Talk:World War II/Archive 65

Archive 60

←

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

Commanders and leaders

I've been thinking that Hideki Tojo should be listed as the Axis leader of Japan instead of Hirohito. Winston Churchill and Benito Mussolini, both prime ministers of the other two constitutional monarchies involved, are in the commanders section so Hirohito seems like an odd one out. From what I recall Hirohito was a figurehead who spent much of his time in his laboratory studying marine biology, while Tojo handled all military and political matters, planning much of Japan's military campaigns during the war. I do know that Hirohito had some considerable influence in Japanese politics of the time, pressing for and announcing Japan's surrender, and the Imperial Japanese forces fought in his honor. However, the British fought in King George VI's honor, yet Winston Churchill is still listed as the main Allied leader of the UK. In much Allied propaganda from the war, Tojo was portrayed alongside Hitler and Mussolini as the Axis leader of Japan much more commonly than Hirohito was, and was mentioned more often in speeches, newspaper articles, etc. as the man behind Japan's aggression and military expansion. In addition Tojo was executed shortly after the war while Hirohito stayed on the throne until his death. I know this is a highly important article so I thought I would try and get consensus for this before making what would probably be considered a major edit. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

The whole idea, given the sheer size of this conflict, makes no sense. who do we define as a commander, head of state, PM CinC, theater commanders? Which nations only the big three, all? Might be best to leave it out. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, once again I'll axplain my view on this topic: There are more and more historians who consider that Hirohito was in no way a figurehead.

Three examples:

• Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Portland State University, writes in his book The People’s Emperor: Democracy and the Japanese Monarchy, 1945-1995 (2001, p.127) that "If 'war responsibility' means participating in the policymaking process that led to the commencement and prosecution of an aggressive war (for many Japanese, the key issue was the responsibility for defeat, not complicity in an aggressive war), then there is growing evidence that Emperor Hirohito played a considerable role in this area".
• Peter Wetzler writes in his recent book Imperial Japan and Defeat in the Second World War: The Collapse of an Empire (2020, p.175) that "During the Tokyo War Crimes Trials the testimony offered by Tôjô Hideki, and gladly accepted by US officials, succeeded in exonerating the Shôwa Emperor of war guilt. The debate, however, about Hirohito's participation in political and military affairs during the Second World War -whether or not (at first) and to what extent (later)- still continues. It will animate authors for years to come. Now most historians acknowledge that the Emperor was deeply involved, like all nation-state leaders at that time."
• Takahisa Furukawa, expert on wartime history from Nihon University, described Hideki Tojo with this words: "Tojo is a bureaucrat who was incapable of making own decisions, so he turned to the Emperor as his supervisor. That's why he had to report everything for the Emperor to decide. If the Emperor didn't say no, then he would proceed." We can see it in this article.

The unsettled controversy among the historians regarding Hirohito's role in the war means that ignoring the emperor to name his prime minister between 1941 and 1944 as the sole leader would deviate from neutrality to clearly side with Hirohito's apologists. It could be discussed whether the old consensus (naming only the leader who remained throughout the war, that is, Hirohito) is sufficient, or whether Tojo should be named along with Hirohito, but never replacing him.

And this essentially sums up my point of view. This issue has been discussed many times before, but I have no problem explaining how I see it as many times as required.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In terms of Wetzler's quote, if Hirohito was deeply involved "like all nation-state leaders", wouldn't that imply that George VI and Victor Emmanuel, who were both Heads of State of their respective countries, were deeply involved in the war as well?

Furthermore, I feel as if the counterargument that Tojo wasn't PM for the entire war kind of falls flat. Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler and Mussolini didn't lead their country for the war's entirety either and yet they are still listed. Furthermore you say that Hirohito appointed Tojo, yet Churchill and Mussolini were also appointed by monarchs, hell even Hitler was appointed by Paul von Hindenburg.

Also I'm not sure if this would be relevant to the discussion but in terms of Furukawa's quote, should contemporary Japanese sources be considered reliable? Japan has a history of covering up their war crimes so I wouldn't fully trust their views on the war. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 04:44, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Wetzler's quote implies nothing regarding George VI or Victor Emmanuel since he makes no explicit comparison with them. Rather, it can be deduced that it refers to effective leaders of each nation, whether they are monarchs or not. To persist in affirming that Hirohito is the same as George VI or Victor Emmanuel III without distinction, when it is a fact that there is a growing number of historians who question it, is as sterile as insisting on citing Theobald von Bethmann Holweg instead of Wilhelm II in World War I under the same argument. Wetzler mentions "The debate about Hirohito's participation in political and military affairs during the Second World War -whether or not (at first) and to what extent (later)-": Is there any debate among historians about George VI's or Victor Emmanuel III's participation in political and military affairs during the Second World War? As far as I know, no. This marks a very significant difference with respect to Hirohito's case, enough so that it cannot be dismissed as an equal to the British and Italian cases.
• I have not based my position on how long Tojo was PM during the war (the dates are indicative only). What I have said is that there is controversy among historians about the exact extent of the emperor's involvement in wartime decisions and that it would not be neutral to ignore this fact by citing only one of his prime ministers, omitting him.
• Your argument on Takahisa Furukawa doesn't hold up. In his quoted sentence, he is analyzing a memorandum from Vice Minister Yuzawa from 1941. In that memorandum, as we read in the data collected in the indicated link, we only find descriptions of events on the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Nothing that can be considered a "cover-up" of any war crime. It is the modern historian Furukawa who describes Tojo's role in light of the facts that the documents of the time indicate, it is not Yuzawa who verbatim gives that description of the Prime Minister. It is a conclusion of the historian, not a "cover-up" by the vice minister of the time. In short, your argument on Furukawa's description is not valid.

So I must reiterate my position: I'm open to discussing whether or not it would be appropriate to cite Tojo alongside Hirohito, but I must definitely say no to replacing the latter with the former.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 08:00, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

You might want to read up about the Kyūjō incident, in which a group of Japanese generals attempted to overthrow the Emperor. Thus proving that the not all of the Japanese military leadership blindly followed the Emperor. Furthermore Tojo was a dictator who seized power like Hitler and Mussolini did, Hirohito was a monarch who inherited the position.

As for your own suggestion on whether to add Tojo as well. I'm wondering if the commanders and leaders section could be expanded to include more heads of state, heads of government, military officials, etc., but there were a lot of them and it might make the section ridiculously long. I am wondering if Charles de Gaulle could be added on the allied side. HawkNightingale175 (talk) 00:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think there are some errors in your answer.

• First, the Kyūjō incident was not carried out by "a group of Japanese generals", since the highest-ranking person involved was a major. Rather it was "a group of Japanese officers", who were precisely repressed by the generals and the bulk of the army. In any case, this event indicates absolutely nothing regarding the Japanese leadership during the war, in the same way as the 20 July plot, no matter how much it proved that not all of the German military leadership blindly followed Hitler, doesn't mean that he did not lead Germany at that time.
• Second, Tojo never "seized" power. After Konoe's resignation in October 1941, Hirohito refused to appoint Prince Higashikuni in his place (against the recommendation of his advisors) and decided to appoint Tojo instead. To say that he "seized power", as if he had come to his position through some movement of his own, or even more so, as if he had carried out a coup d'état, is evidently incorrect.
• Third, to be a monarch who inherited his position is not incompatible with exercising leadership in a nation: Wilhelm II in World War I Germany or Boris III in World War II Bulgaria exercised leadership in their nations at those times.
• Fourth, although it is very common to popularly consider Tojo as a kind of "dictator", and he is often generically described as "dictatorial", in fact that is not correct since he never had true dictatorial power. Sir Max Hastings, in his book Retribution: The Battle for Japan, 1944-45 (pp. 38-39) calls Tojo "a supposed dictator" and adds that he had much less authority in militarist Japan than Churchill had in democratic Britain. A good example of this took place in 1942, when a Japanese military court sentenced eight pilots from Doolittle's squadron to death. The head of the Army Staff, General Sugiyama, insisted on carrying out the sentences, while Prime Minister Tojo wanted to keep the prisoners alive to avoid reprisals against Japanese captives in the United States. Neither of them had the authority to prevail over the other and it was Hirohito who had to decide, choosing to commute five of the death sentences and give the green light to the execution of the other three, as was carried out. Striking situation for a "dictator". In Wikipedia, "dictator" appears in Hideki Tojo, only in a negative sense, and attributed: The American historian Herbert Bix wrote that Tojo was a "dictator" only in the narrow sense that from September 1942 on, he was generally able to impose his will on the Cabinet without seeking a consensus, but at same time noted that Tojo's power was based upon support from the Emperor, who held the ultimate powers.

