Talk:World War II

Template:Medcabbox

Possibly adding all countries linked to the Allied and Axis Powers

Instead of just showing the main allied and axis leaders, we should give credit to all the countries that had bigger roles throughout the war. Like Romania and Yugoslavia for example. Age20035 (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Listing all details defeats the purpose of an infobox, so there must be limits. Listing the "main" leaders fits. What defines "bigger" roles, how many additional leaders are we talking about, and why are they needed in the infobox? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

There's a long standing consensus, based on an extensive RfC, to limit the numbers of countries and leaders in the infobox to only the major powers involved in the war. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Yugoslavia did not have a big enough role during the war to justify this. I disagree with this approach to the infobox, as this has been discussed ad nauseum per Nick-D. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Adding to this, was China a major player as well 102.164.66.138 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Many other pages about wars list almost, if not all of the combatants. Gravestep (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

-Howdy. I was an editor a decade ago and haven't been back much since, but just want to point out this conversation has literally been going on for 15 years. Just stick with the major players else everyone gets upset that not all 90+ countries are represented and then it just looks a mess.

--108.53.1.82 (talk) 01:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Persecution of Serbs in WWII

Hello, I would suggest that we include the information that the persecution of Serb by Ustashe was a part of wider Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia campaign. That important piece of information is currently lacking. cheers, Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 00:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC) :In the war crimes section it mentions the persecution of Serbs by Ustashe. It should be mentioned that it was part of a Genocide by the Ustahse, correct. However the mass murder of Croats and Muslims by Chetniks is missing in the article. Which was deemed Genocide in nature by a number of historians, though not as major as that against the Serbs by Ustashe. PortalTwo (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Form - Format Question

I have been using the layout of this article as a template for other articles that I create or edit. My question relates to the placement of Notes, Citations, and References. Currently (April 26, 2020) in the World War II article I am seeing what I consider references in among the citations (e.g. Citations 1,3,4,6,7,8, etc.) I am also seeing what I consider notes in among the citations (e.g. 25,63,70,139,145, etc.).

Experienced editors can you comment? Thanks, Virgil Fairchild VFF0347 (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2020

82.7.91.10 (talk) 08:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC) can you please change the text to less complacated

You might find the World War II article on the simple English Wikipedia more helpful - please see https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Adding Indian Ocean, and maybe the Arctic Ocean to the 'Location' part of the infobox

The Indian was a major theatre of combat that is mentioned only once in the article. The Pacific War article has the Indian Ocean in the 'Location' part but I still think it deserves its own mention in the World War II infobox because of the numerous naval actions between all major warring powers(Monsun U-Boats, Italian Submarines, German cruisers) as well as the Battle of Madagascar. Having only the Atlantic and Pacific in the 'Locations' part makes it seem like those were the only 2 oceans that had combat, even though the other two did aswell. IvanNik772 (talk) 06:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Harry Truman

Under the section titled "Commanders and Leaders", would it be too much to add Harry Truman under Franklin Roosevelt? After all, Truman ordered the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and he took over when Roosevelt died in office. I know it may be weird to have 2 different leaders for one country, but you can annotate it by adding a symbol next to Roosevelt indicating he died in office. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Total fatalities

The introduction (second sentence) states an estimated 75-80 million deaths however the casualties section states an estimate of 60 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II#Casualties_and_war_crimes Clearly either one or both figures here need to be reviewed and amended.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:D8D:1321:FCEC:1F78 (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

Hello, All:

A search for "Battle of the Bulge" in this article returned nothing. I found the separate article on "Battle of the Bulge" to find the date. With that I found the following:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement.

What do you think about modifying this sentence to explicitly include the name of that battle? For example:

On 16 December 1944, Germany made a last attempt on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes and along with the French-German border to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp to prompt a political settlement. (These events are commonly called "the Battle of the Bulge" or the "Ardennes Counteroffensive."

Thanks to all who have helped make this a "Good Article". DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

This article can't include every battle.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

The article regularly "pipes" the names of battles for the sake of readability, noting that it covers a huge number of battles. Naming them all individually would be cumbersome. Nick-D (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. After making my own list of major events of WWII, I concluded that you are correct: That Battle of the Bulge made headlines but does not qualify as anywhere close to marking a turning point in the war. It slowed the allied advance into Germany by a couple of months, maybe. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly one of the major events of the war, this article just doesn't specifically name it. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

References

1937 and 1939 start dates

Would it be more accurate to say WW2 started in 1937 (in Asia) and in 1939 (in Europe)? https://brill.com/view/journals/jcmh/4/2/article-p204_5.xml?language=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomnolence (talk • contribs) 19:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Not really. The war in Asia in 1937 was just a regional war at that point, not a world war. The consensus is that WW2 started in 1939. --Nug (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

World War II#Chronology discusses this issue. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

No, the overwhelming academic consensus is that WWII ran from 1939 to 1945. Until the majority of the secondary reliable sources independent of the subject say that WWII started in 1937, we stick with what we have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

In the first paragraph, fourth sentence, first word, I believe there is a typographical error. It should read Tens instead of Ten. 2600:6C44:657F:BD8B:A5BF:8822:5B9D:AC1C (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done TheImaCow (talk) 13:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

"was" or "is" the deadliest conflict in human history?

@Rodney Baggins: Thanks for the thought, but to me saying, "World War II is" anything sounds like World War II hasn't ended yet. Accordingly, I'm reverting your change from "was" to "is" the deadliest conflict ... . DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

To me, saying "World War II was the deadliest conflict" means that it once was but is no longer the deadliest because some other conflict has since surpassed it in deadliness. If you imagine "human history" laid out as a timeline, and look at the death tolls of various conflicts, you would pick out WWII as the deadliest on that timeline and you would say "it is the deadliest" on the timeline of human history. Fine to say "it was a very deadly conflict", yes past tense all the way, but when looking to use the superlative in describing it in terms of human history, which is a linear timeline with points of interest marked out on it, WWII is the deadliest in terms of that timeline. Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Well, to me it sounds as though World War Two is, as in remains to this day, the "deadliest war in history". Britmax (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Britmax: I'm confused: Do you prefer "WWII was the deadliest" or "is the deadliest"?

Obviously, I prefer "was" while User:Rodney Baggins prefers "is".

