Talk:World War II/Archive 26

Far, far too long
Currently, the article is at 153 KB, which, according to WP:SIZE is about 5 times to long (for technical reasons and user readability). For those reasons, I'd like to revise my initial guidelines:


 * 1) As always, Policies and guidelines are our top rules: I would ask that all serious editors go through them; our secondary rule set should be the Manual of style
 * 2) There should be no going over level three headers ("==My header==" being a level 1 for our purposes)
 * 3) * Any more then that means that the information isn't being summarized effectively enough, especially when we have hundreds of other articles to spill content overflow / details into
 * 4) * I'm going to coin the term blue article for this page, as it should basically be a collection and well organized and presented links to other pages. By that, I mean that World War II is vast enough that most our sentences should be on key topics, most of which have (or can potentially have) their own articles
 * 5) Images and quotes should be used sparingly, and agreed upon prior to insertion if possible
 * 6) * As a general rule, I would advocate no more then one image per information section; two images if general consensus can be reached that the last image definitely adds value

I'd like to further recommend either of the following as our headers:

Either way, it will be much smaller, much more concise, and much more reliant on linked articles. Oberiko 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Just to state off the bat, I prefer the theatre based, since it tends to be easier to use "main article" summaries and the two primary theatres were mostly segregated. Oberiko 13:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you want to change the article split? I say the article is split nicely as it is. M.V.E.i. 14:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify that? If you're asking why I want to restructure, it's to follow WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY, both of which I think this article fails in, especially when we have (many) separate articles to contain detail overflow. Oberiko 14:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent initiative. IMO, the WW2 main article should use a much more broader brush when describing this huge, global conflict. There is a lot of text and details which easily can go into subarticles. At a first glance, I would personally go for the Chronological initiative than the Geographical (theaters). But after reading Oberiko's geographical note since it tends to be easier to use "main article" summaries and the two primary theatres were mostly segregated, I am quite divided. These are strong points indeed, particularly the segregation note. I remember that I made a very bold rearrangement of the article in 2005, arguing for a chronological view here.

Today, I'm not so sure, but I think I lean towards the chronological view. Some arguments: IMO, chronology beats geography in comprehensibility, when an average reader wants to get a view of the flow of the war. Even though the war was pretty much segregated in a military aspect, all politics, decisions, alliances, supply issues were intertwined. If we go for the geographical view, we might lose the "big picture" a little. For instance, the war will end in two very different places in the article (Europe,Germany and Asia, Japan). For readers with knowledge, no problems, VE and VA, but for average readers this might be confusing; how many history books do not try to follow chronology as a first priority?

If I remember correctly, my 2005 section rearrangement was something like this (not all sections described):


 * Introduction, Causes
 * 1939: The war begins (or 1937-1939, can't remember)
 * 1940: The war spreads
 * 1941: The war becomes global
 * 1942: Deadlock
 * 1943: The war turns
 * 1944: The beginning of the end
 * 1945: The war ends
 * Aftermath

...subdivided into theatres. But as I said, this is no completely clear-cut matter for me, but I think I would go for the chronological option. (as a sidenote, after reading my post from 2005, I suddenly remembered I was the one who inserted the top-right summary box, which has spawned so many controversies. I still think it should be there, but I can't help but feeling a little like Gavrilo Princip :).)

My regards, --Dna-Dennis 05:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * On further thought, I'm starting to lean more towards chronologically-based myself. The children articles themselves are already going to be segregated by theatres, and if we want the users to be able to grasp the full war, it's easier to see the full thing when presented horizontally.  Better to present them with the overall situation on how the Allies advanced on all fronts, had to divide their resources between the theatres, and how each impacted each other.


 * So, if we're going chronological, we have to decide on a few issues.


 * What will be our headings?
 * How do we handle the Asian conflict prior to the amalgamation of the two theatres?


 * For the first, I'd suggest looking at several "full-scope" World War II books to see how they divide it up, I'll post some examples here later. I'm not to keen on rigid years though, as a lot of the most important events happened in mid-year (such as the German invasion of the Soviet Union) and I feel it would break the flow.  I'd rather divide by phases of the war.


