World War II, The anti-US version Options

When will Oberiko and his group stop?

He's won just about every argument he's had, and still keeps going.

He's got the article under constant semi-protection.
He's deleted the American picture from the lead montage, and now there are 2 Soviet, 2 Commonwealth, and 2 Japanese.
The Intro and infobox refuse to say that the war started in 1939, and the 1937/39 debate continues.
The Intro and infobox don't list the major combatants
The major commanders aren't listed anywhere in the article. (For fun, try to find "Eisenhower" or "Zhukov" anywhere on the page using Edit --> Find on this Page.)

The entire article is written in Oberiko's weird wiki-summary style where the proper names of events are hidden within Wiki-links. See the Normandy Invasion coverage, in its entirety:

In June, 1944, the Western Allies invaded northern France

And check my favorite passage:

The Soviets decided to make their stand at Stalingrad which was in the path of the advancing German armies and by mid-November the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad in bitter street fighting when the Soviets began their second winter counter-offensive, starting with an encirclement of German forces at Stalingrad[94] and an assault on the Rzhev salient near Moscow, though the latter failed disastrously.[95

I've been following the article for years now, and seen people come and go but basically anyone who doesn't agree with Oberiko gets frustrated and leaves. He's not afraid to swing his administrator status and have people blocked who edit war with him or Parsecboy.

I could go through line by line and point out not only anti-Western and anti-American bias, but also outright errors. Take the first line of the Background section:

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months? I've been watching it as an experiment to see if Wikipedians will ever get a clue, but, well, you see. Later in the background you'll find out that Germany's goal with Austria was to make it a "satellite state". Both of these statements are referenced too?

Insult to injury: the Holocaust is described as "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe". Well I'm pretty sure English isn't Oberiko's first language, but then why doesn't anyone help him? Oh right, because it's so obvious that the article is Owned that you'd be an idiot to try to help.

I know this breaks my rule of thumb not to help Wikipedia myself, but it is the number one search result and I'm feeling a bit of remorse just letting it fester, with it being around D-Day this week and having just recently talked to guy who was a B-29 pilot based in Saipan. I can't believe a generation of kids might be seeing their first encyclopedia article about WWII on Wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Emperor:

Boo hoo, America isn't mentioned enough. There are other countries, too. An encyclopedia article doesn't have to have OMG AMERICA WON THE WAR AND SAVED THE WORLD.

The points about the awkward language are true, though.

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV. Calling the Holocaust "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is (to put it mildly) a grotesque error.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

Calling the Holocaust "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is (to put it mildly) a grotesque error.

I would contend calling these events a "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is a neutral POV, while calling them a Holocaust is POV. The discussion of the correct naming belongs in the Zionist-related debates thread.

I would contend calling these events a "the systematic purging of Jews in Europe" is a neutral POV, while calling them a Holocaust is POV. The discussion of the correct naming belongs in the Zionist-related debates thread.

That's a pretty strong POV. It's the first (or more than the first) step on a nasty slippery slope. And what does it have to do with Zionism?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

Nothing that I can see, and I used to have a pretty strong amateur interest in all matters WWII.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved. That said, according to the NPOV policy as currently written, the article should clearly have 1939 as the starting date.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved.

What about the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935?

What about the Italian invasion of Abyssinia in 1935?

Silly Guy - hostilities in Africa count even less than hostilities in Asia.

Saying the war started in 1937 is an error, not a POV.

Were I to wish to be a dingus about this, I'd suggest that there's a POV that says that the 1937 Marco Polo Bridge incident and subsequent occupation of major Chinese cities by the Japanese was really the beginning of the war, and that it's only a western bias that waits until the European powers got involved. That said, according to the NPOV policy as currently written, the article should clearly have 1939 as the starting date.

There is even a POV that says the war began with the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. All of these POVs should be included. Wikipedia is at its worst when it promotes an orthodoxy in any discipline.

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire signed the Treaty of Versailles.[7]

How does anyone not notice this for months and months?

Could you help me out here, as I know very little history after 1330 - what is wrong with that?

The Kaiser abdicated and the German Empire ceased to exist in November 1918. The Treaty of Versailles was signed over six months later.

The Kaiser abdicated and the German Empire ceased to exist in November 1918. The Treaty of Versailles was signed over six months later.

Point: you.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Boo hoo, America isn't mentioned enough. There are other countries, too. An encyclopedia article doesn't have to have OMG AMERICA WON THE WAR AND SAVED THE WORLD.

The points about the awkward language are true, though.

Thanks for that. Do you think that non-Americans are better off learning three times that there was fighting around Stalingrad, and that there was a "Rzhev salient" near Moscow, but never knowing that the largest amphibious invasion in history happened in Normandy?

If you really do, then please, go edit the article and make it even more unreadable so people eventually learn to stay away from it and other Wikipedia articles. Google will either drop it from #1 search results or people will stop using Google.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

The Russians get the credit for doing a large fraction of the fighting and most of the military dying in the European theater of WW II. But yes, if the Germans had captured Moscow and the oil fields, it would have been all over for the USSR, and with those oil fields, the Germans would have (temporarily) won the game of RISK.

Until we atom bombed them sometime after August 1945, that is. But that was a wild joker nobody really knew would or could be played, until the previous month.

As it was, the USSR came within a hair's breadth of losing it. And that's with massive Allied material aid, and a fair amount of Allied pin-down of German armies in Africa and Italy, which otherwise would have been decisive in the East. Much as in WW I, it really did take everybody to beat the Germans in "conventional" war.

Unlike WW I, however, if everybody had not been able to win conventionally, the US still would have atom bombed the Germans into glowing embers, no matter how well they'd done, sometime in 1946. The Germans just could not reach the US with anything damaging, and would not have been able to, for some years. They had no aircraft carriers, and their plans for ultralong-range bombers were going to carry what? Nothing of consequence can be carried 3000 miles, except a nuke. But with an atom bomb, you can reach a long way and touch someone. If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be. I drove through there right after the wall fell, and it was still pretty much of a mess, as were the highways which didn't see repairs the entire 50 year period.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

You mean if they were the only two countries in the world? Really, you cannot conjecture thus, or you have an entire new framework to add to ex post facto history. The US entry to the war was incredibly important. This was the frame of reference for the first 50 years after the war's end.

If there are anti-American, or US-minimization elements on those articles, my guess is that they are twenty-somethings. There seems to be a sort of generational Euro-youth backlash against the pro-American gratitude of their parents. I've seen that myriad in the past 10 or so years.

This article does have a non-American POV, but I did not read anything that would be in my opinion be an error.

It was the Soviets who defeated the Germans. Before June, 1944 that vast majority of the allied forces fighting against Germany were from the Soviet Union and before the Allies opened up another front in Normandy in June, 1944 it was already certain that the Germans were going to be defeated.

Is it not equally obvious that had the war involved only Germany and Russia, leaving Germany access to world trade, that Russia would have been soundly defeated?

That is not at all obvious.

If we assume Germany had totally won in Europe (including against the UK), we could not have used the B-29 against them (no place to base it), and the bombs of 1945 couldn't be dropped from anything else. But smaller bombs dropable from carrier-launched B-25s would have been available within another year, and that would have been it, for Germany. It's well that it didn't end that way, but it could have. And certainly would have.

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be. I drove through there right after the wall fell, and it was still pretty much of a mess, as were the highways which didn't see repairs the entire 50 year period.

For sure, but in my alternate history, I'm assuming US is out, as was the premise. Germany doesn't declare war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, so we don't enter the war in Europe (having no excuse). By the time we do, Germany has captured the USSR and subsequently invaded England (or starved it to death). Both events as it was coming within a month of happening, even with the US involved and sending supplies like crazy.

So when it comes time to deal with Germany in 1946 we have no English base from which to mount an invason or firebomb cities (which takes hundreds of airplanes only flying a few hundred miles). Festung Europa really is that, without North Africa or England to launch from. Nobody creates firestorms from across the Atlantic, without nuclear weapons. Even firebombing Tokyo (which, was as bad as Dresden with twice the death toll) took 300 really big B29 planes from (as I remember) Saipan. Couldn't have done that from a carrier, nor from across an ocean. Nah, if you have no base, B-25s from carriers, with A-bombs, is about all you get.

For sure, but in my alternate history, I'm assuming US is out, as was the premise. Germany doesn't declare war on the US right after Pearl Harbor, so we don't enter the war in Europe (having no excuse). By the time we do, Germany has captured the USSR and subsequently invaded England (or starved it to death). Both events as it was coming within a month of happening, even with the US involved and sending supplies like crazy.

There are several other plausible alternate histories. One is that England and France fail to declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland - it wouldn't be the first time they'd backed down, and really not a bad move, as the war was a disaster for both empires, and of course France was eliminated nearly outright. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

Another is that England and Germany make a deal following the fall of France, with German withdrawal from Norway, Belgium and France, excepting Alsace-Lorraine, and some kind of protectorate in Denmark and Holland, in exchange for favorable terms of trade within the British Empire - a completely sensible deal on its face which would have benefited all concerned. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

There are several other plausible alternate histories. One is that England and France fail to declare war on Germany following the invasion of Poland - it wouldn't be the first time they'd backed down, and really not a bad move, as the war was a disaster for both empires, and of course France was eliminated nearly outright. Then Germany and Russia come to blows on their own schedule.