I don't know if this matters, but I was raised in Kansas and have spent most of my life in the US. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

My tendency is towards "is". What goes in the article depends, as always, on consensus. Britmax (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not change it to "World War II remains the deadliest..."? Schazjmd (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Or "World War II still ranks as the deadliest ..."? DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, I like that better. Schazjmd (talk) 23:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

An alternative solution might be to change the sentence entirely, from: "World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." to "The deadliest conflict in human history, World War II was marked by 70 to 85 million fatalities..." Then the "deadliest conflict" bit is contained within a noun phrase that sits in apposition with World War II, rather than being connected to it using a main verb "is" or "was".
For the record, I was picked up on this very point in the Tenerife Airport Disaster article a few weeks ago in this edit, where User:Echoedmyron showed me the error of my ways and I now agree with him. Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Probably need to qualify "deadliest" in terms of total killed. In terms of per capita death rate I would reckon the conflict during the period of the Three Kingdoms in 184AD would have been deadlier, with a number of some 37 million killed, given the world's total population nearly 2000 years ago was a lot lower than in 1940. --Nug (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

I think "was" is OK, as there is no evidence of anyone being confused about the issue. Surely if there was a deadlier conflict, it would be mentioned. I think the per capita issue is bogus. When Cain killed Abel, that amounted to the 25% destruction of the world's population. Or, hang on, the Bible indicates there were far more people living at the point... In fact, we have no reliable statistics for the distant past. I don't think "deadliest" implies per capita, but I think it might be better just to simply say "with the highest death toll".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be "was", as is would be present tense, indicating that the war is still ongoing, which it is not. FrançaisauNord (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thing is, although it is not still going, it is still the conflict with the most fatalities in human history. Britmax (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war over Poland

@Monopoly31121993(2):, @Nick-D:, @Peacemaker67:

Is it fair to say that an edit war has been in progress between User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D since 2020-06-19T15:00:47 over whether the 1939 German invasion of Poland should be illustrated with a photo of [[:File: Polish infantry marching -2 1939.jpg|thumb|upright|Soldiers of the Polish Army during the defence of Poland, September 1939]] or of [[:File:Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939.jpg|upright|right|thumb|Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the September invasion]]?

This article has received almost 27,000 views per day on average since 2015-07-01. User:Nick-D contributed 6 different edits to this article since 2020-05-06T14:17:47. User:Monopoly31121993(2) contributed 9 in the same period.

Can we please discuss here the concerns of User:Monopoly31121993(2) and User:Nick-D on this issue?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

My concern is that Monopoly31121993 is edit warring in unreferenced casualty figures, in an article where the long-standing view has been to not mention casualties of individual battles as the article covers such a huge number of them (e.g., why mention civilian casualties in the invasion of Poland and not, say, those during the invasions of Malaya, Latvia, Norway, the liberation of France or many, many others). The rationale for replacing the image also isn't clear to me, though it is a good photo. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

• I prefer the strafing image. Otherwise, there are three images of soldiers, which seems to be an overkill. If the caption is listed w/o the last, misleading statement, would that be acceptable? As in:

Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life.

It's a famous image and it brings in an element of human suffering that diversifies, so to speak, the images in this section. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. I agree with Nick that we shouldn't be inserting casualty figures from individual battles or even campaigns into this article, it is supposed to be a high-level overview of the topic. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

I was unaware that there was a standing agreement against listing causality figures (which I will suggest in a separate post should be amended in certain cases). I included the new text, which Nick-D reverted for having "excessive detail" when 1, it was barely longer than the previous text and 2, it more accurately characterized the actual invasion of Poland (having been based on the more detailed article on the topic (Invasion of Poland) and 3, included several helpful links for users to other pages (e.g.bombing of Wieluń, Battle of Mokra, Bombing of Warsaw in World War II) which were not even mentioned in the prior text.

As far as adding the image without the causality figure, I guess that's OK but I don't see why we are neglecting to mention the scale of civilian suffering is in the interest of Wikipedians when discussing this topic. Especially given the fact that civilians made up such a high proportion of the invasion's causality figures (something like double the combined German and Polish military losses). I would prefer ::Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. Between 150,000-200,000 Polish civilians were killed during the invasion, nearly double the combined number of military deaths for Poland and all of the invading countries.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

(1) The Life Magazine image conveys much more than just another picture of soldiers (many of which are probably staged).
(2) A single mention, early in the narrative of the actual conflict, of this horrific civilian casualty figure will alert the reader to this aspect of WW2. If the purpose of a summary article like this is to raise questions in the encyclopedia user's mind about more in-depth aspects of the subject, then this is the ideal point to break the "rule" of no individual casualty figures. I think the article would be better to have this casualty figure mentioned, simply to flag civilian casualties as an issue. Poland's civilian deaths from WW2 were among the worst (depends exactly how you measure them), so justifying the choice of their figures to do this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

The Casualties and war crimes section discusses casualties, and notes Polish civilian casualties specifically. Giving partial figures with a photo which misleadingly implies that they were caused primarily by the German Air Force doesn't seem helpful to readers, and could further worse the problems with the article being over-crowded with stuff. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not take any inference from the proposed caption that the Luftwaffe were the main source of civilian casualties in Poland - I cannot detect any such implication in the text put forward. Nor do I think others would readily take the inference that you suggest. I doubt that anyone actually knows the proportion of Polish civilians killed in conflict (as opposed to whilst captives, or similar) by air force versus ground force action. Given the amount of bombing and the general lack of sophisticated air raid shelters for the civilian population, one might suspect that it is a significant number. The whole purpose of the caption is to get the reader to look further in the article. We all know that most consultations of Wikipedia are partial - just dipping in and out of an article (especially a more lengthy one, such as this).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2), I'm not sure this discussion yielded a clear consensus, this image adds undue weight, we ALREADY have images of Polish casualties in the article (I agree with having them in the article, however this image will just create an imbalance). Also, the original image is long standing — there was a lengthy discussion on that as well, a while back. So, until there is consensus for a change, the original image should stay. --E-960 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired:, @Nick-D:, @Peacemaker67:,@K.e.coffman:,@DavidMCEddy: E-960, There were 7 editors who contributed to this discussion, myself included. We discussed the image itself and the fact that an earlier caption referred to specific numbers of civilians killed in its caption (which was amended). None of the editors opposes having the historically significant image itself. You are the only person who completely rejects that idea so the consensus is not your opinion. If you want to re-open a discussion to discuss removing the consensus image feel free to do so.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Reverted as you are still edit warring unreferenced claims to this article in the guise of a photo caption. What references support the statement that "More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined"? I remain unethusastic about this image, as it misrepresents the conduct of the German military: the killings of civilians were largely conducted by the Army, in much the same was as took place on a larger scale in Barbarossa. Modern historians tend to stress this, as it illustrates that the German military was a key element of the brutal Nazi regime from (quite literally) day one of the war. Suggesting that the large scale civilian deaths were an accidental side effect of the war misrepresents the nature of this conflict. I'd note that the article already has two very powerful photos of Polish civilian victims of the war, including one illustrating the role of the German Army, so am not sure what the case is for replacing an image which represents the fact that the Poles put up a fight (the only image of the Polish military in the article, I think) with a third image of Polish civilian victimhood. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Nick-D has now also removed the image and left the comment "stop adding unreferenced claims to this article." He is referring to the caption's claim that more civilians were killed during the invasion of Poland than soldiers. This is based on the fatalities citations provided on Invasion of Poland page. As Nick-D was always the least enthusiastic about changing anything in this article, would anyone else (:@ThoughtIdRetired:, @Peacemaker67:,@K.e.coffman:,@DavidMCEddy:) like to restate their arguments for including the image (e.g. that it's a historically significant image, that the image is likely a propaganda image, that the image is simply soldiers marching and not visually valuable in any way, that the page is overwhelmingly of soldiers or war machines and neglects other parties in the conflict). It would be nice to settle this. Thanks.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

