Talk:World War II/Archive Photos

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Archive 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
.

Topical Archive: This archive contains discussions of the photos in the World War II article.

Gross amount of pictures

There is a gross amount of pictures in this article which not only makes it hard to read but makes it look like a picture book. Someone within the last month added a lot of pictures and simply made the article look terrible. I only cleaned up a couple that were the least importance pertaining to the articles content but someone needs to go through and remove non-important pictures. These clutter up the article so bad that if you're viewing wikipedia with 800x600 resolution, you won't be able to read it at all. I'm also adding this to the to-do list because it is pretty bad.

Ddahlberg 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree completely - here's a list of the current pictures in the article and my suggestions for discussion. Lisiate 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pictures (as of 8 September)

1. Montage - Clockwise from top: Allied landing on Normandy beaches on D-Day, the gate of a Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, Red Army soldiers raising the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, the Nagasaki atom bomb, the 1936 Nuremberg Rally, -keep.

2. Mussolini & Hitler - Keep as Axis leaders.

3. Japanese arty in Shanhai - Remove interesting but not gripping (Chengdu photo later can represent war in China).

4. Chamberlain with scrap of paper - Remove leave it at Munich article.

5. Polish infantry - Keep Poland deserves a picture.

6. U-47 & Scharnhorst - Keep Battle of Atlantic

7. German plans for France - Remove hard to see unexpanded leave at Invasion of France article.

8. French Troops after Dunkirk - Remove Leave at Dunkirk

9. Rotterdam before an after Remove Leave in appropriate article.

10. Heinkel over London - Keep Or remove if Rotterdam pair kept.

Comment: What has Rotterdam to do with London? (Different battles.) Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both photos show strategic bombing or its effects, I'm ambivalent either way but we don't need both. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Afrika Corps - Keep but move down to proper place.

12. German Paras in Crete - Remove Leave in Crete invasion article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Crete was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not but we need to be selective and we already have a number of German soldier photos.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

13. Barbarossa Map - Keep Map clear enough in thumbnail.

14. German soldiers training - remove

15. Moscow metro - Remove leave in Battle of Moscow.

16. Soviet troops near Moscow Keep

17. HMS Hood Remove or at least move down to proper place.

18. USS Virginia & Tennessee at Pearl Harbour - Keep.

19. Canadians at Dieppe - Keep

Comment: Unqualified keep. But other pictures are removed of much greater events. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I put this as a keep so we'd have at least one minor ally photo. I'm not that fussed though. And no - I'm not trying to say that Dieppe was bigger than Torch, crete, El Alamein, Cologne and Warsaw. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20. Germans at Stalnigrad - Keep

21. British at Alamein - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Alamein was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Crete above (same goes for Torch).Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. Operation Torch - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Torch was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

23. Lexington - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? This is a great picture, and an important event. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24. Yamamoto - Keep Need a Japanese leader.

25. Soviets crossing Dnieper - Keep only need one of these

26. Germans before Citadel - Remove only need one of these

Comment: Why? I thought there was only one (photo of Germans at Citadel). Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant we only need one photo for this section - Kursk etc. Personally I find the Soviet picture more interesting but it's no biggie. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

27. Civilians in Smolensk - Keep

28. Line of Us battleships and Cruisers - Remove a great photo though.

29. Battle of Changde - Keep fro war in China.

30. 1944 Soviet offensives - Keep

31. Soviet gunners in Budapest - Remove Leave in battle article.

32. Destruction of Cassino town - Remove Leave in battle article - a hot of the destroyed monastery might be better.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Cassino was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We're going to have a lot of destroyed town photos and this shot could be almost anywhere. A photo of the destroyed monastery however would be more recognisable. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

33. V-1 Keep to show technology advances.

34. Destruction of Cologne - Remove Leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

35. Ruins of Warsaw Bank - Remove, Leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Again, are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

36. Liberation of Bucharest - Keep.

37. Omaha Beach - Remove in montage.

Comment: Why remove one of the most important pictures? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's already in the montage at the very top of the page.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

38. US in Paris Remove

Comment: A memorable pic. Please don't touch. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of the photos are memorable, but you're right we should show the liberation of Paris somehow. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

