Talk:World War II/Archive 64

Archive 60

←

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact reference

In the intro section: "Under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union had partitioned Poland and marked out their "spheres of influence" across Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania." Meanwhile, from 1933-1939 Germany signed pacts with UK, France, Italy, Poland, Lithuania, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Denmark, et al. To single out this German-Russian pact is placating the idea that "the Nazis were just as bad as the Russians", and I cannot understand why there is no other reference to the plethora of other pacts. I'm going to make them into a separate page but it needs reference here 109.78.62.241 (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Well lets see, Russian and Germany invaded Poland shortly thereafter. Which of these other pacts led to a mutual invasion (One that directly led to WW2)? Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

User:109.78.62.241's question is, I think, reasonable. It with User:Slatersteven's reply make it clear to me that Stalin "should have known" that Hitler might betray him for at least two reasons:

1. The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939 committed Hitler to violate all those other pacts that Hitler had signed with all those other countries.
2. Hitler's 1925 Mein Kampf was not merely an anti-semitic diatribe. It also described both Slavs and Jews as racially inferior, arguing 'that the Germans needed Lebensraum [living space], in the East, a "historic destiny" that would properly nurture the German people.' How could Hitler possibly get that Lebensraum without conquering the Soviet Union after digesting Poland?

Stalin's failure to predict and prepare for Hitler's betrayal could be seen as an example of groupthink: I don't know if Stalin asked any of his aides to brainstorm possible threats. In retrospect, it's clear that if he didn't he should have. And if he did, there was at least one major deficiency in how he managed that process.

I cannot be too harsh on Stalin: I've been studying war, violence and nonviolence for decades, and this only occurred to me now ;-) DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what you say is just one school of thought. The whole spectrum is as follows:

1. Stalin genuinely wanted to prevent a big war, and he was pursuing the idea to build a collective security system, but Chamberlain and others tried to provoke Hitler to start a war. The most prominent proponent is E. H. Carr. Actually, the collective security was not Stalin's, but it was proposed by Maxim Litvinov, who was an "old Bolshevik", and Stalin forced him to retire in 1939.

2. Stalin's policy was opportunistic and reactive, he was trying to avoid a big war, but he didn't mind to expand his "empire" when there was such an opportunity. One proponent of this theory is Jonathan Haslam, and it is popular among Western historians.

3. Stalin genuinely wanted an alliance with Nazi Germany, but Hitler finally betrayed him. One notable proponent is Alexander Nekrich.

4. Stalin helped Nazi Germany to become a superpower and provoked a war in Europe. The idea was to let Germany and the Anglo-French alliance exhaust each other in a major European military conflict, and after that to invade bleeding Europe and easily capture it. This point of view is popular in new Eastern European states, among some Russian liberals, and the major proponent is Viktor Suvorov.

The concepts 1&4 are extreme points of view, and I have an impression that most Western historians support the concept #2, whereas many political writers and journalists are leaning towards #3. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Is that summarized anyplace in Wikipedia? If you don't know of any such summary in Wikipedia, where do you think it might belong? DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: As far as I know, no. In my opinion, it should belong to the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact article, which is currently in a terrible shape: it describes the pact as a military alliance, and it mostly describes the events in Eastern Europe in 1939-41 as if they were nothing but implementation of the provisions of the Pact, and Nazi Germany and the USST were military allies. Its structure directly violated NPOV (especially the "Post-war commentaries ..." section). Unfortunately, I am too busy to dive into that can of worms alone, but if someone wants to start this work, I can join it. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

You probably meant not "mutual invasion", but "joint invasion"?

I would say, there were several pacts/agreements that directly related to the article's subject, and that should be explicitly mentioned.

First, Anti-Comintern Pact (a political, not military, alliance that was a predecessor of the Axis). Pact of Steel was a direct predecessor of the Axis.

Second, Munich Agreement that encouraged Hitler's expansionism.

Third, Anglo-Polish alliance, which was by no means an alliance, but a one-sided obligation of Britain to support independence (but not territorial integrity) of Poland in a case if Germany (and only Germany) attacks her. Similar agreement was signed between Poland and France; both France and Britain declared war on Germany because they had to do that in accordance with these agreements.

Fourth, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Its major effect was not partition of Poland, but Soviet obligations to abstain from any actions if Germany starts a war. USSR invaded Poland after the war started, after Britain and France declared war, and after Polish army had been, by and large, destroyed. Had Stalin abstained from invasion of Poland, that would have little effect on the global course of events (although to Poland and Poles that was really important). Anyway, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact provided Hitler with a freedom of maneuver that was necessary for starting a war, so it definitely must be included.

Fifth, Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact directed Japanese war efforts to Pacific and pawed a way to Pearl Harbor.

Other pacts and agreements are hardly too important to be mentioned in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

We do already mention at least one of those. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

We must remember it was actually Stalin who betrayed Hitler by breaking the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact first. In June 1940 the Soviets had overrun the Baltic States and Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Since this put Ploesti - where nearly two-thirds of German oil came from - a two-day journey by tanks from the new border, Hitler started planning Barbarossa. In August 1940 Stalin then broke the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement by withholding deliveries of war materials for Germany. (CreightonAdams (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2022 (UTC))

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

German–Soviet Commercial Agreement (1940), Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. (CreightonAdams (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC))

And in September 1940 Germany and Russia entered talks for a more formal alliance, after those events. So each betrayed the other. Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Hitler believed Stalin was just stalling for time, and that the negotiations were not serious. (CreightonAdams (talk) 16:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC))

And Stalin thought Hitler was doing the same (he was per "If we pursue this aim, it is sheer lunacy to ally ourselves with a power whose master is the mortal enemy of our future. How can we expect to free our own people from the fetters of this poisonous embrace if we walk right into it? How shall we explain Bolshevism to the German worker as an accursed crime against humanity if we ally ourselves with the organizations of this spawn of hell, thus recognising it in the larger sense?”, Hitler was hostile to Russia). So it was just a question of who invaded who (and that is what we should take "betrayal" to mean, an actual attack on the other) first. Slatersteven (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion of Bukovina violated the pact and threatened to cut Germany off from its main oil supply. Stalin chose to ally with Hitler, and he chose to break the pact in 1940. (CreightonAdams (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC))

This needs closing, a sock. If this keeps on I will ask for PP to stop the time waisting. Slatersteven (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I've blocked 'CreightonAdams' an obvious HarveyCarter sock. As a gentle reminder, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not debating personal views. Editors who turn up and want to push contrarian views are likely to be yet another HarveyCarter sock and should be ignored. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden

I noticed the section for the failed Operations Market and Garden was removed. Any reasons why? TwoNyce (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Adolf Hitler killed himself 216.48.247.162 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

We say that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

About women

Hi i an going to tell u about womens 2001:8F8:183D:5593:6953:2646:5357:B85D (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We already mention women, what do you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2022

Under Axis in the world war 2 page, my friend noticed that Vishy France is missing, from 1940 to 1942. I would really appreciate it if you could add them. Thank you so much! Abuk2801 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wrong page to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: what do you mean by this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:57, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"under Axis in the world war 2 page" seems to refer to this Axis powers, which is not what this talk page is here to discuss, and nothing can be done about that here. Even if we decided to add it, any discussion about it needs to be on its talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean? Did you even look at the article? It's in the infobox. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What I mean is if they want an edit to be made at Axis powers they need to ask there, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's not what they're asking though. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Then I must have misread what they wrote. So if they want to add it to this page, we need RS saying they were party to the Axis. Slatersteven (talk) 19:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Here (by the way) is why this should be discussed in the article we link to in this infobox [[1]], [[2]]. There are more in the archive of that talk page. Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Per the links provided, this would be a contentious change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Socialism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 23 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): StinkyGremlin (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Stinky Gremlin (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2022

The start date of WWII is widely regarded as September 3, 1939, the date upon which the United Kingdom and France declared war on Nazi Germany. Therefore, I am requesting that the Date of "September 1, 1939" as the start date be changed to September 3, 1939, along with the length of the war being changed to "6 Years, 0 Days" to account for one Leap Year adding one day to 5 Years and 355 Days. 2600:8807:8080:18D0:E564:6725:4685:795D (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The starting date of World War II is regarded as 1 September 1939, the date which Nazi German troops entered Poland, not when the UK and France declared war. This is backed up by thousands of sources. Also, in the future, please do not submit two semi-protected edit requests in a short period of time that are requesting the same thing, an editor will answer as soon as possible. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Archived

I archived a couple of discussions infested with HarveyCarter socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Can you please update the "Chronological archives" box above? Maybe ask the maintainer of the "OneClickArchiver" you used if they could change that tool so it did that automatically?

The recent discussion of Chiang and the infobox has since been archived, and it wasn't easy for me to find it. I think that automatically updating the "Chronological archives" box might make it easier for people to find material that was recently archived. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 16:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad

Sixth photo isn't Soviet troops in the Battle of Stalingrad. 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It's described as such. Is the description wrong?--Jack Upland (talk) 02:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I think what the IP means is that in the collage used as the main picture for the article, the sixth photo is of US navy ships, not Soviet troops. The collage may have been changed without the caption updated. TylerBurden (talk) 02:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I mean it. 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do people keep automatically deleting my edits?

I just write a damn description of how Blitzkrieg works but it keeps automatically getting deleted after a few hours. Magnificentry (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

See wp:brd if you are reverted you need to make a case here as to why this improves the article. So why do we need this? Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence

I am trying to modify the lead sentence. Given the notice appearing to seek consensus, I present my proposal hereby.

The lead sentence currently reads,

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945.

My proposal is to change it to,

World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was a global conflict and the deadliest in human history, with tens of millions people killed.

Also, a connected edit later in the paragraph to avoid redundancy. This part currently reads,

World War II was by far the deadliest conflict in human history; it resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Tens of millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

The new edit for said later part of the paragraph would be,

It resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

Edit summary explaining the change: edit summary: moved alternate names to parenthesis for conciseness per MOS:FIRST, "global war" >> "global conflict" per MOS:REDUNDANCY, added a top notability (the deadliest in human history), copyedited relevant part later in first paragraph to avoid redundancy with first sentence. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I like your first half of the sentance, but the rest could be fixed

"with tens of millions people killed"

Poor grammer, and very poor word choice

A better sentance would be

"World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939-1945) was a global conflict and the most destructive in history."

Better, more to the point, and quicker for the intro. It also flows better. Panda0317 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Panda0317, Jack Upland Considering the feedback and MOS:ALTNAME that calls to only have up to two alternative names, I make another proposal:

World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people.

Although "most destructive" can include destruction of objects and human life, it doesn't necessarily has that effect on readers mind, who may only think of objects. Therefore, adding also immediately after the first sentence the number of people killed illustrates better the magnitude of the conflagration. Thinker78 (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I think some readers might find that redundant: "most destructive" and also "deadliest"...--Jack Upland (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The question is, would most readers find it redundant? I know I wouldn't because when I think of destruction I think of objects mainly. When someone says "the city was destroyed" it doesn't necessarily mean that people were killed. "Most destructive" may also include destruction or killing of human life but even if so, it doesn't necessarily is a synonymous for "deadliest". Thinker78 (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars do tend to kill people and hyperbole in the first sentence is a bad sign. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the hyperbole.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 I don't understand why do you say hyperbole. WW2 is the deadliest conflict in human history. That's not hyperbole, that's seemingly a historical fact and one of the main notabilities of the subject. Thinker78 (talk) 00:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Wars are not football scores, sweeping claims like this (the Tai Ping Rebellion could have been bloodier) need to be quantified and not necessarily mentioned in the lead. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@Keith-264 The number of people killed is quantified. Destruction amount is more subjective. Although these two are among the main characteristics of the war and maybe the easier to place in the first sentece. They also set apart this war from other wars. Thinker78 (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm highly doubtful that the death toll of the Tai Ping Rebellion even came close. Among other things, WW2 saw the mass bombing of civilians at a level unparalled before or since.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC about World War 2 first two sentences

{{rfc|pol|hist}} Should the first two sentences of WW2 in the lead be, "World War II (WW2 or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was the most destructive conflict in human history. It was also the deadliest, killing tens of millions of people."? (See discussion above). Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

• 'Oppose I agree with the rest of the users that the second sentence seems redundant.Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:46, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: The current second sentence (" It involved the vast majority of the world's countries—including all of the great powers—forming two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers") would become the third sentence in the lead. Also, some tweaks in later sentences to avoid redundancies. Thinker78 (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Not essential but reasonable. Tweaks to avoid redundancies would, as you have said, be required. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Support first sentence. Second sentence is redundant.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current opening sentences seem both fine and superior to the suggested alternative(s). Gog the Mild (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Gog the Mild why? Thinker78 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

As Lukewarmbeer says, the proposed second sentence is redundant, which only leaves the first for me to consider. And, this may just be personal aesthetics, I prefer the version with both full names followed by both abbreviations and with no parentheses. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I know that MOS:ALTNAME is a guideline not a tight rule, but I will quote it so you can weigh it with your stated opinion. Let us know your analysis. "The title can be followed in the first sentence by one or two alternative names in parentheses." Thinker78 (talk) 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I was aware of it, and that it says that this "can" happen. It just happen to think that the current version works better than the particular alternative proposed here. YMMV. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose as per above. Silikonz💬 16:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Neutral/Somewhat Oppose. The modified first sentence is fine, but I don't see anything wrong with the first sentence as it currently stands, and I prefer the current version, perhaps because it lacks parentheses. In any case, I don't think there is a redundancy in the second sentence. "Most destructive" and "deadliest" aren't the same thing. The first refers to destruction of property, buildings, assets, and so on. The second refers, obviously, to loss of human life. Scapulus (talk) 11:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC-7)
• Neutral/Lean oppose - The proposed first sentence looks okay, but the current first sentence without the alternative name in parenthesis looks fine to me, so I have a more of a preference towards the current first sentence. Second sentence could use tweaking but as Scapulus mentioned, "most destructive" and "deadliest" are different. --Harobouri • 🎢 • 🏗️ (he/him) 04:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current first sentence is vastly preferable imo. The proposal is tantamount to saying how bad WWII was before saying when and what it was and who fought in it. The 'most destructive' and 'most deadly' elements are certainly important, but they are more than adequately covered in the next para at present imo. The job of a first para is to define the topic, not to pass comment on the subject of that topic, even if it is pertinent comment - as in this case. Pincrete (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose - for the reasons given by user:Pincrete, which pretty much sum up the thinking I was formulating. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Collage

I reverted the recent addition of the Iwo Jima flag. There are three reasons for that. First, by doing that, we shift a balance from Europe to Asia (there were two Asia-Pacific photos, and four Europe photos, the new change made it 3 and 3). Second, Iwo Juma picture would be too US-centric. Third, capture of Iwo Jima was not the most critical event of the was. I agree that Keitel's photo is not the best one, but, as soon as we are talking about iconic images, the image below is teh best candidate.