You can't base something in this article on citations in another article. That is called WP:CIRCULAR. You have to check the citations in that article and satisfy yourself that they say what they are supposed to, then add them here along with the material. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2), we already have two images that highlight Polish victims, as well as two showing Russian civilian casualties. I think that is reasonable, and this should stay as is, your argument focus just on this one image and does not take into consideration the full scope of the article. --E-960 (talk) 13:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Peacemaker67 I presume the argument is that in articles like [[World War II casualties of Poland#Causes (go to sub-para "acts of war") there are references to support the position. They just need to be read and checked by the editor and used in this article. I don't think we should let procedural arguments stop this being a better encyclopedia - someone just needs to carry out the necessary procedures. The Time Life photo is an extremely powerful image that conveys much more than "just another picture of soldiers". It also usefully conveys that all those statistics about casualties are stories about horrible things happening to real people. There is probably not enough of that in this article (because it is written by military history enthusiasts).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

ThoughtIdRetired, we already have powerful images in this respect a bit further down (in the Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour - Occupation sections), I don't understand why you or user Monopoly31121993(2) don't recognize that fact, and fail to take the whole article into consideration? --E-960 (talk) 14:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

TIR, yes “someone” ought to do it. If not the proponent of its inclusion, then who? You? This is a GA and minimum standards for inclusions apply. It isn’t procedural, it’s ensuring people edit properly. I have no issue with the inclusion of the image, only that it be done properly and the caption is accurate and cited to reliable sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 14:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I should have said "someone with access to these sources.....". I would do this edit if I could. (I think we share the same frustration over this matter.)ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Powerful images: (1) I have just carefully viewed each and every one of the images in the article. I do not think there are any "powerful" images of the same class as the Life magazine picture. Photos that show dead inmates of a concentration camp or partisans being hung are horrific, but I think any picture editor (of a newspaper) would agree that Julien Bryan's photograph is one of the handful of striking images that any top photographer might take in an entire career. It is without doubt powerful. (2) The Life picture illustrates very well the impact of WW2 on the civilians who were caught up in actual conflict. User:E-960 makes the point (if I understand it correctly) that the effect on civilians is dealt with by showing war crimes committed outside conflict. I disagree with this. It would be entirely misleading to the encyclopedia user to not make totally clear that civilians died during conflict - whether as a result of war crimes (as in this instance, when civilians were deliberately machine-gunned by Luftwaffe aircraft), as economic targets (civilians working in war-supporting industries) or as unintended targets. So this picture illustrates not just the emotions when a civilian is killed in Poland, but is representative of all cases of people not in the military being killed in conflict. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn't realise the ref in Polish could be translated to a readable standard. So it seems to me reasonable to show the Life image, as previously existing in the article, as shown here.

Julien Bryan's iconic photo of a Polish girl crying over the body of her 14-year-old sister who was strafed by a German pilot appeared in Life. More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined.

I have, for the present, stuck with the caption as previously offered. I feel it is supported by the reference I have added. The statement "More Polish civilians were killed during the invasion than all combatant deaths combined" is a bit woolly - but I think it has to be as there is a range of figures given in the reference for Polish civilian deaths during the 1939 invasion and also some discussion over the number of military deaths. Obviously the reference is there for other editors to read and see if they agree with this approach - accepting the fact that the absence of any precise figures is a result of warfare followed by policies of repression and extermination. I have not added a page number to the ref as (a) it is not visible in the webarchive version and (b) you have to read a lot of the source to develop an opinion on the likely range within which exists the actual but unknown civilian deaths-in-conflict figure for 1939.

One could research further the numbers killed by the Luftwaffe in the 1939 Polish campaign - there are references available, as they are easily poached from World War II casualties of Poland, but they discuss other instances of civilians being killed by the Luftwaffe, so only are necessary for the discussion hereon of whether or not Luftwaffe-caused deaths were significant in Poland (these refs show they undoubtedly were). I don't think there is any need to over-cite

I would add a reminder of my remarks above of the need for a picture of civilian deaths in conflict in the article - the understanably extensive mention of genocide, premeditated/planned murder, etc. could otherwise blind the reader to the large number of civilians in WW2 who were caught up in fighting and died as a result.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

So yes, there is consensus that this image is a valuable one and simply needs proper citation (which ThoughtIdRetired has now added). E-960, the concern that including an additional image of soldiers (especially one taken as as a propaganda photo) was already discussed when the new image was under discussion but my own opinion is that the argument images of civilian deaths should be reserved from the genocide and war crimes section is not something I support. I can see how some military history enthusiasts of a certain ilk would prefer images of modern weapons or heroic looking soldiers (which this article has its fair share of) but the extremely limited number of images should reflect the reality of the historical event and the LIFE image does that far better than a picture of a column of soldiers walking along a road.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, Monopoly31121993(2), stop throwing around words like "propaganda". Most likely the image was taken during mobilization, and its not a photo-op like this image here[1]. Also, I don't think you understand what consensus is, it's not a simple vote. The issue here is that we already have several images of this type in the article, also the image caption you propose is basically two entire sentences at this point. There is a section titled 'Casualties and war crimes' which deals specifically with this type of subject matter. Please augment it as you see fit, with details regards the deliberate targeting of civilians. --E-960 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Substitute the words "official publicity" for "propaganda" and the count of these types of photograph are overwhelmingly in the majority in this article. The only ones that are definitely not "official publicity" photographs are the press photo of St Paul's surrounded by blitzed buildings and Czesława Kwoka (a photo the Nazis wanted destroyed so no-one could see it). Having just one more picture taken by an independent journalist (Julien Bryan) would not be a hardship for any editor with affection for the current article, and would certainly provide something much more readable for the encyclopedia user.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is not that the image is not applicable to the article, it is, but as I mentioned before the larger context is required, just like in the WWI article. I would suggest that this image is used in the, Strategic bombing or Aerial bombing of cities as it pertains to deliberate terror of civilians. Also, please note that the image is currently in use in Invasion of Poland and Luftwaffe articles. Also, I have no issue with including a sentence or two in the 'War breaks out in Europe' section regarding the deliberate targeting of civilians and the very disproportionate Polish civilian casualties during the invasion. --E-960 (talk) 07:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Unexpected edit and Charles de Gaulle in Main ...