39. Operation Market Garden - 'Keep shows the scale really well.

40. Jochen Peiper - Remove too minor a commander.

Comment: Not minor. You may be not familiar with this battle. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Operational commanders don't need to be shown in this article which is about the whole war. If we are going to show Peiper then surely we should show Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel etc. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Peiper is such a character that they based a whole film around him, namely the "Battle of the Bulge". He is like Custer, maybe a minor commander, but a noteable one. Of the group you mention, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel, the odd one out is Rommel, as he is not a victor. The losing commanders are often more interesting and remembered more in history. Shakespeare writes about losers not winners. Wallie 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

41. Marines attacking bunker - Keep only need one of these

42. Mcarthur wading ashore - Remove only need one of these

Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with some of the other pairs I'm not too fussed about which one we keep, I'm just trying to keep to one photo per section though. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

43. Japanese in China - Remove leave in battle article.

44. Berlin & Prague offensives - Keep

45. Marshal Zhukov - Remove

Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was tempted to say keep but then we'd have the generals problem above, Zhukov on his white horse mgiht be a compromise. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

46. Germans in Courland - Remove Great colour photo but we've seen enough German soldiers.

47. Yalta - Keep iconic photo of Allied leaders.

48. Flags over Reichstag - Remove in the montage.

Comment: Important Soviet pic. Keep. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

49. Omar Bradley - Remove

Comment: Keep Brad. Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasons as for Zhukov and Peiper. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50. Captured Standards - Keep only need one of these.

51. Zhukov on parade - Remove only need one of these.

52. Flag on Iwo Jima - Remove a cliche and not necessary.

Comment: Please no. This is probably the most famous picture of the war. It is represents why the war was being fought. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53. Fat man explosion - Remove in montage.

54. Chiang Kai-shek and Mao toast - Keep.

55. Germany partitioned - Keep

56. German refugees - Keep

57. Un Building - Remove marginal relevance.

58. Diorama of Leningrad - Remove we've had enough real photos.

59. Holocaust routes - Keep - shows scale.

60. Ebensee Camp survivors - Keep.

61. Warsaw surivior - Keep.

62. Us paratroops and Dutch resistance - Keep.

63. Woman factory worker - Keep

64. Engima machine - Remove.

Instead of busting a gut over which pictures to keep and which to jettison, why not set up a picture gallery? It would make the article less cluttered, yet provide illustrations for the subject. Heck, World War II is a big enough subject to warrant an encyclopedia of its own, so why try to water it down to two or three pages of print? Words alone will never do the subject justice.
—QuicksilverT @ 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good comment. Thank you. Wallie 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Some of the picutures that are removed were really iconic and also there are too many american pictures and not enough russian pictures. We need to sort this out. 72.140.14.106 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the idea of a picture gallery, but we'll still need to tidy up this page. As for the pictures - no one's removed anything yet, this is just an attempt to get some agreement on things before we do a picture prune. Lisiate 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Famous picture of American soldiers meeting USSR soldiers and shaking hands