 * For the second issue, I would track developments in Asia throughout the entire article and use the outbreak of the Second Sino-Japanese War as the starting point for the first section covering the war after our summary and background sections. Oberiko 12:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that 'Background' should be a separate main header outside course of the war. I'm not sure if that's what you've intented, but there's no need for a separate 'summary' subsection as all sections should summarize it's subsections. Fornadan (t) 13:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds plausible to me, if we take it out from the main course of the war section, then we can add headings for it (still not going below H3's) to separate and explain the almost completely independent backgrounds of the two primary theatres. You're also correct about the second point, if we can keep it brief enough then the introduction section should be enough.  Oberiko 13:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Oberiko's chronologically based headings and time division as described above, and I agree with Fornadan considering the Background scope. Personally I'd like shorter headings, but for now I see no reason to interfere with a work in progress. Oberiko's version will also probably result in a smaller TOC than my 2005 revision. I'm all in. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I should point out that the headings I gave above were just examples. We're going to have to do a bit more research as to what the headings actually should be now that we (seemingly) have decided on chronological order, including cut-off points for each theatre/phase, and what events to detail in each.
 * It's going to be quite a bit of up-front work, but I think it will save time in the long run and result in a much stronger article. Oberiko 20:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

i think it was fine 3 months ago before it got changed now its terrible--64.205.199.7 15:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oberiko, you asked What will be our headings? Do you mean the actual words or scopes? To me, the words don't matter at this point - the question of scopes is more important. I'd say we keep and work on your suggested headings considering the scopes - IMO your suggestion is a very good start - I have no major objections; I think it is a good framework. Furthermore, you asked How do we handle the Asian conflict prior to the amalgamation of the two theatres?. Well, I think your headings (Chronologically based) above - "Axis expansionism" - "Japan's aggression in Asia (1937 - 1941)" - will be an excellent framework. On looking at several "full-scope" World War II books, some initial thoughts: Most general WW2 books I've read usually follow the political & military development chronologically (subdivided into theaters), and vary the context by inserting various specific stuff like resistance, technology, home fronts in between the military maneuvers, in a sort of semi-chronological way. However, I don't suppose this is a good idea for this one single (yet large) article (even though such things can be mentioned at proper chronological points in the article). I think it is best to go for something like your "Aftermath and global impact of the war" as described above. Maybe we could semi-chronologically reorder it to
 * Technology and warfare development during the war
 * Civilian impact (includes war crimes, massacres, home fronts etc.) - and resistance, black operations (SOE, OSS) ?
 * Add? -> Aftermath (or Immediate aftermath?) - zones (Europe/Germany/Berlin), UN, independence of colonies etc.
 * Emergence of the United States and Soviet Union as superpowers


 * Just some thoughts from me, I hope it was intelligible. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe split the level 1 heading "Aftermath and global impact of the war" into two level 1 headings, something like:
 * Home fronts, technology & civilian impact (i.e. production, resistance, technology, war crimes etc)
 * Aftermath (zones, UN, independence, Cold War etc)


 * or even (semi-chronologically):
 * Home fronts (production, propaganda, resistance etc)
 * Technology (various weapon-tech, radar, cryptography etc)
 * Civilian impact (war crimes, bombings, POW, Holocaust etc)
 * Aftermath (zones, UN, independence, war trials, Cold War etc)
 * Don't know for sure, just some further thoughts... Regards, --Dna-Dennis 02:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy. I agree on fixing the aftermath section.  First, I think we have to get rid of the word "aftermath", as casualties, war crimes, tech improvements etc., took place during the war itself.  I also agree with several most of your category renaming.


 * Global impact of the war
 * Technology development during the war (many new tactics were a result of new technology)
 * Civilian impact (includes massacres, genocides, home fronts etc.)
 * Political consequences (fall of European Great Powers, rise of the U.S. and U.S.S.R., war crimes and trials, decolonization, U.N. etc.)