Of course, the question of the exact extent of Emperor Hirohito's power and involvement remains an open controversy, and for the same reason so does the Japanese wartime leadership itself. Two positions on this matter can be shown: the one that attributes effective leadership to Hirohito and the one that attributes it to a "military clique", which can be represented, for example, by Tojo. But I repeat again that it would not be neutral to omit the position that attributes leadership to the emperor to show only the other.

On my opinion on Japanese political system during World War II, I believe that the Empire of Japan was not a "dictatorship", at least as it is understood in the West. It was certainly not a democratic regime, but it was more like an oligarchy coordinated by the emperor. Minoru Genda explained that ... "the whole organization was split into three -that is, the Navy, the Army, and what is known as the government- and the only one who could coordinate the three was the emperor." We can find this in Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, by Leon V. Sigal, published by Cornell University Press in 1988, p. 74. My personal point of view is closer to that held by Professor Herbert P. Bix, who states that ... although the emperor was more akin to an absolute rather than a constitutional monarch, he was not by nature a combative man eager to start wars. Neither was he a dictator or a Western-style wielder of despotic power like Hitler or Mussolini. Hirohito operated within a bureaucratic monarchy protected by his Meiji Constitution, and advised by his palace entourage or "court group." Not until the late 1930s did Hirohito become a real war leader, actually exercising his constitutional prerogatives of supreme command. So I repeat: my point of view is that the Japanese Empire was an oligarchy coordinated by its emperor rather than a "dictatorship" in Hitler's or Mussolini's model.

Regarding thesis of Hirohito's effective leadership, you can read these two articles, as an example:

• 5 Myths About Emperor Hirohito by historian Francis Pike.
• Hirohito: String Puller, Not Puppet by historian Herbert P. Bix.

Let us remember that, as I previously pointed out, Kenneth J. Ruoff, Director of the Center for Japanese Studies at Portland State University, writes in his book The People’s Emperor: Democracy and the Japanese Monarchy, 1945-1995 (2001, p.127) that "If 'war responsibility' means participating in the policymaking process that led to the commencement and prosecution of an aggressive war (for many Japanese, the key issue was the responsibility for defeat, not complicity in an aggressive war), then there is growing evidence that Emperor Hirohito played a considerable role in this area". When someone shows me a similar statement from any historian about the role of monarchs with less real power (like George VI or Victor Emmanuel III), then I will see some similarity between them and Emperor Hirohito during the war, but in the meantime, I reaffirm that they seem like very different cases from each other.

Another example:

Butler, Daniel Allen (October 30, 2020). Pearl: December 7, 1941. Casemate. p. 20. ISBN 978-1612009384. Retrieved December 13, 2022.; the supporting text here is ... the emperor was not only aware and informed of Japan's affairs, domestic and international, but took an active, if not always highly visible, part in them. The idea of a "Showa Restoration" - stripping the Diet, prime minister, and Cabinet of any effective power, reducing them to mere functionaries, in the process making the emperor an absolute monarch - reveals the presence of a more forceful personality willing to actually exercise his imperial power than would be expected of a detached, isolated monarch.

For all these reasons, I maintain that mention of Hirohito in the Japanese leadership is essential, regardless of whether or not it is considered necessary to add a mention of Tojo.

Finally, regarding the addition of Charles de Gaulle on the Allied side, I am not opposed, in fact I see it as very reasonable. Only, first we have to see what precedents there are in the discussion of the possible inclusion of him and if it is possible to reconsider it.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

There have been lots of discussions of de Gaulle here previously, and the consensus has always been to exclude him per the sources. Free France was not a major military power until the final months of the war and de Gaulle was a somewhat marginal figure in directing the Allied war effort - he wasn't even told about the Normandy invasion until a few days before it occured, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

OK. Nothing to object to what has already been discussed before. What came out of the previous discussions is what has to be applied when there is no new data to add.Ulises Laertíada (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Add Stalin as Axis Leader

Joseph Stalin was an Axis leader and needs to be acknowledged as such. He was, with Hitler, a main initiator of the war.

Acknowledgement of his leadership of a Soviet state "Allied" with other Allied nations should also remain.

His name should be on both sides of the ledger. 148.75.168.181 (talk) 20:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That's been proposed here a few times in the past, and the consensus has always been to not make this change, per what the sources say. Nick-D (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2023

Fourbigguys4545 (talk) 17:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC) Make its date 2300 to 2400

Unless your request is a lot more specific (with sources) it cannot be actioned. Britmax (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

You forget Bulgaria

Why you don't add Bulgaria 94.158.27.231 (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Because it is already there. Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Names World War I and World War II

It is known that until the outbreak of World War II, the first war was called the Great War. It would be interesting to determine the date when the name World War II was first used in the media and when the name was changed from The Great War to World War I. Who and when? Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 11:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The First World War was called the Great War in the British Empire even before it began but in the United States and Germany it was called the "World War" (Weltkrieg). Winston Churchill used the American term in his 1927 memoir, and he popularised the name "Second World War" in his books and made it official. This retrospectively made the Great War the "First World War". Franklin Roosevelt adopted the British term. The term "World War II" was used in the United States before the war to refer to the upcoming conflict, and was in use from 1939 on. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello

Do you think adding this image is a good idea: Emperor Haile Selassie I with President FDR.jpg, if so which section of the page? CtasACT (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how it's relevant. Ethiopia wasn't a significant contributor to the war, and this 1945 meeting (which seems to have been part of the series of meetings with the heads of national governments FDR had in Egypt on his way home from Yalta) isn't mentioned in the article. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The reason why i asked is because the date seems to be before the war ended in 1945, and as you mentioned it was meetings in Yalta) But could it possibly be mentioned to be added as an aftermath? Just a question i raise. CtasACT (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Since the war already ended in some parts, it could be noted this was an aftermath for a part of World War II? CtasACT (talk) 03:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove Chiang Kai Shek from ‘main allied leaders’

He should be removed as the allied ‘Big Three’ consisted of the US, USSR and UK. China does not qualify for a ‘main participant’ alongside the big three. AjunaJ1212 (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussions of this, with the current structure of the infobox reflecting their result. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I believe that the only allied leaders shown on the infobox, for the sake of uniformity and neatness should be the big three: the US, USSR and UK, which is the most widely accepted representation of the primary allied powers. If Kai-Shek is on the infobox, what stops people from adding other leaders such as De Gaulle? If the axis leaders shown are the leaders of the tripartite pact, the allied leaders should be that of the big three. AjunaJ1212 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times, and the infobox reflects the consensus of these discussions. When people add/change the leaders in the infobox, they are swiftly reverted per the longstanding consensus on what to include. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Dot (Bullet) Points

@Quetstar: At Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history#INFOBOX: The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions (see also template documentation for the result parameter but this is essentially the same). At Template:Infobox military conflict: this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE: Each infobox type should have documentation giving instruction on how each part/field may be used. The template documentation for the result parameter makes it clear that the parameter is for who won and not for ancillary information consequential on who won (or didn't). Multiple dot points are usually used to show such ancillary information. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Adding such additional ancillary information is arguably writing the article in the infobox and contrary to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. The infobox is an adjunct to the lead. Such detail, if sufficiently key should be written into the lead, since such points are more prose like than single words or simple phrase. The infobox is unsuited to nuance and more complex detail usually represented by dot-point, where they do occur. Parham wiki (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that limiting this to "Allied victory" is a good idea, given that it's difficult to decide what of the many consequences of the war should be highlighted here. Some of the content in the infobox was not necessarily a result of the war - for instance, historians of empire often note that the war hastened the end of the European empires rather than sparked this (it had become clear to much of the British ruling class during the 1920s and 1930s that holding India was a net negative, for instance, and the independence movement there was very strong before the war). A slightly different option here would be for the text in the infobox to say "Allied victory" with a line below it saying "See Aftermath section", or similar, given that the results of the war were very complex, with modern historians emphasising this complexity. Nick-D (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this approach, it is the purpose of the article body to go in depth on details, not the infobox. A link to the relevant section could be a good compromise solution as well. TylerBurden (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Structure suggestions