Hello,

there is this very famous picture (which unfortunately I haven't found yet here) of an American soldiers shaking hands (I think in Germany) with a Soviet soldier. Do we have it on Wikipedia and could we add it somewhere? (I know the user above me thinks that there are too many pics already...) Thanks,Evilbu 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would be great if you could get it. You are probably referring to when the Red and US Armies met up at the river Elbe. Don't worry about too many pics. Pics will come and go, and come back again. (I think I'll add back that one of the yank sailor kissing the gal on VJ day. It was a good one.) Wallie 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1] you are talking about this? I think the image I had in mind was like this : [2]Evilbu 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the handshake that symbolized over half a century of soviet oppression. Thanks again, FDR. --NEMT 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But you agree that it is this handshake that became famous! I don't see how this meeting symbolizes the oppression (hey they still got along.) but the Japanese article about Hiroshima has a picture of the mushroom cloud too, bad or not it is famous...Evilbu 01:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's definitely famous, and encyclopedic. I just think the US made a terrible mistake allying with the the soviets. --NEMT 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again displays of ignorance. During the war, the Soviet people were referred to as "Our Noble Russian Allies". For this reason, many older folk who lived during the war will get very annoyed if Russian people are vilified, and believe we all owe a debt of gratitude to the brave people of the Soviet Union. It is interesting to note the way the United States turned on their friends the Soviet Union soon after the war. It is about trust. Wallie 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing noble about killing millions of dissidents and starving your people to death. --NEMT 07:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You could probably say that the Soviets made a terrible mistake allying with the Americans. After all their allies soon betrayed them. Wallie 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this article, the soviets joined the war long before the US did. --NEMT 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to what the US did after the war. Read the section heading again. This happened in 1945. Wallie 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be very adept at missing the point. The Soviets didn't "ally" with the Americans, the Soviets joined the war before the US, and had no idea or concern over US involvement. The Americans, however, in joining the war after it had essentially turned to a USSR/Germany conflict allied with the Soviets. Regardless of what happened during the war and how the average american soldier felt about the soviets, the USA-USSR alliance was a grave mistake. This doesn't mean the image of American and Soviet soldiers greeting each other doesn't belong on wikipedia, in fact, I think it would make a great addition to this article - I was merely offering some relevant commentary. --NEMT 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know what you are trying to say. The reason for the alliance was that Germany declared war on the US, and as the Arab say, your enemy's eneny is your friend. I cannot understand why you think the USSR/US alliance was a "grave mistake", as it was an abberation, and things were soon back to normal. Wallie 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without the allies opening up a western front the Soviets would've likely been defeated or severely weakened by the Nazis, rendering neither a threat to the world and preventing the dozens of millions of deaths under communist oppression. --NEMT 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what the point was to this. Now I know. A Nazi Victory to leave the world safe from those nasty Commies... Wallie
Your irreverence would likely go unappreciated by the families of the hundred million people who died under communist rule. --NEMT 06:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It actually would have made a difference in defeating Nazi Germany, between having the USSR as an ally and not. Soviets, put forward a tremendous amount of sacrifice and energy to defeat German forces in their land. USSR did suffer the highest casualty rate maong all countries that participated in WWII. WIthout the Russians, America and Britain would have had to confront almost the entire German army. USSR helped to demolish the Germans sent against them. Think about the T-34 for almost the entire war, it was the only tank able to withstand the incredibly powerful Panzers and Tigers. The US would have been a sorry sight, Shermans trying to punch Panzers to absolutely no avail. True, it just happened to be that Russia was fighting Germany and so were the Americans. I don't think I'd say that the Truman allied with Stalin because he wanted to. If Truman had refused, the outcome of WWII would have been questionable. Oyo321 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It seems if left to their own devices the nazis and the soviets would've destroyed each other, rendering neither a threat to global stability. As opposed to the real outcome, in which the USSR became a global spectre. --NEMT 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sound mean or anything, but this discussion has gotten really off topic. The fact is that the Russians made the mistake of trying to ally with the Germans and take over Poland. Then the Germans Pwned them at the beginning of Operation Barbarosa and now the Russians needed help, so they called for the Allies to attack on D-Day. Thats the reason for the alliance. It should be noted that Roosevelt and Stalin afterwards were not on the same step from there onwards. Probably the Cold War started in the Race for Berlin or the Fall of Japan. But the photo that you guys started talking about is most likely not of signifigance for the main WW2 page because it is anachronistic to the true feelings between the "Allied Force". Maybe in a page dealing with the Cold War or whatever, like as an introduction.72.90.242.26 04:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) User:Xlegiofalco[reply]
If the western allies didn't open the Second Front (D-Day), Europe would be communist up to the English Channel. As for beginning of war - first the western democracies tried to have Hitler and Stalin to fight it out, so that they could join later on (like USA in WW1) to rip the benefits - but Stalin outplayed them, and Hitler went west. However, Stalin hoped for a long bloodshed in Europe so that he could finish the war preparations, and that didn't happen. Thus, in the end, the allies outplayed Stalin... Truman said in regards to the beginning of Operation Barbarossa - (wording not exact) - "If the Germans will be winning, we shall help the Soviets, and if the Soviets will be winning, we shall help the Germans, and let them kill as much as possible". While this might seem cynical, it is very logical and pragmatic - if your enemies (or potential enemies) are fighting each other - that is very good, and it should go on. Ko Soi.
P.S. to NEWT - no matter what modern nationalist leaders of your country propagate, Nazi occupation for 50 years would be much worse to your people if they were of Slavic origin. And if they weren't, than your country was an ally of Hitler, and if anything, it got what it deserved.