I've got to read Pat Buchannan's Churchill, Hilter, and the Unnecessary War which has that premise. But I've no doubt Barbarosa would still have happened, even with France intact, and then the USSR would have been toast without Allied help. Would the Allies have sat that one out, too? But the Nazis really were evil, so we would have had to fight them eventually. WW II was necessary so long as Hitler was in power. Just a question of when. The longer we wait, the stronger he gets...

By the way, does anyone else think that parts of the intro were cribbed from Encarta?

Encarta: "global military conflict"
Wikipedia: "global military conflict"

Encarta: "...the commitment of nations’ entire human and economic resources, the blurring of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant"
Wikipedia: "erasing the distinction between civil and military resources"

Encarta: "in terms of lives lost and material destruction, was the most devastating war in human history."
Wikipedia: "making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives." (The phrase "human history" has been edited out over time.)

This post has been edited by Emperor:

I've got to read Pat Buchannan's Churchill, Hilter, and the Unnecessary War which has that premise.

Oh Gawd. He wrote a book on that premise? (And you'd read it?)
Why not save the money and... spend it on anything else

But I've no doubt Barbarosa would still have happened, even with France intact, and then the USSR would have been toast without Allied help. Would the Allies have sat that one out, too? But the Nazis really were evil, so we would have had to fight them eventually. WW II was necessary so long as Hitler was in power. Just a question of when. The longer we wait, the stronger he gets...

The US would have been dragged into the war eventually. Both of the major axis powers were on-the-move until they mopped it all up, or until someone stopped them. Eventually, England and France would have been attacked, Poland, or no Poland. From the German perspective, that war was all about overcoming the shame/stimga of signing the economy-crushing Treaty of Versailles (Keynes actually wrote a thesis one how German repayment of the financial obligations was impossible to complete without wiping out the national budget). I forget the exact circumstances, but when France capitulated to Germany after the WW2 invasion, signatory was in the same place, or the same pen, or something meaningful, as in "payback time." Poland was simply easy to attack, and the Germans considered it lost property, i.e. Prussia, as they also did the Sudetenland (then-Czechoslovakia), both of were populated with significant levels of ethnic German. Hitler 'picked off' the countries he could attack more easily, then swung at the big fish later. Recall that Russia was an ally for a while, then got attacked. If Axis-Germany had mowed the world down, and the US (etc) didn't exist, Axis-Germany would have taken out Japan in the end, in a horrific-bizarro-world situation. Axis-Germany had no allies, just temporary partners. (reminds me of some person... oh never mind)

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

The fire-bombing of Dresden was pretty awful, and as close to atomic weaponry as conventional bombs can be.

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Any articles involving Eastern European history are an absolute minefield. The Iron Curtain is still very much alive in the minds of many editors.

For another example, have a look at the occasional shitfights that break out at the article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

But for the worst example of strawman racial drama that I have seen, see the "humourous" http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Poles_are_evil. The fact that it is on Meta and not on WP makes it totally independent from WP - at least, that's what some Polish editors say when the page is attacked after said editors refer to it as the ultimate defence against any objections (however slight) come their way.

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

When I drove through there immediately post wall-came-down, the town was so undeveloped that there was only one hotel for like 400 dollars a night, and really nothing else in terms of small hotels. And the city was still a mess. I've been back and it's totally different. The post-unification German government poured millions into reconstruction in the past 10 years.

Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

Thats strange. I wonder what is the editor demographic of that ilk. I've never met an Eastern European who had that position. Maybe a Russian or two, but they were hooked in to the old appararichnik system by family (usually parents), and they were somehow obligated to speak so, and so arguing with them would have been almost rude. You know, those just-nod-and-smile-why-argue conversations.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Thats strange. I wonder what is the editor demographic of that ilk. I've never met an Eastern European who had that position. Maybe a Russian or two, but they were hooked in to the old appararichnik system by family (usually parents), and they were somehow obligated to speak so, and so arguing with them would have been almost rude. You know, those just-nod-and-smile-why-argue conversations.

Don't get me wrong. Not all Eastern European editors are like that. But you know how it is with WP: those who yell the loudest tend to outlast all the sensible editors, especially when under the protective wing of an admin or two.

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Don't get me wrong. Not all Eastern European editors are like that. But you know how it is with WP: those who yell the loudest tend to outlast all the sensible editors, especially when under the protective wing of an admin or two.

That and the "all the whackjobs tend to gravitate to the internet because they have no social skills (friends, family, etc)" theory mesh nicely. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "OK," either. The emperor of Japan had already made a back-channel offer of surrender, under the same terms that were later agreed to on the USS Missouri. His overture was rebuffed, because a faction in the civilian leadership of the US was eager to try out atomic weapons, on civilian targets, in order to create a certain psychological effect on the rest of the world.

Oh.

This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

This post has been edited by House of Cards:

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

Carnage was the point.

Ah, sorry. Not just the carnage, but everything else that involved the bombing: the desire to test the weapons on a civilian population, the total lack of necessity of the bombing in terms of finishing the war, the long-lasting effects of the bombing, etc.

This post has been edited by House of Cards:

The death toll was substantially greater than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Yes. That doesn't get a lot of historical attention as it is somehow overshadowed by other events (Normandy, atom bombs, etc). I saw a documentary on it for the first time when living in Europe, and I thought I'd read tons on WW2 and seen tons of biopics when back in the US. I had no idea what the firebombing did there. Apparently anyone in some certain radius got fried. There was simply no place to hide. If you were in a bomb shelter underground, that wasn't safe. The only way to survive was to not be there, period.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

A major reason why there is little attention to this in the Allied countries is because it was a deliberate attack on a civilian population, and widespread recognition of that would sully the idea that our side was always fighting the good fight.

Yes, but by that metric, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should also be unmentionables. I had the impression that at that point, strategic attacks such as the three aforementioned were not politically-incorrect, given the vast desire to end the war. Or.... if that's true, then why were N and H ok, but D not?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not "OK," either. The emperor of Japan had already made a back-channel offer of surrender, under the same terms that were later agreed to on the USS Missouri. His overture was rebuffed, because a faction in the civilian leadership of the US was eager to try out atomic weapons, on civilian targets, in order to create a certain psychological effect on the rest of the world.

I'm sure I have heard it suggested (is that vague enough sourcing?!) that one of Hitler's biggest errors was the switch to the wide-scale bombing of Britain, which freed Churchill from any ethical concerns he had.

My father was in Burma*, and after a long wait in India and a bout of malaria as well, eventually went into action against the Japanese. The next stop was Malaya and they were due to land on the beaches a few days after The Bomb was dropped. He is certain, having seen the sandy beaches with trees lining the shore, that it would have been an unsurvivable experience for most. He therefore believes that the dropping of the bomb, even if it only shortened the war by a few days, saved his life and those of his comrades. He landed those few days later as a member of an occupying force.


*As it was known then (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

Sorry, I stopped reading that article when I saw this: "hit the nation's that might sponsor them". What motivates writers to put in a possessive apostrophe when they simply mean to construct a plural noun?

Not so fast on Dresden. It all depends on what you consider "military significance". That is disputed. I'm not trying to gloss over the human disgraces that took place at Allied hands during World War II -- quite the contrary. But it is also worth considering that some portion of the Dresden story is based on a heap of post-war mythology.

That being said, my undergraduate honors thesis on the broader subject is available for reading if you're ever in the stacks at Woodruff Library at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia. (U4.5 .K65) Maybe you can get it through inter-library loan. It's only "magna" cum laude quality, though. Don't knock yourself out.

Not so fast on Dresden. It all depends on what you consider "military significance". That is disputed. I'm not trying to gloss over the human disgraces that took place at Allied hands during World War II -- quite the contrary. But it is also worth considering that some portion of the Dresden story is based on a heap of post-war mythology.

All cities almost everywhere during the war had some military significance. It's a question of proportion.

From that link: He also notes that Dresden was a hotbed of Nazi sympathy and anti-Semitism. Is that really a good enough excuse to firebomb it? Going only from that article, the whole thing sounds too apologetic to me.

There is some post-war mythology involved, for sure. But don't forget that some of it comes from the Allied side, who excuse Dresden with "well, they deserved it"

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

This post has been edited by Neil:

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

I am always troubled by the equating of Hitler and Stalin. It is often stated that Stalin's forced collectivization and purges resulted in as many deaths to Soviet citizens as Hilter's invasion. I'm not certain of the numbers but that does seem possible. What it ignores is that Hilter failed in carrying out his intentions and Stalin succeeded. If Hitler had prevailed the Slavic people would have faced outright genocide, with the entire area east of the Urals depopulated and resettled with Germans. This would have meant losses an entire order of magnitude greater than those suffered. The Soviet narrative of the Great Patriotic War has much truth in it. The Slavic peoples owe a great debt to the Red Army, irrespective of the role of Stalin's regime in any other matters.

Google and Yahoo think that Wikipedia has the best page regarding World War II available.

The most horrifying feature was that Dresden had no military significance. The bombing was carried out as a macabre experiment in psychological warfare, by the Strategic Bombing Survey (see this article.)

Sorry, I stopped reading that article when I saw this: "hit the nation's that might sponsor them". What motivates writers to put in a possessive apostrophe when they simply mean to construct a plural noun?