 * In regards to the battle section, I'm thinking we should divide it based on "key" events. My first take is such:
 * Japan invades China (7 July 1937)
 * Germany invades Poland (1 September 1939)
 * Germany invades the Soviet Union (22 June 1941)
 * Japan attacks the United States and European colonies in Southeast Asia (7 December 1941)
 * Battle of Midway (4 June 1942)
 * Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October 1942)
 * Battle of Kursk (4 July 1943 - 23 August 1943)
 * Battle of Normandy (6 June 1944)
 * Operation Bagration (22 June 1944)
 * Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945)
 * VE Day (7 May 1945)
 * VJ Day (15 August 1945)


 * So, I'm thinking the section/headers would be something like
 * War breaks out in Asia and Europe (7 July 1937 - 21 June 1941)
 * The war expands and becomes global (22 June 1941 - June 3 1942)
 * The tide turns against the Axis (4 June 1942 - 23 August 1943)
 * Allies press on (24 August 1943 - 5 June 1944)
 * The beginning of the end (6 June 1944 - 25 January 1945)
 * The Axis crumble (26 January - 15 August 1945)


 * Thoughts? Oberiko 03:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not bad, not bad... I've been thinking hard on this last suggestion of yours, and I don't see any problems with this time division. In fact, it may be perfect. It differs from your initial 4-piece above (Axis expansionism, The war expands, The Allies regroup, The war ends) but chronologically it's still true to the rule of seven, which I also find important (good you mentioned it before, btw). Maybe the 4-piece is too simplifying? Hmm, I think this last chronological 6-piece suggestion might be the best one yet, with exactly those start/end dates you used... IMO, it's better than my 2005 year-by-year TOC. Right now, I think we should go for your 6-piece, but perhaps we should let it rest for a while, and see if any opinions from others materialize? Or? --Dna-Dennis 06:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Six section headers is a good idea. Support. Binksternet 06:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Many thanks. I'm thinking that as a next step we could start listing, in bullet-point notation, the important events within each of the sections.  It looks like we're pretty set on chronologically based sections, so the most major change we would likely have would be shifting the dates around a bit; even with that though, it shouldn't change much (unless I've missed a huge key event).  Personally, I don't see the dates as hard break-points, but general guidelines.  For example, if we were to include the Battle of Changsha (May 1944 - August 1944), we'd probably let it run out in the "Allies press on" section instead of carrying it over to the "The beginning of the end" section. Oberiko 11:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ("Hard break-points" - no, absolutely not. If so, whatever should we do with e.g. the Battle of the Atlantic or the Siege of Leningrad? No, overlappings are just fine, or rather inevitable; no matter how hard we try, it is impossible to fit this multicellular monster called WW2 perfectly into 6 square holes! :) But I still think your dates as guides are very good. --Dna-Dennis 15:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies. I didn't mean to infer that you were pushing for hard-breaks, just clarifying before it became a question.  Totally agreed, as there's bound to be much overlap with items that we can't parse into bite-sized pieces.  Oberiko 16:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree the article is too long. Some of the individual sections seem to be almost as long as the dedicated topics!

I also thought when reading through it last night that chronological order would make more sense, and that is certainly how it's handled in most histories.

I also like the idea of having sections on war crimes, maybe a section on technology - you know, all the stuff that isn't directly to do with the combat but still has everything to do with WWII.

I note however that someone said the article was a lot more readable a few months back. Maybe we should just thik about winding it back to an earlier page?

BTW, I'm thinking this article should be renamed History of World War II and the World War II page turned into a WP:SUMMARY page consisting only of a bunch of links to all the different articles, linked together with an absolute minimum of text. Any comments on that?Gatoclass 17:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that at one time, but people coming here are generally going to want to do so to get a broad overview, the summary, IMO, is best left for the portal. Personally, I'm hoping that if we get the content text small enough, it can still serve to be as much of a summary as possible. Oberiko 17:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been an editor on Wiki for 18 months and I didn't even know there was any such thing as a portal until you just pointed it out me. How is the casual reader going to find it? Apart from which, the portal is obviously not doing anything like providing a WP:SUMMARY. There's no overview of the conflict there, no comprehensive, chronologically or historically ordered collection of links, just a mishmash of information that IMO would be of more use to editors than readers. I fail to see how it could act as an adequate substitute for a proper WP:SUMMARY.