No Asia/Pacific box in the WWII pic?

The collage of boxes showing the war is good except it feels only a part of the world war, there was a whole hemisphere in asia/pacific btw that all i'm asking for is one box to show recognition of it, maybe cut the huge D-Day one in half and add a asia/pacific one. It's kind of degrading all those that fought in those theaters.--12.72.30.219 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent point. It is a grim subject, but if we take deaths as a measure of significance, it is possible that no country in the world suffered as many casualties in 1941-45 as China (see Second Sino-Japanese War and World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China). There were also war-related famines which killed several million in countries like Indonesia, India and Vietnam. Japan suffered 2.6 million dead and the U.S. military had more than 100,000 KIA in Asia and the Pacific. Grant65 | Talk 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy Nagasaki atom bomb is from Asia/Pacific. Cutting D-day image sounds as quite bad idea for me, from current pictures maybe nuremberg rally would be easiest to remove as it is about pre-war event. (Staberinde 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]
How about part of this image? It is an icon of the Sino-Japanese War. Grant65 | Talk 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This picture from the bombardment of Shangaï is a great choice !!! I support. The rising on the Reichstag and the atomic explosion are already in the sections of the article, maybe removing one of them would be more appropriate. --Flying tiger 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a great pic, a personal favorite. Grant65 | Talk 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user who made up that collage put a huge amount of work into it, and canvassed a lot of opinions. I don't think you will find the decision of which image to remove so easy. If you remove the Reichstag image then there is no representation from the Eastern Front. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The collage is perfect. Thanks again to Dna-webmaster for making it. Haber 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grant65, if it is too difficult to change the collage, maybe it would be better that you simply add the Shangaï picture in the section "The second sino-japanese war" at the beginning of the article but having read some comments that there are already too much pictures, there may be some unhappiness too with this decision... --Flying tiger 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could squeeze one more picture into that section. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to change the collage without support from several other editors.
DJ, the "lot of opinions" must have come only from people in Europe and North America. I think Staberinde's suggestion that the Nuremburg image could be dropped from the collage is very sound, especially as it is not a war image.
Haber, the collage is "perfect" if you live in Europe. But it is not called a "World War" for nothing. I refer you once more to World War II casualties for some perspective. Grant65 | Talk 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From pacific in my opinion would be nice some naval pic(especially as there aren't any at the moment in collage). Best what i know is that battleship picture. (Staberinde 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

With respect, I believe that you are missing the point. This is not about which theater of war was better, or making sure we acknowledge everybody equally every time. I sincerely hope we can rise above that and try to do what's best for the article.
World War II, to a lot of people, is about more than just a bunch of battleships and bombs going off and people getting hurt. It is about civilization gone haywire. No other symbol expresses this better than the Swastika. The reason the collage works so well is that every picture in there dehumanizes its subjects. The Nuremburg picture forces you to think about all those dots in the crowd. Who are they, why are they there? Is this really a German thing, or could this happen where I live? It's a very powerful image, and has a much deeper meaning and relevance to "WWII" than some godforsaken baby left on some train tracks, or a bleeding Australian walking with a buddy, or even some battleships, cool as they are. Haber 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you guys wasting your time on such trivial matters? This article needs major help. Its badly written, bad grammer, very choppy, uncited casualty estimates, major elements missing, major events which need more coverage and smaller events which need less coverage. And you guys are worrying over a picture? Mercenary2k 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
China's casualty % of the allies