First, it is a picture from the European theatre, so the balance is preserved. Second, it shows the event that was a symbolic end of the LAST major battle of WWII in Europe. Third, its publication was the symbolic evidence that the WWII in Europe is over.

I recently learned that the picture was published by Russian Ministry of Defence under CC-SA (previously, all versions of this picture were non-free). That gives us an opportunity to use this file in a collage instead of Keitel. I propose to do that. What do you think about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd definitely agree. The current photo isn't very well known or visually interesting, and the proposed replacement is the iconic photo of the end of World War II in Europe. This is also one of the undoctored versions, as the soldier in the foreground has a looted watch on each arm. Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Support the new photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been waiting for an outcome of the discussion at Commons to make sure this image is really under CC-SA. It seems it is safe to use it.

I also have a couple of additional questions.

First, for many years, the top left collage image was different [:File:Infobox collage for WWII.PNG]. It was replaced relatively recently. Do we all agree that was an improvement? Personally, I don't think so: in contrast to the previous image, the new one has almost no big details, so it is hardly suitable for a collage.

Second, instead of a single image, a current version of the collage is assembled from six separate images, and they are not properly aligned. I think, from aesthetic point of of view it would be better to make a single, properly aligned image. I can do that if there will be no objections. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not use https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D0%B0#/media/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:WW2_collage.jpg ? 109.252.128.135 (talk) 23:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I like the collage you posted IP address, though I think the photo of the nuke can replace the iwo jima flag, as I think it signals the “real” defeat of japan. Maybe replace the photo of the russian raising the pistol with the current stalingrad soldiers photo in this current wiki Justanotherguy54 (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

William D. Leahy

If you're reading this, chances are that you have some interest in World War II. Well I have William D. Leahy up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William D. Leahy/archive1. When the article ran at DYK it got a lot of comments to the effect that they were unaware of the career of the man who was President Roosevelt's closest uniformed advisor and the most senior officer in the US armed forces during World War II. He served in the Spanish-American War, the China War, the Banana wars and World War I as well as World War II, and he was involved in some pretty interesting stuff. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

the Allies (led by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and China)

How is this accurate. By end of 1939 when WW2 started, most of China's population as well as their capital was already occupied by Japan. Isn't that like saying Vichy France led the allies too? I know I've seen the big 3 mentioned, never big 4. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, as China never officially surrendered. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you agree with me it's not accurate. Great. I think give this a few more days and hopefully it gets corrected. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in great detail. Sources generally agree that China was one of the main Allied powers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed to: "the Allies, led by principally the United Kingdom, France, (and from 1942) the United States, the Soviet Union and China. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom and France led the Allies from the beginning of the war against Germany until the defeat of France in June 1940. After 1940, Free France participated in the First Allied War Conference in 1941. The Soviet Union was allied with Germany from September 1939 until they were invaded by Germany in June 1941. If the Soviet Union "led" the Allies from 1939 then the Allies invaded Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Finland. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is the second of the article's lead, so a broad brush approach is appropriate. The lead goes onto describe the course of the war, and the article then goes into more detail. Your edit is also nonsensical regarding dates, and it's odd that you aren't suggesting a similar edit for the Axis countries. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is my suggested edit "nonsensical regarding dates". And a broad brush is fine as long as it isn't actively misleading. In what sense did the Soviet Union and China "lead" the Allies? The article is about WWII which, according to the article, began on 1 September 1939. The principal Allies against Germany at that stage were the UK and France. The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany. The First Allied Conference was held in June 1941 and included the UK and its Dominions, Free France and several government in exile. They were the leading Allies. The Soviet Union became an Allied nation in July 1941. And yes, the Axis should read "principally Germany, Italy and Japan." Germany and Italy were the first Axis powers, Japan joined in 1940. I'm happy to reach a compromise on this. If you think adding dates would make the sentence too clumsy I could live with: "the Allies principally the United Kingdon, France, the United States, the Soviet Union and China" and the "Axis, principally, Germany, Italy and Japan." At least this indicates the order in which these powers entered into formal military/political alliances with each other. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The dates you are noting above in your proposed text are largely wrong. Free France was a relatively minor military power until the liberation of France in 1944 allowed the 1st Army (France) to be raised, and I haven't seen any sources that suggest that it was a significant player. I'm not sure why you're advocating for the start date of the war to be 1 September while also arguing that China and Japan didn't enter the war until 1942. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My dates are correct. I'm not "advocating" for the 1 September 1939 to be the start of WWII, I am noting that that is what the article says. (I would advocate 3 September 1939 as the start of the war.) I never said Japan entered the war in 1942, I said they joined the Axis in 1940. The general consensus of historians is that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 turned a largely European conflict into a truly global war. China declared war on the Axis powers in December 1941 and formally became an allied power in January 1942. January 1942 was the declaration of the United Nations, so was the date the US, USSR and China formally joined the Allied Powers. As for France being one of the principal allied powers, try the Oxford Companion to WWII:

"Allied powers,

those countries which actively opposed the Axis powers. The principal ones were China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA, and the USSR. From January 1942 all countries, including the governments-in-exile of those countries occupied by the Germans, which became a party to the United Nations Declaration were also regarded as Allied powers. See also Grand Alliance."

The current wording which states that the Soviet Union and China somehow "led" the allies is totally misleading. It imports a notion of leadership or precedence. Taking the war as a whole from Sep 1939 to August 1945 I would argue (and the Oxford Companion to World war II supports this) that the principal allies were UK, France, US, Soviets, China. You can order them alphabetically or in the order in which they took up arms against the Axis powers. What is the basis for the wording which currently exists? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous discussions of the topic here. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the previous discussions, and couldn't find a recent one that addressed the specific points I am making. Can you refer to a specific one? Did it take into account the source I have quoted? Articles can be improved, and you seem to be digging in your heels against a fairly minor change which makes the article more accurate and is reliably sourced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what you are advocating, as it is confusing. You may wish to post your suggested edit. The Oxford Companion was one of many sources cited in the previous discussions - as there is a vast literature on the war, citing only a single source doesn't carry much weight. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence I am objecting to was a recent addition (28 January 2023) which was made without discussion or consensus. I have reverted it back to the way it was. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverting that is a sensible change then: the editor didn't even bother leaving an edit summary. The edit reflected the consensus of previous discussions of the infobox though. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, never knew China was one of the Allies. You learn something new every day here! Drmies (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

William D. Leahy

If you're reading this, chances are that you have some interest in World War II. Well I have William D. Leahy up for review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William D. Leahy/archive1. When the article ran at DYK it got a lot of comments to the effect that they were unaware of the career of the man who was President Roosevelt's closest uniformed advisor and the most senior officer in the US armed forces during World War II. He served in the Spanish-American War, the China War, the Banana wars and World War I as well as World War II, and he was involved in some pretty interesting stuff. Reviewers welcome. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:37, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

the Allies (led by the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, and China)

How is this accurate. By end of 1939 when WW2 started, most of China's population as well as their capital was already occupied by Japan. Isn't that like saying Vichy France led the allies too? I know I've seen the big 3 mentioned, never big 4. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 12:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

No, as China never officially surrendered. Slatersteven (talk) 13:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so you agree with me it's not accurate. Great. I think give this a few more days and hopefully it gets corrected. 172.11.79.48 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This has been previously discussed in great detail. Sources generally agree that China was one of the main Allied powers. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence should be changed to: "the Allies, led by principally the United Kingdom, France, (and from 1942) the United States, the Soviet Union and China. There is no doubt that the United Kingdom and France led the Allies from the beginning of the war against Germany until the defeat of France in June 1940. After 1940, Free France participated in the First Allied War Conference in 1941. The Soviet Union was allied with Germany from September 1939 until they were invaded by Germany in June 1941. If the Soviet Union "led" the Allies from 1939 then the Allies invaded Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania and Finland. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is the second of the article's lead, so a broad brush approach is appropriate. The lead goes onto describe the course of the war, and the article then goes into more detail. Your edit is also nonsensical regarding dates, and it's odd that you aren't suggesting a similar edit for the Axis countries. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is my suggested edit "nonsensical regarding dates". And a broad brush is fine as long as it isn't actively misleading. In what sense did the Soviet Union and China "lead" the Allies? The article is about WWII which, according to the article, began on 1 September 1939. The principal Allies against Germany at that stage were the UK and France. The Soviet Union was allied with Nazi Germany. The First Allied Conference was held in June 1941 and included the UK and its Dominions, Free France and several government in exile. They were the leading Allies. The Soviet Union became an Allied nation in July 1941. And yes, the Axis should read "principally Germany, Italy and Japan." Germany and Italy were the first Axis powers, Japan joined in 1940. I'm happy to reach a compromise on this. If you think adding dates would make the sentence too clumsy I could live with: "the Allies principally the United Kingdon, France, the United States, the Soviet Union and China" and the "Axis, principally, Germany, Italy and Japan." At least this indicates the order in which these powers entered into formal military/political alliances with each other. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

The dates you are noting above in your proposed text are largely wrong. Free France was a relatively minor military power until the liberation of France in 1944 allowed the 1st Army (France) to be raised, and I haven't seen any sources that suggest that it was a significant player. I'm not sure why you're advocating for the start date of the war to be 1 September while also arguing that China and Japan didn't enter the war until 1942. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

My dates are correct. I'm not "advocating" for the 1 September 1939 to be the start of WWII, I am noting that that is what the article says. (I would advocate 3 September 1939 as the start of the war.) I never said Japan entered the war in 1942, I said they joined the Axis in 1940. The general consensus of historians is that Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941 turned a largely European conflict into a truly global war. China declared war on the Axis powers in December 1941 and formally became an allied power in January 1942. January 1942 was the declaration of the United Nations, so was the date the US, USSR and China formally joined the Allied Powers. As for France being one of the principal allied powers, try the Oxford Companion to WWII:

"Allied powers,

those countries which actively opposed the Axis powers. The principal ones were China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA, and the USSR. From January 1942 all countries, including the governments-in-exile of those countries occupied by the Germans, which became a party to the United Nations Declaration were also regarded as Allied powers. See also Grand Alliance."

The current wording which states that the Soviet Union and China somehow "led" the allies is totally misleading. It imports a notion of leadership or precedence. Taking the war as a whole from Sep 1939 to August 1945 I would argue (and the Oxford Companion to World war II supports this) that the principal allies were UK, France, US, Soviets, China. You can order them alphabetically or in the order in which they took up arms against the Axis powers. What is the basis for the wording which currently exists? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Please see the literally dozens of previous discussions of the topic here. Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I looked through the previous discussions, and couldn't find a recent one that addressed the specific points I am making. Can you refer to a specific one? Did it take into account the source I have quoted? Articles can be improved, and you seem to be digging in your heels against a fairly minor change which makes the article more accurate and is reliably sourced. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

I actually don't understand what you are advocating, as it is confusing. You may wish to post your suggested edit. The Oxford Companion was one of many sources cited in the previous discussions - as there is a vast literature on the war, citing only a single source doesn't carry much weight. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the sentence I am objecting to was a recent addition (28 January 2023) which was made without discussion or consensus. I have reverted it back to the way it was. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Reverting that is a sensible change then: the editor didn't even bother leaving an edit summary. The edit reflected the consensus of previous discussions of the infobox though. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Ha, never knew China was one of the Allies. You learn something new every day here! Drmies (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Citation style

This article is mentioned (as one of several examples) in a discussion about citation style, at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. To accompany it, I've added the {{Ref info banner}} you'll find above among the talk headers. Please leave it for the time being, until that discussion stabilizes or is archived, and then it can be removed again if desired. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu in the infobox

I was prepared to edit this in myself, but then I saw the warning. After the September 1943 armistice with Italy, Romania became the second Axis power in Europe (and yes, I do have RS that explicitly state this). This lasted roughly 1 year, until August 1944. Technically, Romania's leader was a main Axis leader, even if for 1 year. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Uhh...Hello? I can add him in with a huge note attached on why Antonescu should be in the infobox. I can start listing my arguments along with their sources right here, provided you are willing to get over your biases and complacency and actually read them. Transylvania1916 (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see the many previous discussions of the leaders listed in the infobox before making any such proposal first. There is little chance that it would attract support per what sources on the war say. I have no idea why you are arguing that there are "biases and complacency" stopping this when no-one has even responded to your posts - I'd suggest losing the chip on your shoulder. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I note also that this has been proposed at least twice in recent years, with it attracting no support on either occasion: Talk:World War II/Archive 60#Romania's Ion Antonescu to Main Axis Leaders and Talk:World War II/Archive 62#Romania's Ion Antonescu to "Main Axis Leaders" in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Considering that:

• Romania was crucial to German war plans on all fronts due to its oil while Italy wasn't.
• Romania replaced Italy as the second Axis Power in Europe for 1 year
• Antonescu was the only foreigner Hitler consulted on military matters
• The Antonescu regime bears the second greatest degree of responsibility for the Holocaust
• Romania was the only non-German country with its own area of occupation in the USSR along with a major city
• An entire German army served under Romanian command in May-August 1944
• Antonescu was the first non-German to get the Knight's Cross

It would be pure BS to leave Antonescu out. I can expand on all of the above, and I have the required RS, but would anyone listen? This is precisely what I mean by "biases and complacency", because this is how I understand the situation: "Oh come on, it's just Romania, why do I have to make the effort and research?". It's bad enough that I'm pretty much alone in doing the research and digging up this stuff, least y'all could do is stay out of my way. You don't get to revert - in spite of the RS - just because it doesn't sit right with you, and you don't get to revert without reading all the edit and checking the sources. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is an issue of time, Italy was an Axis member (officially so, not just allied) from 1937, she was part of the Tripartite Pact from 1940 (the year she joined the war). This alone makes Itally separate from Rumania. She was one of the "Big Three" at the start of the war (and before it). Slatersteven (talk) 13:26, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Antonescu also took with him Germany's remaining allies: Bulgaria and Finland followed suit. Italy's surrender did not cause a chain reaction. I strongly insist you allow me to add him to the infobox, with a note attached detailing the 5 main reasons: personal relationship with Hitler (including an instance when Hitler asked for his advice), Romania's status as second Axis Power in Europe for 1 year, the vital role of Romanian oil, the impact of Romania's defection, and his contribution to the Holocaust. At this point...You really don't have any valid excuse not to add him, given what is known. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

"Take it to the talk page", yeah, I've been trying to, but it seems I'm talking to the walls. "This has been discussed extensively before" No it hasn't. From what I can tell, this is the first time Antonescu is being tackled properly, with RS and all. Like... How much would you like me to inflate a note? I can make it the size of an article. Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There is some support in the sources for considering Romania as one of the principal Axis powers. The Oxford Companion to WWII states:

"Axis Powers.

A treaty signed in 1936 between Germany and Italy formed what was known as the Rome–Berlin Axis, hence the name. This was reinforced in May 1939 with the Pact of Steel. Japan became associated with Germany and Italy when it signed the Anti-Comintern pact in November 1936, and allied itself to them with the Tripartite Pact signed in September 1940. Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary were the other principal Axis powers."