May someone fix the unexpected edit that was an accident, and I think that Charles de Gaulle and Free France should be in Main Combatants and main Leaders. The Axis defeat would probably not possible without De Gaulle and the Free France Movement. Free France was also the Provisional Goverment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miggy72 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

The page has been altered. Someone put a giant american flag in the page main boxes. and minimized everything else in said boxes. The page needs to be reset. Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Bryan Stewart Bcs1080 (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing it out. Calidum 17:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

US Congressional authorization for oil embargo?

On 2020-06-28 part of this article read, "In July 1941 Japan sent troops to southern Indochina, thus threatening British and Dutch possessions in the Far East. The United States, United Kingdom, and other Western governments reacted to this move with a freeze on Japanese assets and a total oil embargo."

QUESTION: Was that embargo authorized by the US Congress?

I had earlier heard that the US Congress had authorized an embargo on scrap iron shipped to Japan, and that FDR extended that to oil without authorization from the US Congress. However, I don't have a reference for whether the oil embargo was imposed by Congress or only by FDR with questions about his legal authority to do so.

I think this issue is relevant to what is happening today in terms of what the mainstream media choose to emphasize and what they tend to suppress. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Paragraphs

Guidelines say we should have no more than four paragraphs in the lead, and just earlier this month that is exactly what it had. Not sure how we got to this current, not at all well-composed, six paragraphs. Keiiri (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Because people keep making well meaning small changes to it, and over-time they've led to a bloated lead (as well as bloat elsewhere in the article). The lead would be a good priority for improvements. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Keiiri: I support the previous revision over the one you just reverted to. The main difference between the two is just a paragraph break, and having an enormous second paragraph like that just to conform with the "4 paragraph rule" (see WP:PARAGRAPH) is harder to follow. Also, the previous revision has several improvements to style and flow.

That said, I think that the "middle 3" paragraphs that describe the war's events in the previous revision could be pruned down to 2, though I don't really see a good place to remove sentences without making the summary of the war confusing. — Goszei (talk) 07:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

That's true, the four paragraphs guideline is not a necessity, and by and large I have no problems with your preferred version, in fact I prefer I myself looking at it now. My main thing was reverting controversial additions by Monopoly31121993(2) without discussion, the same user whose additions were also reverted by others. Keiiri (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Keiiri: Oh, I see now. I think I must have got tangled in the revisions, thanks for patching things up. — Goszei (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Recent changes by Monopoly31121993(2)

I've just reverted a series of changes by Monopoly31121993(2) (talk · contribs). These changes added a number of inaccuracies (for instance, wrongly claiming that the "Commonwealth" declared war on Germany when it was the individual dominions which did so and that there was an "Axis" rather than just a Japanese offensive in the Pacific), changed the wording attributed to other references for unclear reasons and had not been previously discussed. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Nick-D, please stop mass reverting all of my edits which took me hours to implement in the page. If there are specific things you would like to change that's fine but mass reverting everything that I have done is just blocking me from editing the page which I assume in good faith is not your intention but certainly is starting to look that way to me. By the way, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada were not part of the the British Empire in 1939 when they declared war on Germany. They were, as I wrote, part of the "Commonwealth." Lets try to improve Wikipedia together and not mass revert constructive edits.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss your proposed changes. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Monopoly31121993(2) the statement that Nick-D is "mass reverting all of my edits" and "mass reverting everything that I have done" is not true. Nick has rv'd some of your edits and per his request and WP:BRD you should be willing to discuss the changes in question on the talk page. The WP:ONUS is on yourself to start the discussion with your proposed changes and find a consensus for the changes.   // Timothy :: talk  11:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

TimothyBlue, Thank you for your feedback. In Nick-D's revert he has reverted no less than 13 deletions of content that I had added over the span over several hours. The comment provided was the following "revert extensive undiscussed changes to referenced material." While I this revert may not have been "everything that I have done" it was certainly pretty much everything I had done that day. In the future I hope that we can work together to improve this page and one way to do this will be to leave comments on specific reverts and why they are being done. If needed, we should discuss them on the talk page.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't want to appear pedantic here, but if you want to add these edits, and you've been reverted, the onus is on you to start a discussion of those edits here on the talk page. WP:BRD is very clear. Also, if you think anything you are adding is even slightly controversial (the Commonwealth and Axis stuff Nick-D has identified above, for example), then do them in separate edits so that only they will potentially be reverted, and useful and valid edits can remain. If you lump good and questionable changes into one edit, you can expect it to be reverted. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Making separate edits is exactly what I did. It was the mass-revert of something like 8 of those edits that I am referring to.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I created this thread to discuss your edits two weeks ago, so I'm not sure why you're complaining about the lack of an opportunity to discuss them. Please do so. Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I thought I had (above). Specifically, I asked you to stop reverting multiple-changes as one revert. If you instead revert the specific edit that you take issue with it will be much easier for me to address your concerns with it.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

In addition to the comments by Timothy and Peacemaker67, Nick-D (who is also an admin to boot) has not been the only one reverting you, you have also been reverted by User:TheTimesAreAChanging, as well as myself. As noted by the tag at the top of the article's editpage, this is a high-profile and high-traffic visible article, changes need to be discussed. Keiiri (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there's a question for me here so... ok. Thanks for adding your 2 cents.Monopoly31121993(2) (talk) 15:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Technology in the Battle of the Atlantic: balance

I note that the sentence "Gradually, improving Allied technologies such as the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and homing torpedoes proved victorious over the German submarines." is tagged with a citation needed template. I suggest that, also, the content of this sentence has an incorrect balance.