There definitely NEEDS to be a box for China's effort. THAT is the Asia box needed to be added to the collage. I believe the USSR and China suffered the greatest amount of casualties, i think that narrows down the scope of what type of pictures are needed. I also lend my vote to the famous Shangai photo, definitely.--12.72.30.112 08:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercenary, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars is full of far worse examples of "trivia". I support Staberinde's suggestion re the battleship pic, especially since it is fairly generic and the collage doesn't have a naval pic.
I note as well that four of the six images are from western Europe (and even the Soviet flag raising was in Berlin) when, going on death toll, at least half should be from eastern Europe. Grant65 | Talk 10:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with Merc more. Please, less time giving equal props to all, more time finding, sourcing, and organizing information. Haber 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but to get back to the subject of the conversation ... I also think the D-day image could be reduced in size; the
Rape of Nanking, Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Operation Bagration and Battle of Leyte Gulf were no less significant. Grant65 | Talk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply
]
A. J. P. Taylor said something along the lines of "at no time did the Red Army occupy the attention of less than half of the German army and sometimes up to two thirds". Along similar lines, we might also ask where the majority of the U.S. Navy spent the war. Grant65 | Talk 12:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is going to insert a China box into the collage?

File:Wikipedia WW2 TitlePicture II.jpg

--67.118.132.2 08:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. It adds an image while retaining the key element of the D-Day image. I would still like to see a war image rather than the Nuremburg rally. The motivation of people from all countries is interesting, not just the Germans. I think we should have an image from Eastern Europe. Grant65 | Talk 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This is a good one, and it contrasts with the darker colours in the other images. Grant65 | Talk 12:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the collage is good, but however what strikes me is that the victorious Soviet flag over Berlin is on the last spot (bottom right) while the less significant, although heart warming to western allies, d-day is first (top left)... Sure, this may seem like petty squabling, but considering the immense propaganda efforts of the west to downplay the Soviet war effort to glorify their own far more minor involvment... With respect, Ko Soi.


Pictures revision

Just scrolling through the article and looking at the pictures, I noticed one thing: Soviets and Allies are shown in the best of light, and pictures of them "liberating" are plentiful. But I only saw one or two pictures of the Germans that did not involve either the Germans losing, or participating in some war crime. This gives a bad impression, not all Germans were bad, and while all the pictures of the allies are of them rolling through obliterated enemies, the "Germany's war against the Western Allies" --"Blitzkrieg" section only has pictures of bombed London and Hitler in Paris. If the section is titled Blitzkrieg, why not actually show a tank or soldiers? why not this picture? [3] or this picture? [4] And dont give me the we dont have the rights to those images crap, we have plenty others already on wikipedia.

We try to make an article NPOV, that means in every aspect, not just words.

--216.110.236.235 09:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures currently were chosen to try and illustrate the main events in Germany's initial attacks in Europe: the conquest of Poland (with assistance from the Soviet Union), the conquest of France and the attacks on the United Kingdom. Can you point out to me how the pictures in the initial section are not neutral, or what could better represent those events?
Secondly, I think the pictures are pretty well balanced in the initial sections. The Battle of Atlantic shows both Allied and Axis losses, while in the "Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East" section it attempts to illustrate the flow of events (Germany conquering Greece/Crete, Battles in the Mediterranean, British victory in the Western Desert, Allied landings in Torch, Battles in Italy). None of them show anyone in an especially positive or negative light. The only picture which, IMO, we could easily replace would be the one in Italy, perhaps showing German defensive positions, as that was indicative of the combat in the region.
As for the section on the Western Allied liberation of Europe, or Soviet-German War, I haven't been able to get around to doing any work on them, but, remember Wikipedia's policy to
be bold! Oberiko 13:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

You don't think that, for instance the Yankees and French civilians standing cheerfully around a dead German isnt a negative light? c'mon --216.110.236.235 05:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure offhand where that image is, but, as stated above, if the image can be replaced with a better one (or if it's not needed at all) go ahead and change it. Oberiko 12:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's talking about this image. I don't think it really adds much to the article. It could be safely replaced with a better image, or just removed. Parsecboy 12:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove it. That entire section is way to long and has far to many images anyway. Oberiko 11:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'll og ahead and remove it. Parsecboy 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of "far too many images", there are 79 images in this article. I think that makes the article hard to read. Removing at least 25 %, if not more, of the images would be fitting. 96T 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely. Please prune at will. Oberiko 16:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well. We have some picture problems here, and I have thought so for quite some time. I like pictures, and many pictures, but there are now simply too many here, and some choices seem dubious. There seems to be some caption problems as well. Today I will try to scrutinize each pic in order to clean up the selection & flow. I will document changes done here below. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Revision - Europe