However, my understanding is that the info box is meant to present selected key information rather than a summary of the topic as a whole, and discussion and broad consensus is important to avoid major articles on key subjects becoming the focus of edit wars. Transylvania1916 has made some productive contributions to the article on the Axis powers, and there are a number of historians who are reassessing the traditional views about the "minor" belligerents in the war. The way Wikipedia works is that articles follow the consensus of reliable published sources rather than the views of editors. Perhaps a way forward would be for Transylvania1916 to get together a small selection of authoritative sources which state clearly that Romania was a major Axis power. In the meantime, there might be scope for the body of this article to include some of the reliably sourced information that Transylvania1916 has contributed to the article on the Axis. By the way, I think France should be included as a major Allied power, but if others don't see it that way I'm not going to take it personally. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Personally, I do not see why the very fact that Romania replaced Italy as the second Axis power in Europe for 1 year shouldn't suffice for Antonescu's addition. The Allies did not undergo such shift: Allied hierarchy remained rigid, while Axis hierarchy was clearly more fluid, and as such should not be held at the same standard. There's also the fact that Antonescu was the only foreigner Hitler consulted on military matters, and since this was a war...I genuinely fail to see why he shouldn't be included. Transylvania1916 (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Those appear to be your personal views, which carry no weight here. Previous discussions included consideration of sources, despite what you claim, and your insertion of this material into the infobox despite plainly not having consensus to do so and then threatening to "inflate a note ... the size of an article" as part of re-inserting this material makes it impossible to believe that you are acting in good faith here. Your approach is needlessly confrontational, and I'd suggest that drop it. Regarding sources, neither the entry on Romania in Oxford Companion to the Second World War, Rolf-Dieter Muller's The Unknown Eastern Front (which has a chapter on Romania), A World at Arms by Gerhard L. Weinberg or The Second World War by Anthony Beevor state that Romania was one of the main Axis powers. These are among the standard works on the topic. All note that Romania was important in the context of German efforts on the Eastern Front, but that it was treated as a second rate country by the Germans. The Oxford Companion, for instance, notes that while Antonescu was nominally in charge of a German-Romanian army group, control was actually exercised by a German general and Weinberg gives the example of Hitler ignoring Antonescu's request that seven Romanian divisions be evacuated from Crimea in 1944 (p. 670). Beevor describes Hitler's alliance with Romania as a "cynical embrace" (p. 189). Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

My approach is the complete opposite of yours: if one RS says something, it should be taken into account. I defy you to baselessly claim that those are my personal views when I provided RS both for Hitler's relationship with Antonescu and Romania's elevation to the status of second Axis power in Europe (at no point refuted in your response). The infobox as is makes it seem that Mussolini was that important throughout, while he was in fact irrelevant for the entire final third of the war, in half of it being replaced by Antonescu. I really don't care what other RS don't say, I fail to see how omission is an argument. Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Those standard works on the war, all which discuss the Axis alliance structure do not support your contention when they would if this was generally held to be the case by historians. I am not interested in getting into a 'prove me wrong' type debate with you, not least as this continues your confrontational approach. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Whose standard? Yours? Why are those the standard works? Who decides, you? Are those really the objective standard or are they simply those chosen for this article long ago and now you defend the status-quo? I am legitimately asking here. I found RS published by reputable universities and I find that to be quite enough. But why would it not be, and who decides? Transylvania1916 (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Compromise idea: let me add a note next to Mussolini stating that he was deposed mid-war and that Antonescu replaced him in the European Axis hierarchy. I'd settle for that. Transylvania1916 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No, sources do not support that. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Your sources do not support that. And I still don't know who made you boss. You are lying by omission, Nick-D, and I hold you in contempt for it. Transylvania1916 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There is cleary no consent for this, and it needs to be closed. Slatersteven (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I basically agree that for Hitler Antonescu was a servant, not a friend. And while Romania offered the Axis much-needed natural resources, it wasn't reputed for its military prowess. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As early as 1941, Antonescu was on par with Mussolini in prestige. The fall of Odessa meant that Mussolini had nothing comparable in terms of spoils. Again: the RS are there, the arguments are there, it's only a matter of taking them into account. Also - in my defense - I haven't seen anywhere any proper guidelines to determine who exactly should be in the infobox. At World War I, everyone is duly represented in the infobox. Why are there no contraints there, but there are here? Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Not to mention the multiple RS that refer to Italy as one of the "minor Axis powers", largely in the context of the 1947 peace treaties. Transylvania1916 (talk) 14:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sample questions

Due to the fact that this article has very good questions, we can ask great questions to challenge the viewers them.Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

What? TylerBurden (talk) 04:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I want to write questions according to the text of the article. Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikipedia:Help desk can help. TylerBurden (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Why? Mohammad.Hosein.J.Shia (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

They will probably understand what you mean better than I, this is a WP:TALKPAGE, so it's only really meant for discussing improvements to the article. Questions shouldn't be on the article itself, but of course you could use the text to ask people questions outside of Wikipedia if that is what you meant. TylerBurden (talk) 14:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2023

Diff:

−

{{portal|World War II|War|World}} * [[Lists of World War II topics]] * [[Outline of World War II]] * [[Lists of World War II military equipment]] {{clear right}}

+

{{portal|World War II|World}} * [[Lists of World War II topics]] * [[Outline of World War II]] * [[Lists of World War II military equipment]] {{clear right}}

remove a Portal:War was closed is delete. 122.2.122.171 (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

British Ceylon

British Ceylon should be added to the list of combatants Kevin.pathirage (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As a British colony, I would think it is represented on the article by the United Kingdom. TylerBurden (talk) 05:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"World War II/Edited Text" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect World War II/Edited Text has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § World War II/Edited Text until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"World War II/Infobox" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect World War II/Infobox has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 4 § World War II/Infobox until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Axis countries anachronism

The third paragraph of the lede says "From late 1939 to early 1941, in a series of campaigns and treaties, Germany conquered or controlled much of continental Europe, in a military alliance with Italy, Japan and other countries called the Axis."

Japan did not become an Axis country until after the attack on Pearl harbour in December 1941. What took place in Europe "from late 1939 to early 1941" had nothing to do with Japan. Shouldn't that hyperlink be removed? Wokepedian (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Japan entered into a formal alliance with the Tripartite Pact of 1940 formally integrating the military aims of Germany, Italy, Japan. Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2023

I would like to make some changes with grammar and spelling 66.242.202.250 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Favonian (talk) 18:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Truman

Since Truman was U.S. president at the end of WWII and made major decisions such as the use of nuclear armaments, what is the rationale for removing his inclusion? Certainly we are not suggesting that after FDR died the U.S. had no military Commander in Chief through the end of the war. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussions of this topic, and the infobox more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

"Border" changes

Labeling of maps indicating European border changes should minimally state "borders and frontiers" as the incorporation of the Baltic states into the USSR was illegal. The Helsinki accords specifically used the term "frontiers" and not "borders" with respect to any territory under post-war Soviet rule or suzerainty to make the point these were not recognized borders. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Illegal, sure, but this remained in force for about 50 years and this is the commonly-used border for the USSR. See https://www.britannica.com/place/Soviet-Union for instance. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Why there is no photo of atomic bombing in info box?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why there is no photo of atomic bombing in info box? I mean it was used first time in history of human civilization. 202.47.41.26 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

I concur. There should be an image of the atomic bombing given its top notability and uniqueness of the war event. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There are two images related to Asia-Pacific theatre in the infobox, Battle of Changde and USS Pennsylvania. Which of those two are you proposing to replace with the bombing photo? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The ship depicts the naval aspect and is the only one in the collage. The pic of the Battle of Changde depicts land conflagration which is illustrated by at least two more pics. Therefore, I would suggest replacing the Battle of Changde. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems the aspect ratio is not suitable for this collage. Do you have other photos? Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

<<< Photo. Thinker78 (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The navbox didn't even mention the Manhattan Project until I added it in 2016. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done [3]. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, there should that. Especially since the Navy was able to see them, along with my Great-Grandfather. Amber Afton playz (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Discussion of rapes in the article

I started digging sources using this neutral search phrase (I am disclosing details of the search procedure to demonstrate I was not cherry-picking). And, quite unexpectedly, I encountered this article (Gelinada Grinchenko and Marta D. Olynyk. The Ostarbeiter of Nazi Germany in Soviet and Post-Soviet Ukrainian Historical Memory. Canadian Slavonic Papers / Revue Canadienne des Slavistes , Sept.-Dec. 2012, Vol. 54, No. 3/4 (Sept.-Dec. 2012), pp. 401-426. Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: [4]), which was just 8th in the list. Below, one quote is provided:

"During the mass deportations to Germany, bawdy houses cam to occupy one of the central places in the created image of forced labour and the depiction of the fate of female captives, which were reflected in journalistic an propagandistic texts published in 1942-1943. In these texts, a terrible misfortune awaited not only adult women but teenaged girls: "The German-fascist debauchees are spitting on their souls and bodies, maiming them for the rest of their life. Drunken German kulaks, farmers, [and] landowners are raping teenaged girls, passing them as mistresses to their lackeys, infecting them with syphilis. And how many bawdy houses have the Hitlerites opened! Not just girls but underage schoolgirls are being murdered in these houses of degradation and death." However, already by late 1943 the emotionally taut reports about the mass rapes of women and girls who had been deported to Germany began to be supplanted by the dry exposition of facts: "The Germans for whom Russian women and girls are working are forcing them to live with them."20 By the early months of 1944, as a result of the well-known change in the course of military operations on the Eastern Front, the Soviet press was gradually phasing out mentions of the numerous bawdy houses "as workplaces" of forced female labourers. This was most like Soviet women would not remained in Germany, and that they lives would not end in Germany, and they would return home someday; that especially from the standpoint of mass perceptions and stereotypes, it would be very difficult both to reintegrate the hundreds of thousands of girls raped by enemy into Soviet society and to "inscribe" them in Soviet memory of war. There is no doubt that a certain role in this was also played the general need for a turning-point in anti-German moods (at whose formation the entire Soviet propaganda machine of the early war was directed, with its famous slogans "Death to the German occupiers" or the more blatant calls to "Kill the German!") and the active construction of the Red Army as liberator, including of the German people, rehabiltation of the idea of internationalism, etc. The main emphasis of the official forced labour discourse during this period shofted to the incredibly difficult conditions of work and life in the camps and the agricultural sector, and various attendant abuses, but not rapes..."

That fully supports what I said above (although this source goes even further it its conclusions): the rapes of Soviet woman by Germans were widespread, and they were used by propaganda during the first phase of the EF campaign, but later Soviet propaganda suppressed any information about rape of Soviet woman by Germans (that, as far as I understand, this information was being suppressed until recently). Although this source confirms that the rape of Soviet woman by Germman men was widespread, its scale is not clear from this source. In connection to that, I'll skip to the article by Pascale Bos (the #13 in the list: as you can see there was absolutely no problem to find it). In the footnote #19, the author says:

"Of interest here is a 1942 Wehrmacht document that suggests that the Nazi leadership considered implementing a special policy for the eastern front through which the estimated 750,000 babies born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women (an estimate deemed very conservative) could be identified and reclaimed as racially German. (The suggestion was made to add the middle names Friedrich and Luise to the birth certificates for boy and girl babies, respectively.) Although the plan was not implemented, such documents suggest that the births that resulted from rapes and other forms of sexual contact were deemed as beneficial, as increasing the “Aryan” race rather than as adding to the inferior Slavic race. The underlying ideology suggests that German rape and other forms of sexual contact may need to be seen as conforming to a larger military strategy of racial and territorial dominance".

I think it would be absolutely correct to characterize this statistics highly questionable and unreliable ... as unreliable as the above Dr. Reichling's "estimate". However, we must agree that "1,156 "Russian" children" pale in comparison with 750,000 babies that were anticipated to be born through sexual contact between the German soldiers and Russian women. Independent on how trustworthy this figure is, we must agree that the scale of EF rapes (I mean rapes of Soviet woman by German men) was enormous. I am going to skip back to the source #10 in the list (Reframing Sexual Violence as a Weapon and Strategy of War: The Case of the German Wehrmacht during the War and Genocide in the Soviet Union, 1941–1944 by Regina Mühlhäuser), but I'll do that in the next post (and a little bit later). My preliminary conclusion is that the rapes do deserve a couple of sentences, but they should be put into a totally different context, and the description must be balanced. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree. The German and Japanese forces were notorious for rape, and the article needs to acknowledge this as well as noting the crimes committed by Soviet soldiers. Singling out the Red Army understates the horror of what happened around the world. There were smaller scale issues with the western Armies as well, but historians generally agree that these were at about the incidence in the general population (no excuse, of course, but the key issue was it wasn't a deliberate policy or something that a blind eye was turned to). Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick.

I continue. As I said, the source #10 was easy to find, literally in a couple of mouseckicks. And it is an interested reading. The author's goal is "to contribute to recent efforts to develop a more differentiated understanding of the ways in which sexual violence can become a military weapon or a strategy." I skip all details, witness testimonies etc (the author provides a lot). I provide just several quotes that contain official documents and author's conclusions.

"On September 1941 Supreme Commander of the Army Walther von Brauchitsch disseminated rules of action, entitled "Self-discipline," to the troop leaders on the Eastern Front:

"The conditions that form the soldier, not only during military maneuvers but also . . . after the end of combat operations, are of a different nature and sometimes diverge fundamentally from those at home. Since the predispositions of men differ, it is . . . inevitable that tensions and distress [Spannungen und Nöte ] in the sexual realm will arise here and there that we cannot and should not close our eyes to. This problem can by no means be solved with a ban on sexual activity. Besides other negative consequences, such a ban would increase the number of sexual violation crimes and the risk of offenses against §175 [the statute of the German criminal code that punished male-male sexual behavior].

While the Wehrmacht command identified a number of risks of soldiers' sexual activity for military operations (that is, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases [STDs], the loss of military discipline, the harm for the Wehrmacht's reputation, the resistance that sexual violence could incite in the local populations, the fear of military espionage, and the birth of "unwanted racially mixed bastards"), they did not seriously attempt to prevent their men from being sexually active and perpetrating sexual violence."

The author continues:

"the order issued by the supreme commander of the OKW, Gen. Wilhelm Keitel, on 13 May 1941, which stipulated:

1. For offenses committed by members of the Wehrmacht and its employees against enemy civilians, prosecution is not compulsory, not even if the offense is also a military crime or violation. (...)

3. The judge must therefore examine whether in such cases disciplinary punishment is indicated or whether a judicial intervention is necessary. The judge should order the prosecution of offenses against civilians through court-martial only if it is considered necessary for the maintenance of discipline or the security of the troops. This applies, for instance, to serious offenses, such as those arising from sexual abandon [geschlechtlicher Hemmungslosigkeit] , those that derive from a criminal tendency, or those that indicate that the troops are threatening to run wild [zu verwildern droht]."