To quote from the biography (The Fighting Captain) of Frederic John Walker by Alan Burn: "The [Ultra codebreaking] information may well have turned the balance of the Battle of the Atlantic, but by the time it was filtered through to the ships at sea it could never be absolutely reliable and was usually not sufficiently up to date to be of positive, immediate, tactical use. It put the Group in the right area but it was aircraft sightings, radar at night and HF/DF bearings that pinpointed the targets within striking range of the ships." (bold added)

Reading this biography, it is clear that Huff duff was a very important tool for surface ships in detecting U-boats. Hedgehog and squid, though useful inventions which did sink U-boats, were not fitted to many ships, whilst Huff Duff was ubiquitous by the spring of 1943. Hedgehog was only marginally more effective than depth charges. The Leigh light had the "public relations" advantage that its use was obvious to the Kriegsmarine, so it was OK to show photos of a big searchlight attached to the wing of an aircraft. Similarly, hedgehog and squid would both be reported back as a new forward firing weapon by any surviving submarine. In contrast, Huff duff was kept a close secret - there was a general belief in the German navy that the only effective DF of their signals was done by shore-based listening stations. I think the result of that secrecy has had an impact on Wikipedia content.

I suggest that the sentence needs to be rewritten, with suitable sources, but including Huff duff in the list of important technologies in the fight against U-boats.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired: Is there some wording and sources you'd like to suggest here? Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I am working on obtaining access to some sources that I believe may give an authoritative overview of the relative importance of the various technical developments of anti-submarine warfare in WW2 (in the broadest sense, so including Ultra). So I will hold off suggesting any form of words until I have read further. Of course, the sources may turn out not to cover this subject. The purpose in mentioning on the talk page at this stage is to alert any others with suitable sources to assist in finding the best form of words. I think it is important to find sources that have done the interpretation of the information - anyone could trawl through concise data on U-boat sinkings and get a completely wrong picture of the importance of a piece of technology. That is because sinkings are not the only factor in winning the anti-submarine war: if U-boats are sufficiently pursued (not necessarily, even, attacked), they are not able to get into an attacking position.

So far I am just relying on (1) "When it became possible in 1942 to mount high-frequency DF (HF/DF, or ‘huff-duff’) on board escorts – something the Germans thought technically unlikely – this became a very important tactical tool." (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.)(This quote is from a whole section that addresses aircraft use, the early use of radar in U-boat kills, Ultra, etc.); (2) the biography of Walker (already mentioned) which has a good amount of technical information alongside the narrative. Since Walker is associated with about 10% of all surface vessel U-boat sinkings, this must have significance.

I note, incidentally, that there seems to be no coverage of German technological advances. Consideration needs to be given to the GNAT (torpedo) - the article suggests that only the Allies produced this technology - yet the German device was very effective. Also, the Bold (decoy) or "submarine bubble target" was an influential new device - but not mentioned. Clearly that is a lot to get into one sentence, so decisions will need to be made. However, a complete summary knowledge of WW2 anti-submarine warfare technical developments has to be a starting point.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Source list building is a work in progress, but in the interim, note: "...one of the most effective Allied countermeasures developed during the war..." (referring to Huff-duff) in [2]ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

the beginning of the war was in 1939 Omar Zalok (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The article says "1 September 1939" which is the accepted date. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

In "Allies close in (1944)", it says: "After that, the Western Allies slowly pushed into Germany, but failed to cross the Ruhr river in a large offensive." Operation Queen was aimed against the lesser-known Rur river (without "h"), not the Ruhr river, see the linked article. The Rur is west of the Rhine and is on a north-south-axis. Thus, it was reachable for the Allies in 44 and crossing it made sense. The Ruhr is east of the Rhine and runs from east to west. The allies weren't there at all in 44 and crossing it never had any strategic value. Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC) Coca-Coela (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done: Your attention to detail is much appreciated. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration/Resistance

The following is posted as a proposal to the C/R subsection, for review by editors and readers to this article. Additionally, Advanced Wiki references are implemented to direct any reader to a specific book's reference, page number, etc. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As recommended in the past, I would suggests trimming each of the two texts to about half its current length, there are some detail that are just to specific for a high level article such as this one. Also, one major point.. I would focus on "collaboration" and not "accommodation" this is a rather separate issue, and quite controversial, as accusing ordinary people of just going to work and living under occupation has never been universally accepted as part of collaboration. Also, as presented in the below text, "camp guards" were not ordinary accommodators, but volunteers from the SS divisions, so this point is not factually correct. In this article, I would focus on voluntary or state collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I recommended this in the past, and now Dhtwiki as well, why are you using vertical reference source citations, it makes it near impossible to edit the text. --E-960 (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Having so many references—especially if there are several sections, as there have been in the past, IIRC—gets in the way of reflist-talk templates and archiving working properly. If this is a proposal for discussion, why don't we agree on language first, and then on references? Why are there so many references per statement? Having so much text and so many references is daunting for anyone to get through. You're not responsible for providing a complete bibliography at this point. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how text can be considered without knowing what references support it. Without references its just random peoples views. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, have you considered including this text in the Collaboration with the Axis Powers and Resistance during World War II articles? I'm not sure squeezing all this information in this article is warranted. Even if we half the text it's still a lot, and the WWII constantly get criticism for being very long as it is. --E-960 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we 95 references for six moderately sized paragraphs of text posted to the talk page (repeatedly, if this is the same text that has appeared here before)? Many short sentences, even sentence fragments, have two references. This level of detail, posted here, is excessive, and, if memory serves, makes certain templates unworkable (reflist esp.) if done repeatedly. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your suggestions and comments.

I had begun writing C/R in 2018, after spotting the topic missing. Editors agreed to its inclusion in this article. Collaboration and Resistance started as a lengthy one, then edited, re-written to allow for a comprehensive Pacific and European theatre picture. Guidance had been excellent from editors who were experts in their chosen theatre. At first, there was a Eurocentric bent, which was duly corrected. The goal was set for two sections, Collaboration, and Resistance and for 6 paragraphs, 3 in each respective section: 3 for Collaboration, 3 for Resistance. Each section would have a lede, a Pacific, and a European part. Each paragraph would have 8-10 sentences, for a grand total of 48-60 sentences.

However, each theatre had different dynamics. Some sections became more heavily-weighted than others. They also incorporated different themes: vanquished colonies vs. countries, ideologies, communism or not, Pacific or Europe, etc. Thanks to editorial guidance, we got rid of accommodation included in the early goings because an editor had requested it early-on. Finally, there are 6 paragraphs, with the following number of sentences within each para:

Collaboration:

1. 13 sentences
2. 8
3. 6, subtotal 27

Resistance:

1. 7
2. 13
3. 10, subtotal 30,

Total 57. (Goal: 48-60)

I hoped to be within the mark. I am on the high side. Yet, I discussed the main foci; main themes; why communism did or did not affect it; and when it did, its end-result; where things were essential and their sequela; who did what; and who and where. No more, no less. References are point-specific — by the experts — to a book’s specific line, not to a text without a URL, only for the reader to have to find it elsewhere.

