do with a trim (and a simpler structure). One and a half sentences on the Aleutians and a sentence on Borneo in 1945 seem about right to me - these were large operations in the context of the Western Allies involvement in the Pacific War (about a couple of divisions with massive air and naval support in each case). I agree about the Internship of Japanese - while an appalling act, it's false equivalence to present this alongside the Holocaust and other massive crimes in this section. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Jack Upland and Nick-D. I suggest to look at each section separately. I think we have been able to reshape the "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)" section, which is more compact now and more informative (at least, in my opinion). It needs just a replacement of one picture and additional reference (per Piotrus). Let's do the same with other sections. I can start a discussion of the next section in a separate thread.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea, Paul. I have removed the Japanese internment.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

This all seems very sensible to me. FWIW I would agree with Nick-D re weighting. I think that the N African campaign is also over-weighted for an overview article. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is an Anglophone bias. Because Anglophones fought in North Africa, it is over-weighted. The Eastern Front where very few Anglophones fought is under-weighted. I think there is excessive weight given to British intelligence successes for the same reason. Likewise, the internment of the Japanese, because it occurred in the USA, is over-weighted.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I quite agree. I started to write something similar, but decided that it was OR and PoV for a talk page . Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I know it's trivial but Australia did not declare war on Germany in 1939. Perhaps this passage could be simplified. Does it really matter if Canada declared war a few days later than Britain?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I myself am not sure. An old version said Britain and dominions declared a war, but later an explicit explanation was added that dominions were fully independent, and they declared a war independently. I am not sure it is correct at all, because the war was declared on behalf of a King, not a Prime Minister: dominions were independent from the British government, but not from the king. However, that requires some literature search. Can you do that?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, the authority of government in British parliamentary democracy does come from the Monarch. However the various Dominions each have their own Crown from which the authority of the monarch derives. That is to say that the Monarch wears (figuratively speaking) the Crowns of Britain and each the Dominions simultaneously, but the royal authority over each is exercised separately. Therefore a declaration of war by any of them does not compel any action from the others. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Only the monarch can declare war And he does so on the advice of his prime minister. The king of the UK *and his Prime Minister Chamberlain) acted separately from the king of Canada (and and Prime Minister Mackenzie King), and likewise for Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Rjensen (talk) 22:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. The Australian Government took the position in 1939 that if the UK was at war, Australia was automatically also at war and no separate declaration of war was made. In 1941 the government (by now the progressive Labor Party) took the view that Australia should declare war on Japan separately (as well as Bulgaria and Finland!). The process for doing this was somewhat convoluted, and the arrangements for South Africa and Canada were different. In the event, the King authorised the Governor General of Australia to declare war in 1941 and 1942. Since legislation was passed in 1942, this power is exercised by the Governor General. Please see pages 6-9 of the relevant volume of the Australian official history here and pages 3-4 of this expert paper. According to our Monarchy of Australia article, there also wasn't a King of Australia, with the title for a separate Australian monarch being established in 1953. Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for filling out the details. I've long felt that the war between Australia and Finland needed to be better known. But how do we put in the article? Would it be better to say: "France and Britain declared a war on Germany. Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada also joined the war." ?--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the Bulgarian menace to Australia either. That wording looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to World War II has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Correct spelling,

Course of the war War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)

" many om them would fight against the Axis in other theatres of the war.[68]"

to "many of them" MattJustChecking (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for letting us know. HiLo48 (talk) 09:42, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

This section currently lists a very random-looking collection of books. Some aren't even about this war (the Spanish Civil War and Nomonhan), specific elements of it or individual generals (Zhukov). Would there be any objections to removing this? The article already lists a vast number of sources. Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. It's a huge scope. Anything really useful should be in the bibliography here, and in use. Otherwise we already have a specific bibliography article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D. Please, please feel free to cut it down. (I can lend you my machete.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've just removed this section. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the draft of the next section. Currently, this section of overinflated. I tried to remove repetitions and irrelevant details. It is quite possible that I removed too much. Please, think what deserves to be added back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

On a first skim it looks fine to me, apart from needing a good copy edit. I agree regarding the maps. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, any copy editing is warmly welcomed, just modify the below text directly. Please, keep in mind that I removed a lot, so something is definitely needed to be put back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. Quick and dirty. (As this is a work in progress it isn't my best work.) I agree that we could insert a sentence or two about the battle of France. In particular, at the moment it implies that Blitzkrieg was only/first used during the advance to Paris. That said, I repeat that I find this version good, and of roughly appropriate length. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC) I have had an attempt at this. What do people think? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

________________________

In April 1940,

Frontline 16 May

Frontline 21 May

The German advance across Belgium and northern France

On the same day, Germany

The Battle of Britain^[12] began in early July with Luftwaffe attacks on shipping and harbours.^[13] Britain rejected Hitler's ultimatum,^[14] and the German air superiority campaign started in August but failed to defeat RAF Fighter Command. Due to this the proposed German invasion of Britain was postponed indefinitely on 17 September. The German strategic bombing offensive intensified with night attacks on London and other cities in the Blitz, but failed to significantly disrupt the British war effort^[13] and largely ended in May 1941.^[15]

Using newly captured French ports, the German Navy

In December 1940 Roosevelt accused Hitler of planning world conquest and ruled out any negotiations as useless, calling for the US to become an "arsenal of democracy" and promoted Lend-Lease programmes of aid to support the British war effort.^[14] The US started strategic planning to prepare for a full scale offensive against Germany.^[21]

At the end of September 1940, the

______________________________________________

I think this version contains the most essential information about this phase of WWII. If you believe something should be put back, let's discuss it. I would say we can add more about the battle of France, because it was a really high scale military campaign, and the space allows us to do that.