I asked ChatGPT 4 to produce an outline

Detailed outline collapsed

User: Write a detailed outline for a Wikipedia article on World War 2 == Introduction == * Brief overview of World War II * Key facts (duration, participating countries, outcome) * Global significance and impact == Background and Causes == * Treaty of Versailles and post-World War I conditions * Rise of fascism and totalitarian regimes in Germany, Italy, and Japan * Failures of the League of Nations * Immediate causes: German expansion and invasion of Poland == Major Participants == * The Allied Powers: key countries and leaders * The Axis Powers: key countries and leaders * Neutral countries and their roles == Chronology of the War == * Early stages of the war (1939-1941) - Invasion of Poland - War spreads to Western Europe * Global expansion (1941-1943) - Eastern Front: German invasion of the Soviet Union - Pacific War: Japanese expansion and the U.S. entry after Pearl Harbor * Turning points (1943-1944) - Battle of Stalingrad - D-Day and the liberation of Western Europe * Final stages (1944-1945) - German retreat and fall of Berlin - Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Japanese surrender == Major Battles and Campaigns == * European Theater: Key battles and campaigns * Pacific Theater: Key battles and campaigns * North African and Middle Eastern Campaigns * Air warfare and strategic bombing == Holocaust and War Crimes == * The Holocaust: overview and impact * Japanese war crimes in Asia * Nuremberg and Tokyo Trials == Home Fronts and Civilian Impact == * Economic and industrial mobilization * Role of women and minorities in the war effort * Civilian suffering and displacement == Technological and Scientific Developments == * Advancements in weaponry and military technology * The Manhattan Project and the development of nuclear weapons * Medical advancements and their impact == War Diplomacy and International Relations == * Major conferences (e.g., Tehran, Yalta, Potsdam) * Formation of alliances and shifts in global power * Role of intelligence and espionage == Aftermath and Consequences == * Immediate post-war situation in Europe and Asia * Establishment of the United Nations * Cold War and the division of Europe * Long-term geopolitical and cultural impacts == Cultural and Historical Legacy == * War memorials and commemoration * Impact on literature, film, and art * Ongoing historical debates and research == References == * Source materials and bibliography

Bot structure:

• Background and causes
• Major participants
• Chronology of the War
• Major battles and campaigns
• Holocaust and War Crimes
• Home fronts and civilian impact
• Technological and Scientific Developments
• War Diplomacy and International Relations
• Aftermath and Consequences
• Cultural and Historical Legacy

Current structure:

• Start and end dates
• History
  • Background
  • Pre-war events
  • Course of the war
• Aftermath
• Impact
  • War crimes
  • Genocide
  • Occupation
  • Home fronts and production
  • Advances in technology

They're similar, partly because ChatGPT uses Wikipedia amongst other sources. But thought it might provide ideas. The word 'legacy' isn't currently used in the article at all, not even once? Tom B (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2023

i would like to change a grammer mistake. 196.50.198.189 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell us what it is, and we will change it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:57, 30 December 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. Parham wiki (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Nick-D casting aspersions

Nick-D faithfully standing guard over the WWII article and accusing other editors of and I quote: "revert disruptive edits made by an editor who should know a lot better". I made a couple of relevant edits, adding a map and an image + a couple minor text changes just slightly trimming an image caption, so how do you consider this "disruptive editing"? Also, I noticed that Nick-D who have been actively patrolling the WWII article for years did not object when in October of 2023 one editor removed a bunch of pictures. Care to explain why you did not react when 13 images were culled form the article (I would think this would have been disruptive), was this discussed somewhere? Consider yourself warned because making false accusations against other edits violates Wikipedia policy. E-960 (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Per my message on your talk page, you changed the ordering of the leaders in the infobox under an edit summary saying that you were only changing an image. As you know, this is a much debated topic here. This is disruptive and unhelpful editing. As you also know, edits making significant changes to the article like swapping lots of images around should also be discussed first. Nick-D (talk) 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I do recall there being endless arguments regarding Stalin and Roosevelt and who should be first. However, me trying the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle approach and putting Churchill first, in order to set up a more neutral list is hardly "disruptive". In really, putting Churchill first is the most neutral approach because he was the first of the Big Three leaders, and him being British does not get into the whole US/USSR dispute of who was more important. Btw, you could make the argument that I'm being disruptive if I actually started to edit war over the Leaders list, and not because one time I tried to propose a new approach. --E-960 (talk) 22:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you'd like to start yet another discussion of the ordering of the infobox to see if the consensus has changed, please do. Just don't make what you acknowledge is a contentious edit that reverts consensus, especially using a misleading editing summary. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The most recent consensus discussion I can find is from November 2022 listing Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt, "in chronological order" of their entry into WW II among those three. That discussion notes that Chaing Kai-chek does NOT belong in the infobox because of "the relatively small number of losses" his forces inflicted upon Japan.

I don't know how Chaing Kai-chek got added without me noticing it, but I just restored that previous order.

If you think that's not right, please explain. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

*throws hands up in air regarding the ordering: life is too short* (though I'd like to see an edit from the time implementing this supposed consensus). Regarding Chaing Kai-chek, that seems to be only your interpretation of that discussion (where it was your view at the time - you were the person arguing he should be excluded due to "the relatively small number of losses" China inflicted, so I'm not sure why you're attributing this to a general view). Chiang has long been included in the infobox (See the article as it stood a year ago for instance. If a chronological order was applied, why wasn't Chaing listed first? Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

We have wonderful WP:FAOWN here...great example for all.....have done a great job with the article for years. Dont kill yourself with the small stuff. Moxy- 05:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted to the status quo as the infobox has included Kai-shek for a lengthy period of time. These questions have been bouncing around for long enough that they would greatly benefit from a structured and well-advertised RfC. The freewheeling discussions appear to have been all over the place. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. How should such an RfC be structured and advertised? DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

DavidMCEddy, regarding the general content of the article, I'm surprised that an editor managed to cull the page of thirteen images (here:[1]) and no on caught that. I recall there were endless discussions about many of those pictures, and in one swipe they got removed. I think at lease some of them should be restored. --E-960 (talk) 07:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

wp:ANI is where you discus use conduct, not here. Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ed, to be honest the Leaders list is not a hill I'm willing to die on. Though, I did notice again that this dispute about who should be first (Staling or Roosevelt) keeps coming up. Here is a recent edit [2] of that. So, maybe it's time to take the neutral approach and list the names in this order, Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt; based on who was the allied leader the longest. I gave it a try, however this is not a topic that I care to go all in on. --E-960 (talk) 14:12, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Mannerheim Line

Soviet advance on the Finnish Mannerheim Line during the Winter War, March 1940

I think that this map of the Mannerheim Line should replace the current picture of Finnish troops during the Winter War. The Mannerheim Line is arguably the most famous historical takeaway from this campaign. As this defensive line along with the terrain allowed for the Finnish army to hold back the Soviet advance. E-960 (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

What caption do you propose? The one you included when this was added stating that it shows the Soviet march on the line was incorrect as it actually shows the situation at the end of the war after the main part of the line was breached. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the line did not hold back the Red Army indefinitely, and there was the equally famous "Mannerheim Moment" where Mannerheim conceded that Finland would need to enter into talks with the Soviets. However, the line along with the terrain prevented the Soviets from achieving larger aims and inflicted significant losses, which given the wider geopolitical situation, forced the Soviet leadership to agree to a settlement, which preserved most of Finland. I'll think about it a bit more and propose a caption. --E-960 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D, this would be my suggestion for the image caption. I just added it to the image thumb. --E-960 (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

That appears to be the same caption you posted in the article, and is factually incorrect as noted above (and also not in allignment with the Commons caption for the image, which notes it's the situation at the end of the war). Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Nick-D, quit being difficult, so what do you suggest in that case? Too bad you were not that attentive when someone took down 13 images with no good explanation, but here you are nitpicking every detail. If you say something is factually incorrect than explain what? In any case, now I used the exact same caption as in Wiki Commons. --E-960 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don't see how it's helpful to throw insults around, especially in a discussion of minor matters such as this. IMO the map isn't an improvement on the current image, not least as the caption is misleading. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

can you stop targeting nick D he isn't doing anything.

regardless, I think this isn't neccesary. File:WaRei.png WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me File:WaRei.png 19:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Caption order

The current ordering of captions in clockwise order doesn't make sense and is hard to follow. The WWI article's ordering is much more sensible. I think the captions should be arranged "left to right, top to bottom".

Note, I searched the archives and mainly found mentions from 2007. WP:CAPTION also does not seem to say anything on the matter. Opencooper (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Chinese theater infobox Photo

The infobox should have a photo from the chinese theater. It was a major theater and it deserves to have recognition in the photo collage. Yedaman54 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

37.222.96.160 (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC) world war 2 was the most deadly war in history with really dangerous arms such as atomic bombs, nuclear bombs, nuclear arms and a lot more!

SO what do you want us to add? Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2024 (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. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 16:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

New photo for the Sino-Japanese War

I think this photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Japanese_Special_Naval_Landing_Forces_in_Battle_of_Shanghai_1937.jpg would be better then the somewhat blurry image that is used at the moment (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shanghai1937IJA_ruins.jpg) Ruttoperuna (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Order of commanders and leaders

@ThunderGit: This order of commanders and leaders has been discussed many times, e.g., Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders. It cannot be changed without a discussion with other editors on this Talk page.

I appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but I suggest you focus on other issues. This issue has been discussed extensively for years. Accordingly, I feel compelled to revert your edit again. DavidMCEddy (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

To fix grammar. 66.206.114.194 (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You need to tell us what it is. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"The Greater War" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Greater War 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/2024 March 18 § The Greater War until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the lead sentence needs to be modified

Taking a look in World War I, we can clearly, no doubt, see that the introduction sentence does not conform the consistency as belongs to World War II, where World War I put the start and the end in full date format, and enclosed in brackets, but World War II says otherwise. Checking these for reference:
World War I or the First World War (28 July 1914 - 11 November 1918) was a global conflict fought between two coalitions....
But differently,
World War II or the Second World War was a global conflict that lasted from 1939 to 1945. The vast majority of the world's countries,.... Do you guys have any comment about this difference between two popular pages? 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:B50C:773B:1A40:16BA (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It seems OK. This article is in much better shape than the World War I article. Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem with either, really. No reason they have to be identical.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Jack Upland, @Nick-D, while both of you may find it appropriate and no changes need to be evaluated; however, identical lead statements make the two pages about two world wars looks seamless and consistent. Just small but make a huge leap! 2405:4802:64C7:BF70:20BF:895B:4915:B58A (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not a convincing reason. Slatersteven (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Missing Axis country

If you actually think Bulgaria fought on the German side so its interesting how its not on the Axis team when Bulgaria joined the 3th Reich without having to fight so,can you please add it 84.54.153.33 (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Err, where is it missing from? Slatersteven (talk) 10:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2024

Additional Reading

• World War II: Summary, combatants & facts, A&E Television Networks, 2024-03-13
• Grooms, Thomas B. (2021-01-22), World War II (U.S. National Park Service). ThomasB15223 (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Question: where exactly should these go and why them and not the countless others that can easily be found? M.Bitton (talk) 21:48, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion About My Changes To The Article

@Slatersteven lets discuss here.

Sorry, I didn't see your edit reverting me since I was already working on my next one.

Please explain why you reverted my edits and we can go from there Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I do not see what value your mass edit has. We do not need all that in the lede, people can read the article and know who the great powers were. Nor do we need links to words like civilian. Simply put there were too many changes that were problematic to single one to. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That note was because, in order to say that all the great powers were involved, it's not unreasonable to say who we are saying was involved. And whats wrong with linking to civilian. Understanding what a civilian is is pretty important to know what the sentence means@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We do, the info box, and the body and in wiki links in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Info box says main leaders, not great powers. should we change it. And how about my other things@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Participants. Slatersteven (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no place in the article saying what the Great powers of the time where, and that they were great powers. And how about everything else, if that was your only issue can I reinstate the rest of my edit@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

As as I said there were just too many issues (one other of which I have already mentioned). Also who said these are the great powers? Slatersteven (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

List of modern great powers does, and it is quite well referenced. And I can't fix things if you don't tell me what you don't like@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We are not an RS, and I did say at least one other, but OK. Slatersteven (talk) 18:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

We aren't, but what I am saying is that that articles claim of them being a great power are backed up by sources. I know that if we wanted to actually cite we would need to get the citations from the article, not cite it, but for the purposes of this discussion can you just lookat that article. And I told you my reason for the civilian thing but you never responded@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually that list does not seem well sourced, which sources says Italy was a great power? Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Actually thats a great point, it seems a bit borderline but in it (Least of the great powers)@Slatersteven Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, when you're making "lots of changes" to a somewhat stable, essentially complete article, it's best to explain in the edit summary what kinds of changes you're making and why. If the changes are hard to explain, then I've found it's best to break down into separate edits with their own explanations. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's fair. Per WP:Work in Progress articles aren't done.@StefenTower Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

lede

We link in the section on the start of the war to the invasion Poland, and to Poland, nor do we need to say when it started as we already do, we do not need it again. Nor do we need a link to civilian, or indeed most of the other wiki links you created, they are meant only where people might not know what we mean. We also need to only link once to a page. That is just the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"they are meant only where people might not know what we mean" - that's true of all links and useless. every link in the article someone added is because someone might not know what they mean, and everything link could be linked under the possibly that someone doesn't know what it means. didn't know about the only linking once. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

See wp:overlinking. Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Time for others to chip in, this is bludgeoning. Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, we are the 2 people with a dispute, so it's not unreasonable that we are the 2 main people discussing. Also, didn't know about the overlinking. Means I probably shouldn't have linked civilian, but I think some of those links still make sense. And I still think we should change it from "Main Powers" to "Great Powers" in the infobox to clarify or reinsert my footnote. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts here. Many of the edits were over-linking - this included repeatedly linking some articles such as Empire of Japan. The statement on who the supposed 'great powers' were adds nothing of use to the lead, and doesn't reflect modern historical writing, which includes a lot of debate over the status of France, Italy and - to a much lesser extent - the UK at the time given that their empires may have been overall burdens. The modern literature on the UK's role in the war also tends to stress the importance of the Commonwealth countries, India and key colonies to this as well. Making edits like this with hopelessly vague edit summaries is also a very poor practice. Nick-D (talk) 22:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

dates for photos

@Goszei and Alexeyperlov: I'm with User:Alexeyperlov regarding the dates: Things were changing fast enough during World War II that I think the extra characters providing month and day as well as year makes it easier for readers to understand the flow of events. DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, including the month or day in captions for images in the collage is an excessive level of detail, especially for images in an infobox. Identifying the Stuka photo as taken on 22 December 1943 or the Matilda one as 18 November 1941, rather than just the year, doesn't provide much additional benefit to the reader. — Goszei (talk) 05:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

In the case of research where dates may be needed, or where the photos are used and more detailed attribution is necessary, the exact dates may be useful. Alexeyperlov 12:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You can find out more about any picture in Wikipedia by clicking on it and then choosing the "More details" button that appears at the bottom right of the screen. If you do that with the picture of the Matilda tank, second in the montage that appears at the top of the page, you will see that it is a picture from the Imperial War Museum and you can then follow that link to [3] to see more information about it. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 15:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

Jakebaboo (talk) 22:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I wish to edit this wikipedia page due to a misconception. Hirohito was a pacifist and He doesn't want any wars. Please change it to Hideki Tojo.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. His involvement in the war is well documented at Hirohito#Accountability for Japanese war crimes. Liu1126 (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Sections

Since the entire article is about an historical event, could the History section be divided into sections "Background", "Pre-War Events", and "Course of the War"? There is no body text under "History" so I wonder if it is redundant. Aspets (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

seems reasonable JackTheSecond (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It is also already there, there is text under history, subdivided into sections (such as pre-war events and background). Slatersteven (talk) 13:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The term in foreign tongues

I wonder why no one has added such a topic. So, the Finnish name of that war mean "the war of the sky and the earth", and other tongues have their own meaningful words for both WW. --Tamtam90 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This article provides a general overview, and is not meant to cover every possible detail. It might be suitable for a separate article, properly done. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_600x778.png to Raising_a_flag_over_the_Reichstag_-_Restoration.jpg?

I was going to replace the current low-resolution version of Raising a flag over the Reichstag but the restored image made the collage borders thinner and inconsistent. Would it still be worth it? Salmoonlight (talk) 10:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I've now uploaded a cropped version that would probably be more useful. Salmoonlight (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

End date of the war

@Aemilius Adolphin My edits do have to with the end date of the war, the sentence is about the last individual combatants to surrender, if this is not relevant I don't see how the 1990 treaty is. ManU9827 (talk) 06:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The formal termination of a war is a matter of binding agreements (armistices, treaties, diplomatic relations, etc) between the belligerents which are recognised in international law. The date that particular military units or individuals surrender to the victors has nothing to do with it. The 1990 treaty regarding the two Germanys is relevant because of the anomally that Nazi Germany had two successor states recognised in international law. There might be a place somewhere in the article for content on which were formally the last units of each Axis power to surrender, but it would need much better sourcing based on more rigorous scholarship than one book and a Times article. But let's see what other editors think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Tiny groups of combatants and individuals surrendering well after the end of the war doesn't need to be covered in this article given it's the top level article on the war. The circumstances that delayed these surrenders were all weird and they made no difference whatsoever to the war's outcomes. The bigger story is that many millions of German and Japanese troops stopped fighting when their leaders told them to. Nick-D (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

If not a full sentence in the page it atleast warrents a note (perhaps at the end of the "history" section). Japanese holdouts were a well documented phenomenom and recived major news coverage (such as when Hiroo Onoda surrendered) and are therefore a notable event. ManU9827 (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The numbers of Japanese holdouts were tiny, so they are outside the scope of this article. Please don't post multiple times in this tread - it's really confusing, and rude. Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I can certainly find other citations from the respective pages for the units, its just a matter of if it should be included. ManU9827 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Read wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

European Union to the aftermath of WWII?