Any of the thousands who go to this article should receive a thorough understanding of C & R without a redirect. There are entire books written on these subjects, and we have it in 57 sentences. I hope that that is the point of this proposal. Let us remember that no one hits the mark the first time. Regards and Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have those sections in the article. But collaboration is a controversial minefield. The article on collaboration in World War II has seen a lot of editorial disputes, through overall I find the proposed section relatively elegant, as it does not go into the disputed details. One part I see as problematic is " Some could not avoid collaboration like the Judenrat or the Jewish Ghetto Police", as limiting this to just Jews seems POVed and also it opens the field to listing other similar organizations for example Blue Police ("The policemen were to report for duty or face the death penalty"). Perhaps it would be best to just remove this sentence rather than risk eternal additions, removals, and associated discussions. For the resistance, I think it might be worth linking to the recent article on railroad sabotage in WWII (disclaimer: significantly written by me), as it makes a well-referenced claim that this was one of the most common forms of WWII resistance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, please fix the inline reference source citations, so they are horizontal not vertical - which makes it very difficult for users to edit (I've pointed that out when you first posted the text a few months back, and you still did not adjust it, yet you are asking editors to contribute). Also, each one of those text should be about 300-400 words (about two paragraphs not three), there are simply too many secondary details (Gorgopotamos Bridge, Jedburgh and Sussex missions, 1) support for Nazi-fascist culture 2) antisemitism 3) anticommunism 4) a national desire for an independent fascist state) — all those items can be combined and summed up further instead of broken down individually. At this stage, I took out some of the secondary details that should be included in the main articles about C&R, but are too specific for this article. --E-960 (talk) 07:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Dhtwiki: thank you for your insightful comments. As a rule, when I research a topic I try to elaborate on all sources supporting all points of view from reputable sources. It seems excessive, but that is because the article was much longer earlier-on. In the process of editing, some sentences were deleted but the reference kept. Each reference is quite specific, analysing and encapsulating the scenario. But you’re right, my references are burdensome; easily changed or deleted. My children like the ease-of-use with the quick link to Google books. Let us agree on content first, not put the cart before the horse, and I do see your point.

• Hello @Piotrus: many thanks for your thumbs-up analysis. I agree. Let’s avoid any controversial points, and remain Wiki-neutral, although to write up a less-than-accurate collaboration article would be a tall order. We'll need Ariadne’s thread to find our way out. Thumbs up on the article on railroad sabotage. Do you agree where I placed it?

• Hello @E-960: many thanks for positive suggestions. I tried out the horizontal referencing you requested 2 Nov 2019, but probably missed it last year. No worries mate, I’m worse. Personally, after I looked at it, it felt more confusing so I reverted to vertically-oriented references. If others agree, I will change it. I agree with your editing: very good. Though, I must agree with one well-respected editor regarding "communists," requesting that it specifically be part of the article. For instance, how in France it was incited by Barbasossa, where communists specifically partook, and where they specifically were shunned.

Thank you all for your vote of confidence. Any recommendations on hastening its improvement are most welcome.

Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see where it is placed, could you quote the relevant sentence here? I also wonder if we could say something about the relative size of the resistance movements. As per sources cited in Home Army, IIRC Polish resistance was the biggest until late war, when Soviet overtook it; Yugoslav was also pretty big. (I could never find numbers for Chinese resistance to compare...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, the one issue with French resistance is that in the big scheme of things it played its part, however when examining the scope of their activity they were not particularly extraordinary compared to Polish, Yugoslavian or Soviet resistance, that's why I'm hesitant to highlight it too much. Also, I would argue that the resistance article is a bit overweight with references to communist partisans (in places like Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and Greece they were the main resistance, but in places like Poland or France they were marginal). Also, too much emphasis is given to SOE or OSS, I would trim that text and augment the paragraph with some of the suggestions from user Piotrus. --E-960 (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Rather than just critique the text, I'd suggest jumping in and editing it (paying attention to sources of course!) Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Piotrus: it is in the 11th sentence, 1st para under Resistance: worked with both nationalists and communists, particularly on railroad sabotage. However, it was a suggestion; if other editors agree for its inclusion, I am fine with it. About size of resistance, rather than take up more space with specific numbers, I believe it is important that it was mentioned. We cannot be bogged down with numbers in this subsection. Editors keep critiquing the length of the article. Why start a pissing contest whose resistance was bigger? Readers can redirect to that specific resistance page. But I do see your point. FYI, I had a sentence in there originally, but it was deleted by E-960, who thought it took up too much space. This is the sentence: German policies in Byelorussia resulted in the second-largest resistance group in Europe, following Tito's resistance in Yugoslavia.

• Hello @E-960: All good points. I chose a major northern European country for resistance — Poland — and highlighted it for good reason. I chose two southern Balkan countries for the discussion on communism, and highlighted them to exemplify that point. Is that your POV about French Resistance? Others will disagree, especially in events leading up to the Normandy invasion. I understand your point about the size of resistance, like I mentioned to Piotrus. Communists did indeed play a large part. My answer is the same as mentioned above for Piotrus. Numbers and size here are unimportant.