 * As for "get[ting] the content small enough" to make this page a WP:SUMMARY, that is completely unrealistic in my view. Gatoclass 10:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Even on the WP:SUMMARY page (which ironically shows WWII as the example of how to do a summary...) they still have text in there describing the conflict, just using to branch off to the children articles.  That's basically exactly what we're trying to do here. Oberiko 12:36, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I couldnt help but notice the irony of that myself :)


 * But that is just my point. We don't have a WP:SUMMARY of WWII along the lines of that example, and I think we need one. Gatoclass 12:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

More Pro-Soviet Tilt
Last year some "heroic" firefighters were charged with murder here in Southern California. A few people died as a result of the arson started by these firefighters. That's right, the firefighters appeared heroic while fighting the fires, but it turned out that they had started the fires. They wanted to be seen as heros, but their arson "backfired" in the worst way.

In the "Battle of the Atlantic" section, there is this statement:

"In the summer of 1941, the Soviet Union entered the war on the side of the Allies, but they lost much of their equipment and manufacturing base in the first few weeks following the German invasion."

The USSR did NOT merely enter the war. It was violently thrust into the war on the side against which it had actively been supplying Germany. The USSR was forced into a 180º change of purpose. To say that the USSR "entered the war on the side of the Allies" misstates what happened in a way which makes the USSR seem like one of the "good guys." Up through May, 1941, there were the "bad guys," Japan, Italy and Germany, supplied by the USSR, and the "good guys," China, Britain and the British Commonwealth, supplied by the USA. Unlike the current text, which implies that the USSR was a good guy, the USSR was NOT.

I suggest that the sentence be changed to this: "The Soviet Union, turned into one of the Allies by the June 22, 1941 German invasion, had lost much of its equipment and manufacturing base that summer."

Counting spaces, much fewer characters, and much less POV.

69.238.74.159 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)IMS, 24 Sept. 2007


 * And how was the USSR suppling Italy and Japan? Or how was the USSR any less of a "good guy" for dealing with Hitler than, say, the United Kingdom? Or is it USSR's fault (like those firefighters), that Hitler invaded in 1941? Or are you doubting the heroism of the Soviet people, who took out more axis soldiers than all other allied countries put together? Ko Soi IX 01:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Ko Soi IX writes: And how was the USSR suppling Italy and Japan?

It was enough that the USSR was supplying Germany. From: : The British historians Alan S. Milward and W.Medicott show that Nazi Germany--unlike Imperial Germany--was prepared for only a short-term war (Blitzkrieg).[125] According to Andreas Hillgruber,[126] without the necessary supplies from the USSR and the strategic security in the East, Germany could not have succeeded in the West. Had Soviets joined the Anglo-French blockade, German war economy would have been blocked soon. With its own raw materials in September 1939, Germany could have been supplied for mere 9 to 12 months.[127]

Ko Soi IX writes: Or how was the USSR any less of a "good guy" for dealing with Hitler than, say, the United Kingdom? Simple. The United Kingdom stood alone as the bastion of freedom against Germany, while the USSR supplied Germany.

Ko Soi IX writes: [I]s it USSR's fault (like those firefighters), that Hitler invaded in 1941? Yes. But for USSR's cynical supplying of resources to Germany, Germany would not have had the wherewithal to prosecute a war for more than 12 months.