I agree, that sucks. The original article is not available on the web -- the site to which I linked is someone's hasty transcription. I found a more grammatically acceptable transcription of the article on other sites that were unfortunately too wacky and conspirophilic for my liking.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Do you have an article on this? I'd be horrified if a group tried to do such a thing--I'd never heard of this (the Smithsonian incident, nothing on WP)

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Do you have an article on this? I'd be horrified if a group tried to do such a thing--I'd never heard of this (the Smithsonian incident, nothing on WP)

Here's a few links (the exhibition wasn't completely stopped, but massively whitewashed)

• A rather long article
• NY times
• A book abour the ordeal
• A brief mention on WP

This is not the only time that the Smithsonian has crumbled under pressure. The same happened when they were preparing an exhibition discussing climate change, for example.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

There is a pretty good Wikipedia article on all this, BTW, called Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The short answer is that starving Japan to death was not very tennable while they held thousands of US prisoners (if you think they'd have starved, while feeding prisoners-- you have the wrong guys in mind). Japan also was in control of hundreds of thousands of what were essentially slave laborers in various terrritories they still controlled: were we to go around all these, one-by-one, and take them against suicidical defenses, while each of the others starved?

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively. But the difference is being burned to death slowly or more quickly, or else just as fast. There are a few effects of radiation that are unique, but none of them are particularly more horrible than other effects of war. Being one of the the thousands of Chinese woman in Nanking who had a Japanese soldier thrust a bamboo stake into your vagina (a standard procedure) must have been unique also, if you survived it. But how do you compare one type of unique post-war injury with another?

One more thing needs to be noted. I happen to believe that since empathy is distance-dependent, that there's a difference between somebody who kills an infant child with a bomb, far away, at the press of a button, and a man who bayonets an infant like a pillow, up close and personal. The reason is that more human inhibitions need be overcome, in the second case (even hungry housecats and wolves will stand by while their young eat-- and not only their own personal young; calling the Japanese soldiers "animals" in such circumstances is an insult to many animals). The Japanese attrocities of WW II have far more of the second-case character, if you know anything of their treatment of the Chinese, and their live-human bio-warfare and munitions experiments, using prisoners (which outclassed in scale, and equaled in inhumanity, anything Mengele ever did). So what does one do in the face of that?

By all means, let us have an exhibition of atomic bombings and aftermath. But some % of the exhibit needs to be devoted to putting them into context, without which they are meaningless. For example, along with your photos of radiation burned civilians, keep in mind this image of a Japanese soldier about to decapitate a captured Austalian prisoner of war, just for the hell of it.

(IMG:http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/allies-bomb-northern-nazi-germany-48.jpg)

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

Any articles involving Eastern European history are an absolute minefield. The Iron Curtain is still very much alive in the minds of many editors.

For another example, have a look at the occasional shitfights that break out at the article on the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Here, editors from ex-Soviet states still stick to the near 50-year USSR doctrine that the Pact never existed and was a Western fabrication.

This is preposterous. Nobody claims that there was no pact. The dispute is whether it was a non-aggression pact (an agreement between enemies that they would not attack each other) or actually some kind of alliance. The latter position is advanced by many who try to use the pact as a means of vilifying Stalin and/or the Soviet Union.

This is preposterous. Nobody claims that there was no pact. The dispute is whether it was a non-aggression pact (an agreement between enemies that they would not attack each other) or actually some kind of alliance. The latter position is advanced by many who try to use the pact as a means of vilifying Stalin and/or the Soviet Union.

That said, Poland was dismembered in a remarkably coordinated way for a couple of nations who merely had a non-agression pact with each other, and which was in no way an alliance.

And why would anybody need the pact to villify Stalin, when they merely need to point to byproducts of it, like the Katyn massacre?

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is the common rationalization, and it is utter fraudulent, because no amphibious invasion was necessary. Japan was blockaded tighter than a drum -- all the allies had to do was wait as Japan ran out of supplies. However, waiting was also unnecessary, because the offer of surrender had already been made. Here is another article that is germane to the topic, this time with good grammar.

The short answer is that starving Japan to death was not very tennable while they held thousands of US prisoners

Well, as I mentioned, this point is moot, because the offer of surrender had already been made.

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively.

Military leaders proposed dropping a nuke on an uninhabited island, and inviting Japanese leaders to observe, as a "warning shot." But civilian leaders, who wanted to deliver a traumatic psychological shock to the entire planet, insisted that the bombs be dropped on civilians.

Well, as I mentioned, this point is moot, because the offer of surrender had already been made.

Well, as I didn't mention, that offer had too many conditionals in it for the US to accept. The US had publically committed on Dec. 8, 1941 to an unconditional surrender. Keeping one's word publically in ONE war helps to prevent the NEXT war. Those people who claim that the US ended up accepting basically the same offer, are just wrong. The US accepted an offer whereby surrender was unconditional, but it was understood (under the table) that the Emperor would be allowed to retain title and role at total U.S. sufference. What the Japanese had offered was that this would be a matter of negociated treaty. Just a matter of face-saving, you say? Yes, but an important matter for those who were willing to start and end wars themselves over such quibbles. It was felt as necessary to break Japan psychologically as physically. Else, where is the guarantee they won't decide they the right to do it again?

Perhaps atomic bombing per se was not necessary-- we could have simply continued to firebomb Japan to nothing, just as effectively.

Military leaders proposed dropping a nuke on an uninhabited island, and inviting Japanese leaders to observe, as a "warning shot." But civilian leaders, who wanted to deliver a traumatic psychological shock to the entire planet, insisted that the bombs be dropped on civilians.

Hmmm, due to practical considerations, there was never much of a real push for a demo-bomb by anybody, much less generalized "military leaders." Gen. LeMay, who was in charge of the bombing, was gungho for the atom bomb. But of course it wasn't up to him. The Targetting Committee considered various options but the real problem is how do you demo an atom bomb? You can blow up all the islands you like, but until you blow up a city, there's no demoing what it will do to a city. A flash and a bang are all you get, otherwise.

The other big problem with a demo bomb is what happens if you set it up to demo it, and it doesn't work? They'd only tested one plutonium bomb, and only had enough plutonium for one more (the demo) and more would not show up for a few more weeks. So this would mean 3 weeks' delay. They'd never tested the uranium bomb and would never have enough uranium for another one, so that was out as a demo. So that causes a problem. The people at the time thought under the circumstances, and with not a lot of confidence, it was best to drop things without warning, and if they don't work, say nothing about that little smoke-poof in the sky, and that tiny bit of radiation that shows up later.

As for civilian vs. military targets, there weren't any isolated military targets worthy of a bomb left in the Japanese empire, in late 1945. The Nagasaki bomb did take out the torpedo works which had produced the bombs which struck the ships at Pearl Harbor. And there was a troop garrison destroyed in Hiroshima, right at the hypocenter. But the Japanese had mixed military and civilian production together most carefully. Had they deliberately separated it, those who didn't follow the line would have been more culpable. They chose not to. Their problem. You don't use your own civilians as live-hostages, then complain that they're collateral damage.

One option that NOBODY thought of at the time (it's mine, he said modestly (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif) ), but which would have given everybody what they wanted, is that the bomb could have been fully demoed by dropping it at the waterline of a harbor, thereby taking out a half-circle. This would have provided full demo (since the Japanese were fully capable of multiplying by two) at the same time as halving the casualties. But as I say, I can't say that this was rejected, because it just was never brought up. Even Oppenheimer, who was on the targetting committee (and who did recommend the bomb be used on on a city), didn't think of doing it this way. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sad.gif)

That said, Hiroshima served as a demo, did it not? The Japanese still said "no," even then. So as it turns out, any lesser demo would have been totally wasted.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe:

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

Greg, don't be an idiot. That's what humans do; they form groups and kill each other to take their stuff. It's the history of the human race. And if anyone thinks humans are different and past all that now, then they are double idiots.

As I recall, wasn't Dresden firebombed a] in return for Coventry, which was both revenge and as a moral boost for the British people, and b] as a demonstration of power?

There was a lot of revenge and moral justification happening during WW2.

I should also add that, based on the military and civilian death tolls on Okinawa (the Japanese lost 90,000 troops on an island only 460 square miles in area), the U.S. estimates for Japanese home island casualties (were the war brought to a conclusion through traditional amphibious invasion (Operation DOWNFALL)) numbered at least in the several millions. Certainly far fewer died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All of it was sad and certainly needless, as over 60 years of peace and alliance between the US and Japan since have proven.

Greg, don't be an idiot. That's what humans do; they form groups and kill each other to take their stuff. It's the history of the human race. And if anyone thinks humans are different and past all that now, then they are double idiots.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Since everyone is sharing, had I been Truman I would have ordered both bombings at exactly the same times in exactly the same way. His reasons have been more than adequately explained. Some people just don't want to listen to them.

Now why is it that Wikipedia can't keep the revisionists from continually pooping all over its articles?

Since everyone is sharing, had I been Truman I would have ordered both bombings at exactly the same times in exactly the same way. His reasons have been more than adequately explained. Some people just don't want to listen to them.

Now why is it that Wikipedia can't keep the revisionists from continually pooping all over its articles?

The "revisionists" or fringe theorists have no other platform except Wikipedia. It's the only place where their views will be heard and be taken seriously... and that is no compliment to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Point of order: All historians are "revisionist" to some degree. If they kept repeating things already said over and over again, there would be no new PhDs or theses being earned. But all academics have to answer for their theses or ideas by the public and other academics, while Wikipedians do not have to answer to anybody. If they have enough social support and social currency via the WP Community, they'll survive any argument against their fringe ideas and live to carry on their agenda on WP another day.