The author concluded:

"This reading of the Decree on Military Jurisdiction makes it clear that it was in no way the intention of Hitler or the Wehrmacht Supreme Command to give German soldiers license to pillage and rape at will or to take advantage of the mayhem of war to act solely out of individual personal interest or desire. Rather, the decree was designed to exempt German soldiers from punishment for acts normally subject to prosecution if they were carried out in the context of a battle meant to advance the political interests of Germany. In this sense, sexual violence was included in the "kitbag of weapons" in the military warfare against the "Bolshevism".

"In sum, Wehrmacht soldiers during the war in the Soviet Union had the freedom to take any kind of action that gave them some personal gain with little need to be concerned that those actions would be assessed as detrimental to the larger goals of the campaign. We can assume that the direct perpetrators of sexual violence usually had no explicit war-tactical motives when they raped a woman. Rather, they used their spaces of interpretation and action and - in Certeau's conception of tactics - made use of the opportunities that opened up for them at a given moment according to what they assumed was normal or acceptable. The Wehrmacht Command, however, gave their men the permission to perpetrate sexual violence by not prosecuting the offenders. In certain situations the Wehrmacht Command furthermore more or less openly encouraged the men's behavior. It can thus be argued that, during the war in the Soviet Union, sexual violence was part of the Wehrmacht's strategic arsenal in that it was calculated to demean the enemy, destroy social ties, and break the adversary's will and morale."

A separate section is devoted to the rapes during the Holocaust. I am not going to quote the text that describes numerous disgusting details (out of respect to the victims), but I have to make one remark. We usually believe that the Nazi concept of racial purity protected Jewish woman at least from rape by German solders. Mühlhäuser demonstrates that that was not the case: a sexual abuse of the Holocaust victims in occupied USSR wan more a rule rather then an exception, and the fact that the victims would be finally murdered removed any barriers for rapists. (Those who want to see more details can check the source by themselves)

The author concludes:

"(...)The failure to prosecute rape on the Eastern Front created a culture of impunity in which sexual violence could become a privilege and, indeed, a right for the soldiers. Soldiers used this space to interpret events and act according to social values, their personal inclinations, the norms that emerged in their small units, and the opportunities that opened up for them in specific situations. While aware of the potential hygienic and disciplinary dangers of uncontrolled sexual violence, the Wehrmacht did very little to stop it and in fact exploited it for strategic purposes. Within the larger campaign of a war of annihilation, permitting sexual violence served different functions: (1) it fostered cohesion in the small units and loyalty toward superiors in ways that secured the military space; (2) it degraded local women and destroyed social ties in the victims' community, thus communicating conquest; and (3) it became a means to dehumanize the Jews and produce a distancing effect toward them that facilitated genocidal killings. To conclude, I would thus like to suggest that the Wehrmacht leadership fostered a particular knowledge about violence and sexuality, anticipated the sexually violent behavior of its men in the field, and exploited this for military aims. The case of the killing fields of World War II forces us to complicate the concept of sexual violence as a weapon or strategy of war because it demonstrates that sexual violence might not be a strategy in the traditional military understanding of the word, that is, part of an openly communicated plan. However, if we reread older feminist literature and consider Certeau's conception of strategy and tactics, we can grasp the relationship between the individual soldier who perpetrates sexual violence when the opportunity arises and the military commanders who exploit this behavior by their men for strategic purposes. The fact that rape is pervasive in many civil societies and that there is still little awareness that this form of violence constitutes a crime creates conditions in which sexual violence in times of war appears normal and acceptable behavior. As long as military commanders do not take active and strict measures against this form of violence, they utilize this knowledge in their strategical thinking - even if rape is not openly communicated, let alone ordered."

In summary, I am grateful to @Pizzigs: whose POV pushing prompted me to return to this topic and find several high quality sources that have been published only recently, after I stopped to edit the "Mass Rape ..." article. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Going back to the rape of German woman, I continue digging through the list of google scholar search results, and I found several reviews of the book by Miriam Gebhardt ( Crimes Unspoken: The Rape of German Women at the End of the Second World War. Translated by Nick Somers. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017. 350). According to one review,

"Gebhardt provides evidence from women’s diaries, applications for abortion, reports from clergymen, and police reports that Western Allied soldiers, particularly American and colonial French troops, committed rape on a mass scale. She suggests that these rapes occurred on a comparable scale to the more notorious rapes by the Soviet Red Army.

"Gebhardt demonstrates that contrary to earlier assumptions, Soviet propaganda did not encourage rape. In fact, it attempted to limit sexual assaults through appeals to the superiority of the Russian soldier and arguments that good relations with German civilians would help the war effort."

"Since the United States had not been occupied by Germany, Gebhardt frames rape by American servicemen as motivated by domination and stereotypes of European promiscuity."

I have no access to this book yet, but another source seems to quote the figures from that book:

"A German historian estimates in a new book that French, British and American soldiers raped 860,000 Germans at and after the end of the Second World War, including 190,000 sexual assaults by American soldiers."

Paul Siebert (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

• Taking into account the information found in recently published sources (after 2010), my preliminary conclusions are as follows.

1. A description of mass rapes does deserve inclusion into the article.

2. We should explain that mass rapes were committed by Japanese and German troops, and these rapes were a part of their military strategy.

3. We also should explain that mass sexual abuse of Jewish woman was component of the Holocaust.

4. We should tell that mass rapes of German woman by Allied troops (by all major Allies) took place in all occupation zones, and they continued after the hostilities ended.

5. We should NOT give any figures, because no reliable statistics is available, and we have no space for discussing all controversies here.

6. The whole story must fit into 2 sentences (not more).

Any comments/corrections/suggestions? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Point 4 is largely a lie spread by the modern far right to pretend that there was moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis, so a very firm no from me on that point. Some historians have been taken in by this nonsense, but it's not a mainstream view. The other points seem sensible. Nick-D (talk) 05:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nick, when you write "Allies", do you mean only Western Allies? If yes, then I know many sources that discuss rapes by Western Allies, mostly Americans and Moroccan French. A disagreement only over the scale. I found interesting that Gebhardt used the same approach for estimation of the scale of rapes in the West as was previously used for the Soviet occupation zone. If we (to some degree) accept the latter, why should we reject the former? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to the Western Allies. There have been a handful of recent works claiming that the Western Allied forces committed large numbers of rapes in Europe and Japan, but they've received a mixed reception. I'm not aware of any standard works on the final campaigns of the war and occupations who accept that there were "mass rapes" committed by the Western Allied forces without attaching significant provisos to this. The discussion of the topic by Frederick Taylor in his book Exorcising Hitler is a good example of what I understand the consensus to be: he notes (pp. 144-147) that French troops committed "mass rapes" on several occasions, and came the closest in misconduct to the Soviet forces, yet the French commanders regained control over their forces more quickly than the Soviets did. He also notes that while British and American troops committed rapes, this appears to have been not on anywhere near the sale of the French - he does not use the term "mass rapes" when discussing the crimes committed by the Americans and British. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nick, it seems to me that the views you are talking about were summarized by Joluck as follows:

"This characterization, Gebhardt demonstrates, was fueled not only by political concerns but by racial stereotypes, resulting in a dichotomous view of the occupiers as Asiatic Russian/Moroccan rapists versus white Western liberators. " (Katherine R. Joluck, Australian Journal of Politics & History. Volume 64, Issue 1 Mar 2018 Pages i-iv, 1-176.)

I doubt we can totally ignore this concern.

The sources available to me, (unless they discuss EF only) describe the events as follows (I provide extended quotes to demonstrate that I didn't take them out of context):

"As Allied and Soviet troops battered their way into the Third Reich, a negative assessment of all-things-German governed their thinking. Given this “come-as-conqueror” mentality, superimposed upon even more primal desires to breakdown resistance and reinforce male domination, some soldiers saw fit to brutalize and rape German women, a situation that particularly marked the invasion of the eastern German provinces by the Red Army. With Soviet troops openly encouraged to regard German women as plunder, it is no surprise that nearly two million German women may have been raped (ref to Helke Sender and Barbara Johr). Even in western Germany, however, there was a considerable spate of raping by French and American forces, particularly during April and May 1945. " (Perry Biddiscombe. Dangerous Liaisons: The Anti-Fraternization Movement in the U.S. Occupation Zones of Germany and Austria, 1945–1948. Journal of Social History Volume 34, Number 3, Spring 2001.

Note, that is a pretty old source, but it discusses Western Allies and Soviets in the same context. Biddiscombe compares post war statistical estimates made by Sender&Johr based on birth statistics (for the East) with the cases that were officially reported (for the West). If the Sender&Johr's approach is applied to the West (that is what Gebhardt did), the numbers for the west become much higher and comparable to those in the East.

I think that in this article we should speak not about "Soviet" but about "Allied rapes" with a reservation that the rapes in the East were more widespread and more brutal. We should mention revenge as a possible motive, but the question of encouragement should be left beyond the scope, because different sources express opposite opinia: some sources describe war time propaganda as encouragement, other sources say that significant attempts were made turn the propaganda machine 180 degrees. Therefore, this issue should not be discussed here at all: we have no space for it. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be pushing a non-mainstream view here Paul by arguing that there were in any way common 'Allied' behaviours. The quote you provide from Biddiscombe does not support such a contention, and such a view is not in any mainstream histories that I'm aware of: the usual approach is to treat the behaviours of Soviet and western Allied soldiers separately, and stress that they were different. Can I please also ask that you stop posting lengthy quotes - this is getting into Wikipedia:Wall of text territory to be frank. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Nick, what does "a non-mainstream view" means? If "mainstream" is a view expressed in a book that you believe is mainstream, then how can we determine that you are right?

I define the term "mainstream view" as follows. Imagine some person who know nothing about some topic. This person starts googling using some very general search phrase, and then they analyze top 100-200 search results. From my experience, first 5-10 pages of google scholar results is a representative sample. By analyzing this sample (and by previously throwing out PhD and Master theses, which sometimes appear in google scholar results, as well as the works that have not been cited) one can get an impression of what is a mainstream view on this topic. (Sometimes, but that is optional, it may be useful to use a different search phrase and to compare the results.)

That is exactly what I did. My first words (on the top of this section) were:

"I started digging sources using this neutral search phrase (I am disclosing details of the search procedure to demonstrate I was not cherry-picking)." IMO, I did my best to demonstrate that my search procedure is totally transparent and neutral.

In connection to that, what exactly led you to a conclusion that I am pushing non-mainstream views? Do you have a reason to blame me of cherry-picking? Do you have any objection to my choice of keywords? Had I ignored some important sources from the list?

No. All sources I am talking about appear in top 30 of the list. BTW, your source was not in this list, which may imply that it is either non-mainstream, or, most likely, a tertiary source (in Wikipedia, we prefer secondary sources).

Furthermore, I didn't say Western Allies and the Soviets behaved similarly. Moreover, due to specific condition in the EF, it would be ridiculous to expect them to behave similarly to their Western Allies. My point is that a significant fraction of sources that I found (using a neutral search procedure) tell not only about the Soviet troops, but about all Allies. That is the fact. And that trend is more evident in recent sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Important issues not covered

Mass rapes committed by Soviet forces are an ugly and important page of the latter stages of WWII. Similarly, expanding on the Allied countries' approach to post-war Germany and their respective blocks, especially regarding the Marshall Plan and Soviet extraction of reparations, seems to be WP:DUE. As such, I seek to restore my edits. Pizzigs (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Pls don't forget to give attribution to the pages you copy and paste from see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I do agree we could have a sentence or two on the topic as we do with the Nanjing Massacre. The quote is something to avoid as per WP:OVERQUOTING and lets not use media for a historic article of this nature. Academic sources easy to find. Let's see a proposal thats short and sweet a sentence or two....can be source to Norman Naimark...Naimark, N.M. (1997). The Russians in Germany: A History of the Soviet Zone of Occupation, 1945-1949. ACLS Humanities E-Book. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-78405-5......or any one of this nature. Moxy- 01:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There is already half a paragraph on the mass rapes conducted by Soviet soldiers (see the para starting with 'The Soviet Union was responsible for the Katyn massacre'). This article is intended to provide a very high level view of the war, and covers a range of significant topics briefly - the Battle of Leyte Gulf gets half a sentence for instance, despite being the largest naval battle in history. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I added that content earlier today. Pizzigs (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

OK I didn't realise. We ask that significant changes to the article are discussed first and only added after consensus on the text is reached, but that seems fine to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the discussion of rape and put it here. Let's discuss it first.

"Soviet soldiers committed mass rapes in occupied territories, especially in Germany. The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million." Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Although I agree that the topic is notable and well covered in good quality sources, there are several problems that we need to address before we decide to introduce it into the article. (to be continued)... Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please do continue, what are these "problems"? TylerBurden (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

First, I have several good quality sources that discuss this issue in details, and they give more nuanced view than Beevor or Naimark. I can present these sources later, but here is a brief summary (I am doing it from memory, so it may be imprecise).

These sources discuss rapes in a proper context. First, they usually discussed them in a context of Allied bombing: the "Russian" rapes are compared with "American" bombing, and the latter is considered as worse evil. This comparison is not a random argument: Soviet and Allied strategies were different, whereas the Allies were acting in accordance with Douhet doctrine, the Soviets relied on the land warfare, which implies more troops, more brutality and more extensive contacts with local population, and, therefore, more rapes. If we present these two events (Anglo-American bombing and Soviet rape) separately from each other, the picture will be factually correct, but one-sided and misleading.

(I noticed my revert was reverted. Please, do not edit war, let's discuss it first. To be continued...) Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

As an example, you may look at this:

"By early 1945, the Red Army had pushed back the eastern front, invading Germany and leaving its wake a record of mass rapes and devastation. In western Germany carpet bombing that intensified after 1943 leveled cities, killed many civilians and left and left many more homeless".

That would be a full picture.

Second, the rapes committed by Soviet troops are usually linked to what happened in the Eastern front in previous years. Even German woman saw that as retaliation of what their fathers and husbands did in the occupied Eastern Europe. In contrast to the Western Allies almost every Soviet military lost their relatives, lost their homes or belonging, witnessed massive devastation and crimes, Nazi concentration camps (which, with few exceptions, were situation in the East), ostarbeithers, who were massively raped by their German "masters", and, by the way, massive rapes committed by German military (although no reliable statistics is available). Again, if we just write "Germans did that, Soviets did that", that would be factually correct, but... What if we write "In aerial raids, Japanede killed several American civilians; the US killed several thousands" Formally, that is correct, but do we agree that that picture, taken out of context, is terribly biased?

Third, when I was righting this response, I found several sources that I haven't seen before, and they deserve careful analysis. For example, Regina Muhlhauser (Refraining Sexual Violence as a Weapon and Strategy of War: The Case of the German. Wehrmacht during the War and Genocide in the Soviet Union, 1941-1944 Journal of the History of Sexuality, Vol. 26, No. 3, SPECIAL ISSUE: TRANSGRESSIVE SEX, LOVE, AND VIOLENCE IN WORLD WAR II GERMANY AND BRITAIN (2017), pp. 366-401 [5]) devotes the whole article to the question if Wehrmacht was using rapes as a tool. I'll discuss this source later, but one quote is especially interesting:

"As rape is the quintessential act by which a male demonstrates to a female that she is conquered - vanquished - by his superior strength and power, it was perfectly logical within the framework of fascism that rape would be employed by the German soldier as he strove to prove himself a worthy Superman. It would have been highly illogical if rape were not in the German soldier's kit bag of weapons. Rape for the Germans . . . played a serious and logical role in the achievement of what they saw as their ultimate objective: the total humiliation and destruction of "inferior peoples" and the establishment of their own master race." (the author quotes "Against Our Will" by Brownmiller).