I was wondering should EU be mentioned in the aftermath? Of course the first treaty of EU was in the 50s, but the fundamental basis for EU was after WWII to make war between France and Germany economically and materially impossible, and to intertwine the economies to that war would not occur between member states. Now EU is a major political entity. I think there might be merit to mention beginning of EU in the aftermath part? 88.113.71.31 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

A bit of a stretch, I think. There was a lot of socio-economic restructuring directly or indirectly as a result of WWII. The purpose of this article is to give a general overview of the war itself. There are many branch articles dealing with peripheral events. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this addition.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

The EU was formed in 1993, which is a long way from being part of the immediate afterwath of WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about the predecessors of the EU. Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Which ones, precisely? All of them up to 1993? There is a separate article about that. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

European Coal and Steel Community (1951) and European Economic Community (1957, treaty still in force), which were founded with the idea of uniting European countries to prevent another WWII like war. These are the fundamental predecessors with the specific intent of uniting European countries and thus laid the groundwork to European Union of today. 88.113.71.31 (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Treaty of Rome, which was signed in 1957, is still one of the treaties making up the fundamental structure of EU. European Coal and Steel Community was founded in 1951 and merged with Treaty of Rome in the 60s. What was changed in 1993 was the name of the entity. It was changed from European Community to European Union. [The Schuman Declaration](https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Schuman_Declaration) date from 1950 is still celebrated as the "national day" of EU.88.113.71.31 (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

There's a good case to add a sentence or two on this. Could someone please propose draft text with supporting references that make the link to European integration being a legacy of the war? Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Combatant section in Infobox

I propose that in the section of the Infobox where it lists which countries took part in the war, that rather than just saying "Allies" and "Axis" we insert a close-able list which when opened will show all the countries that took part. What do you think? Zakary2012 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The current infobox reflects the results of literally dozens of discussions. There has never been much support for what you propose. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Date of invasion of Manchuria is wrong

the invasion of Manchuria started on the 18th of September 1931 not September 19th 2603:7080:1B01:723A:BD3D:C812:149D:E3AF (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose that would depend on whether you include the September 18th Mukden Incident as part of the invasion or not. The actual military operation to occupy Manchuria began on the 19th. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to add other Allied and Axis Leader

My request is to add Karl Doenitz, Hideki Tojo, on behalf of Axis Powers, and Harry Truman, Clement Attlee, and Neville Chamberlain on behalf for the allies. Ryansean071 (talk) 23:56, 07 July 2024 (UTC)

The current material reflects the outcomes of a very large number of previous discussions. 09:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick-D (talk • contribs)

Because we can't clutter up the info box with a huge list of names. Slatersteven (talk) 17:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Codebreaking and Enigma

The following text needs improving:

"Most major belligerents attempted to solve the problems of complexity and security involved in using large codebooks for cryptography by designing ciphering machines, the most well-known being the German Enigma machine. Development of SIGINT (signals intelligence) and cryptanalysisenabled the countering process of decryption. Notable examples were the Allied decryption of Japanese naval codes and British Ultra, a pioneering method for decoding Enigma that benefited from information given to the United Kingdom by the Polish Cipher Bureau, which had been decoding early versions of Enigma before the war."

Nothing about Bletchley Park, Alan Turing or how the code breaking was a game changer and helped win the Battle of the Atlantic. 117PXL (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a very high level article on the war, that covers most major battles in a single sentence (or sometimes even less). The level of coverage seems OK for this. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, I agree this is why we have a separate article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Britain text

I requested this text to replace the paragraph about the Battle of Britain as is more descriptive and the current text plays down the UK's involvement:

The Battle of Britain, fought from July to October 1940, was the first major military campaign conducted entirely by air forces. It started with the Luftwaffe attacking ships and harbours, then they aimed to achieve air superiority over the British RAF by attacking airfields, infrastructure, aircraft production facilities, and eventually civilian targets. Despite initial successes, the Luftwaffe failed to defeat the RAF Fighter Command, leading Hitler to postpone the planned invasion of Britain indefinitely. The conflict evolved into a strategic bombing campaign known as the Blitz, targeting London and other cities at night, but this too failed to significantly disrupt the British war effort and largely ended by May 1941. Germany's failure to destroy Britain's air defences was the first major German defeat and a crucial turning point in the conflict.

The current text also infers that Britain turned down a peace deal, the deal was that Germany could occupy continental Europe and is widely regarded as propaganda which would not be honoured.

All the text is repeated from the Battle of Britain page and is cited. Can we get this approved? 117PXL (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Interestingly Britannica phrases it like this in their main WW2 article:

Victory in the air battle for the Luftwaffe would indeed have exposed Great Britain to invasion and occupation. The victory by the Royal Air Force (RAF) Fighter Command blocked this possibility and, in fact, created the conditions for Great Britain’s survival, for the extension of the war, and for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. 117PXL (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to Britain rejecting the Nazi "peace offer" after Germany's conquest of France as it is poorly sourced and a trope which is widely used in neo-Nazi propaganda. Basically, the Nazis asked Britain to give up. I have also slightly changed the wording to make it more natural in English. As for the rest of your proposed text, I think the current wording makes the same point more concisely. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems much too detailed compared to the coverage of other battles. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, this kind of detail is for the article on the battle of Britain, not an overview of WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I fully understand the detail is not required, so I would like to add the sentence: "It was the first major German defeat and a crucial turning point in the conflict." (fully cited) Which is a key sentence from the intro of the Battle of Britain page in paragraph 4. As we have now removed the 'Peace Deal' sentence, this could replace it without any extra length to the page. It's a key sentence which is toned back as it could easily say Britain successfully beat the the German's in the Battle of Britain which forced them to retreat and prevented a land invasion. 117PXL (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The article already states that the result of the Battle of Britain was the indefinite postponement of the German plan to invade Britain. Going on to say that this was "a crucial turning point in the conflict" (which conflict?) and basing this on one source is going too far. Didn't Germany go on to invade Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union after this? All the books on the war I have read state that the Soviet Union forcing Germany to retreat in December 1941 was the crucial turning point in the European conflict. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Modern sources tend to play down the Battle of Britain a bit, noting that Germany was doomed to failure in this campaign from the outset due to the strength of the RAF and Royal Navy as well as the British economy. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It was Germany's first major defeat which was a huge deal and also it changed their direction of travel and invaded countries East instead. Multiple sources state this...

"The Battle of Britain was a significant turning point in World War II. It was the first major defeat for the Germans and showed that they could be stopped" - https://avi-8.com/blogs/the-aviation-journal/the-battle-of-britain-a-turning-point-in-military-aviation

"In the event, the battle was won by the Royal Air Force(RAF) Fighter Command, whose victory not only blocked the possibility of invasion but also created the conditions for Great Britain’s survival, for the extension of the war, and for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany." Britannica

"Meanwhile, Berlin turned to a new objective. Hitler in December ordered his forces to prepare for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion and destruction of Russia." https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0808battle/

"During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was dealt an almost lethal blow from which it never fully recovered."

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-britain

There are lots of sources. 117PXL (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Going to have to agree with the others that stated that there already seems to be sufficient coverage, I also do not believe these sources you have cited (one of them a blog advertising watches) are suitable WP:RS for such a crucial and high profile article. TylerBurden (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, I sourced those immediately from the web, I can easily get similar quotes from textbooks or journals. My concern is that sources like Britannica make a big deal about it, have a look at their text. 117PXL (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Also Chat GPT, Claude AI and Microsoft Copilot all put the 'Battle of Britain' in the top 10 key events in WW2, therefore we should look expanding the amount of text as well. I understand it isn't in US history as they joined the war later. 117PXL (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I tried to take into account the above discussion and added the following as the text misses out the significance of the battle, also we've removed a sentence:

At the height of the battle, the RAF had only 749 fighter aircraft available, against 2,550 Luftwaffe aircraft. It was the first major battle fought entirely in the air and Nazi Germany’s first major military defeat.