In fact, I remember when Lir was here, he told us a story about his professor rejecting his thesis because Wikipedia had a different take on Operation Torch (the American landings in Africa during WWII). Poor Lir, poor academia. Despite the disclaimers, people just take WP's information as true and never bother considering that it could be wrong.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Maybe it's been the other way around for you; maybe your standard of living is based, in part, on cheap raw materials flowing our way that was secured through warfare, or the threat of force. The Pax Americana hasn't been without bloodshed, it's just a calm in the storm. A few generations of peace is all any large civilization seems to be able to handle.

That's what humans do under certain conditions. Changed conditions mean changed behavior. Despite being particularly vulnerable due to being a double idiot, I've never had anyone try to kill me to take my stuff. As a tendency, it appears to be diminishing.

Maybe it's been the other way around for you; maybe your standard of living is based, in part, on cheap raw materials flowing our way that was secured through warfare, or the threat of force. The Pax Americana hasn't been without bloodshed, it's just a calm in the storm. A few generations of peace is all any large civilization seems to be able to handle.

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

This post has been edited by Proabivouac:

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

Yes, and we've figured out better ways of killing each other (tell me that's not true!), and we've figured out better ways of stealing (enron, for example)...

Actually, I think capitalism and imperialism are all that are keeping us from having world peace right now. Progress and cooperation are far more fundamental to the human condition than warfare. Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

A false dichotomy: cooperation with and generosity towards one's own kin - in primitivity this is equivalent to an ethnic group, plus whichever other groups, if any, with whom one trades wives - and hostility towards everyone else is the norm.

I have to agree with this. And I believe that any groups of people that live among each other but forbid intermarriage eventually end up trying to kill each other - Palestine/Israeli, Irish Catholics/Protestants, Hutu/Tutsi, American Blacks/Whites (until recently). It's just the way we're wired.

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins:

I don't understand your point. Are you trying to say that is the "natural" state of mankind? We used to rub sticks together to make fire, too, but as time passes we figure out better ways of doing things.

And how does this work? Through the development of ideology and a specialist class of propagandists to promulgate it, the development of law and a specialist class of its enforcers who, let's not forget, use violence to ensure that others don't - without their permission, that is. This is not people becoming more peaceful, but the imposition of hegemony. One indispensable element of these systems is the appropriation of surplus wealth through the threat of force - taxation. Basically a protection racket.

Today, the propagation of ideology consumes a greater portion of production than ever. This is because the things people are supposed to do are further and further from what we will naturally do. The length of childhood has been doubled, for example. The state pours vast resources in order to ensure that children are socialized to do various things - sit in chairs for long periods of time, staring at and interpreting symbols, for example. And not hitting one another. Even so, people still resort to violence, because neither the inculcation of propaganda nor the power of the state is total. Take the police away for a year - how would society change? Actually, we know the answer - small local groups form in the manner of street gangs, protecting one another and behaving hostilely towards outsiders…

…and we're back to normal.

Every human being should be insulted at the notion that killing and pillage is just "what humans do".

Homo Politicus has been killing off his fellow adversaries and enemies at the rate of about 2 million violent deaths per year since the beginning of the 20th Century. Note, by comparison, that the Holocaust claimed 6 million lives in 3 years. In other words an unabated distributed Holocaust has been underway on Planet Earth for the past hundred years.

It's just the way we're wired.

It's the way Homo Politicus is wired. Homo Scientificus and Homo Ludens are wired differently.

The "revisionists" or fringe theorists have no other platform except Wikipedia. It's the only place where their views will be heard and be taken seriously... and that is no compliment to Wikipedia. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Point of order: All historians are "revisionist" to some degree. If they kept repeating things already said over and over again, there would be no new PhDs or theses being earned. But all academics have to answer for their theses or ideas by the public and other academics, while Wikipedians do not have to answer to anybody. If they have enough social support and social currency via the WP Community, they'll survive any argument against their fringe ideas and live to carry on their agenda on WP another day.

Yes they have to keep themselves in business, I suppose. Still, I'd have more respect for the great thinkers on Wikipedia if they caught doozies like this one:

Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218411348 (bold emphasis is mine)

For those unfamiliar with WWI, angry Allied soldiers actually did invade parts of Germany during the war.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

That's why it falls to you, O Emperor, to correct them for us.

Say, I only realized now that you and Hirohito share a first name.

As an interesting note, the US Veterans Association a few years ago managed to stop the Smithsonian from presenting an exhibition on the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bombings, for fear that displaying the true carnage that was unleashed by the bombings would sully their good name. I haven't looked at the WP article on the bombings, but I wouldn't be surprised if similar movements were afoot there too.

Go to Hiroshima one day and have a look around. I highly recommend it.

I plan to.

There is a small museum in the town of Los Alamos New Mexico that few people know about or visit. It includes a history section that features photographs of the devastation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Berlin was almost 900 miles (1,400 km) from the Western Front; no Allied soldier had ever set foot on German soil in anger, and the Kaiser's armies retreated from the battlefield in good order. Thus many Germans, including Adolf Hitler, were convinced their armies had not really been defeated.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=218411348 (bold emphasis is mine)

For those unfamiliar with WWI, angry Allied soldiers actually did invade parts of Germany during the war.

Of course it's easier to obsess about Allied bombings and to social network and so forth, rather than correct factual errors.

Got the point about the misstatement of fact, but....

What's with the "anger" comment? Since when and where and how is soldier-mood-reading a part of war history?


This post has been edited by Disillusioned Lackey:

What's with the "anger" comment? Since when and where and how is soldier-mood-reading a part of war history?

Their words, not mine.

By they way, Wikipedians are really rough on Groener. See also: Ebert-Groener Pact.

Groener, who was second-in-command of the German Army and who had known Ebert from the soldier's days in charge of war production, contacted the socialist leader that evening. The two men concluded the so-called Ebert-Groener pact, which was to remain secret for a number of years. For his part of the pact, Ebert agreed to suppress the Bolshevik-led revolution and maintain the defeated Army's role as one of the pillars of the German state; Groener in turn agreed to throw the weight of the still-considerable Army behind the new government. For this act, Groener earned the enmity of much of the military leadership, much of whom sought the retention of the monarchy.

If my memory serves, Kaiser Wilhelm actually travelled to meet with a group of "military leadership" to see if he had any support. They had their chance to seek the retention of the monarchy, but no one spoke up. Groener must be a Nazi scapegoat or something.

Now look at the intro:

World War II or the Second World War[1] was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. It first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland.

Putting aside all content disputes for a second, how about the writing quality?

The best part: the owners have frozen the intro while mediation about the start date is underway. Could be changed tomorrow, could be never.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

I remember the very first time I looked at WP I read a heated discussion on Hitler's homosexuality on a talk page which went on for ages and ages. Laughed myself silly....must find that again one day....

This post has been edited by Casliber:

England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready.

Ahem. That's "Britain". Or the "UK". Or even the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" for those who love to type. {Sniff}.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

No no no. You're being selective in your quoting. That's "Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia". See WWII rump states. Yes, "rump" is an immensely funny word, but dirty people see dirty things, I'm told.

No no no. You're being selective in your quoting. That's "Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia". See WWII rump states. Yes, "rump" is an immensely funny word, but dirty people see dirty things, I'm told.

No, you're being selective. Read this thread back to yesterday.

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate.

"invaded the rump"? Come on!

I advise you never to go looking for history on England's Rump Parliament. Your vulgar head will explode also.

And since this was 17th century and pre-Queen Anne, it really was just the parliament of "England" then. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

"This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England."

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

The Poland ultimatium might be considered a gambit by the British/French to hold off the declaration of war by which time their respective industries would have been producing in quantity the quality materials needed to negate German weaponary (Germany didn't go into war production mode until 1940, when it was realised that Britain was going to stay in, and might have had difficulty compensating for losses against a resilient French military backed by Great Britain with its factories not threatened by an enemy off its southern coast.) Hitler likely gambled that the ultimatium could be called in the short term because he was aware that his borders to the west would remain secure, but waiting would have placed the allies in a position to build up resources sufficiently to turn defensive strategy into offensive.

It has to be remembered that France had fallen, the Italians had entered on the side of Germany, North Africa was a theatre of war, the Norwegian campaigns had ended, the Battle of Britain won, and invasion of Russia by the Axis being put into action before the Japanese started their attacks - a delay by Hitler in invading Poland would have placed Britain and France in a far stronger position within Europe.

Um, that is my on the fly take on the situation anyway.

Oh dear. Be careful talking about "Great Britain". Swarms of Wikipedian schoolchildren are out there right now trying to eliminate it. They're burning every copy of Winston Churchill's book so that the term never appears again.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Great Britain sat around paralyzed. They certainly went on more of a war footing after the rest of Czechoslovakia went down. But the curious thing to me is that the Chamberlain government didn't fall in March 1939, or even in September 1939. Despite that fact that Chamberlain and the Munich pact had made it perfectly clear that it was predicated on the Nazis leaving the rest of the country alone, and Churchill's prediction that they wouldn't (which nobody listened to). Even more incredibly, when Great Britain gave Germany the final ultimatum about Poland, the Chamberlain government didn't fall even after Hitler broke THAT, and war had to be declared. That's rather what I mean about reality not sinking in. You don't go to war with the same people whose bad judgement led you into it unprepared. It took Great Britain until the (essential) loss of France, and the scramble and miracle/disaster at Dunkirk, to finally figure that out. That was a year late.