Ko Soi IX writes: [A]re you doubting the heroism of the Soviet people, who took out more axis soldiers than all other allied countries put together? No. Once called upon to fight Germany, the Soviet people fought valiantly. However, but for the USSR's cynicism, none of them may have had to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.219.9 (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so USSR was not supplying Japan and Italy. And as for Germany, I don't think supplying is a correct term. Trade seems more befitting; it's quite arguable that the trade between USSR and Germany in the 1939-1941 period did more to help the allied cause, than the axis cause, since USSR (by far the largest contributor to the allied war effort) was recieving machinery in exchange for raw material. However, I find it doubtful that Germany's war effort depended so much on Soviet supplies - if anything, Swedish iron or Romanian oil were far more important; political security - yes, I totally agree. Even if this "12 months" is true, it was less than a year from September 1939 to June 1940. But it's not even the point. The Soviet Union, just like all other states, acted out of it's self-interest. Surely, it's cynical, but no less cynical than the actions of it's contemporaries. For instance, it was obviously good for the USSR that their enemies weaken each other. This so-called "cynicism", or, really, pragmatism, is quite natural and is in no way a sign of "evil". Well, UK did stand "alone" for a year; but let's go back a little. Munich, 1938. Tell me, was it any less cynical than the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, which came AFTER Munich? So, maybe UK is a "bad guy", eh? Thus your argument about the victim of agression being to blame seems ill-founded in this example; that being said, I would like to point out that the Soviet Union was not a passive victim, but an active player, pursuing it's own interests. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ko Soi IX. The USSR supplied/traded with Germany for 20 months, including the entire period of time that Germany was conquering Western Europe and battling the United Kingdom. What the UK did at Munich (i.e., allowing Germany to annex the ethnic-German parts of Czechoslovakia) was reprehensible. However, the United Kingdom sought no self aggrandizement or harm to others (except Czechoslovakia), and the United Kingdom did not affirmatively aid Germany in its program. The Munich deal was not nearly as cynical as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The USSR joined Germany in dividing up Poland and Eastern Europe and supplied Germany while Germany conquered Norway, threatened Sweden and fought with the UK. The UK, while not perfect, was one of the good guys. It declared war on Germany without Germany's attacking it, but in defense of another country. The USSR was one of the bad guys who enabled the monster bad guy Germany to subdue others until it turned on the USSR. The USSR did not declare war on Germany before Germany invaded it. So yes, while the USSR was the victim of its ally Germany's turning on it, and Germany's being as strong as it was, was at least in major part due to the USSR. In my opinion any discussion of the USSR "entering" WW II should clearly point that out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.219.9 (talk) 04:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, from the Soviet POV, the situation was good, since two of it's enemies - the imperialists and the nazis were fighting each other. Trade with Germany brought another benefit, which the soviet leadership would be foolish to overlook - state-of-the-art machinery for factories, which certainly helped the Soviet defence capabilities. Munich was a part of British politics of the time. Why should British soldiers die fighting the Germans, if Hitler could be directed to the east? Sounds pretty cynical to me, and also goes well with the usual theme of British politics - let the others do the fighting. For example, the position of the British largely determined the failure of Soviet attempts to organize a military alliance against Hitler (to be fair, it must be noted that antagonizm between the Poles and the Soviets also played it's role). Meanwhile, Hitler wanted UK to be an ally. Not an equal ally, of course; something like what the UK ended up getting anyway, only not from Germany, but from USA. So look at it from the Russian tree - signing the non-agression pact with Germany was the right thing to do, for it provided many benefits - the Japanese, who were fighting the Soviets at the time, realized that there is no point to escalate the conflict, for their allies, the Germans, would not help them; lands, lost by the Russian Empire as the result of WW1, were returned (of course, in the process the three tiny circumbaltic dictatorships lost their independance); the inevitable conflict with Germany was delayed. This should be explained in the article, alongside with views from the other side (eg.Poland), not why USSR was a "bad guy". And another point - the USSR was NOT an ally of the German Reich, despite them dividing spheres of interest (without which there could not be a non-agression pact) and, in case of Poland, being co-belligerents. There was no formal alliance. Sweden, as far as I know, was eagerly selling iron to Germany for the entire war. I'm absolutely sure that swedish role in helping the German war effort is of far greater importance, than that of the soviets. And, of course, Sweden being a neutral country, whatever they got from the trade with Germany didn't help the allied cause one bit. Of course, speaking of trade, one can't overlook the importance of american trade for the growing German war machine in 1930s. However, this is too broad a topic. In conclusion, it seems to me that the role of Soviet trade in supplying the Reich is grossly overestimated by the author you cited. Of course the Soviet Union didn't declare war on Germany first. The Soviet Union was not an agressor in the conflict, nor was it (thanks in part to the British) bound by military treaties. I don't see where you are going with this argument. Overall, "bad guys", "good guys" are POV. While we do have a general consensus that the Germans were "bad guys", the Soviet Union or the United Kingdom are not that simple. Same goes for Poland, or for Finland. I'm sure, that, say for millions of bengalis dying from starvation in 1943 it was not the Germans, nor the Russians, nor the Japanese who were the "bad guys" - it was the British. Sorry for so many words, with respect, Ko Soi IX 05:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Munich was a part of British politics of the time. Why should British soldiers die fighting the Germans, if Hitler could be directed to the east? Sounds pretty cynical to me, and also goes well with the usual theme of British politics - let the others do the fighting. There is little problem with that theory, Czechoslovakkia and USSR did not share common border. So if UK really would had wanted Germany to attack USSR then it would had needed to allow Germany attack Poland anyway. As history showed they did not stay neutral then Germany invaded Poland, although from practical viewpoint it could had been smart move(giving Hitler border with USSR and free hands).--Staberinde 08:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Luckily, Britain was eventually forced to step away from it's politics of appeasement, which were dictated by it's economic interests (UK playing against USA in this case). And, by going east, it didn't nessesary mean the Soviet Union, at least right away. Yet, in Munich a compromise was found, acceptable by all, except, of course, Czechoslovakia and the USSR. The attempts of organizing a military treaty, aimed against Germany and including the Soviet Union were in vain. However, the British are not the only ones to blame. Since there was no border between USSR and Germany, Poland would have to allow Soviet troops to enter it's territory, and, for many reasons, Poles wouldn't go for it. Poland was trying so hard to sit on two stools, it lost it's chance to avoid, or at least minimize the horrors of war. With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS. Interestingly enough, the article about Appeasement of Hitler clearly states that "The policy of appeasement towards Germany was thus designed to push Germany eastwards into a war with the Soviet Union". Ko Soi IX 09:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact is that Hitler drew considerable support from the democracies as the Nazi regime was seen as a bastion of anticommunism, until he started becoming a danger to them. The Soviets tried to establish an anti-Nazi alliance with the Western democracies but were rebuffed, after which they moved unilaterally to try and ensure their own security. When Germany went to war with the democracies, Stalin hoped they would destroy each other, enabling communism to triumph. Who are the good guys and bad guys in this picture?