(source: www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/our-history/anniversaries/battle-of-britain/)

I felt this clarified what the battle was and and explained it's significance, is there any objections to this particulate text? Thanks. 117PXL (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Well for a start, this is one source (a wp:primary one). Secondly, whilst they may say "MAJOR" other battles are claimed to be the first German defeat (such as Narvik), so (again) we need multiple (and third party) sources claiming this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks I'll look into it. 117PXL (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it improves the article. The figures on the number of aircraft in the air are meaningless without a detailed discussion of what type of aircraft they were, how far they had to fly, whether they had an effective fighter escort and a million other factors. The content about whether it was a major defeat is subjective and contested. You seem to think that the article understates the importance of the Battle of Britian but that's a debatable position best discussed in an article about the Battle of Britain or the historiography of WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the number of planes shows the reality of what the pilots were up against, but yes the British planes were regarded superior. I think these stats give the reader a good visual image of what is happening. The stats simplify things for an overview just as other simplified sentences on the page do. If it needs to say that the British planes were superior that is not a problem. 117PXL (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see the battle of Narvik did start a little earlier but had less of an impact on the war, so your points are noted regarding that. 117PXL (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Likewise talking about the Battle of Britain without saying what it was is also meaningless. The next paragraph also reads badly, the Germans attacked undefended merchant vessels but it reads like they beat the British Navy. 117PXL (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

The article is worded so the British can't have a success over the Germans but the Germans can have a success over the British. It needs fixing. 81.78.69.222 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Possible minor grammar change in lead?

"...and it set the foundation for the international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century." -> "...and it set the foundation of international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century"? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I think "of international relations" sounds better than "of international order". "The international order" is a common phrase with a different meaning than "international order". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hermann Göring has an RfC

Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Countries under the Allies and Axis

For the sides of ww2 it just says Allies and Axis and under that the leaders. Shouldn’t it have the actual countries listed like it does for every other war article? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Try clicking Participants, as there are too many and it clutters the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Main Allied Leaders

A good idea would be to add Charles de Gaulle, leader of Free France. He was the leader of a country that became a permanent member of the UN Security Council (as did China). So I don't see the reason for it not being mentioned (like Kai Shek) Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Try searching his name in the archives and you'll find countless times this has been discussed already. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

And how I can find it? Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Paste the n ame into the search box at the top of the page under "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting." and then click "search Archive". Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

When did WWII started in Europe?

One (non so common but possible) suggestion for the start date of WWII in Europe could be said to begin with the first day of the Italian invasion of Albania on 1939-04-07. 130.238.112.129 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and it is highly unlikely this is mentioned enough in reliable sources to merit mention in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Philippe Pétain has an RfC

Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Page views chart among 'other banners'

Is anyone interested in having a temporary replacement for the page views chart that used to live among the headers at the top? There used to be one there, until the Graph software was deprecated two years ago for security risks; the collapsed bar lived on, with no chart inside it, until it, too, was finally removed a couple of weeks ago. You probably haven't noticed, but there is now an experimental bar chart banner at that location, collapsed among the 'Other banners'. Please have a look if interested, or remove it, if not. This is just a stop-gap until the original can be repaired or replaced. Mathglot (talk) 03:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The Axis leaders

Should the infobox not include the “KIA” template for Adolf hitler and the “executed“ template for Benito Mussolini? E4t5s.new (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Just because there exists a convention that is used on many articles does not mean it is logically necessary for every applicable article. I don't think there's a need to adopt it here, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think you have real justification to believe strongly that this would be the case. People are encouraged to read the actual article if they wish to know anything but the plainest possible facts at a glance. If we treated such an element as vital to presentation, it would be codified in the Manual of Style as a guideline. It is presently not, so it is subject to inclusion based largely on per-article consensus as per usual. Remsense ‥ 论 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

No. Just because an option exists in a template it doesn't have to be used. And it is misleading: Hitler killed himself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hitler was not killed in action with enemy (Russian) forces so definitely not KIA - if you apply KIA to Hitler you could also add it to Roosevelt. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

World War 2 start date

I have a problem. It is controversial about the start date. Please include both the 1931, 1937, or the 1939. Thank you! 24.19.225.27 (talk) 20:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

They are included. The first section in the article lists them, and is about all about the start (and end) dates of the conflict. 51.148.251.110 (talk) 20:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to rehash old arguments, but it was not until Britain and France declared war on Germany that it became a war involving more than one continent. That is what made it a world war. Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@24.19.225.27 See "Start and end dates" sections. Even though Infobox said 1 September 1939 as start date, different views are presented in section. You might just see Infobox, not reading the page! Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Names

The World War I article has a section titled "Names" that discusses the naming of the war. I think this article could also benefit from such a section. Based on a cursory glance at sources (such as 1 & 2), the naming of this war is noteworthy enough to be included with a brief mention. At the very least, an explanatory note stating that this war's name was chosen because of ww1. JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that it could be helpful to also include within the Names section wikilinks & explanations for Pacific war, Great Patriotic war, Second Sino-Japanese war (War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression), and other names used for either the conflict as a whole or a specific part of it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like a worthwhile idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that would place undue weight on comparative linguistic trivia; think about how much value 100 words has in an article like this one. The "sub-conflict listing" idea seems more like redundant clutter than pure trivia though, but certainly best avoided in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea Gaplow43286 (talk) 08:18, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Canadian involvement in WWII

I find it a little disappointing that this article, which outlines most major events of the war, practically excludes any mention of Canada. Canadians were responsible for liberating the Netherlands and advancing further inland than any other Allied force on D-Day. Canada was also a signatory to the Japanese instrument of surrender. 104.232.41.25 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The article's emphases reflect those of sources. We can't do anything about this unless you can put forth an argument that we're under-representing Canada in proportion to its mention in the whole body of sources about the war. Remsense ‥ 论 20:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Which we aren't.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Limited nuclear war

World War 2 was a global conflict AND a limited nuclear war. This should be in the first sentence in the lede. This was the only time that nuclear weapons were ever used and that should be further emphasized. TheAwesomeHwyh 00:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The lead already mentions the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the same link. I don't think your change improves the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually agree with you. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:51, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The idea that it was limited seems incorrect to me, as nuclear weapons were to be used as they became available. Do you have a source for this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

But they were not used further, and no more became available in time. I guess it could've escalated further, but it didn't. Perhaps the word "limited" could be dropped, but that implies something far larger in scope than what actually occured. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems a manifestation of the impulse we sometimes have where we want to include some characterization of an article's subject that will make the reader go, "wow, never thought about it that way, but I suppose that is true!" That impulse often totally contravenes WP:ASPECT: tell me if I'm wrong, but you didn't propose "limited nuclear war" because it or a synonymous phrase appeared to describe WWII in something you were reading, right? Remsense ‥ 论 08:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good points. Oddly enough (and surprisingly to me) there doesn't seem to be a single source on the web that describes World War 2 as a "nuclear war" even though it does technically meet that description.

Most sources that I found discuss this from a mostly theoretical perspective, which is actually a bit odd.

When I proposed this I had thought this would be in at least a few sources, but apparently I was wrong. I should have checked- my bad! TheAwesomeHwyh 23:39, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Whilst technically correct it seems to be a [[wp:fringe] description, it was also the first nuclear war, the only nuclear war, the only limited nuclear war, and no doubt dog knows how many other descriptors. Slatersteven (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

If it were to be included in the article (and that seems unlikely at the point) perhaps ALL descriptions are the best one.

"World War 2 was a global war, and is to date the first and only limited nuclear war ever fought."

But, it seems as though you're right. WP:FRINGE certainly applies.

So I guess the current description is the best description. The article doesn't need to change. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

list of references

list of references 216.247.89.25 (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they are at the bottom of the article. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2024

WhiteToast1 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I want to edit this Wikipedia page, for alternate history and a outcome for German victory in the Second World War this is not for vandalism or any relation to that use, I will follow the rules of Wikipedia.

 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) 19:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Who should be listed at the top of the main Allied leaders?

Should Joseph Stalin be listed in order of precedence above FDR in the infobox? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Charles de Gaulle be included? He led the Free French government and the military. Don't Be Evil (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed a number of times before, the consensus has been for the current arrangement. Check the archive for previous discussions if you need more information. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Nick-D, Paul Siebert, Parsecboy, E-960, Rjensen, and TheFreeWorld: In light of the significant extent of your contributions to the "William I, German Emperor" page (as well as relatively recent evidence of your continued interest in said article), you are invited to participate in a discussion regarding how the main Allied leaders should be listed. Should you feel so inclined, please share your thoughts below.