In March 1939 Germany invaded the rump of Czechoslovakia...

source

That's the way I remember it. "Rump" meaning what was leftover, after the Sudetenland was annexed in Oct. 1938 under the Sept. 1938 Munich Agreement "Peace in our time" thing. When Germany took the rest the next Spring, a little-mentioned event in history, the cards for WW II were on the table. England knew for sure from that date it would inevitably be war with the breaking of the agreement, but no war was declared at the time for England simply couldn't believe events, and wasn't ready. It took 6 months for reality to sink in, so that with the invasion of Poland, reaction was immediate. (LHvU underlining.)

Great Britain (as it was then) went onto a war footing upon the Czech invasion, see the production figures for the Hawker Hurrican - started in October 1937, 500 planes built by start of September 1939 (remembering they were building Spitfires, Defiants, Wellingtons, Battles, Blenheims, and a few other types at the same time), the navy was being refitted and keels laid down, and the army was being re-equipped. France attempted to do the same, but their more fractured infrastructure meant they were not as effective in getting new equipment into production (the Dewoitine D.520 was a contemporary of the Spitfire and 109E in performance more than the Hurri was). War within Europe was inevitable because the French were not going to tolerate an emergent Germany on the mainland, and Britain didn't need another naval power (along with France and the US) in the North Atlantic.

Yes, I didn't mean to suggest that Great Britain sat around paralyzed. They certainly went on more of a war footing after the rest of Czechoslovakia went down. But the curious thing to me is that the Chamberlain government didn't fall in March 1939, or even in September 1939. Despite that fact that Chamberlain and the Munich pact had made it perfectly clear that it was predicated on the Nazis leaving the rest of the country alone, and Churchill's prediction that they wouldn't (which nobody listened to). Even more incredibly, when Great Britain gave Germany the final ultimatum about Poland, the Chamberlain government didn't fall even after Hitler broke THAT, and war had to be declared. That's rather what I mean about reality not sinking in. You don't go to war with the same people whose bad judgement led you into it unprepared. It took Great Britain until the (essential) loss of France, and the scramble and miracle/disaster at Dunkirk, to finally figure that out. That was a year late.

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

I agree with your statement. Now could you please point me to where in the Great Britain article I can find this piece of the sum of human knowledge? If not, why don't you add it?

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

To Emperor - that is how the nation styled itself in those days, when not referring to itself as an Empire.

For an eye opener, go to his bunker in London from which he ran the war seemingly from his bed. He had breakfast in bed, afternoon naps, but it seems he did know a thing or two about fighting a world war. Hopelessly out of touch for peacetime as far as my skimpy knowledge of modern British history allows me to believe.

Winston was not liked in his own party let alone parliament, and I believe the French were not keen on the imperialist gentleman either. It was only when there was no "civilised" alternative did he get the nod - and a fantastic job he did, too. However, he lost the immediate election after the war as well. Chamberlain was liked within his party, Parliament and the population - it was realised that Hitler had abused the trust he was given. Chamberlain was ever the realist and stepped down for the better war leader (of a nationalist coalition - not Conservative - government).

More than that. The guy was only 6 months away from dying of colon cancer, so he can't have been feeling too well, whether he knew anything was formally wrong with him at the time, or not.

Life is not fair. Winston's son Randolf, an alcoholic that nobody liked, also had a colon tumor, but when it was removed it was found not to be cancer. Somebody said: "What a shame they have cut out the only part of Randolf which is NOT malignant." In Chamberlain's case, as you say, everybody liked the man. His problem was that he was so sweet he apparently could not recognize evil when it stared him in the face.

Winston Churchill had no difficulty recognizing evil immediately in Hitler. Or Stalin. I don't think this was particularly due to any evil in Winston's character-- rather his deep knowledge of history.

For an eye opener, go to his bunker in London from which he ran the war seemingly from his bed. He had breakfast in bed, afternoon naps, but it seems he did know a thing or two about fighting a world war. Hopelessly out of touch for peacetime as far as my skimpy knowledge of modern British history allows me to believe.

Winston was an awful Chancellor of the Exchequer, and during his second term as PM late in life, he was getting pretty old and worn out. But otherwise, everybody needs somebody to run its defense dept even in peacetime, and Great Britain kept Churchill out for many years, even though they needed him pretty much all the time he was an MP. That was dumb. He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

Yes, Winston often ran things from his bed, often with a liberal amount of alcohol to keep him out of withdrawal (as I read it!). But wars at the top are won by tactical thinking and it hardly matters where a person does that. Nor did historical wisdom in those times need be on display anywhere but in what a man wrote. And occasionally said on the radio (but Winston even had a reader for THAT, when he got too busy).

This is neither here nor there.

I've grown quite fond of history over the last few years but eschew more traditional sources.

Regarding the invasion of Poland, I found this to be a fascinating read. And wonderfully contrasted with his wife's memoirs.

He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

It really was a great idea. Even if it was a long shot, it had the potential to save millions of lives. Allied ships were almost through the mines and the Turkish shore batteries were almost out of ammunition when the Allies turned around.

The try on land wasn't so far-fetched it couldn't have worked either. All those guys needed was a commander like Nick Nolte screaming, "High ground by nightfall!".

He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

It really was a great idea. Even if it was a long shot, it had the potential to save millions of lives. Allied ships were almost through the mines and the Turkish shore batteries were almost out of ammunition when the Allies turned around.

The try on land wasn't so far-fetched it couldn't have worked either. All those guys needed was a commander like Nick Nolte screaming, "High ground by nightfall!".

Yep. Generals are so often more beaten more by their own imaginations than by reality. History is full of examples of commanders quailing before weak-but-unknown defenses, when if they'd simply proceeded quickly until stopped, we know they'd have been able to keep going to brilliant victory. And by contrast, at times when generals knew exactly what ridiculously tough (but known) defenses they were up against, they were willing to methodically feed men into a meatgrinder with no problem. So long as it was a KNOWN and EXPECTED meatgrinder. Incredible! At times generals have been willing to feed men into known and understood defences far more horrible than the ones they imagined and shrank from, earlier. It's a matter of hating surprises.

In the US civil war McClellan was defeated again and again by his own imagination. This was helped along by Lee, who always knew what stings of his to pull. Finally Lincoln beat Lee by sheer number and machines and one more thing: a guy named Grant who had no imagination. If U.S. Grant couldn't actually feel the resistance, he assumed things were fine and it wasn't going to show up. That's a very scary commander kind of commander to face, if he has the materiel advantage on you. You're then out of options, and Lee was. And in the end, he fed his own men into a well-understood meatgrinder during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. It happens to the best of them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

In the US civil war McClellan was defeated again and again by his own imagination. This was helped along by Lee, who always knew what stings of his to pull. Finally Lincoln beat Lee by sheer number and machines and one more thing: a guy named Grant who had no imagination. If U.S. Grant couldn't actually feel the resistance, he assumed things were fine and it wasn't going to show up. That's a very scary commander kind of commander to face, if he has the materiel advantage on you. You're then out of options, and Lee was. And in the end, he fed his own men into a well-understood meatgrinder during Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg. It happens to the best of them. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Another example would be Fredericksburg. Meatgrinder upstream, pussyfooting downstream. Worst combination ever.

Update - I just checked in on the Wikipedia article to find out that they'd removed the word "nazi" from both the lead and the background sections. It doesn't show up until "Impact" way down in the article, unless you count the small "Consequences of Nazism" in the infobox.

Also, there's no picture of Hitler, though oddly they do have pictures of Keitel and Guderian.

World War II

I brought this up, and it led to an inane argument and edit war about whether to write Germany or Nazi Germany.

It's really a shame that the article is this bad. So many people have read it this way for so many years.

Also, there's no picture of Hitler, though oddly they do have pictures of Keitel and Guderian.

What, Harvey Keitel?

Also, there's no picture of Hitler, though oddly they do have pictures of Keitel and Guderian.

What, Harvey Keitel?

I was thinking the same thing. Hey kids, get your history from Wikipedia and impress your friends with knowledge of obscure war criminals and the second Italo-Abyssinian War! (nevermind that you don't know what a Nazi is)

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

For added fun they've reignited the "combatants and commanders in the infobox" edit wars.

If you want to give yourself an aneurysm, pick who you think the top five Allies should be and go try to explain it to the Wikipedians.

He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

It really was a great idea. Even if it was a long shot, it had the potential to save millions of lives. Allied ships were almost through the mines and the Turkish shore batteries were almost out of ammunition when the Allies turned around.

Other people at the time had ideas that would have saved even more lives. Churchill did not approve of those ideas.

He got blamed for Galipoli in WW I, which wasn't really his fault (had the plan been executed by people as physically fearless as Churchill, it would have worked brilliantly. But they hesitated due to fear of mines long enough to let the Turks get in place, and then got slaughtered).

It really was a great idea. Even if it was a long shot, it had the potential to save millions of lives. Allied ships were almost through the mines and the Turkish shore batteries were almost out of ammunition when the Allies turned around.

The try on land wasn't so far-fetched it couldn't have worked either. All those guys needed was a commander like Nick Nolte screaming, "High ground by nightfall!".

I feel likewise about Operation Market Garden...best idea old man Monty had, and he would've gotten away with it too if it hadn't been for those meddling kinder of the 9 and 10th SS Panzer divisions who just happened to be resting and refitting in the Arnhem area at the time.

In the US civil war McClellan was defeated again and again by his own imagination.

McClellan knew how to build an army...he was superb at it. But once built he could not fight an army.