Therefore, if we decide to include a discussion of mass rapes by the Allies (who just failed to prevent the wave of violence in the occupied zone), we should devote an adequate space to the discussion of the use of rapes by the Axis occupation forces (and that includes not only Japan, which is mentioned once).

(to be continued...) Paul Siebert (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Iv'e just figured out that some fresh sources have been published that I didn't see yet. I 'll take a break to read them, and I will come back when I am done. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

These issues are addressed in Rape during the occupation of Germany#Soviet troops. According to Antony Beevor, revenge was not the only reason for the frequent rapes, but the Soviet troops' feeling of entitlement to all types of spoils of war, including women, was an important factor as well. Beevor exemplifies that with his discovery that Soviet troops also raped Soviet and Polish girls and women that were liberated from Nazi concentration camps as well as those who were held for forced labour at farms and factories. The rapes were often perpetrated by rear echelon units. The description of the events by Beevor was criticized by General of the Russian Army Makhmut Gareev, who said the work by Beevor was "worse than Joseph Goebbels's propaganda". Russian Professor Oleg Rzheshevsky claimed that 4,148 Red Army officers and "a significant number" of soldiers were convicted of atrocities for crimes committed against German civilians. Richard Overy, a historian from King's College London, has criticised the viewpoint put forth by the Russians by asserting that they refuse to acknowledge Soviet war crimes committed during the war: "Partly this is because they felt that much of it was justified vengeance against an enemy who committed much worse, and partly it was because they were writing the victors' history." Geoffrey Roberts writes that the Red Army raped women in every country they passed through but mostly in Austria and Germany: 70,000–100,000 rapes in Vienna, and "hundreds of thousands" of rapes in Germany. He notes that the German Army probably committed tens of thousands of rapes on the Eastern Front but that murder was the more typical crime for them. War crimes committed by all belligerents should be covered, irrespective of motivation or justification. That includes the Soviet Union throughout the six years of its involvement in World War II (in 1939–41 on the side of Germany and in 1941–45 on the side of the Allies). Pizzigs (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

War crimes, as well as everything else, should be covered fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias. I have a strong feeling that the text that we are discussing devotes too much attention to certain crimes, and it is doing that disproportionally. Beevor is not a specialized source, he discussed these rapes very superficially. I am talking about the sources that specifically analyze rapes.

In addition, please, do not quote other Wikipedia articles here, a link would be sufficient. I am perfectly aware of the article you quoted, I myself worked on it several years ago. If you want, you may check its t/p archives, where I provided several relevant sources and quotes. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The mass rapes committed by Soviet forces are an undisputed historical event, and given its scale it should mentioned in the article the same way American, British, German and Japanese crimes are.

• US/British The mass bombing of cities in Europe and Asia has often been called a war crime, although no positive or specific customary international humanitarian law with respect to aerial warfare existed before or during World War II. The USAAF bombed a total of 67 Japanese cities, killing 393,000 civilians, including from the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and destroying 65% of built-up areas.
• US In June 1943, the British and Americans began a strategic bombing campaign against Germany with a goal to disrupt the war economy, reduce morale, and "de-house" the civilian population. The firebombing of Hamburg was among the first attacks in this campaign, inflicting significant casualties and considerable losses on infrastructure of this important industrial centre.
• Japanese The most infamous Japanese atrocity was the Nanking Massacre, in which fifty to three hundred thousand Chinese civilians were raped and murdered. Mitsuyoshi Himeta reported that 2.7 million casualties occurred during the Sankō Sakusen. General Yasuji Okamura implemented the policy in Heipei and Shantung.

Your entire argument is built upon justifying Soviet war crimes by contrasting and/or comparing them to German war crimes, and I see this statement "Second, the rapes committed by Soviet troops are usually linked to what happened in the Eastern front in previous years. Even German woman saw that as retaliation of what their fathers and husbands did in the occupied Eastern Europe." as WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. Pizzigs (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure if I, or the above discussion, are missing a key point. A comparison is made between the (alleged) war crimes of aerial bombing campaigns and the rape of women from the defeated side remaining in areas occupied by, principally, Soviet troops.
It seems pretty clear that the bombing is, rightly or wrongly, a genuine attempt to achieve victory. It happens to areas under the control of the military of the belligerent being attacked, who generally put up whatever level of defence they can achieve.
Conversely, the rapes perpetrated by, in particular, Soviet troops cannot be seen as an activity that significantly contributes to winning the war. (One could argue that it made the Germans fight even harder.) It happened in places largely under the control of Soviet forces, with no meaningful intervention by German forces that can prevent it (as they had retreated from the relevant areas). I wish I could find the reference now, but I recollect a senior Soviet (was it Stalin) question why their troops should be prevented from "having their fun" (not a nice phrase, but I do believe I have remembered it right).
I appreciate that the above all needs to be sourced. The air war aspect on its own is easily done so – but a source that makes this comparison may be more of a challenge (WP:SYNTHESIS). If the comparison that I find unsettling is under serious consideration for inclusion in the article, then perhaps the RS credentials of the sources used for this need more substantial critical examination: (Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history)). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Ref for Stalin on the behaviour of his troops: "And what is so awful in his having fun with a woman" Overy, Richard. Russia's War (p. 262). There is also discussion of how the associated breakdown of discipline in the Soviet army did, at times, interfere with progressing the war. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Stalin is a primary source, per WP:PSTS it should be used only for non-controversial statements, and, like Hitler, should be avoided at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Stalin may be a primary source, but Overy is not – especially when he adds the discussion and analysis that is looked for in WP:PSTS. What level of doubt is there that this quote is what Stalin said? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

"Conversely, the rapes perpetrated by, in particular, Soviet troops cannot be seen as an activity that significantly contributes to winning the war." It seems you fundamentally misunderstand something. The purpose of bombing was dual: per Douhet, that could impact morale, but, more importantly, bombing was aimed to undermine military industry, so majority of civilian deaths were collateral damage: the Allies had to bomb Germany massively and brutally because their bombing was imprecise, and because they didn't know the exact position of the most important objects of German military infrastructure. That is why deaths of majority German civilians is considered as collateral damage.

The Red Army didn't rely on mass bombing, its strategy was based on highly motivated solders. Why they were highly motivated? Because virtually every Soviet military lost their families (fully or partially), and their homes were destroyed, and during their way back to the West they saw endless examples of German barbarism. All of that was amplified by a masterful and massive propaganda, with the main slogan: "Kill a German!" (any German, because during the first half of EF hostilities, almost every German in the territory of the Soviet Union was an occupant, and, therefore, a legitimate military target). As a result, by 1945, the USSR had its own "weapon of mass destruction" its army, composed of highly skilled, highly motivated and highly indoctrinated men (and woman), who were able to do the major part of the job: they destroyed the German war machine which relatively easily survived under the Allied bombs. However 5 million solders with severe PSSD, who passed through the hell named "Eastern Front" and who made lion's share of dirty job, are not robots, which can be instantly switched off or reprogrammed: their aggressiveness and their desire of revenge couldn't disappear in one moment.

Let me reiterate: the Allies won not because their adherence to ideals of democracy. They won because tens of millions of Soviet solders passed through the hell named "Eastern front" and those who survived (3% of males born in 1923 survived in WWII) became "an army that can storm the skies". However, that army had one collateral effect: its aggressiveness could not be tamed easily. However, without that aggression, like, arguably, without Allied bombing, there would be no Allied victory.

In summary: who are we to judge those people? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@ThoughtIdRetired:@Pizzigs: Believe you or not, you are acting against consensus. Consensus is not a majority, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is achieved when all legitimate concerns have been addressed. I expressed a legitimate concern that the text, which I temporarily moved to the talk page violates neutrality, because it gives an undue weight to one event. Remember, this article is a high profile article that covers WWII as a whole, and it discusses only the most important events. Thus, this section does not discuss the the most deadly siege in history. Do you sincerely believe that several hundred thousands of rapes deserve more attention than more than a half million deaths from starvation? The section tells nothing about mass rapes committed by German troops. Do you think rape of Jewish or Russian woman deserves less attention, because they were untermensch"? The section just tangentially mentions bombing of European cities, and explains that they were not a violation of any law. Great, that means Bombing of Dresden, which was hardly dictated by any military needs, deserves no attention?

I can provide more examples, but these are sufficient. We need to think how to put rapes in a proper context, and, as soon as we started to discuss rapes, let's tell about all rapes.

However, the section must be compact, and if we add all of that, it will become huge. We cannot afford that luxury.

@Pizzigs:, you write "The mass rapes committed by Soviet forces are an undisputed historical event". When did I claim the rapes never occurred?

"and given its scale it should mentioned in the article the same way American, British, German and Japanese" Do you know a real scale? Have you compared it with, e.g. mass rapes committed by Germans? No. I've just started digging sources, and I proposed to start a t/p discussion, because we need to present a balanced story, which must be very short and compact. Just compare:

• Description of the Battle of Stalingrad, the bloodies battle in history, the turning point of the whole WWII: 60 words.
• Description of the Holocaust (including Poles, Soviet POWs and many other categories) 59 words
• A story of mass rape of several hundreds of German woman: 49 words
• A story of mass rape of Soviet (Jewish, Russian, Belorussian, Ukrainian) woman: ZERO words.

Any comments?

And after that you dare accusing me or UNDUE?

Please, self-revert, and let's discuss a new text. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree any additions by the editor in question should be reviewed as they don't have the confidence of the community at large..... but I think in this case a sentence or 2 is due. Moxy- 00:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The Siege of Leningrad is covered in the article, as are German war crimes and the number of casualties by country. Wartime sexual violence#World War II and Rape during the occupation in Germany establish that the vast majority of rapes were committed by Soviet troops, not by Germans. Roberts states that Germans committed 70,000–100,000 rapes on the Eastern front, compared to up to 2,000,000 million by Soviet forces, although murder was the more typical crime for the Germans. Pizzigs (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The siege of Leningrad is discussed as a battle, not as a war crime. And, I never claimed that Soviet rapes story should be completely removed. My point is that we need to figure out if they deserve inclusion, and if yes, then how much space should be allocated to them, and in which context.

In general, thank you for drawing my attention to the article, I noticed that it again became diluted with various low importance stories, which dilute really important facts. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not think that two sentences "Soviet soldiers committed mass rapes in occupied territories, especially in Germany. The exact number of German women and girls raped by Soviet troops during the war and occupation is uncertain, but historians estimate their numbers are likely in the hundreds of thousands, and possibly as many as two million." would put a disproportionate emphasis on Soviet war crimes compared to German war crimes. I've already provided examples of similar crimes of other Allies being covered in the article. As such, I'll restore the sentences if there're no further objections. You can add more content on German war crimes as well, if you feel something is missing. Pizzigs (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

That is not working like that.

I don't remember what the "Rapes ..." article currently says, but I recommend you to look through the talk page archive, where we discussed a large number of sources that discuss this issue from various aspects, and these sources are specifically devoted to that. Roberts is a general expert in Soviet history, but not an expert in this topic, he just quotes the works authored by other scholars. Beevor is also just using the data obtained by other scholars.

BTW, do you know where the 2 million figure comes from? On that talk page, I provided a quote from the original work (I recall I did that 5-10 years ago).

In addition, the number of reported rapes is high partially because of the Goebbels law (which remained in force after fall of Nazi Germany), which allowed free abortion, but only if a woman was raped by "racially inferior" man. Therefore, to get abortion, a woman had to claim that she was "raped by a Mongol" (an euphemism invented by Nazi to describe Russian untermenschen). All of that is discussed in the sources presented by me on the "Rape of ..." talk page. I don't remember if that was included into that article, but the sources still can be found in the talk page archive. Read them first, and then we will discuss possible additions to the article.

Meanwhile, I'll read the sources that I found today. They are fresh, and some of them seem relevant. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to disprove the claims. I provided reliable academic sources, you can have NPR as well if you want. I struggle to understand you concerns. Pizzigs (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONUS is on those who adds a new text. That is our policy. In addition, I also provided reliable sources, and I can provide more.

This is a serious and very important article, for many years, we discuss every serious change on the t/p page before addition. Usually, we wait to let other people express their opinion. Don't be so fast, please. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You did not provide anything that specifically challenges Soviet mass rapes; if you find something on Germany, feel free to add it, but, please, stop removing sourced and academic content that reflects the consensus view of most historians. No one, except you, has objected to my additions. Pizzigs (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Your "feel free" is amazing.

I am "not free" to add whatever I want, because we cannot inflate this article infinitely. The information in this article is very densely packed, we try to count virtually every word. If we devote just one sentence to some event, then it is the event of a tremendous importance. And you propose two long sentences. Do you sincerely believe that topic is as important as the Holocaust?

If we will include a story about Soviet rapes, then it should be done without breaking a balance, probably, in a context of mass rapes committed by Wehrmacht. As I explained, I am not ready to discuss it, I am reading new sources that I found today. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You're intentionally stalling the process by claiming a lack of consensus and simultaneously stating you're not ready to "discuss it". And I still disagree that two sentences on Soviet rapes "break a balance". Again, if you find RS that back up your claims that German forces committed rapes on a similar scale, that too will be added to the article, but that does not mean that we should all wait until you identify those RS. Pizzigs (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I've protected the page while this discussion continues. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. We have had this problem on a few articles now. Wondering how this can be prevented in the future. Moxy- 02:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17: It seems you protected the article 3 minutes after the contested edit was made. I am sure that was not your intention, but it looks like an endorsement of the new addition before the consensus was achieved. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

These edits are not contested. One can read the entire discussion and make their own conclusions. Pizzigs (talk) 03:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: WP:WRONG would apply here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I've removed a copyvio from this article, which I tracked down as being copied from an addition you made to War crimes of the Wehrmacht in 2010. I removed it from that article as well. Given our earlier interactions here + the admin action I took, I felt that I should note these edits which could appear related even though they were separate. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@The ed17:, frankly, I forgot that that edit was made by me.

Actually, you removed a reference to a good RS, and that was not correct. Only a big quote in the ref was a copyvio. The reference itself was not. I fixed that Paul Siebert (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Douhet: I think mention of Douhet is not particularly relevant when making a comparison of this issue with the air war. Douhet was long dead when WW2 started, and though the Allied air commanders were well aware of his theories, the actual planning of the bombing of Germany was influenced by a lot more than the theories proposed some 20 years previously. Not least was the actual experience of the effect of German bombing during the blitz: one result was the targeting of the housing of war industry workers – people don't turn up for their shift if they have no home in which to sleep or eat. This was a well considered policy intended to affect the outcome of the war (with various pieces of evidence to suggest that it did). Conversely, the Soviet policy to rape by their troops seems best characterised by "indifference".ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Most military theoreticians, e.g. Clausewitz, are dead. That doesn't automatically make them irrelevant.