 * Trying to reduce history to a simplistic morality play between "good guys" and "bad guys" is fatuous. Every regime operates out of self-interest, and it's not our job to write articles based on moral judgements from one or another standpoint, but to record what reliable sources have said about the events in question. Gatoclass 09:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I could sign under every word [Russian idiom - means I totally agree with everything you wrote]. On a side note, someone said: "Unlike ants, we humans have no collective intelligence. On the level of states we have greedy selfish kids, while on the level of humanity we have a moron". With respect, Ko Soi IX 09:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the original point, "In the summer of 1941, the Soviet Union entered the war on the side of the Allies, but they lost much of their equipment and manufacturing base in the first few weeks following the German invasion" should be changed to this:

"The Soviet Union, moved into the Allied camp by the June 22, 1941 German invasion of the USSR, had lost much of its equipment and manufacturing base that summer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.238.219.9 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The second version is an improvement, but I think it could be better still. Gatoclass 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So, Gatoclass, please make the change. By the way see the following from :
 * "In November 1940, Molotov was attending a banquet in his honor in Berlin when the RAF attacked the city, forcing his hosts to retreat with him to Ribbentrop's bunker. When the German foreign minister insisted that Britain was finished, the normally dour Molotov delivered his best riposte ever. 'If that's so, then why are we in this shelter and whose bombs are those falling?' he asked.


 * "But if Stalin and other top Soviet officials sometimes came out on top in their rhetorical sparring with the Germans, they acted as if they could really rely on their nonaggression pact and other agreements to keep the peace between the two countries -- at least for a good long while. Stalin was determined to honor his trade commitments to Germany throughout the period of the pact, and his country provided huge amounts of oil, wood, copper, manganese ore, rubber, grain, and other supplies to keep the German military machine well stocked."


 * Thanks, Gatoclass.69.238.219.9 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)IMS


 * Personally, I got no objection to the change proposed by the unsigned user, as long as no factual mistakes, like, eg. refering to the USSR as a German ally, are allowed. Cheers, Ko Soi IX 22:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Animation
The animation showing the Soviet Union as being separate from the other allied powers from 1941 is an absolutely disgracefully biased re-writing of history. To show it as a separate entity to other participating allied and axis powers is a gross over-simplification of history, especially given the complex involvement of many countries during the war - why not have separate colours for Finland, France, Italy, etc, at different stages of the war??? The fact that the Soviet Union has been specifically shown with a different colour indicates an unbelievable bias that should not be a part of such a prominent article on wikipedia. Regardless of the Soviet Union's position prior to 1941, she was quite deifinitely an allied power and bore the brunt of the war against Hitler's Germany and the minor axis powers from 1941 and was, quite rightly, at the time and since described as an allied nation by the other allies. Indeed in the section below the animation, the Soviet Union is described as an allied power, in contradiction to the map above it. This contradiction on its own is enough of a reason to remove the animation in my opinion. 3 million members of the red army died in the struggle against Hitler's Germany, in co-operation with the USA and European allied powers. 4 million members of the red army died in German captivity. 20 million citizens of the USSR died during the war. The animation must be removed or changed. If it is to be changed, it should be along the lines of the other illustration showing the European conflict. The fact that these two illlustrations contradict each other is further reason for its immediate removel, before something more suitable is found.