I will try to do this as smooth as possible. In the article, I will change one pic/caption at the time, with the comment pic revision: (the change) (see talk page "Pictures revision"), without any reasons. When I'm done, I will document all changes done here below, with reasons. I don't know if it's allowed, but I ask editors to let me finish this initial revision without interruption, and when I am done today, I will say so here. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 15:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, this was harder and more tiring than I thought, took me 4 hours, and I'm only halfway through... Well, I start now, covering the pics from the beginning and down to End of the war in Europe, that is, only the European theatre. When I'm done, I'll say so here and document the changes/reasons. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done (with Europe). Thanks for waiting on me! I won't address any more image sections today, I promise you and even more so, myself; my brain can't take it... Thanks for cleaning up after me, Parsecboy! Well, I know I have been very bold, and these are just my own opinions, feel free to attack them. Here's the documentation on changes with reasons:

Causes & Start of war

Atlantic

  • Convoy - linked to the Battle of the Atlantic.
  • Tanker, kept as is.
  • U-boat - added "German" U-boat.

Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East

  • Italian battleship - linked to Battle of Calabria.
  • German paratroopers landing on Crete - removed (fallschirmjäger) in caption, linked to Battle of Crete.
  • A British tank passes a German Panzer - linked to Africa campaign and Operation Crusader.
  • Operation Torch Image:Torch-troops_hit_the_beaches.jpg - removed. Cool pic, but pics have to go...
  • US in Italy - linked to Italian Campaign.

Liberation of Western Europe

Eastern Front

Invasion of the Soviet Union

  • I'd like to add photo of Germans during Operation Barbarossa, but it seems there isn't any on Wikimedia. Help, anyone?

Germany's Second Offensive

Germany's third offensive

End in Europe

  • Yalta - definite keep. Caption linked.

My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 01:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I restored some of the pictures and captions you deleted. What you call 'postcardish' or 'uninteresting' is your POV. Don't try to revert back to your version, you do not own (
Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) the article.--Miyokan 01:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Do you realize you sound like one of those parents who tell their kids to "stop your fucking cussing!"? You likewise do not
own this article. There was a discussion about removing images that are redundant or don't show anything important, and consensus was to do so. If you don't want to participate in discussion, you can't get angry when we make a decision. Parsecboy 01:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't worry, Miyokan, I know. I said clearly above that it was my personal opinions; I also know I don't own the article (never ever thought I owned anything on Wikipedia) - I don't think there is anything left at all on the WW2 page which I've previously written... I am just trying to help out with the picture problems that were brought up above. All items are up for discussion. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 02:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the images I restored and why. I remind everyone about

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles
policy - "If you create or edit an article, know that others will edit it, and within reason you should not prevent them from doing so.":

  • The people of Łódź, Poland, greet Soviet liberators - as the Red Army regained the offensive they liberated many countries from Nazi rule, this one picture represents this.
  • Fighting in the Battle of Berlin. April, 1945 - very important battle, the war had reached the Nazi's capital and now they were the ones defending their homeland
  • Red Army soldiers restoring the USSR border sign - pretty self explanatory. The tide had turned, now the Soviets were attacking with the same effectiveness the Germans previously enjoyed
  • Soviet advances from August 1943 to December 1944 - willing to delete this
  • German soldiers deliver fire across the Dnieper - willing to delete this as there is already a picture of this battle
  • The soldiers and armour from the October Revolution military parade on November 7, 1941, in Red Square rolled straight on to the front to face German troops on the outskirts of Moscow - this is a pretty extraordinary event, what is supposed to be a celebration, many of these people were marching to their deaths
  • Soviet poster proclaiming, "We shall keep Moscow!" - illustrates one of the many Soviet propaganda posters that helped to rouse the population
  • Leningrad workers heading to the front - shows that people were actually defending Leningrad during the siege rather than just civilians struggling to survive
  • A teenage son leaving the village home to join partisans bids farewell to his mother - shows that the war affected the whole population, it was a battle for survival