WRT the rest, I like your analogy. You said the Allies decided to target civilian objects to achieve some concrete war objectives, their goal was not to deliberately kill as many civilians as possible, but their policy seems best characterised as "indifference" to civilian casualties. Therefore, the article correctly puts the Axis civilian victims in a proper context.

Did I understand your thought correctly?

If yes, then the same logic can be applied to the rape story. The Soviet policy was not to harness anti-German moods in their military, which developed both naturally (as a result of German actions on the occupied territory during 1941-44 events) and were amplified by Soviet war time propaganda (which can be considered as some type of weapon, like strategic bombers). And, when the Soviet troops entered Germany, their initial policy could be characterized as "indifference". Therefore, it would be equally reasonable to put the rape story into a proper context (similar to bombing). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Type of sources: A high level article like this should surely favour sources that are also high level. Hence historians like Beevor and Overy are important in guiding us on the relative importance of issues. If this article relies excessively on more specialist sources for any topic, then Wikipedia is at risk of stepping away from NPOV. The historians who write the more generalist works are well aware of the specialist sources, so why would we ignore the level of balance that they have adopted? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It is assumed that Beevor did his own research. I am not going to draw conclusions by myself, and I let professionals do that. The review on the Beevor book (Nicky Bird. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) , Oct., 2002, Vol. 78, No. 4 (Oct., 2002), pp. 914-916. [6]0 says:

"Beevor tends to accept estimates from a single doctor - how can we possibly know that 90 per cent of Berlin women were infected by VD, that 90 per cent of rape victims had abortions, that 8.7 per cent of children born in I946 had Russian fathers?"

Who was that "single doctor"? His name was Dr. Reichling, and the whole procedure of estimates that gave the figure quoted by Beevor and others was described here. The estimate procedure was as follows:

"ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBERS OF RAPES BASED ON BERLIN POPULATION STATISTICS5

1. Official statistics for the period between September 1945 and August 1946 show a total of 23,124 births (both live and stillborn). Of these, approximately 5% were "Russian children": 1,156 children.

2. Some 10% of the pregnant women had abortions, of which 90% were successful. Therefore, ten times as many women had actually been impregnated: 11,560.

3. About 20% of the raped women became pregnant. Therefore, among those of childbearing age, five times as many were raped: 57,800.

4. In 1945, 600,000 women of childbearing age (18 to 45 years) lived in Berlin. 57,800 of them were raped. That represents 9.5% of this age group.

5. In 1945, 800,000 girls between the ages of 14 and 18 and women over 45 lived in Berlin. If one assumes that 9.5% of those in this age group were raped, that would mean that 73,300 of those younger and older women were affected. (If a 4.75% figure is used, then the number is 36,650.)

6. Conclusions: Of the 1.4 million women and girls in Berlin, between 94,450 and 131,100-an average of more than 110,000-were raped between early summer and fall of 1945

(Helke Sander and Stuart Liebman. Remembering/Forgetting. October , Spring, 1995, Vol. 72, Berlin 1945: War and Rape "Liberators Take Liberties" (Spring, 1995), pp. 15-26. Published by: The MIT Press Stable URL: [7])

As another author summarised that:

"The interview with the statistician, Dr. Reichling, is perhaps the best example of how humorously complex and tentative the search for a statistical estimate can be, and how futile the search for exact numbers is." (Richard W. McCormick. Rape and War, Gender and Nation, Victims and Victimizers: Helke Sander's BeFreier und Befreite. Camera Obscura, 46 (Volume 16, Number 1), 2001, pp. 98-141 [8]

I'll allow myself to make my own comments on this "estimate procedure", because I am not going to argue with McCormick. Everybody who is familiar with math knows that by providing too many significant digits one shows an obvious lack of Math education. When you multiply some numbers, the errors multiply too. Here, we have one extrapolation, and based on another extrapolation, which is also a result extrapolation. That means that even if there was a 10% error in each extrapolation, then even the first significant digit is unreliabe in the final result. Furthermore, this estimate is based on some assumptions that were inferred from witness testimonies, which are not necessarily applicable to the whole Berlin and whole Germany. Thus, it was assumed that 9.5% (impressive accuracy) was equally applicable to all woman from 14 to 80+. And so on, and so forth.

I am showing you these examples to demonstrate who made these estimates in reality and how trustworthy are they. And I provide just a couple of good quality sources (out of many) which deal with this issue specifically. I am going to provide more in a close future.

The Rape during the occupation of Germany article is in a bad shape (I gave up many years ago), but that doesn't mean we may spoil this article too. If the rape story should be added to this article (probably, yes) it should be done very cautiously, concisely, and without breaking a balance. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

So even you, despite these comments above of "how can we judge these people" (referring to Soviet rapists) agree that the rapes should "probably" be included in the article. I think you also understand that these rapes are covered in reliable sources to an extent where it is appropriate to include a mention here. Yet you are writing walls of texts in opposition. Wikipedia is meant to report on what reliable sources say, you can have a brief look at WP:RSP and see that there's plenty of sources covering the rapes there (for example the Guardian, the BBC. I do hope this isn't a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Paul Sievert also removed a large amount of content from Rape during the occupation of Germany. Please, assess whether anything of value was lost. Pizzigs (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Yes, I can explain my position. I opposed to writing about that because the WWII article does not tell anything about much more massive rapes committed by Wehrmacht in occupied Poland and USSR (some sources estimates that tens of million woman were raped), and about other crimes. I that situation, selective and detailed description of Soviet crimes seems to be a huge bias, and my objections was quite justified.

You correctly write that Wikipedia is meant to report on what reliable sources say, but I would add to that the following:

• Wikipedia is meant to report on what reliable sources say in a balanced and neutral way.
• We cannot afford a luxury to include into this article all what reliable sources say, we select only the most important facts. And I still got no satisfactory evidences that the story of Soviet rapes deserves so extensive coverage in contrast to other crimes.

Anyway, I am working on the "Rape..." article now, because I found several good quality sources, which were published only recently, and which are quite relevant to the article. Maybe, the article need a significant rewrite. When I finish with it, I'll come back here.

Thus, a couple of sources are especially interesting: they applied the Sander&Johr approach to calculation of the number of rapes in by Western Allies. As you probably know, the figures for the East were obtained based on births statistics (and the figure is up to 2 million, see the quote on this talk page). However, for the Western Allies the figures are the number of reported cases. In reality only few percent of rapes were reported. By applying the approach used by Sander&Johr, some authors obtained a figure of several hundred thousand rapes in the West, which is pretty impressive, because American GIs had much less reasons for revenge. Therefore, we should either tell about "Allied" rape (although predominantly Soviet), or not to tell about rapes at all.

WRT the Guardians or BBC, they are not the best sources, according to WP:V. The best sources are academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources on topics such as history, medicine, and science. And the sources used by me belong to this category. The non-exhaustive list of my sources include:

• Miriam Gebhardt. Crimes Unspoken: The Rape of German Women at the End of the Second World War. Translated by Nick Somers. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017. 350. It was published by the academic publisher and has a number of positive reviews and widely cited. One review clearly says about " racial stereotypes, resulting in a dichotomous view of the occupiers as Asiatic Russian/Moroccan rapists versus white Western liberators. " (Katherine R. Joluck, Australian Journal of Politics & History. Volume 64, Issue 1 Mar 2018 Pages i-iv, 1-176.)
• Thomas J. Kehoe and E. James Kehoe Crimes Committed by U.S. Soldiers in Europe, 1945-1946. Source: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 47, No. 1 (Summer 2016), pp. 53-84. Published by: The MIT Press. [9]
• Pascale R Bos Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993 Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2006, vol. 31, no. 4

I may continue, but it seems that some people here accuse me simultaneously of WOT and OR, and I have no clue how can I address both concerns simultaneously... Paul Siebert (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert It seems to me that Soviet rape is a far more covered topic in reliable sources, so if anything it may cause a WP:UNDUE imbalance to go "Soviet soldiers committed mass rape, but Americans did it too!!". In fact, I just googled "German soldiers raped Soviet girls", since "revenge" has been brought up here several times, and still most of the reliable hits I get are covering the mass rapes of German girls, so that might give you an idea of the extent of coverage. It should also be noted that reliable media are also using historians as their references, summarizing works into articles, so it's not like all such articles are based on amateur journalists knowledge either.

In short, the mass rapes committed by Soviet soldiers are well documented and widespread in reliable references, so per policy I don't think it is necessary to talk about Americans just because Soviets crimes are included per WP:DUE. TylerBurden (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: "Soviet soldiers committed mass rape, but Americans did it too!!" is a straw man argument. The sources available to me do not present facts in that way (the references will be provided upon a request):

• One group of sources discuss only the rapes committed by the Soviets, but majority of them discuss them in a context of the overall brutality of the Eastern Front, and almost every source mentions mass rape and murder of Soviet civilians committed by Wehrmacht.
• Another group of sources discuss Allied rapes, and they provide numbers for Soviets and for other Allies. There is no "but" in these sources.
• Some sources, e.g. Naimark (p. 106) compare Soviet rapes in Germany with Soviet rapes in Hungary: in the latter they were quite comparable with other Allied rapes. It is frequently noted that French Moroccan troops committed rapes at the same extent as Soviets (although the absolute numbers were lower because of there were much less Frenchmen in the occupation troops).
• Some sources say that the number of rapes (in absolute figured) committed by Black solders was much higher then the the number of rapes committed by White solders.

That is how I can summarize what the sources were saying until recently. Therefore, the current article's wording is by no means a correct summary of what the sources say.

However, that is not my final conclusion. I have no idea how did you do your search (usually, a good style is to provide a link on your search results, similar to what I am doing). However, when I do the same search, I get this. The first two results are the Brownmiller's "Against our will" (who clearly describe Soviet rapes as "revenge"), the third one is Naimark, but the fifth result is the Gebhardt's book, the book that tells about 700,000 rapes in the West, provides numerous testimonies of the rape victims, and presents the estimates of the amount of unreported rapes (similar to what was done previously for the rapes in the East; frankly, to me, the figure of 700,000 sounds too inflated to me, but even the actual amount of rapes was smaller, it is clear that the rapes were widespread in the western zone).

That means, even if we use your search procedure, we immediately and easily find the sources (Naimark, Brownmiller) that tell about "Allied" (not only Soviet)rapes. Therefore, your claim is just incorrect.

However, that is only a beginning of the story. When I looked for recent sources using a neutral search phrase, I found this. In this list, Gebhardt is the second source. Interesting, the item #12 in the list provides an interesting overview of the topic. It says:

"toward the end of the war forms of sexual violence dominated. According to estimations about 1.9 million German women and girls were raped as the Red Army approached Berlin. Western Allies are responsible for several thousand rapes as well, but information is scarce, and to a certain extent the topic of rape incidences by the Western Allies has been broadly neglected. A recent historical publication reported new estimations with about 8000 children born of rape during this time in Germany" (note, 8000 of children implies hundreds of thousands sexual contacts, according to Sander and Johr, and that is exactly what Gebhardt says).

In general, my analysis of recent sources (especially the sources published after 2010) shows that their overall tone is much more balanced and free from Cold war era stereotypes. many of them, agree that the rapes committed by Western Allies was essentially a taboo (except the rapes committed by African French and Black Americans, which perfectly fits into the Cold War era racist narrative that "White GI were giving candies, Asiatic and African hordes were raping"). I also suggest you to read this open article which fills this gap.

In addition, there is one important difference between the rapes committed by Western and Eastern Allies: an overwhelming majority of sources point out that the Soviet military had a serious motive for being especially brutal in Germany, and, as I already said, Naimark confirms that the scale of Soviet rapes in other countries (Hungary etc) was significantly lower. Americans, British and other Allies had no equally serious reasons for revenge, therefore, it would be normal to expect that the scale of rapes to be smaller. That means 150,000 rapes by the US GIs (reported by Gebhardt, Kehoe&Kehoe et al) is a very big figure.

I stop now, but two other important questions are left beyond the scope: the question of a proper context and the question of the rapes committed by the Axis. However, I propose to finish with the first issue first. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I made a normal google search and that's what I got, so if the results are different on google scholar then that is valid point to take into account. I don't think anyone here denies German soldiers raped Soviet girls and women, so with the right sources the balanced thing to do would be to present both facts. TylerBurden (talk) 07:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: In future, try to use google scholar, not google, because the latter does not filter out various garbage like Daily Mail.

If you use google scholar, you may find that many (if not majority) of authors make one improtant point: it is unacceptable to decontextualise Soviet rapes, and the proper context is the Holocaust and Nazi war crimes in the occupied Europe. Without that context, the story about Soviet mass rapes is de facto a lie (even if the facts are correct).

In addition, many sources published after 2010 say that the rapes in the West are poorly studied. In connection to that, the book by Gebhardt, or Kehoa&Kehoa should not be considered as revisionists: they do not challenge existing views, they study the topic that had not been studied yet. They are answering the following question: "Whereas we have the estimates of unreported rape cases in the Eastern zone, no such numbers are known for the Western zone. What is the number of unreported rapes in the West?" And their answer is: up to several hundred thousands. These authors do not equate American GIs and Soviet military, and that is correct. But they correctly conclude that we should not speak about only Soviet rapes anymore. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No of course not, but the WP:DUE policy is clear on representing sources evenly in proportion, and the Soviet rapes are covered en masse in detail while the American ones are not. Ultimately that's the policy that matters here, not our personal opinions about Soviet rapists. TylerBurden (talk) 10:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Ok, as soon as you mentioned neutrality policy, let me remind you that it says about "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." The words "on a topic" are the key in this case. Because there is no conflict between the claim that Red Army committed 2 million rapes and that Western Allies committed comparable (although smaller) number of rapes. In reality earlier sources didn't claim the Western Allies committed no (or little) rapes: this topic was just broadly neglected.

In other words, your argument can be interpreted as follows: "We should not mention the rapes committed by Western Allies because earlier sources didn't say about that". That argument doesn't follow from our policy.

Actually, your claim that "Soviet rapes are covered en masse in detail while the American ones are not" is not completely correct. I am currently working with sources for the Rape during the occupation of Germany article, and I found that the number of sources is relatively small. If we leave memoirs beyond the scope (memoirs do not allow us to make a conclusion about the actual scale), the main sources about Soviet occupation zone are:

1. Sander/Johr

2. Grossman

3. Naimark

4. Beevor

5. Heinemann

I may overlook something, but virtually every source that discusses the scale of rapes in the Soviet occupation zone takes information from these sources. All these sources are pretty old. There is no fresh studies on that subject. Other publications cited in the "Rape during the occupation of Germany" article are newspaper/magazine articles that discuss these five sources or the works derived from them (I don't want to be too categorical, my analysis of sources is still in progress, but even if I will find some additional source it hardly changes a general picture).