If you made me choose, I would place Stalin on top, but I am not presently inclined to insist on this with confidence. In a four-member list it's comparatively immaterial, and right now I'm thinking of arguments one could pitch for any possible ordering—some better than others, but all logically consistent. Remsense ‥ 论 04:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would put them in alphabetical order by surname which is the usual practice for listing names in English speaking countries. Trying to list them by "order of importance" is subjective and has no support in the reliable sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I think FDR should be listed at the top. While Stalin's Soviet Union was the most directly involved in the defeat of Nazi Germany, it must be remembered that he began the war initially as an ally of Hitler before the launch of Operation Barbarossa in 1941 whereas the U.S. began supporting Britain around a year earlier. Most significantly, the United States was the largest supplier of arms and material to the "Grand Alliance" without which neither Great Britain or the Soviet Union could have likely turned the tide against the Germans. Moreover, given the significant level of mistrust between Churchill and Stalin throughout the conflict, FDR played the most significant role in holding the Big Three intact; it's hardly a coincidence that the alliance began to quickly unravel almost immediately after his death. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

You can plausibly narrativize any argument you want, but the point is there's no clear answer rooted in what RS would directly say. Remsense ‥ 论 04:36, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

What plausible narrative do you have justifying Stalin's listing at the top? Emiya1980 (talk) 04:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't have an RS saying Stalin was the most important leader of World War II, so I won't divulge. That's my entire point. Remsense ‥ 论 04:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

In that case, listing them in alphabetical order is probably the best bet. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's a good reason to change it. Fiddling with extremely arbitrary but highly visible things is what I will deploy the WP:BEENHERE argument in earnest for. It is a four-member list, famously called the Big Four. They were all very important, and there is no advantage in deliberating on an ordering, nor in deferring to a lexicographical ordering that's rarely done on Wikipedia in these cases. Remsense ‥ 论 04:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

There is no good reason to list Stalin, a mass-murdering dictator with a death toll that rivals that of Adolf Hitler, at the top of the Allied Powers. Emiya1980 (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

We need to keep moral arguments out of this. The only relevant argument is the consensus of reliable sources. Given the lack of such a consensus in this case, I think alphabetical order is the way to go. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ve already indicated I would not be opposed to that.Emiya1980 (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I would place Stalin at the top due to his pivotal role.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

That's hardly a justification to place him at the top. All of the Allied leaders listed played a pivotal role in defeating the Axis in some fashion. Emiya1980 (talk) 05:21, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed dozens of times. The infobox reflects the consensus of these discussions. The key factor in these discussions was the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict" - surveys of references tend to conclude that historians regard the USSR has having made the largest contribution to the Allied victory. Any further discussions of this issue should involve fresh surveys of references, not the personal views of Wikipedia editors. @Emiya1980: there is also no need to you to reply to every single comment being made here: this is badgering other editors. The other editors involved in this discussion should also note that Emiya1980 appears to have a history of starting these types of disputes, and may want to comment at WP:ANI#Emiya1980's use of RFCs. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Off-topic

@Nick-D: First off, your accusation that I am engaged in badgering is somewhat misplaced. Jack Upland's comment was originally made in response to a previous comment I made in response to Aemilius Adolphin. I re-arranged the formatting because Upland's comment bore little relation to that post. When I first started this thread, I posted my opinion and said users engaged me; not the other way around. Second, your characterization of my conduct here as edit-warring is rather exaggerated; particularly when compared to what I've commonly seen from other editors. I started this discussion at the recommendation of Remsense after being reverted twice which is well below the three-revert rule. Moreover, the ANI thread which you are referring concerns my use of Rfcs, specifically in relation to lede images. The present discussion has little to no bearing to the current thread. Just because you feel such discussion is not constructive does not give you carte blanche to lump what happened on other pages with this thread and undermine its integrity by smearing my reputation in front of other editors. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:42, 28 September 2024 (UTC) While I wasn't ready to make the connection here myself, it's safe to say you haven't been smeared: it's not like ANI is a private forum. People are allowed to make connections between different incidents: I won't put words in his mouth, but "frequent, vigorous dispute concerning comparatively arbitrary matters that have already been subject to much deliberation on highly visible pages" is a connection one could make, I guess. Remsense ‥ 论 07:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC) "frequent, vigorous dispute concerning comparatively arbitrary matters that have already been subject to much deliberation on highly visible pages" I don't see how that's applicable to this case. When I first started this discussion, neither you nor any other editor gave meany kind of I had little notice from you or anyone else that this particular issue had been discussed as much as it previously had. My lack of familiarity with this page's history is only corroborated by my lack of prior involvement with editing this particular page (as pointed out by Nick-D himself on the ANI). Additionally, as I recently pointed out on the ANI thread, I actually reverted another editor only once prior to opening the present discussion. The original edit I made to the infobox shouldn't be counted as a reversion for purposes of edit-warring. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

As this seems to be so controversial why not remove it altogether, what does it add? Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is actually controversial. The proposals to not list Stalin first tend to be from editors with little other interest in the article who are motivated by their personal beliefs. Oddly, I can't recall anyone ever suggesting that Hitler not be listed first for the Axis side, despite him being the most horrible of the horrible people who led the Axis nations. That said, I'd be quite comfortable swapping this to countries rather than individuals, which would also address the fact that the US had two leaders during the war and the UK three. Nick-D (talk) 22:33, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I am interested in the whole article and I believe listing Stalin first is indeed controversial because I am not aware of a single reputable historian who ranks the allied commanders in order of "importance". Some would argue that the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to defeating Germany in terms of casualties inflicted, territory gained and materiel destroyed, but just about everyone states that the US and Empire forces made by far the greatest contribution in defeating Japan and that the USSR would have been defeated by Germany but for the food and materiel supplied to them by the other allies and the damage caused by allied bombing and the diversion of Axis troops caused by allied forces in the Middle East, Italy and later France. Nowadays scholars tend to emphasise the joint contribution of all Allies (including smaller ones). I still think that alphabetical order (for both the Allies and Axis) is the best from a NPOV. Hirohito is also controversial (although plausible) as a main Axis leader. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussions of this that established the current infobox included multiple surveys of reliable sources, and this reflected the consensus. These surveys revealed that quite a few historians note that the USSR played a major role in the Pacific War, even though it was only involved a few weeks of fighting, as the Soviet intervention was one of the major factors (in some historians' view the most important factor) that finally forced the Japanese leadership to acknowledge that they needed to end the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on my reading of most historians on the subject, the Japanese war effort had all but collapsed by the time of the Soviet intervention. If you want me to provide sources corroborating this, I'll be happy to list them.Emiya1980 (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The general consensus among historians is that Japan lost the Pacific War on 7 December 1941 as it had no hope of defeating the US. The issue is that it took until August 1945 for its leadership to admit defeat, hence the issue historians focus on is what prompted the Japanese to surrender when they could have continued the war at this time. This is a much debated topic. As noted above, when this was discussed it involved large scale surveys of reliable sources, so picking out sources focused on a single issue is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 01:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the argument that Japan sealed its fate the moment it launched an attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941. However, despite the wide disparity in industrial power between Japan and the U.S. from the war's outset, the fact remains that the former's capacity to wage war remained more or less intact up to 1944. Conversely, by 1945, Japan's navy was all but destroyed and its war economy was on the verge of collapse primarily as result of American (not Soviet) forces. Taking these facts into consideration, the Soviet "August Storm" Offensive was more of the coup de grâce to the Japanese war effort, not the turning point against it. Again, what I am saying is pretty much common wisdom on the subject, but I am willing to give you sources if you feel I'm basing this on OR. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Given that there is disagreement among those who regularly edit or comment on this article, I suggest that the way to change the relevant part of the infobox is through a RfC. I won't initiate one because I have better things to do with my time on wikipedia. However, if you initiate one I would vote for listing the main allied and axis leaders either in alphabetical order or in the order that they were leader of a country at war against the other side: thus Churchill (May 1940 to July 1945), Stalin (June 1941 to August 1945) etc. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin While I do not object to an Rfc, I'm going to have to pass on opening it myself. As indicated in the link posted above by Nick-D, I'm currently on probation for how I've used the Rfc process in the past. Emiya1980 (talk) 07:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We've already had at least two huge RfCs on this issue ([4] and Talk:World War II/Archive 61#RfC: Main Allied Leaders), as well as many earlier and subsequent discussions. The current infobox reflects the results of these discussions over time. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Nug, Dhtwiki, Adoring nanny, Bigeez, ThoughtIdRetired, Peacemaker67, Hawkeye7, Maleschreiber, Whizz40, Grandpallama, TheTimesAreAChanging, Qowert, K.e.coffman, Ali Ahwazi, Anne drew, Staberinde, Serialjoepsycho, KIENGIR, Buidhe, Wes sideman, and Pincrete: In light of your prior participation in an earlier discussion regarding the order of Allied leaders in the infobox, you are invited to take part in a new discussion on the issue. If you have any opinions on the matter, please share your thoughts below. Emiya1980 (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that you should drop the stick on this quasi-RfC instead of having the temerity to continue pushing this after the ANI discussion where numerous editors told you to knock it off and you received a formal warning. If you don't, I'm happy to unarchive the ANI thread and pick the discussion of sanctions right back up. I am pinging Cullen328 so he can see the continued and expanded waste of editors' time going on here. Grandpallama (talk) 07:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's also my reaction here. It's very disappointing that Emiya1980 indicated in the ANI thread that they would stop these pointless RfCs in articles they're not otherwise involved with, only to try to re-open this discussion a week after it went dormant. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

As I stated before, that ANI thread concerned my use of the Rfc process (specifically in relation to lede images). No Rfc of any kind has been opened here. Moreover, based on Wikipedia’s page concerning canvassing, it is permissible to notify editors involved in a prior discussion about a new discussion concerning the same topic.