--Miyokan 04:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miyokan, we have a long article, and currently there is about twice as many pictures from Eastern front than from the other fronts. Also, German pictures are highly underrepresented in both occasions. So, even as there are many pictures we like to see in the article, some has to be removed. As you feel strongly about the issue, could you please inform which pictures from the Eastern front are removed? --Whiskey 05:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For a statistics, there are currently 0 maps, 13 pictures of allied forces and 3 pictures of axis forces in western theatre. (If we count picture of Poles in western...) From the eastern theatre, there are 5 maps, 18 pictures of allied and 4 pictures of axis. (One allied picture depicted German POWs, one allied pictured allied civilians deported by Germans, two axis pictured Soviet POWs and one axis pictured atrocity.) So, in both cases the pictures are heavily tilted towards allied POV. The Pacific theatre is a little bit more balanced, as there are 1 map, 11 allied and 5 axis pictures. Although, 3 axis pictures are about political/military "heads".
Is it too much to ask that we limit pictures (no maps included) to 15 per theatre, of which 5 has to depict (non-surrendered) axis forces? --Whiskey 07:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that there are more Soviet pictures in the Soviet-German war section is because their homeland was invaded, adding a whole new element of images of the civilian toll such as civilians being deported, massacres of civilians, the holocaust, civilians trying to survive, civilians contributing to the war effort, partisans, the whole population being mobilised to the war effort, destroyed homes/towns/villages, etc. For the German element, there are only pictures of German troops, there is only so many pictures you can show of German soldiers or Germans in battle. Also I think there are just more images Soviet images around here, if you want to add or upload more pictures of Germans be my guest.--Miyokan 09:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the only reason why there are so many Soviet photos running around is the decision of the Russian government to release to public domain those pictures taken during the war. I guess the usage of the most German photos are restricted by the copyright. (Your other reasoning could be used by other countries as well, most of which have not a single photograph in the article.) --Whiskey 10:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry Miyokan, but that's a poor reason. Poland, Norway, Greece, France, China, Egypt, Algeria, Morocco, Italy, Germany and Japan all had their homelands invaded (that's the nature of war after all). Poland had a far higher % of the population killed to boot. Right now, the number of images tarnishes the article, they should be concise to illustrate the main points, not everything that can be thought of. Oberiko 11:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually about 3 million of those Polish losses occurred while that part of Poland was part of the Soviet Union. Also, the Soviet Union lost far more numbers than anyone else bar perhaps China, and the Soviet Union inflicted the most casualties. If simply Soviets were slaughtered without inflicting huge damage as they did, then the Soviet-German war section would be much smaller wouldn't it?--Miyokan 01:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image selection discussion

Hello Dna, kudos on trying to trim down the article. I do, however, have some suggestions:

  • Can we replace the Germans parachuting on Crete with the Allied landings in Torch? The latter was the first American operation in the European Theatre and the aspect of paratroopers is much more clearly displayed with Market-Garden later on.
  • I think the Soviet-German meeting picture was better for Poland then the current one. The soldiers can't be distinguished at all and the joint Nazi-Soviet military action was, at the time, hugely devastating for the Allies who thought they may end up having to go to war against both. It also demonstrates some of the complexities of war-time alliances.
  • I'm not all that keen on showing British soldiers during the Battle of France. I think the intro picture on the Battle of France article, showing a column of British and French troops surrendering, better illustrates the shock of France's fast defeat. Oberiko 01:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crete->Torch. Quite reasonable, parachutes covered. But then personally I'd scrap both, and keep Market Garden. Torch is minor. But I am feeling very "delete-ish" today... :)
  • Poland->Germany/USSR. I understood the intention, it's a good one. But I'd still prefer Poles than no-Poles, but I don't care very much.
  • Brits->Brits/French. Reasonable, but we'll lose Dunkirk. But I think your suggestion is better, as I believe we'll otherwise have no French at all, if I remember correctly.
Considering these points, I have no strong opinions. I leave it to you to do as you see fit. I am too tired now, so I will sleep. See you tomorrow, perhaps! My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 03:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Dunkirk image as you suggested, Oberiko. We won't lose Dunkirk, I was wrong, the suggested pic is also from Dunkirk. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Archive_Photos&oldid=1051423914"