In other words, we have a pretty limited number of secondary sources that have been broadly cited in newspaper/journal articles.

If we take the sources published recently (and limit ourselves with scholarly sources) we see that newer publication discuss the rape at a different angle. If you search the sources published during last 10 years, the book by Gebhardt is on the top of the list. Other sources agree with Gebhardt, and (see the quote above) they say the rape in the Western zone had been a poorly studied topic. Therefore, as I already explained, your claim is by no means based on NPOV: this is not the dispute about minor vs major viewpoints: we are actually dealing with the old viewpoint which should be supplemented with more recent findings.

In addition, I have to point out that Nick's statement about "a lie spread by the modern far right" is a serious exaggeration: such authors as Gebhardt, Kehoe&Kehoe et al are reputable scholars (thus, E. James Kehoe is Professor of Psychology, University of New South Wales), and they are by no means far right.

I am going to finish my work on the "Rape during the occupation of Germany", and I'll come back after that. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am puzzled that Beevor is listed as a source that is implied to not handle the subject evenly due to its age as: (1) it was published in 2012 – is that really out of date? Are we only considering works published in the last 5 years or so? (2) Beevor does discuss rape by combatants other than the Russians – it has the feel of a balanced treatment that is relevant to the article. Some arguments above seem to suggest it is not balanced, but not with reasoning that fits the source's content.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Beevor is frequently quoted by newspaper and magazine publications about "Russian rapists". That is the reason why I added him.

I am not saying that these five publications are outdated, I am saying that earlier publications cover mostly the rapes committed by the Red Army, because, as Helke Sander noted, the Americans were not keen of widely and publicly discussing the problems their soldiers left behind theaters of war.

However, my conclusions are only preliminary, I am still summarizing the sources, and, due to rl problems, cannot do that quickly. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Newspaper quotations of Beevor do not really affect the quality of his work. He does discuss these crimes perpetrated by combatants other than the Russians. In my opinion, the way he does this is an indicator for editors on what balance is needed in this and other articles. (I have used an electronic copy of his book most recently, and being able to search for every instance of the word "rape" provides a more complete view of what he says, rather than relying on the vagaries of a printed index.) For the scale of what the Russians did, looked at in isolation, is Overy's Russia's War. It is important for the article to get across this massive difference in scale – which is really what this discussion is all about. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

That is good that you have that book. Can you please verify my impression that Beevor did no his own research of that topic, and he relied mostly upon the sources 1-3, 5, as well as on Sander&Liebman and few other scholarly sources?

In addition, as I already explained, Beevor do not include the sources published after 2013, and, as I already explained, several important works about the Western occupation zone and several specialized works were published during the last decade.

In addition, imo, Beevor should be considered more a tertiary source, in contrast to Bos, Gebhardt or Naimark. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually advocating for American rapes to be mentioned along the Soviets in this article? I just wanna make that clear, though I don't know why else you would be talking about it in this context. I think this "who are we to judge them?" mentality you seem to have is pretty concerning, not to mention a poor approach on Wikipedia, it's up to the reader to judge, Wikipedia is just meant to present information. I hope someone who has read more than me can verify what you're saying about the sources, because adding Americans role in the rape during the occupation in this context still comes across as whataboutism to me, regardless of how "justified" people argue the Soviets were because of what had happened prior. TylerBurden (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: The more I am reading on that subject, the more I am coming to a conclusion that we should remove the rape story completely. I can explain why.

All serious sources that describe Soviet rapes emphasize that this story should not be decontextualized. In other words, just to say that the Red Army solders raped XXX German woman would be true, but it would be de facto a lie if other important facts are omitted. these facts are (I am not citing sources, but I can provide a source for every statement if anything what I am writing below seems non-obvious):

1. German troops committed much more massive rapes in the Eastern Front, and German high command even issued the order that prohibited prosecution of such incidents unless they affect personnel's morale.

2. Besides mass rapes, German troops committed much more terrible war crimes, including murder (or rape followed by murder), mass destruction of cities and villages, pillage, etc.

3. Soviet military witnessed many instances of ##1&2.

4. In addition to that, Red Army solders were being subjected to a very active and aggressive military propaganda, which was aimed to boost morale and accelerate Red Army advance (in that sense, it was a kind of a weapon).

5. That puts Red Army solders into a situation that was dramatically different from that of other Allies.

6. In the territories outside Germany, the scale of rapes committed by Red Army solders was comparable with that of other Allies.

6a. The rapes in Eastern Germany were massive.

7. Western sources did not exploit the rapes by Western Allies during the Cold war. The first systematic studies started to appear only recently, and they demonstrate that their scale was much larger than we believed before..

It seems that it wouldn't be exaggeration to say that telling only about #6a and leaving ##1-7 beyond the scope is by no means "telling truth". Yes, you are right, "it's up to the reader to judge", but you forget that for making a correct judgment, a reader much be aware of all essential facts. And, as majority RS says, ##1-7 are essential facts.

In that context, your mention of "whataboutism" is somewhat insulting.

Let me demonstrate this my point using these two examples. As you probably know, Allies (mostly Western Allies) killed about half million of German civilians (mostly woman, seniors and children) during their bombing campaign. Taken out of a proper context, that should be considered as a military crime. But how does Wikipedia describes that? Does it just "tell facts, and let a reader judge", or it provides a proper context? Just take a look at the article's text, and you will get the answer.

A second example. A US statistics says that overwhelming majority of documented rapes in Germany was committed by Black military. Of course, we can just present this fact and "let a reader judge". But, in that case, what would be a natural conclusion a reader may come to? That Black men are natural rapists? (In reality, there were several explanations for that, and one reason was a purely racist stereotype, according to which any sexual contact between a White woman and a Black man was considered a rape, because it was assumed no White woman would agree to have sex with a Black man. That is why such cases were more frequently reported, and that that is why Black men were more frequently found guilty).

In connection to that, I think that we have not much space in this article to tell the full story, whereas telling just a part of truth would be tantamount to lying. I suggest to remove this recent addition completely (including German rapes, because that was just a minor part of their atrocities). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

As expected, another wall of text. It's no wonder no one else is bothering to reply here. You are right about one thing you said though, there isn't enough room on this article to go in depth about everything, so all that you're talking about here belongs on the article you said you were working on, whereas the most notable instances are due brief mention here. The Soviets remain the most notable and common rapists of the occupation, maybe you don't like that fact, but that's how it is. As for you "lies" argument, I find that quite bizarre. It is not a lie to include a fact, it is also not possible to add every context because then the article would be overflowing, that is why WP:DUE exists, and something isn't a lie just because it doesn't have full context. The Soviets raping millions of women absolutely belongs on this article, WP:NOTCENSORED. TylerBurden (talk) 22:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"Most notable"... what do you mean?

In terms of numbers? Definitely not. Only about 10% of all children fathered by foreign occupying troops during WWII were fathered by Red Army solders.

In terms of brutality? Come on, a significant fraction of victims (and a major part of the Holocaust victims raped by the Axis solders) were brutally murdered. See, e.g. this for further details.

What else makes them notable? I believe you are not going to argue that the notability was based on the fact that the rapists were "Mongols", and the victims were white Aryan woman?

I see only two arguments in a support of notability: first, this topic is well covered in mass-media (films, newspapers, magazines), and second, it is a subject of serious controversy in scholarly publications, which devote many pages to put them into a proper context. And what you propose is to rely on popular magazines and tertiary sources and to exclude any controversy (because of the lack of space). This approach is by no means serious.

"something isn't a lie just because it doesn't have full context" - does it mean you think it is ok to write that Western Allied murdered half million woman and children (without providing an additional context)? Or that majority of American rapists in occupied Europe were Black (again, without providing any context)? Are you serious?

I think if the mention of the rape is deemed necessary, it should be a brief mention with no figures (which are very unreliable and approximate (per many sources), and the wording should be "raped by Allied, mostly Soviet, troops". Which would be closer to a real situation, because the scale of rape by other Allies is estimated to be 5-20% (approximately) of that of Soviet rapes. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Again you shift focus to unrelated matters, such as race or "aryanism", which I have not mentioned a single time, you are the only one who keeps bringing that up, and now you're making very strange assumptions about it. Most notable as in most covered, per the WP:DUE policy, which I thought would be obvious to someone who has been on Wikipedia for years. The Soviet mass rape during the occupation is more widely covered in reliable sources than "western", it's that simple no matter how much you try to twist it for whatever purposes you are here for. TylerBurden (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Lend-Lease

My paragraph on Lend-Lease was removed by Paul Siebert, so starting a discussion per their suggestion. It is my believe that an event of such importance should have more coverage than (after my tweaks) "In December 1940, Roosevelt accused Hitler of planning world conquest and ruled out any negotiations as useless, calling for the United States to become an "arsenal of democracy" and promoting Lend-Lease programmes of military and humanitarian aid to support the British war effort, which was later extended to the other Allies, including the Soviet Union after it was invaded by Germany", especially given that certain successor states of a certain former superpower tend to downplay the U.S. role in the war and the support it had provided to the Allies. Pizzigs (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

"certain successor states of a certain former superpower"? I see nothing in that text that contradicts any attempts to "downplay the U.S. role in the war and the support it had provided to the Allies". Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

That's not the point I was making. My issue is that Lend-Lease deserves more than a total of one sentence in this article. Pizzigs (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

We have a few sentences on the evolving idea. Slatersteven (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, one sentence is quite sufficient. First, actually, lend-lease related mostly to Anglo-American cooperation: Britain was a recipient of about 3/4 of all US lend-lease.

Second, lend-lease materiel, industrial equipment and raw materials started to arrive to USSR mostly in 1943 and became really massive at final years of the war. Therefore, this section is misplaced. I mean even if lend-lease in a context of the USSR should be additionally mentioned (and I see no need of that), that should be done in a different place.

In general, this article says too much about various negotiations, agreements, various low scale battles in peripheral theatres of war, (relatively) small war crimes, and deserves too little to really large scale hostilities (e.g. in the Eastern Front) to and to human tragedies of a tremendous scale (e.g the Holocaust).

I would say the article by no means downplays the role of the US, quite an opposite. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2023

Hi, I noticed that many countries mentioned in the article of World War II were not hyperlinks to the appropriate pages. Adarshywarshy (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Consideration camps

I belive as a human being of this world if we are talking about ww2 we should not just refrece the consideration camps but we should talk about all the torcher and cruelty that happend to the Jewish people. For example i want all the experiments the were done to the Jewish to be said. Please make this one topic take up at least a good portion of the artical so people will stop prazing hitler. Thank you. 66.74.129.139 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Er... seems you might want to consider rephrasing that. Maybe concentrate on your wording choice. Cheers. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Adding strength numbers to the infobox?

This article gives numbers for the total amount of men mobilized in the war.

https://www.military-history.org/behind-the-image/behind-the-image-number-of-people-mobilised-in-world-war-ii.htm

Total axis mobilized: 40.5 million Total allied mobilized: 86.7 million

Should we use the "strength" parameter in the World War II infobox and add this information? Koopinator (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

What makes this a reliable source? It looks like a promo for a book. It seems unlikely that there are universally agreed figures for the numbers of people involved on each side - for instance, the huge Chinese army was shambolic, the German military press ganged anyone it could get its hands on in 1945 as its administrative system collapsed and the Japanese military destroyed much of its records at the end of the war which makes it hard to track its size and casualties. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Lets also not forget some nations changed sides. Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2023

it is to inform you that after hitler there were three chancellor of germany and usa joined later Shimul biswas69456 (talk) 10:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

UNsure where you think we need to say this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

please let me edit i saw somthing wrong Reheheheheeheheh (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Tell us what it is and we will do it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Why?

Why shouldn't you use templates? Parham wiki (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

This is rather vague, expand? TylerBurden (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean my comment? Parham wiki (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well I responded to it, so yes, what templates are you talking about? TylerBurden (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 †   # Parham wiki (talk) 21:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

@TylerBurden: Parham wiki (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

@Parham wiki Do you mean for the infobox? I believe such content is generally considered decorative rather than useful, WP:INFOBOXSTYLE has some information on it. TylerBurden (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Thank Parham wiki (talk) 09:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Japanese civilian deaths.

The estimate of Japanese civilian deaths seems low at 550,000… The US burned 100,000 in one night of fire bombing of Tokyo. Plus the direct deaths from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are right around 80,000 not including those that would die in the days, weeks, months and years to come. Also close to 15,000 civilian deaths on Saipan… With all the other fire bombings I would have anticipated at least 1 million Japanese civilian deaths. 2601:800:8200:3810:6D75:93A:FE4A:E476 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

If you can supply a reliable source for a higher estimate then it can be considered for the article. We need to rely on the consensus of reliable sources, not the figure we anticipate. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

"that lasted" vs. "lasting"

@GreatPersonLikeMe and TylerBurden: You seem to have an edit war over whether the opening sentence should be, "World War II ... was a global conflict lasting from ..." or "World War II ... was a global conflict that lasted from ...".

I don't see the difference in wording. Both seem fine to me. I hope you will forgive me for saying that I think you both could make more valuable contributions focusing on other things. Wikipedia needs your positive energy. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree this is largely pointless, but "that lasted" has been long standing and it's not something that needs to be changed. Therefore I'm reverting the change because such subjective edits should be discouraged, especially on an article with hundreds if not thousands of watchers such as this. I do not see why this change is worth trying to brute force through with bogus claims about the MOS. TylerBurden (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposition to add picture depicting the Invasion of Poland to the infobox

Hello everyone. I was wondering if we maybe should include a photography from the Invasion of Poland, ammong the pictures in the infobox. My arguments are: 1. The ealiest photography in the current line up comes from 1942, which means that the first three years of the war are completly ommited. 2. The war had begun with the Invasion of Poland. There are a few pictures depicting the end of the war, maybe there also should be one depicting its begging I am interested in hearing everyone thoughts on this topic. And I understand that picking 6 pictures to condense this enourmos topic, that is arguably the most important war in human history, can't be an easy task. Non the less, I wanted to try bring this idea to everyone's attention. Lastly, thank you for your time, and have a nice day everyone :) Artemis Andromeda (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a particular photo in mind? Nick-D (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Polish victim of German Luftwaffe action 1939

I suggest this one. Yes, we have discussed this before, but to reiterate:
It is an early event in the war
It demonstrates the impact of war on civilians
It is an iconic photo from WW2. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

How about this one, of Poland invading Czechoslovakia in 1938?

Polish Army capturing Zaolzie in 1938

Meroitte (talk) 07:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Another option is the bombing of Warsaw in 1939

  

  Suggestion by K.e.coffman (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  , and replace the dive bomber image, or the nondescript El Alamein image mostly featuring spent shells.