______________________________________________

I also think that the Maginot line picture is not informative. We need at least to show a direction of a German attack that cut Allies near Dunkirk. Do you have any picture of that kind in mind? If not, we can modify the existing picture by showing (very schematically) the attack through Ardennes towards the cost.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I see no further comments, so I put this text into the article. I also added an animated map of Northern France/Belgium. Let's start the next section? Does anybody have any ideas?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The subject is ignored. See Götz Aly Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State Hitlers' social politics (populism) created the basis of German victories. Xx236 (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Then the role of Soviet propaganda and repressive machine in victory should be described too. Let's think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why strength of the Armies is not given Wxzapghy (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, because nobody proposed a good way to do that? We have an artcile about WWII casualties, hence the link to "others" in the infobox, but there is no similar article for army sizes, so if we add strengths for few participants only, it will immediately start to inflate, because there is no natural threshold for inclusion. If you have any idea how to include armies without inflating the infobox, let's discuss it. It also makes sense to check talk page archives, because it is quite possible that this question had already been discussed. I personally believe that if we show army sizes in the WWI infobox, we also may do the same in the WWII infobox too. That may give a better impression of a real scale of events at different theatres. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that it's possible to present meaningful figures for the infobox on military sizes. All the major powers had vast numbers of people enter their militaries, but also suffered significant casualties. The sizes of the various militaries also peaked at different times. How the British Empire/Commonwealth forces would be treated is also tricky. Nick-D (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

During the war and as the result of it tens of millions were moved (some of them returned). One of the projects was the

Millions of handicapped victims survived the war, many of them without legs, using primitive skateboards. Tuberculosis and typhoid fever killed both during and after the war.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Generalplan Ost is already linked twice in the article and the second para of the 'Aftermath' section covers the vast post-war movements of peoples in Europe. Coverage of the long term human cost in terms of people with physical and psychological injuries as well as the disruption to families (for instance, an incredibly high proportion of German children lost their father) would be useful, but needs to be drafted, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The Generalplan is linked once regarding lands East od Poland since 1941 (but ignoring Poland and the period 1939-1941) and the second time as mass executions, so not population transfers.Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

You are right regarding the post-war migrations in the East, nothing about Displaced persons however. Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

This is based on Google Book mentions of the terms, in comparison to other stuff mentioned here, as well as on the seemingly small scale / relative lack of importance of those events to the big picture of the war (or, as Nick calls it, this stuff is pretty much "trivia"):

• Panther–Wotan line (400 hits), "along the hastily fortified Panther–Wotan line"
• Battle of Mount Song (1300 hits) "In September 1944, Chinese force captured the Mount Song to reopen the Burma Road" -> if needed, can be shortened to "In September 1944, Chinese reopened the Burma Road"
• Burma Campaign?). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here}
  09:33, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the Panther Line is significant.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Actually, I am going to propose a discussion about significant modification of this part at the talk page, (in the same way we did with "war break out in Europe" section). Panther-Wotan line had an immense strategic importance. Hitler hoped it would be possible to stabilise Eastern front along this line, which would allow him to defeat any attempt of Allied invasion in France.

Generally speaking, I propose to focus at removal of various descriptions of leaders plans and thoughts, like "Hitler decided to..." "Allies planned to..." In general, if some plans were abandoned, I see no reason to talk about that in this summary style article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I would support amending Mount Song as you suggest and deleting Longcloth. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Counting Google Book mentions seems like an unsound methodology for determining the relative importance of events to me (see also

WP:GHITS). That said, I tend to agree with omitting the examples here. From memory, the stuff on the Panther-Wotan line was added as part of POV pushing about Estonia's role in the war. The 1942 Arakan campaign is definitely worth including: it was the only major British offensive in Burma that year, and its near-total failure had important results. Nick-D (talk

) 22:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I totally agree about google. I some cases, google scholar is preferable, because it makes a search mostly in academic and scholarly sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: The Panther-Wotan line is mentioned briefly; I don't see excessive coverage of it:

The Germans tried to stabilise their eastern front along the hastily fortified Panther–Wotan line, but the Soviets broke through it at Smolensk and by the Lower Dnieper Offensives.[222]

K.e.coffman (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That is my point. Breaking through this line took more lives and efforts than whole Mediterranean theatre and had immense strategic importance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Also, the Panther Line continued to be effective till the end of the war, with the Courland Pocket being among the last Germans to surrender.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The page doesn't link the Anglo-French Supreme War Council. I believe it should.Xx236 (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Why? It was short lived and ineffectual. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It was short lived and ineffectual inviting Germans to Paris, Bruxelles and Haag. Such inefectivness deserves mentioning.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)