Thank you both for your constructive suggestions. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure it is correct that the Home Army formed the Polish Underground State, I think it was the other way around. Also, the Underground State was pretty unique, and it may be safer to say this, rather than talk about the uniqueness of Zegota (I just created the Category:Organizations which rescued Jews during the Holocaust). I think the uniqness of Zegota is related to the fact that it was created early and it was state supported, unlike other organizations there which were generally not supported by states, mostly because no other states had as complex structure as the Polish Undeground state. I'd rather suggest the following wording: "In occupied Poland, the Polish government in exile formed the Polish Underground State, with its notable branches such as the Home Army, one of Europe's largest resistance organizations, and Żegota, Europe’s only state-supported underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of Jews." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, just one point, I would say that the "Polish resistance formed the Underground State and the Home Army", after reading up on the subject it appears that spontaneous local resistance joined efforts with the government in exile to form the undergrounds state. --E-960 (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: and @Piotrus: I cleaned up the sentences; good job, mates. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I have done a c/e of my own ([3]), please check. Primarily, the new sentence did not make it clear that Żegota was Polish, and per my comment above, it is not correct to say that Żegota was the only such organization, there were others. I know many sources describe it as 'the only one' but this simply seems factually incorrect. I think if we say it was the only state-created and sponsored organization, however, this is correct. Or another wording would be just to describe it as a "major" organization instead of "the only" one of its kind. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Piotrus: thank you for clarifying! Kudos for excellent editing. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration section's European and Pacific sections are completely disjointed. Pacific section is very generalised, no specific examples are given, European one is exactly reverse, overflowing with specific examples in an attempt illustrate every possible ideological aspect. I also gotta wonder if this isn't overly ideologically centred explanation, completely ignoring some more mundane motivating factors like opportunism and self-preservation.--Staberinde (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Staberinde: thank you for your comments. I disagree with complete and agree with E-960 who is up-to-date with earlier discussions that, if you wish, can easily be checked and be brought up-to-speed. The ad rem ideologies for both the Pacific and European theatres are laid out; that is our mark. But, you are correct; earlier versions of the sub-article had more detail, but due to size constraints is now not possible. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• There are easily more than 10 specific examples of collaborationist individuals/organizations/states listed for Europe. There are 0 for Asia-Pacific, even though plenty of very noteworthy examples existed. This is just completely inconsistent writing style. On a more specific parts, is Marcel Deat really the most significant thing to mention about Vichy? If focus is on ideologically motivated collaboration, then why there is talk about "conscripts" who by definition are not voluntary? On that same sentence, "occupied eastern countries" have been connected to "Netherlands"?--Staberinde (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Staberinde: Thank you for your comments. Yes, in the example on European collaboration, good pickup! It was misrepresented in the article's earlier editing, and I have re-written it. See if that is ok. The other issue cited is hyperbole. In earlier drafts, there were 6 paras, with ledes for each C & R sections. Those ledes were eventually cut-out. The lede for collaboration has now become a "combo lede" with the Pacific’s collaboration part of the lede. There are 2 paras still in each section, containing 11 — 12 — 12 — 10 sentences, in that order, for those paras. The last para has specific Pacific examples, not “0” examples as stated. There are more European examples because more European countries folded — than colonies that accepted: in the Pacific — as stated in the lede. No one pretended that this article would be plain sailing. Yet, the article is coming to a close. If you wouldn’t mind, keep it short and cite for us one single Pacific example, other than the ones in para 4 for our perusal, in order to bring the number of sentences in para 4 up-to-par with the other three. Your recommendations on hastening its improvement are most welcome. Cheers, and thank you again mate, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Staberinde, I think this was initially discussed, that the text should focus on clear cut and most significant examples of collaboration, in other words voluntary collaboration or state collaboration, when you tackle issues like self-preservation or coercion, even opportunism (mostly carried out by criminal elements across Europe), you run into a subject matter which is still to this day debated, and there are varying definitions of collaboration. --E-960 (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: thank you. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Waffen-SS foreign volunteers and conscripts article — though, I agree the Europe and Asia sections need to be balanced out a bit more. --E-960 (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: agreed. Any suggestions for the Pacific example, as above? Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigeez, one example of collaboration in China was Wang Jingwei and the Collaborationist Chinese Army. I would also back user Staberinde's comment, that perhaps you should even-out the two sections somewhat (in terms of details which are included). --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Also, I would still trim the paragraphs a bit more, in comparison to other sections they are still quite long. Also, please consider this note, that neither resistance or collaboration played a deciding role in the conflict, for example German military fielded 19,000,000 men, while foreign uniformed collaborators are estimated at around 1,000,000 (not counting armies of collaborationist states). --E-960 (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @E-960: many thanks, I knew you’d come through. I originally left Jingwei out, but after better judgment on your part, structured a sentence on just that subject from Brooks’ book; the picture of Wang Jingwei is spot-on, the picture looks good right there. Kudos on editing. I believe you're right about the last para. Waiting for Staberinde to supply the one single sentence with references he suggested. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bigeez: I really think you made a great effort here, however the topic of Collaboration/Resistance is such a complex subject that I don’t think it can be summarised neatly into these two proposed sections. As Leonid Rein notes in his book The Kings and the Pawns: Collaboration in Byelorussia during World War II in the chapter defining collaboration[4], there is still much discussion in the literature as to what constitutes collaboration and many scholars have offered many different definitions, and he asserts that ”over recent decades research in the field gradually came to the conclusion that it would be wrong to consider the conduct of the populations under occupation as either collaboration or resistance”. Rein contends that it would be wrong to draw a sharp dividing line between collaboration and resistance because during the course of the war many people changed sides and even engaged in activities that could be called collaboration and resistance simultaneously. This is a really difficult topic, and the article already has the section World_War_II#Occupation, which links to the sub-articles Resistance during World War II and Collaboration with the Axis Powers, so this topic would probably be best expanded upon in those respective sub-articles. --Nug (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Nug: thank you for the nod of approval! And yes, you are right, Rein does make that point. Further, I do understand what you mean, and believe it truly. But let’s not forget that, besides me, our few bedrock statements have been carefully trimmed by fellow editors, and that this article is to whet one's appetite; not enough to cogitate upon. I respect the opinions of our editorial staff, as I do yours; they have guided me and have set straight the narrative where necessary. For that I am truly grateful. And, notwithstanding, Leonard Reim did finally pen his book. Lastly, let’s not forget that success has many fathers; failure is but an orphan. Unquestionably, WWII was an important event in our lives; many who partook will eventually fade into historical obscurity. Let us then both move forward. Your comments are always invaluable. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 17:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Bigeez: Yes I agree with you, Rein did indeed finally pen his book, but he devoted an entire chapter to the definition of collaboration and the remainder of his 458 page book to Byelorussia, while we are attempting to define and give examples about collaboration/resistanace that spanned the entire world war, in four paragraphs. The current section World_War_II#Occupation is nicely balanced, the problem with the current proposal to replace that text is that collaboration/resistance isn’t the only outcome to occupation. As Czesław Madajczyk points out in his study Faszyzm i okupacje 1938-1945, there is a spectrum of responses to occupation:

1. Voluntary and conscious political treason
2. Treason forced through the use of violence or terror
3. Voluntary or forced collaboration
4. Fraternization
5. Loyalty, harmful for the interests of the occupied country
6. Passivity, connected to or resulting from the realities of war
7. Passive resistance, designated also as civil struggle or civil disobedience
8. Self-defence in case of threat to the national existence
9. Participation in conspiracy or in armed resistance
10. Flight abroad.