For added fun they've reignited the "combatants and commanders in the infobox" edit wars.
If you want to give yourself an aneurysm, pick who you think the top five Allies should be and go try to explain it to the Wikipedians.

One need only look at the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Counsel for an answer to that.
But WP is not really about answers, it is about generating drama and needless arguments.

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

I feel likewise about Operation Market Garden...best idea old man Monty had, and it would've worked too if it hadn't been for those meddling kinder of the 9 and 10th SS Panzer divisions who just happened to be resting and refitting in the Arnhem area at the time.

My favorite wartime newspaper headline: "Monty Flies Back To Front" (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

If I could be bothered with it, I'd probably take a stab at improving the World War II article. Unfortunately it would essentially require marginalizing a good half of the editors, but hey, what else is admin status for? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'd rather fritter away my Wikipedia time improving articles that no one else will improve and are far easier.

In these kinds of disputes it's often frightening about how entrenched people get over trivial details. Some people read the first book on WWII and then warp the reality to fit was they learned back then.

If I could be bothered with it, I'd probably take a stab at improving the World War II article. Unfortunately it would essentially require marginalizing a good half of the editors, but hey, what else is admin status for? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'd rather fritter away my Wikipedia time improving articles that no one else will improve and are far easier.

In these kinds of disputes it's often frightening about how entrenched people get over trivial details. Some people read the first book on WWII and then warp the reality to fit was they learned back then.

We wish there was a "back then". Instead of reading authors like Churchill or Keegan, these kids are screwing around on Wikipedia and learning by Google search.

If I could be bothered with it, I'd probably take a stab at improving the World War II article. Unfortunately it would essentially require marginalizing a good half of the editors, but hey, what else is admin status for? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) I'd rather fritter away my Wikipedia time improving articles that no one else will improve and are far easier.

In these kinds of disputes it's often frightening about how entrenched people get over trivial details. Some people read the first book on WWII and then warp the reality to fit was they learned back then.

We wish there was a "back then". Instead of reading authors like Churchill or Keegan, these kids are screwing around on Wikipedia and learning by Google search.

Not sure if either Churchill or Keegan are adequate for learning about World War 2.

The first wrote more or less for self-propaganda purposes and though the writing's great and really entertaining I'd hardly call it "history" (as in the kind of thing that "historians" do - though I guess for certain purposes it can be considered a primary document).

And Keegan - while he's great on stuff like psychology of soldiers in combat etc. - appears to be almost completely clueless about anything that didn't involve the British directly. For anything that happened east of Berlin remove the "almost" from the preceding sentence. And we're talking obvious mistakes here - IIRC in one of his books he blithly confused the Home Army with the 1st Polish Division (Soviet controlled), or something like that - the kind of stuff that a decent editor at a publishing house should pick up on.

For the realz I'll take Martin Gilbert or Norman Davies "No Simple Victory" for general stuff. Antony Beevor ("Crete", "Stalingrad", "Berlin") for how military history should be done, though each work is more limited in scope - excellent writer too. For the real enthusiast of military stuff and the nitty gritty you got to go even more specific, like with Glantz and House's "Battle of Kursk".

Dang it I wish I wasn't topic banned!

Dang it I wish I wasn't topic banned!

ha ha, you're topic banned!

One of the things to avoid in a general encyclopedia is revisionism (the world has been overlooking x and now everyone ought to know!!!!!!!) and too much detail.

Whatever Churchill's faults (and he admits to them), he explains why the invasion went in at Normandy rather than Calais. Something Wikipedia fails at.

Why were you topic banned? Arguing about the infobox?

For the realz I'll take Martin Gilbert or Norman Davies "No Simple Victory" for general stuff. Antony Beevor ("Crete", "Stalingrad", "Berlin") for how military history should be done, though each work is more limited in scope - excellent writer too. For the real enthusiast of military stuff and the nitty gritty you got to go even more specific, like with Glantz and House's "Battle of Kursk".

A for a bravura performance from a trained naval historian, who was trained as a historian before going on the spot to write naval history as it happened, let me put in a plug for Samuel Eliot Morison's 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II (Series), condensed for easy reading to the one volume The Two Ocean War.

Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, where is your ship?
"I am the U.S.S. Historiography; button your lip."

For the realz I'll take Martin Gilbert or Norman Davies "No Simple Victory" for general stuff. Antony Beevor ("Crete", "Stalingrad", "Berlin") for how military history should be done, though each work is more limited in scope - excellent writer too. For the real enthusiast of military stuff and the nitty gritty you got to go even more specific, like with Glantz and House's "Battle of Kursk".

A for a bravura performance from a trained naval historian, who was trained as a historian before going on the spot to write naval history as it happened, let me put in a plug for Samuel Eliot Morison's 15-volume History of United States Naval Operations in World War II (Series), condensed for easy reading to the one volume The Two Ocean War.

Admiral Samuel Eliot Morison, where is your ship?
"I am the U.S.S. Historiography; button your lip."

In working at the US Navy Yard, I picked up a couple of the naval histories they had and was surprised about how good they were; while it's probably the matter of what books you pick up, pound for pound I've found the Navy-focused military history books far more engrossing than the average Army-focused one.

Apparently seven references is the perfect number. Five of these were written in the last ten years.

References
Davies, Norman (2008), No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939–1945, Penguin Group, ISBN 0143114093
Glantz, David M. (2001), The Soviet‐German War 1941–45 Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay, http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf
Hsiung, James Chieh (1992), China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937–1945, M.E. Sharpe, ISBN 156324246X
Jowett, Philip S.; Andrew, Stephen (2002), The Japanese Army, 1931–45, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1841763535
Kershaw, Ian (2001), Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393322521
Murray, Williamson; Millett, Allan Reed (2001), A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674006801
Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1995), A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521558794

Dang it I wish I wasn't topic banned!

ha ha, you're topic banned!

One of the things to avoid in a general encyclopedia is revisionism (the world has been overlooking x and now everyone ought to know!!!!!!!) and too much detail.

Whatever Churchill's faults (and he admits to them), he explains why the invasion went in at Normandy rather than Calais. Something Wikipedia fails at.

Why were you topic banned? Arguing about the infobox?

The Eastern European mailing list. And the topic ban's just for Eastern Europe so I could still write about Crete (might have to dig out that Beevor again) or Normandy or Dutch Resistance (got buttload of materials from the DR museum in Amsterdam). But the Eastern Front is just so much more fascinating (often in the "may you live in interesting times" kind of way)

No revisionism from me. Don't really care that much about infoboxes either.

I should've been clearer about Churchill - it's definitely worth reading and yes, you can learn a lot about WWII from it, you just have to keep the limitations and nature of the work in mind.

Admittedly naval history is something I'm weaker on, in regard to WWII. I suspect BFox is right above in regard to strictly naval military history books. I'm not all that strong on the war in Asia either.

I've read Weinberg a while back and I remember having some minor issues with it but overall it is really good.

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

Writing a broad overview article like WWII is boring and tedious. Writing a detailed article on an individual battle or weapon system is much more interesting and enjoyable for someone who isn't being paid to do it. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has featured articles on battles where less than 500 people died but the WWII and Pacific Campaign articles are in bad shape.

Apparently seven references is the perfect number. Five of these were written in the last ten years.

References
Davies, Norman (2008), No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939–1945, Penguin Group, ISBN 0143114093
Glantz, David M. (2001), The Soviet‐German War 1941–45 Myths and Realities: A Survey Essay, http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf
Hsiung, James Chieh (1992), China's Bitter Victory: The War with Japan, 1937–1945, M.E. Sharpe, ISBN 156324246X
Jowett, Philip S.; Andrew, Stephen (2002), The Japanese Army, 1931–45, Osprey Publishing, ISBN 1841763535
Kershaw, Ian (2001), Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, W. W. Norton & Company, ISBN 0393322521
Murray, Williamson; Millett, Allan Reed (2001), A War to Be Won: Fighting the Second World War, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674006801
Weinberg, Gerhard L. (1995), A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521558794

I came "this close" to going to Ohio State for grad school to study with Allan Millett and Williamson Murray. But, I chose Temple and Russell Weigley and David Alan Rosenberg. (Better fellowship offered by Temple.) Still, I think Murray's Luftwaffe: Strategy for Defeat was excellent.

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

Writing a broad overview article like WWII is boring and tedious. Writing a detailed article on an individual battle or weapon system is much more interesting and enjoyable for someone who isn't being paid to do it. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has featured articles on battles where less than 500 people died but the WWII and Pacific Campaign articles are in bad shape.

Yup, that's pretty much it. The only question is whether this is because writing "broad overview" articles is intrinsically tedious and boring or is it because if you want to write a "broad overview" article most of those have already been written by somebody(s) elses and good chunk of the "tedious" part comes in mostly through having to clean up someone(s) elses messes and work with their material. Whereas with a more specific article you get to pretty much write how you want it.

This isn't confined to military history. At one point I tried making "Poverty" a half decent article and completely failed because it had so much previous junk in it that needed to be cleaned up that it got really ... tedious, really fast. Dumping the junk completely of course quickly ran into opposition from folks who insisted that their junk had to be there. I gave up.

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

Writing a broad overview article like WWII is boring and tedious. Writing a detailed article on an individual battle or weapon system is much more interesting and enjoyable for someone who isn't being paid to do it. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has featured articles on battles where less than 500 people died but the WWII and Pacific Campaign articles are in bad shape.