Stephensimmons 10:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but the Red Army also signed a treaty with Nazi Germany, and invaded independent Poland as well. Jmlk  1  7  10:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steven, there is no reason to show the USSR in a different colour, at least, not after 1941. Gatoclass 11:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do agree; was just making a slight point as well. Jmlk  1  7  11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, this conversation should probably be taking place on the talk page for the image. Jmlk  1  7  11:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the discussion is already taking place at the infobox talk page. Parsecboy 12:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. All the better. :) Jmlk  1  7  12:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Poland also shared bounty with Nazi Germany, in 1938, when Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and took Zaolzie. So there, Poland's no better, only smaller. Ko Soi IX 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No. SU officially signed agreement with Nazis and invaded according to that agreement. Poland took Zaolzie without any cooperation with Nazis, in a move which was directed against them. Szopen 09:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Ko Soi IX.  According to , the matter of Zaolzie is much more complicated than simple aggrandizement at the expense of another.  The territory referred to as Zaolzie appears to have been in contant dispute, and the wiki article does not indicate that the Zaolzie area desired independence.  On the other hand, the USSR, in direct cooperation with Germany, divided up an independent Poland and annexed three independent baltic countries.  (Was the USSR any less imperialistic or aggrandizing than Russia under the czars?)  I think actual history (and even written history which has generally been easy on the USSR) has shown that the USSR had always been of a different ilk from the Western Allies, notwithstanding that the Western Allies have not always been perfect. Even in the matter of the battle against Germany after June 22, 1941, the USSR had no trouble differing from its Western Allies.  For example, during the Warsaw Uprising of August-September, 1944, the USSR refused necessary cooperation with the Western Allies' attempts to make air-drops of supplies to the Poles fighting against the Germans.  See .  In addition, the USSR was a neutral with respect to the Japanese war of agression until Japan was reeling from the onslaught by the Americans, British and others.  Think about it.  The USSR's "allies" were in a desperate war against Japan, and yet the USSR maintained a scrupulous neutrality with Japan, even interning five of the American flyers who had bombed Tokyo in April, 1942.  See .  I think that there is no harm in showing the USSR (whose people did fight valiantly against Germany when put on the line aganst it) in a different color or shading from the Western Allies, which I think is the current plan being discussed on the talk page for the image. �69.239.50.71 16:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)IMS
 * To Szopen: what you speak of is a technicality; both those acts are examples of imperialism. To the unsigned user. Surely, the Soviet Union, to re-establish the influence the Russian Empire had, had to turn to imperialist actions. So? The USSR had it's own interests that weren't nessesarily same with those of the Western allies. And think about it. While USSR was in a desperate war against Germany, it's allies waited until they were sure that USSR could defeat Germany alone, and only than opened the second front. I could go on, about the freedom-loving British starving several million of their Bengali subjects, carpet-bombings of civilians, etc, but what's the point? With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * →Hi Ko Soi IX. The Bengal famine of 1943 to which you refer may not be the fault of Britain at all, and certainly Japan was largely at fault.  See, .  You write, "While USSR was in a desperate war against Germany, it's allies waited until they were sure that USSR could defeat Germany alone, and only than opened the second front."  That smacks of revisionism.
 * →With respect to the war against Germany, the REAL FIRST FRONT was the Battle of Britain, in which Germany, supplied by the USSR, brought the war over the sky of the United Kingdom. The REAL FIRST FRONT may be thought to include the Battle of the Atlantic, which pitted the UK, and later other Western Allies, against Germany, and endured both during and after the USSR's alliance with Germany.  The REAL SECOND FRONT was North Africa, with Germany's fighting there being supplied in part by the USSR through June, 1941.  The REAL THIRD FRONT (which pro-Soviet propagandists refer to as the First Front) was Eastern Europe and pitted Germany and other Axis members against the USSR.  Throughout the fighting on the REAL THIRD FRONT the USSR was supplied by the Western Allies (at great risk to their shipping).  The REAL FOURTH FRONT was Italy, which basically pitted Germany against the Western Allies.  The REAL FOURTH FRONT was active from the end of fighting on the REAL SECOND FRONT (i.e., North Africa) until the end of the war in Europe. The REAL FIFTH FRONT was Western Europe, which pitted Germany against the Western Allies, and endured from June, 1944 until the end of the war.  So, directly contrary to what you write, the USSR was never fighting Germany without one or more of the Western Allies being concurrently in desperate battle against Germany, or against both Germany and Italy.  Contrary to what you write, Ko Soi IX, it was the the United Kingdom (with its Commonwealth allies) which fought almost alone against Germany (up through June, 1941), while the USSR did not merely wait, it supplied Germany's efforts against the UK.
 * →In the 1930s and 1940s, the world was afflicted with three powerful, evil regimes: Germany, Japan and the USSR. (The other powerful regimes may not have been perfect, but they were not of the evil ilk of Germany, Japan and the USSR.)  For the world's sake, two of those evil regimes (Germany and the USSR) ended up fighting each other.  The USSR should be colored (or shaded) differently from the Western Allies in the animation.
 * →Ko Soi IX, you write, "Surely, the Soviet Union, to re-establish the influence the Russian Empire had, had to turn to imperialist actions." Are you saying that the USSR had an inalienable right to the influence which Czarist Russia had once held?
 * →In my opinion, Ko Soi IX, your writings unashamedly exhibit the pro-Soviet tilt of which I complain.71.128.4.36 19:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)IMS