Making the section World_War_II#Occupation just about a binary collaboration/resistance response doesn’t reflect the full picture of what occurred, IMHO. —Nug (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• Hello @Nug: thank you again. Certainly, all Czesław Madajczyk statements are very cogent, and were elaborated upon by all the references I listed. Please see Deak's book as well. On where the article should be placed, your quarrel is with another editor. I never placed C/R into Occupation. We hoped to receive a consensus on where to place it after we agreed on its content. It was projected to be placed under Aftermath in its own subsection. Thank you for pointing that out. For the moment, I will once again place it as under its own subsection. Cheers, Eli Bigeez (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration and Resistance

Collaboration

Main articles: Collaboration during World War II and Collaboration with the Axis Powers

Wang Jingwei during a parade of the Collaborationist Chinese Army

During the war, large territories in the Pacific and Europe were under Axis authority. The Japanese and German armies required some degree of local collaboration for containment. In the Pacific, collaborators would "exercise power under pressure from the occupying power”. In China, after Manchuria or Manchukuo, Beijing, and Nanjing fell, military conquest shifted to collaboration with minor elites to exercise power, while Wang Jingwei led a new reformed government and army. Ironically, communists colluded with the Japanese Army and Chinese collaborators. The Japanese presented themselves as liberators of colonial people using an ideological underpinning known as the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. This satisfied Japan’s claim of fighting a war of liberation. It was accepted by some of the local independence movements, but in reality it was bogus as Japan aimed to form its own colonial empire. In Western colonies local nationalist leaders, like Aung San in Burma and Jorge B. Vargas in Philipines, agreed to establish collaborationist governments, with military formations like Indian National Army and Burma Independence Army fighting on the side of Japanese forces.

Ukrainian SS-Galizien Division

In Europe, collaboration consisted in participation of hostilities by the Nazi Germany. Nazi ideology-driven collaboration was the prime factor, including support for fascism, antisemitism, anticommunism, or a national desire for an independent state. Collaboration by groups that supported Nazi doctrine included Vichy France's Marcel Déat, and Norway's Quisling. Another reason for collaboration was antisemitism. Members of haphazardly recruited Trawnikimänner or volunteers of the Schutzmannschaft auxiliary police partook in the capture and murder of Jews, serving as guards at Nazi concentration camps. Anticommunism was yet another reason for collaboration, which was effectively exploited by German propagandists, igniting ethnic unrest in the Baltic countries, Ukraine and Russia. This included the Vlasov’s Army, and Bronislav Kaminski in Russia’s autonomous Lokot Republic. In Greece, Ioannis Rallis’ Greek Security Battalions fought the communist threat. Also, foreign volunteers formed Waffen SS divisions from across occupied Europe. The final reason for collaboration was the nationalistic desire for an independent fascist state. Anton Mussert’s Netherlands, Stepan Bandera in Ukraine, Georgios Tsolakoglou of Greece's puppet government, and allies of the Axis such as Slovakia and Croatia, sought fascist states.

Resistance

Main articles: Resistance during World War II and Anti-partisan operations in World War II

Tito with Yugoslavian Partisans, 1944

Resistance by local populations took place in occupied countries due to the repression by the occupier. Resistance took many forms such as gathering of intelligence and subversion (sabotage, or political), printing illegal newspapers or broadcasting radio announcements. Widespread resistance kept German divisions engaged in France, Norway, Greece, Poland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and in Italy, switching sides to join the Allies in 1943. In Poland, the Polish Resistance formed the Underground State, the Home Army and Żegota, Europe’s only government-founded and sponsored underground organisation dedicated to the rescue of the Jews. In Yugoslavia, Tito's Partisans were Europe's most effective anti-Axis resistance movement, who succeeded in gaining control of large parcels of Yugoslav territory and inflicted crippling German losses. In western Europe, the French communists and nationalists, joined forces against the Axis-powers following the German invasion of the Soviet Union. Allied-assisted partisan warfare was the aim of Britain's Special Operations Executive, or SOE.Formed ad hoc in 1940," SOE was unique in that country-specific sections were formed for each occupied nation. SOE worked with nationalists and communists, such as railroad sabotage, or avoided them. The American Office of Strategic Services, or OSS would later adopt the British model.

Hồ Chí Minh (third from left, standing) with OSS agents in 1945

In Asia, communist movements in China — most notably the New Fourth Army and the Eighth Route Army — wreaked havoc on Japanese troops, and the Kuomintang nationalists defeated the Japanese Army in the last major battle of the Sino-Japanese War. In French Indochina, the communist Viet Minh gave rise to an anti-Axis partisan movement. This initiated Vietnam’s anti-colonial movement where the OSS became a key player. In Southeast Asia, resistance was still more complex and in the last weeks of the war, the Indonesian independence movement was able to leverage its limited collaboration with the Japanese to gain their support to declare the Netherlands East Indies free. This doomed Dutch attempts to resume control after World War II ended. Near the end of the war, "SOE had successes in Burma and in Malaysia, persuading the Burmese Independence Army to switch sides and join the Allies,” who in turn helped the British trap the Japanese Army before most could escape to Thailand. Thai resistance safely harbored downed aircrew with assistance by SOE and OSS.

historians have spent a LOT of attention on the liberation of France

We follow the reliable sources and they emphasize the liberation of France as an important goal of the US and UK. Not even Poland or Italy gets this much attention. In addition to all the military books on Eisenhower, Montgomery and D-Day see:

• Berthon, Simon. Allies at War: The Bitter Rivalry among Churchill, Roosevelt, and de Gaulle. (2001). online
• Bourque, Stephen Alan. Beyond the Beach: The Allied War Against France (Naval Institute Press, 2018).
• Funk, Arthur L. "Churchill, Eisenhower, and the French Resistance." Journal of Military History 45.1 (1981): 29+.
• Hurstfield, Julian G. America and the French Nation 1939-1945 (U North Carolina Press, 1986). online
• Kersaudy, Francois. Churchill and De Gaulle (2nd ed 1990) online
• Rossi, Mario. Roosevelt and the French (1994).... Rjensen (talk) 09:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

• By that logic we should include the liberation of the Philippines (central to US strategy in the Pacific), the liberation of Hong Kong and Singapore (ditto for the British), Belgium (critical for the Allies given the central importance of its ports, and obviously vital for the Belgians), Greece (seen as hugely important on strategic grounds for the British), New Guinea (modern Australian literature on the war stresses the importance of this to the Australian Government), the Soviet occupation of Poland (one of Stalin's war goals to create a post-war 'buffer zone') and so on. There are large literatures on all of those topics, but they're all ultimately the result of the defeat of the Axis powers. The infobox already includes too many 'results' of the war, and adding the liberation of France to it is plainly silly given that this was one of many Allied war goals which were part of the ultimate goal of enforcing unconditional surrender on the Axis (per the agreements between the Allied leaders on the goals of the war). Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No--Wiki editors should follow the published secondary sources. French liberation was a much bigger operation and was joint US-UK plus others (Canada etc). The politics were very high priority for Churchill and FDR and historians have provided France far more attention (I just listed a small proportion of US & UK studies). Rjensen (talk) 19:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)