The problem is two-fold: first, to write the article properly, you've got to review a vast range of source material, and you've got to boil it down to just the key points. That alone is a completely overwhelming task; there may be more source material for WWII than any other event in history. The other problem to consider is that you're going to necessarily have to work with quite a few other editors on a topic that can be quite sensitive, so there's a not inconsiderable chance you'll get bogged down in some editorial dispute no matter what you do. Just rewriting the intro could set off a firestorm of controversy. I admire anyone with the editorial ability to slog through all that and produce a high quality article. It's definitely much more enjoyable to concentrate on a smaller subject or niche area.

The moderators have moved this thread without giving an explanation.

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

Writing a broad overview article like WWII is boring and tedious. Writing a detailed article on an individual battle or weapon system is much more interesting and enjoyable for someone who isn't being paid to do it. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has featured articles on battles where less than 500 people died but the WWII and Pacific Campaign articles are in bad shape.

The problem is two-fold: first, to write the article properly, you've got to review a vast range of source material, and you've got to boil it down to just the key points. That alone is a completely overwhelming task; there may be more source material for WWII than any other event in history. The other problem to consider is that you're going to necessarily have to work with quite a few other editors on a topic that can be quite sensitive, so there's a not inconsiderable chance you'll get bogged down in some editorial dispute no matter what you do. Just rewriting the intro could set off a firestorm of controversy. I admire anyone with the editorial ability to slog through all that and produce a high quality article. It's definitely much more enjoyable to concentrate on a smaller subject or niche area.

What's the point of working hard to write a good article when there is no quality control or revision system.

The Eastern European mailing list. And the topic ban's just for Eastern Europe so I could still write about Crete…

I can almost guarantee that one or more admins will block you for that, on the basis that Crete belongs to Greece, which is a country on the Balkan peninsula, which is part of the Slavo-sphere, which is part of eastern Europe.

Sure would be nice if they actually defined eastern Europe for purposes of the topic bans somewhere on the case page. In the meantime I certainly would not count on many of these people to exercise common sense regarding any territory between the Salzburg and Orenburg meridia, widely construed.

Point being that any regional terminology is vulnerable to self-serving scope creep, see also "middle east".

The moderators have moved this thread without giving an explanation.

What is the Annex for?..........remember this?.........

For topics that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here

The moderators have moved this thread without giving an explanation.

What is the Annex for?..........remember this?.........

For topics that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here

Hmm, must go off and look at the talk page and see if anyone has managed to discuss this issue constructively. (Thinks: need I bother?).

It is an important issue if we consider how Wikipedia has evolved. A work that seems to now depend on every nuance being referenced to infinity to protect it against the whim of another editor cannot possibly produce an extremely high level summary as such a summary simply has to be an opinionated view of what is important. In a way that is what a real encyclopedia does that Wikipedia simply cannot do. EB would probably take a new editor, get him to take a look at previous versions and he'd go with a refresh, perhaps taking into account new information (such as when the role of Bletchley came out which changed the understanding of how some of the war was fought) or perhaps be charged with a new version, where a respected writer would be sought.

There are two problems: if you try and summarise existing summaries, you really are in a world of plagiarism as you will tend to be quoting opinion rather than fact, and you simply cannot go back to secondary sources to reference such massive overviews.

EB solves that problem by just getting the reader to take it on trust that they've tried to do a good job - they rest on their reputation - an option not available to the squabbling editors of Wikipedia.

Sure would be nice if they actually defined eastern Europe for purposes of the topic bans somewhere on the case page.

Hah hah haaaa. How soon you forget, Charlotte.

I wish I had saved that map of Eastern Europe that Wikipedia had used. Can a Wikipedia admin retrieve it from here?

Ah hah! Here it is, thanks to Archive.org!

As you can clearly see, Crete is not a part of Eastern Europe, because neither is Greece. Nor is Turkey. In fact, neither is Bulgaria or Romania!

The moderators have moved this thread without giving an explanation.

What is the Annex for?..........remember this?.........

For topics that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here

This is "In-depth evaluation of specific Wikipedia articles." This is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia. This is not Everyking's ninth RfA or the rumble of the day.

The Eastern European mailing list. And the topic ban's just for Eastern Europe so I could still write about Crete…

I can almost guarantee that one or more admins will block you for that, on the basis that Crete belongs to Greece, which is a country on the Balkan peninsula, which is part of the Slavo-sphere, which is part of eastern Europe.

Sure would be nice if they actually defined eastern Europe for purposes of the topic bans somewhere on the case page. In the meantime I certainly would not count on many of these people to exercise common sense regarding any territory between the Salzburg and Orenburg meridia, widely construed.

Point being that any regional terminology is vulnerable to self-serving scope creep, see also "middle east".

Yes, they were asked to do that several times during the case but never bothered just saying any bad faith attempt at gaming the definition which was not provided was going to be punished and the ol' "I know it when I see it" hubris.
I do think however that there is SOME common sense involved, if not by others than at least by the admins at AE and that the general understanding is that the topic ban applies to the UN definition (in red) + Baltics, reflecting mostly the nationalities/ethnicities of the folks on the list (though not sure why that would then cover Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, or Bulgaria as that doesn't fit neither the nationalities nor the areas of dispute, but whatever). So I really don't think they would put Crete in Eastern Europe. Honestly, I never even considered that someone might until this thread.

Also not sure how the Greeks would react to being put in the "slavo-sphere". Isn't that one of the running fights in the whole Macedonia dispute? Who's a slav and who's a hellene? Not that I wouldn't want to stay away from that whole mess as much as possible anyway.

Radek, save your breath. This thread has been moved to a place where very few people will read it.

Meanwhile, out in the Articles forum you can read and comment on "Category: Anal eroticism".

Radek, save your breath. This thread has been moved to a place where very few people will read it.

Meanwhile, out in the Articles forum you can read and comment on "Category: Anal eroticism".

Eh, it's fine. It's the quality of readers not the quantity that matters. Anyway, I'm actually sitting in a bookstore thinking about buying the "War to be Won" per recommendations above.

I do think however that there is SOME common sense involved, if not by others than at least by the admins at AE and that the general understanding is that the topic ban applies to the UN definition (in red) + Baltics, reflecting mostly the nationalities/ethnicities of the folks on the list (though not sure why that would then cover Czech, Slovakia, Hungary, or Bulgaria as that doesn't fit neither the nationalities nor the areas of dispute, but whatever). So I really don't think they would put Crete in Eastern Europe. Honestly, I never even considered that someone might until this thread.

I guess things would really be confusing had I been on that mailing list. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Hah hah haaaa. How soon you forget, Charlotte.

I wish I had saved that map of Eastern Europe that Wikipedia had used. Can a Wikipedia admin retrieve it from here?

Actually I missed that thread, but I think defining it as Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine would have excluded the national interests of easterneurope-l subscribers.

Maybe that's why the image was deleted. On the other hand it (in light of a couple paint-bucket failures) it might have roughly depicted areas with an east-Slavic-speaking majority prior to ethnic cleansing population transfer in the 1940s.

I think defining it as Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine would have excluded the national interests of easterneurope-l subscribers.

Maybe that's why the image was deleted. On the other hand it (in light of a couple paint-bucket failures) it might have roughly depicted areas with an east-Slavic-speaking majority prior to ethnic cleansing population transfer in the 1940s.

The trouble is boundaries do change. Before World War I the German and Austro-Hungarian Empire would all have been Central Europe. Russia would all have been Eastern Europe. After World War I there was an independent Poland carved from Germany and Russia. After World War II Poland moved a good distance west. So for example the German city of Konigsberg (Central) is now the Russian city of Kaliningrad (Eastern).

By no stretch can the Baltic states be regarded as Central Europe, but they would condemn any attempt to lump them in with the Slavs. I think they like to pretend theyre Scandinavian. The term Northern Europe distinct from East or Central is a useful one for them.

I think they like to pretend theyre Scandinavian.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

I think they like to pretend theyre Scandinavian.

In the case of the Estonians, it's not entirely unreasonable. Estonian is closely related to Finnish. Lithuanian and Latvian are separate from Estonian, but they are not Slavic languages either.

This post has been edited by HRIP7:

In the case of the Estonians, it's not entirely unreasonable. Estonian is closely related to Finnish. Lithuanian and Latvian are separate from Estonian, but they are not Slavic languages either.

Except that the Slavic languages/peoples are much more closely related to Baltic than either is to the Scandinavian (i.e. North Germanic) ones, whereas the Finnic languages are right out.

Plus Lithuanian is as easy as *PIE, according to 5 of 6 linguists.

"Northern European" would be fine as it will at least hint to most readers that the writer does not intend to apply any objective or otherwise meaningful label.

In the case of the Estonians, it's not entirely unreasonable. Estonian is closely related to Finnish. Lithuanian and Latvian are separate from Estonian, but they are not Slavic languages either.

Except that the Slavic languages/peoples are much more closely related to Baltic than either is to the Scandinavian (i.e. North Germanic) ones, whereas the Finnic languages are right out.

Plus Lithuanian is as easy as *PIE, according to 5 of 6 linguists.

"Northern European" would be fine as it will at least hint to most readers that the writer does not intend to apply any objective or otherwise meaningful label.

Easy as PIE indeed. As any pie maker knows, you need lots of cases. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Finnish and Estonian are remnants of formerly more widely spread Finno-Ugric languages in the region; genetically, many Lithuanians and Latvians are Finns.

Radek, save your breath. This thread has been moved to a place where very few people will read it.