 * Really, your accusations of revisionism are baseless. My ironic statement that mirrors Soviet-era historiography was a direct reply to your baseless accusation of the USSR not pulling it's weight in the Pacific theater. Second Front is a well known Soviet term for the Western Front in 1944-1945. If you do wish to count fronts the way you do, you should start with Poland. "Fighting alone" referes to dramatically dissimilar casualties sustained by different allies. And yes, the Soviet Union traded with the German Reich at the time Germany was at war with Britain. Two Soviet enemies were fighting, why should the Soviets give preference to UK over Germany? Because UK (the largest colonial empire in the world) is somehow the "good guy"? Also, claims like "evil regimes" have no place in wiki; it's merely an opinion. And no, I'm not saying that USSR had an inalienable right, that's in your head, my dear anti-soviet crusader. However, USSR was a heir to the Russian Empire, and as such did have certain rights to, for example, Bessarabia (and in this case, far greater than those of Romania). Basically, I'm not at any rate claiming that the USSR was white and fluffy; I just don't appreciate those who hate my fatherland - but I'm not closing my eyes on the darker parts of it's history, as long as it's handled in a balanced, ideology-free, academic matter. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Ko Soi IX. I moved the discussion to here: .69.239.87.23 22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)IMS

Order in the infobox
Yet again this problem arises. Why do we have China and France above USSR, USA and UK? Alphabet? Really, the previous version was much more informative, as it showed relative war efforts of participants. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I personally prefer chronological order(and for china can be used date then it officially joined allies, which is after usa) as those arguments of "who contributed more" can get very pointless, and alphabetical order has pretty strange results. Although I guess that this discussion actualy belongs to here Template talk:WW2InfoBox.--Staberinde 14:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

An initial poll regarding Allies & Axis vs. Nationalities is going on here. --Dna-Dennis 05:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox editing
Since I don't know how to edit the infobox, I'll just mention two cosmetic suggestions. First, instead of "clockwise from top" it should be "clockwise from top left". Second, the phrase "Stalingrad after the Battle of Stalingrad" sounds odd, perhaps, it should be replaced with "Aftermath of the Battle of Stalingrad" or "Ruins of Stalingrad" or something like that, avoiding the repeat of the same word in the phrase. With respect, Ko Soi IX 08:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * To edit the infobox, just go to the template page. I also made the changes you suggested. Parsecboy 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)