Back to the topic at hand, I actually had time to review the thread pertaining to the infobox’s order of Allied leaders linked to by Nick-D above. Contrary to representations that have been made, there was not a snowball consensus in favor of listing Joseph Stalin at the top. As a matter of fact, there was no official Rfc on this specific issue at all. The discussion in question had no closing; that’s how I know. All I saw was a normal discussion thread where a relatively small group of editors unilaterally decided this particular issue was not open for further deliberation. Additionally, what certain shrilly objecting members of said group have conveniently failed to mention here is that a significant minority in the prior thread raised the concern that listing leaders in ANY order that was not alphabetical or chronological would only invite further dispute. Seeing as how more than one editor besides myself has raised that concern in this particular thread, it hardly seems to be a settled issue. Emiya1980 (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Having been asked for an opinion (above), I have always thought that the logical order for the national leaders in the info box is: who served the longest as a war leader? Quite simply count up the number of days that they were in office whilst they were leading a country that was at war. The weakness in this is there is no RS (of which I am aware) that supports this view. However, sources that compare the war leaders are trying to do something different from the information we put in the info box. Why should we or any reader presume that the order in the info box is a comparison of importance? Since it is a debatable point, as illustrated by the unending discussion, it is better for Wikipedia to present the information on a different principle. Many sources seek to avoid saying who was most important out of the big three (unless such an analysis is the major selling point of the book they have just written). We could deal with all this unending discussion if we simply listed the names of the leaders with a number against that name which indicated the number of days they were leading a country at war. That way we could possibly include Truman, who signed off on the single most influential bombing raids of modern times (Hiroshima/Nagasaki). ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 08:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Seems more logical and neutral to me than insisting to have either Stalin or Roosevelt on top, apparently based on how much they "contributed". It's a bit funny how our "main" allied leader is pictured in the article body shaking hands with a Nazi Germany official. TylerBurden (talk) 15:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Two points to add to the "time served as a wartime leader" idea.
(1) The closest guidance on this in {{Infobox military conflict}} says "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article." (Referring to combatants.) I guess we are in the "different metrics" zone here.
(2) By my arithmetic, the days served as a war leader of the allied leaders are:
Churchill from 10-May-40 to 26-Jul-45 = 1,903
Stalin from 22-Jun-41 to 15-Aug-45 = 1,515
Chiang Kai-shek from 07-Dec-41 to 15-Aug-45 = 1,347
Roosevelt from 07-Dec-41 to 12-Apr-45 = 1,222
Interestingly, the order is suggestive to the reader that some other "metric" has been used, so highlighting that it is not listed by the debatable measure of influence.
The judgement points on this are: China was not in a world war until Japan expanded their conflict by attacking British and American forces; similarly Russia was not in a world war until invaded by Germany – the fighting in Finland was not part of the larger conflict until Barbarossa. The date of VJ day varies by time zone, but I have just stuck with one date, though you could argue it was the 15th August for Russia and 14th August for USA. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 19:18, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

A problem I have is that the reason for the ordering should be transparent to the casual reader. Otherwise it will look random and people will be inclined to change it. Alphabetical order should be used. It is also odd that Chiang is listed as a main Allied leader but China was not one of the Big Three which is about the only grouping of Allies that most historians agree with. Number of Allied conferences attended were: Churchill 18, Roosevelt 14, Stalin 7, De Gaulle 3, Chiang 1. Source: World War II Infographics, Lopes etal, Thames and Hudson, 2019 Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That arithmetic is problematic given that Chiang was fighting the Japanese from the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937. Modern historians also stress that there isn't a clear date that the US entered the war given that the US Navy was involved in fighting the German Navy from about mid-1941 and was essentially a co-belligerent of the Chinese and Western Allies from much earlier due to the very generous military aid that was provided and a range of policies that explicitly favoured what became the Allied cause. I'm not sure why we'd be applying "other metrics" given that lots of sources discuss this issue, and they were consulted in previous discussions. The argument that people periodically make against the current ordering is always that they don't like Stalin rather than this being based on any assessment of sourcing. Modern historians tend to note that the fact that the Stalinist USSR played the key role in the war and it ended with Soviet dominance of eastern Europe is a why it can't be seen as simple good versus evil conflict. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The That arithmetic... point is explained with the answer to "when did China become involved in a world war?". (That answer is also used in determining the start date of WW2 for the article.) As far as the USA start date is concerned, I don't think the claims by historians that they were involved in the war before Pearl Harbor, whilst entirely reasonable, describes activity that members of the public, the US military or Winston Churchill (who was so keen to get the US involved) would have thought of as war (certainly when modified by their post 7 Dec 1941 experiences). The modern historians' claims are set in that context.

The "I don't like Stalin" idea (for want of a better label) should not conceal the argument that the USSR relied a lot on help from the other Allies. If the USA had not provided so many supplies (UK as well), the position might have been very different. See Richard Overy's Russias War and also Ewan Mawdsley's The War for the Seas on this. (Note that more supplies were sent across the Pacific than in Arctic convoys.) Similarly, Barbarossa was delayed by Germany fighting British troops in the Mediterranean area. Any "importance" ordering is always going to attract debate (the evidence is on these talk pages). So a different method resolves that completely. And to answer Aemilius Adolphin's point, the order you get makes it abundantly clear that they are not in order of importance. If we have a heading "ordered by days as war leader" (or something similar), it should be pretty obvious to the majority of readers. ThoughtIdRetired _TIR 07:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I took part in a RFC, was summoned by a bot, and can't even care enough to remember what or when all of this was about as far as the controversy on this page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D and the majority. Cheers Bigeez (talk) 15:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

(Responding to ping) I'm one of those in the previous discussion who tended to think that listing leaders in ANY order that was not alphabetical or chronological would only invite further dispute and was probably SYNTH anyway. The indisputable facts include that Soviet losses were enormous relative to any other ally, that USSR probably did more actual fighting than any other ally, certainly in Europe, they probably did more harm to Nazi fighting capacity than other allies etc … . But how does that translate into "was the leader of the Alliance"? Having read the whole of the previous discussion, I take exception to the argument that people periodically make against the current ordering is always that they don't like Stalin rather than this being based on any assessment of sourcing.. We all know that Stalin was utterly ruthless, devious, and odious morally, but that does not have any bearing on this question. I've personally never seen a source that put "Uncle Joe" as the leader of the wartime alliance, though of course I've seen tons that record the level of sacrifice paid by Soviet troops and Soviet civilians and other 'feathers in his cap' but equally plenty of sources deal with the enormous impact of US's productive capacity. How does one balance the importance of 'blood-price' and simple industrial output even in the simplest terms of postulated impact on outcome. Who needed who more? Modest suggestion is that whatever criteria is adopted (which could be alphabetical, chronological order of country joining war, size of country's armed forces or otherwise), whatever it is, the criteria should be included as a footnote to avoid future challenge.Pincrete (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I've personally never seen a source that put "Uncle Joe" as the leader of the wartime alliance Listing Stalin first is not equivalent to saying he was the "leader" of the Allies, and that's not why he's listed first now. He's listed first now because that's the guidance from our own MOS (The key factor in these discussions was the guidance at Template:Infobox military conflict that "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict"), and as you've acknowledged in your own comment here, historians agree on the "indisputable facts" about the primacy of the Soviet role in the war. Unless there is a discussion to be had about whether or not those indisputable facts are actually in dispute, our own WP:PAG make clear that Stalin is ordered first. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Well I've personally also never seen a source that said that Stalin/USSR were more "important to the conflict", though sources acknowledge Soviets did more fighting (and a great deal more dying)in Europe. You are misunderstanding my point, what use are millions of Soviet soldiery, if they lack the weaponry or food supplies to enable them to do the fighting? My main point anyway is to say 'why not make clear what the criteria for the order are'? Why assume that people know about the sheer difference in scale between the war in eastern Europe and elsewhere? Pincrete (talk) 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I find my argument from four years ago is still apt--especially so, given that this revisit was prompted by a moral objection--so I'll just copy-paste it in. Oppose based on reams of historical research and academic publication that, like it or not, identify the Soviet Union and its contribution to the Allied war effort as more critical than that of any other. Weird OR arguments about the positioning of the leaders in photographs or about the the distastefulness of Stalin's authoritarianism should be given the (lack of) weight they merit. Grandpallama (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2024

Hello I have seen some wrong info can I please edit it 149.40.110.98 (talk) 11:23, 20 November 2024 (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) 11:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)