In general, the photo selection in the infobox focuses too much on military hardware and battlefield action, ignoring the fact that the civilian to military death ratio is estimated to be 2:1 to 3:2. --K.e.coffman (talk) 07:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I was originally thinking about maybe File:Schleswig Holstein firing Westerplatte September 1939.jpg, a picture depicting ship Schleswig Holstein firing at Polish positions in Westerplatte, which was the battle that begun the conflict. Alternatively, I thought about adding a picture depicting Polsih soldiers during the conflict. But I also like the proposition with the picture depicting a boy ammong ruins of Warsaw, and the argument about the civilian casualties etc. About which picture to replace. I personally think either picture from El Alamein, as it just depicts a cannon and shels an not any significant momentfrom that battle. Since we are on the topic, I also think that current picture from Stalingrad does not really adds much, as it's just a picture of soldiers running, and arguably, it is of worse quality than other pictures here. However, because of how important that battle was, I would argue that it should be replaced with a better picture from that battle. Additionally, somebody mentioned removing picture with the bomber dive. I personally bellive that some picture depicting aerial conflict should stay, as it was really important part of the war. However, maybe we should pick more minigful picture, perhaps from more important aerial battle, like Battle of England. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the bombing of Warsaw image may be a better fit with the current layout -- vs the aftermath of the air raid from ThoughtIdRetired, which is also a good fit thematically -- since the former is in the landscape format. I am not sure we need another image for the air battles; the bombing of Warsaw is the flip side of the Stuka image, as it show the perspective of those on the receiving end of the air war. --K.e.coffman (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

As an argument in favour of the Julien Bryan photo of the girl kneeling over the body of her dead sister, this article, in the lead, says
...estimated 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians (bold added)
None of the other six photos currently chosen illustrate this headline statistic about WW2. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Update Stalingrad image?

In re: comment above on the Stalingrad battle, I tend to agree. This may be a better option: File:Фонтан «Детский хоровод».jpg.

Aftermath of the battle

It's an iconic WWII photo and is currently being used as the infobox image in the Battle of Stalingrad article.

A more drastic change would be to go with an altogether different image from the German-Soviet war: File:RIAN archive 543 A battalion commander.jpg.

Kombat (photograph), c. 1942

It's even better known than the Stalingrad photo, and has its own article: Kombat (photograph). --K.e.coffman (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Some general principles?

The discussion on the infobox pictures may require some general principles to be considered. I suggest that, given we have just 6 photos to play with, we need a check list of what we want to cover – accepting that this may not be possible in so few pictures.

My own checklist would be (remembering that we need to keep each list as short as possible):

1. Representation of the major participants of the war. I think that has to be: Nazi Germany, British/British Empire, USSR, USA, Japan.
2. Time span of the war. Of the 6 years, is there an excessive concentration on any one year?
3. War in the air, at sea and on land
4. Major zones of conflict: Europe/Russia, Middle East, Far East/Pacific
5. Impact of war – on people, cities, technology, etc.
6. Quality of picture – for instance would the picture editor of a quality pictorial newspaper have selected this picture?

My scoring of the existing infobox selection is, by picture

• Stuka photo: 1 Nazi Germany. 2 could be any date, but actually 1943. 3 Air war. 4 Europe/Russia, but not obviously so. 5 Nil. 6 Not outstanding.
• 25 pounder gun: 1: British/British Empire. 2: 1942, but represents fighting from 13 Sep 1940 to May 1943. 3: Ground war. 4: Middle East. 5: Nothing obvious. 5: Not outstanding.
• Nagasaki atom bomb mushroom cloud 1: USA and Japan. 2: 1945 and representing the end of the war. 3: Air war. 4: Far east/Pacific. 5: A new military technology which was of major concern through the cold war and into current times. 6: Photo is definitely striking, possibly iconic.
• US Navy battleships: 1:USA. 2:1945. 3: War at sea. 4: Far East/Pacific. 5: Shows an obsolescent technology – wouldn't an aircraft carrier be more relevant? 6: Photographically good, but does it meet a picture editor's requirements for relevance?
• Flag over Reichstag: 1: USSR and Nazi Germany. 2: 1945 and a pivotal moment in the ending of the war in Europe 3: Land war 4: Europe/Russia. 5: Possibly suggests the establishment of the Soviet zone of influence and the subsequent cold war? 6: A well known photo that probably qualifies as iconic.
• Battle of Stalingrad: 1: USSR and Nazi Germany. 2: 1942. 3: Land war. 4: Europe/Russia. 5: Urban destruction? 6: Not particularly striking.

So currently we have:

1. Germany 3, USSR 2, USA 2, Britain 1, Japan 1
2. 1945 3, 1942 2, 1943 1 (but that date is not obvious)
3. Ground war 3, air war 2, sea 1
4. Europe/Russia 3, Far East/Pacific 2, Middle East 1
5. Perhaps 3 or 2.5 with relevance - all in terms of technology/future impact of conflict
6. 2 that could be considered iconic. One probably lacks relevance.

My own conclusions on this:
(a) this selection does reasonably well on the scoring system
(b) But all photos are from the second half of the war
(c) Bearing in mind the iconic nature of some photos of WW2, we seem to be light on pictures of that striking quality.

To strike a partisan note, the picture of the Polish girl kneeling over the body of her sister would gain points on: being in 1939, showing the impact of war on civilians and being an iconic photo of WW2. It is also relevant to the air war, and you could even, at a stretch, label it as a war crime in that it involved the deliberate targeting of civilians at a point when the concept of total war had not been accepted.

The battleships photo seems to need replacement. The only battleship to battleship action happened in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean and even there, aircraft showed the obsolescence of the type. Surely there is a striking picture out there of an aircraft carrier, perhaps landing on battle-damaged aircraft, or being struck by a kamikaze aircraft. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the battleship image is out of place. An image of a carrier, or of a destroyer escort or liberty ship, which were also large naval craft peculiar to that war, would be more appropriate. I don't see the images being offered above as suitable replacements for the those in the current montage. The images of civilian suffering don't show anything particularly specific to that war, and several of the infobox images imply such suffering, such as those of the atomic bomb, Stuka dive bombers, raising the Soviet flag over Berlin, and the Stalingrad photo, which I think implies that suffering, as well as the troops in winter gear demonstrating the range of conditions under which the war was fought. By the shell casings, the image of the desert artillery implies the enormous logistical requirements of that war. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

The battleship image is one of the most famous photos of warships in World War II though. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Is the battleship photo famous because it shows the closing days of battleship relevance? As far as I am aware, none of these battleships engaged in the type of battleship to battleship action for which they were designed. (There were other battleships in WW2 that arguably did.) To be a bit of a wiki-lawyer, do you have a source that says it is "one of the most famous photos of warships in World War II"?
There is not a single photo of an aircraft carrier in the whole article. Bearing in mind the significance of this type of vessel, that seems to be a huge omission. Everything from Malta convoys, the Battle of Midway (and much of the Pacific War) and suppression of U-boats had carriers integral to the operations.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:36, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

There is (kind of) an image of Lexington (carrier) at the start of the "Allies gain momentum (1943–1944)" section. Very hazy on the horizon. But next to the infobox image and some landing crafts that is the only other photo of a ship altogether (and no photos on sub warfare and Atlantic convoying a critical lifeline during the battle of Britain).

Coming back to your argument - I agree that WWII was the end of battleship doctrine in favour of carriers, but as far as I know battleships were considered the major ships at the start of the war. Also for the infobox you would like to have an image that has strong visual appeal and carriers do to their flat top make less impressive images in my view. So in my view the battleship is not that bad. Arnoutf (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

• 
  USS Enterprise (CV-6) hit by kamikaze on 21 May 1945 (80-G-323565)
• 
  USS Saratoga Kamikaze hit 21 February 1945
• 
  Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945
• 
  USS Bunker Hill hit by two Kamikazes
• 
  Burning Grumman F6F-3 Hellcat of VF-2 aboard USS Enterprise (CV-6) on 10 November 1943 (80-G-205473)

A half hour's work finding pictures of carriers on Commons. Involvement in warfare is a bit more obvious in most, unlike the battleship photo, which could be a peacetime review. The crashed Hellcat would score on being in an earlier year of the war (1943), as we are a bit over-represented on 1945. A bit more work might find something better.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Here is an image showing several carriers, including USS Essex and USS Enterprise, in less vulnerable conditions, and it has higher resolution versions (although not very sharp). Dhtwiki (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted, but whilst I appreciate that for many who served in WW2, their experience was long periods of boredom interspersed with intense fear, isn't this a picture of military kit not doing anything? What I had hoped to find was a good picture of an aircraft landing on a carrier, but without success so far. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Those images aren't very representative as they depict the occasional Japanese successes against the US Navy during 1945. The US Navy was operating with great effectiveness against the Japanese home islands by this stage of the war. Something like File:Murderers row at Ulithi Atoll - US Third fleet carriers at anchor on 8 December 1944 (80-G-294131).jpg is more representative, and helps illustrate why the Allies won the war at sea. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Hence my hope of finding a good picture of, say, an aircraft landing on or taking off from a carrier. Note, however, that of the early aircraft carriers, 1 of 2 Lexington class carriers was sunk, 2 out of 3 of the Yorktown class were sunk; also HMS Courageous, Glorious, Eagle, Hermes, Ark Royal were all lost in action. (I am sure this list in incomplete. Perhaps an expert could tot up the percentage of WW2 carriers that were lost out of those that saw significant action.) The loss of aircraft and crew was also high.
Even the winners of a war take losses, sometimes at a high level. Implying the victors as being without loss is a trivialisation (and particularly painful to generations of war widows). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Carriers lost (all types) in WW2, according to List of sunken aircraft carriers: Japan 22, USA 12, Britain 8. Working out how many were exposed to significant combat risk (as opposed to being used for training or as aircraft ferries, etc.) is a bit more complicated. So total Allied carrier losses very close to Axis carrier losses? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D's image is the one I was thinking of when I found the one I put above. I think it's somewhat mislabeled, as all five carriers on the right seem to have the same dazzle-paint camouflage. But that's about as famous a naval image as there is. Even better would be one that better shows the American tactic strategy of forward, if not underway, replenishment that allowed American forces to operate at a faster pace than the Japanese. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (edited 22:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC))

Just to add some argument in favour of the picture of the crashed Hellcat, take a look at this narrative[10] (which I am not suggesting is necessarily an RS). What I take from the account is (a) the crash is not the result of combat (b) the pilot "was quick to point out that these types of incidents happened all the time". This illustrates the dangers of carrier flying in WW2. Then add to this that the picture illustrates an act of undoubted bravery for which a medal was awarded - doesn't this measure up well against other picture candidates? What is the purpose of pictures in this article: to show pieces of military equipment, or to illustrate some of the intense moments that affected people during WW2? Whilst this picture is mostly the latter, it also does also show a successful aircraft and a key aircraft type (admittedly, not the Hellcat's best moment, but many were lost this way.) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

That photo might be representative of danger faced or heroics in response, but it's not a good image from the standpoint of showing just what was going on. For example, the man beside the plane turns out to be climbing up to help the pilot out, not the pilot himself getting out. And, if it were representative of carrier operations in general, the war would have turned out differently. The strongest image is of the listing Franklin, although that image doesn't show how that ship came to be that way. The images of the kamikaze attacks are representative of an innovative tactic of the war, but they are either indistinct or merely show the aftermath of an attack. Dhtwiki (talk) 01:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Fortifications etc

Hello, please record the fortifications and strength in the article based on the statistics I have obtained:

*Axis*

Total Axis:31,000,000

Germany:18,000,000

Japan:8,000,000

Italy=5,000,000

*Allied*

Total Allied:71,000,000

America:16,000,000

Britain:6,000,000

Seviet Union:35,000,000

China:14,000,000

Germany Poul Ah (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I went through related articles on Wikipedia that are related to World War II

(such as the Pacific War and the European Theater of World War II) I collected Germany Poul Ah (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Please read wp:or, and Wikipedia is not an wp:rs. Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

And beside which these figures are also wrong, over 16,000,000 Americans served in ww2 (according to this Military history of the United States during World War II according to your source. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

@Slatersteven I just don't know how many soldiers there were in the British army in the war?! Germany Poul Ah (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Nor (until I told you) how many Americans, as you have now altred your OP .With this admission we can close this. We go by what RS say, not what you think. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

ok men.what is RS? Germany Poul Ah (talk) 05:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

RS means reliable source. Under policy another Wikipedia article isn’t a reliable source for a different Wikipedia article. The policy is explained here. If you want to detail the military strength of the various combatants you will have to find some reliable sources. It’s likely the sources will differ so you will need to provide ranged estimates and then discuss them here and seek a consensus before they are included in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023

Maybe the Great Depression 212.82.84.162 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

What about it, what edit do you want made? Slatersteven (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Which causes of death were deliberate?

It says, "Many of the civilians died because of deliberate genocide, massacres, mass bombings, disease, and starvation." Does this mean that all of those five causes of death were deliberate? Or just the genocide? Or perhaps, and this seems the most likely interpretation of the existing text, all except disease and starvation? If the latter, I propose changing it to "Some of the civilians died because of disease and starvation, while many others died of deliberate genocide, massacres, and mass bombings." Polar Apposite (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence because it doesn't mean anything and is unsourced. All genocides are deliberate by definition. And "many died" begs the question of "how many". Presumably the civilian deaths discussed in the article include those who died in fighting and bombings and deliberate starvation but the article doesn't actually make this explicit. Nor do I see how one can separate "deliberate starvation" from starvation caused by disruption of agriculture and other food supplies. My guess is that some authors also include those who died by disease but some don't. However, this needs to be made clear in the discussion of the figures. The only scientific way of determining total civilian deaths would be by demographic analysis of total excess deaths then subtracting known military deaths. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II

Template:Editnotices/Page/World War II has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. 65.92.244.127 (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Italian Forces in the Med and in the Middle East and the Balkans

For Matija Grabnar, in case if you see this. Italy was the main Axis power in The Mediterranean and Middle East Theatre of World War II.Images about Italian forces should also be there . The Deutches Afrika Korps was just a contingent to support the Italian War Effort after the defeat at Operation Compass. For Tylerburden . The Axis Invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece was directly German And Italian Forces , they even had the Hungarian support for the invasion, but with the exception of the invasion of Greece because no Hungarian forces participated in it . Look kindly at the page of Invasion of Yugoslavia and German invasion of Greece. Regards from Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Due to Italy's failures in Africa, the Afrika Korps ended up being quite a bit more than just a contingent, and actively took place in notable fighting. It therefore doesn't seem necessary to change the image since it appears to have been in use for some time now. TylerBurden (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes indeed the DAK was noted for its notable fighting with Rommel. But The DAK had to rely on newly arrived Italian units because Most of Axis Troops in Libya were Italian. Rommel used the Italian troops as spearhead of the attack while the DAK will support the attack against the British and other Commonwealth forces in Cyrenaica with the example of this like Operation Sonnenblume. Regards from Jheeeeeeteegh (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

I just have to correct one thing on the side bar of this page. please give me your permission 2600:1700:3680:8B70:686B:249D:2E6D:DBB2 (talk) 21:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2023 (UTC)