Meanwhile, out in the Articles forum you can read and comment on "Category: Anal eroticism".

May I ask, with all due respect and love, who the hell moved this thread moved to the annex and WHY?

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/frustrated.gif)

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

Still to this day Wikipedia can't get this top 20 article to "good article" status.

Writing a broad overview article like WWII is boring and tedious. Writing a detailed article on an individual battle or weapon system is much more interesting and enjoyable for someone who isn't being paid to do it. That's one of the reasons why Wikipedia has featured articles on battles where less than 500 people died but the WWII and Pacific Campaign articles are in bad shape.

I couldn't agree more. Volunteers will work on those articles they like more, and not on those that need more attention.

May I ask, with all due respect and love, who the hell moved this thread moved to the annex and WHY?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

May I ask, with all due respect and love, who the hell moved this thread moved to the annex and WHY?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Sorry it took a while to reply. I don't generally read the Annex. This thread was moved because you are prattling away like nerdy Wikipedians in a manner that could best be carried out on Wikipedia itself. That is, as noted above, the stated reason (more or less) for all moves to the Annex. I had hoped to avoid the rancor caused by not having to call you guys on the matter but you can't just let it be. If you want the have this kind of discussion I would suggest you masturbate first. If you still want to discuss you crappy little ideas on a matter that contributes nothing to the understanding or criticism of Wikipedia please do it in the Annex or go back to Wikipedia.

Thank you for choosing WR for your discussion needs.

May I ask, with all due respect and love, who the hell moved this thread moved to the annex and WHY?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Sorry it took a while to reply. I don't generally read the Annex. This thread was moved because you are prattling away like nerdy Wikipedians in a manner that could best be carried out on Wikipedia itself. That is, as noted above, the stated reason (more or less) for all moves to the Annex. I had hoped to avoid the rancor caused by not having to call you guys on the matter but you can't just let it be. If you want the have this kind of discussion I would suggest you masturbate first. If you still want to discuss you crappy little ideas on a matter that contributes nothing to the understanding or criticism of Wikipedia please do it in the Annex or go back to Wikipedia.

Thank you for choosing WR for your discussion needs.

Ok, I see you JakeSooly.
Since some of the participants in this thread are behaving like nerdy Wikipedians, in your view, then that gives you the right to behave like an arrogant, petty, intolerant WP Adminion.
Way to fight the monsters.

May I ask, with all due respect and love, who the hell moved this thread moved to the annex and WHY?
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mad.gif)

Sorry it took a while to reply. I don't generally read the Annex. This thread was moved because you are prattling away like nerdy Wikipedians in a manner that could best be carried out on Wikipedia itself. That is, as noted above, the stated reason (more or less) for all moves to the Annex. I had hoped to avoid the rancor caused by not having to call you guys on the matter but you can't just let it be. If you want the have this kind of discussion I would suggest you masturbate first. If you still want to discuss you crappy little ideas on a matter that contributes nothing to the understanding or criticism of Wikipedia please do it in the Annex or go back to Wikipedia.

Thank you for choosing WR for your discussion needs.

Well, my excuse is that I actually can't talk about this on Wikipedia. Anyway, the thread had major complaints about one of the most important articles on Wikipedia, whinning about ArbCom decisions and general comments about skewed incentives on Wikipedia. Usually that kind of thing can't be talked about on Wikipedia (for unrelated reason) without having to put up with a lot of annoying true-believer noise interjecting everywhere.

But it's your judgement call.

Ok, I see you JakeSooly.
Since some of the participants in this thread are behaving like nerdy Wikipedians, in your view, then that gives you the right to behave like an arrogant, petty, intolerant WP Adminion.
Way to fight the monsters.

Bitch bitch bitchy. I think this was the proper thing to do--this thread started,
about 21 months ago(!), as a gripe about Oberiko and some others trying to
make the World War II article look less pro-American, resulting in its trashing.

Since then, it's lurched from one god-that-article-is-shit argument to another.
Even the predictable squabble about the need to bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. But most people seemed to agree, it was a shit article and fixing it
was probably impossible due to all the POV abuse.

But it didn't become an Annex thing until Radek, Emperor and EK started
dragging it off into that direction. It's not a "criticism of Wikipedia" thread
anymore, it's a thread trying to come to a consensus about fixing the WP
article (and involving banned people, no less).

This post has been edited by EricBarbour:

Ok, I see you JakeSooly.
Since some of the participants in this thread are behaving like nerdy Wikipedians, in your view, then that gives you the right to behave like an arrogant, petty, intolerant WP Adminion.
Way to fight the monsters.

No, the WP Adminion block people to silence them. GBG doesn't - you get to have your say. I'll take frank words any day over the constant censorship at wikipedia under the guise of 'civility'.

Ok, I see you JakeSooly.
Since some of the participants in this thread are behaving like nerdy Wikipedians, in your view, then that gives you the right to behave like an arrogant, petty, intolerant WP Adminion.
Way to fight the monsters.

Bitch bitch bitchy. I think this was the proper thing to do--this thread started,
about 15 months ago(!), as a gripe about Oberiko and some others trying to
make the World War II article look less pro-American, resulting in its trashing.

Since then, it's lurched from one god-that-article-is-shit argument to another.
Even the predictable squabble about the need to bomb Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. But most people seemed to agree, it was a shit article and fixing it
was probably impossible due to all the POV abuse.

But it didn't become an Annex thing until Radek, Emperor and EK started
dragging it off into that direction. It's not a "criticism of Wikipedia" thread
anymore, it's a thread trying to come to a consensus about fixing the WP
article (and involving banned people, no less).

Then simply cut off the offending parts and cast them here or into the pit (as is so often done) but not the entire thread.

Otherwise it has everything to do with WP's quality, or lack thereof, as more clearly and elegantly argued by Emp and Rad above.

No, the WP Adminion block people to silence them. GBG doesn't - you get to have your say. I'll take frank words any day over the constant censorship at wikipedia under the guise of 'civility'.

WP adminions don't simply block/ban/delete/ignore, they also redact and archive discussions they just don't like or basically what GBG did here.
I don't see that as a significant improvement.
It is like using a taser instead of a truncheon.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

This post has been edited by RDH(Ghost In The Machine):

No, the WP Adminion block people to silence them. GBG doesn't - you get to have your say. I'll take frank words any day over the constant censorship at wikipedia under the guise of 'civility'.

WP adminions don't simply block/ban/delete/ignore, they also redact and archive discussions they just don't like or basically what GBG did here.
I don't see that as a significant improvement.
It is like using a taser instead of a truncheon.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

I'm a big fan of Lee Daniel Crocker's rule

Just more disrespect for content-generators by administrator types.

I'm going to take my "this-article-is-shit" arguments elsewhere, and you can continue to hunt for articles about buttsex and make your silly jokes on Wikipedia Review.

Noobs, please note that any effort you spend writing for Wikipedia Review is a waste of time. Your posts are likely to be moved out of search engine view for stupid reasons. You can't predict when or why this will happen.

If your objective is to draw attention to problems on Wikipedia, you can start your own blog or maybe write a guest column on Akahele. Or write a better article on Wikiademia, and note on the discussion page why it is superior to Wikipedia's.

There are a lot of options out there.

No, the WP Adminion block people to silence them. GBG doesn't - you get to have your say. I'll take frank words any day over the constant censorship at wikipedia under the guise of 'civility'.

WP adminions don't simply block/ban/delete/ignore, they also redact and archive discussions they just don't like or basically what GBG did here.
I don't see that as a significant improvement.
It is like using a taser instead of a truncheon.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

I'm a big fan of Lee Daniel Crocker's rule

I don't think this constitutes an example of best practices.

Would a less anal mod please move this thread back to Articles where, most of it, it belongs?

Somey? Krusty? Gomi? Cedric ?

I'm with the anals.

If the problems of this type of article cannot be discussed on Wikipedia, then I am happy to provide a corner here for that to happen.

If you care to discuss why this cannot happen properly on Wikipedia, where full and frank discussions on how to create good articles should be the norm, then I might consider splitting that off back into the main area.

WR should not be a host to compensate for the failures of Wikipedia.

No, the WP Adminion block people to silence them. GBG doesn't - you get to have your say. I'll take frank words any day over the constant censorship at wikipedia under the guise of 'civility'.

WP adminions don't simply block/ban/delete/ignore, they also redact and archive discussions they just don't like or basically what GBG did here.
I don't see that as a significant improvement.
It is like using a taser instead of a truncheon.
(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)

I'm a big fan of Lee Daniel Crocker's rule

I don't think this constitutes an example of best practices.

Would a less anal mod please move this thread back to Articles where, most of it, it belongs?

Somey? Krusty? Gomi? Cedric ?

You're a flighty little twit, aren't you.

I'm with the anals.

If the problems of this type of article cannot be discussed on Wikipedia, then I am happy to provide a corner here for that to happen.

If you care to discuss why this cannot happen properly on Wikipedia, where full and frank discussions on how to create good articles should be the norm, then I might consider splitting that off back into the main area.

WR should not be a host to compensate for the failures of Wikipedia.

You are a thoughtful pup.
Read above where I suggest moving MOST of this thread back to articles, then cutting off that which the mods (Hi mods!) deem off topic and shipping it to the pit or here or where ever.

I don't think that is unreasonable or unprecedented and is a lot better than what GBG did.

You're a flighty little twit, aren't you.

Don't you have children to save Mr. Caulfield?

Radek, save your breath. This thread has been moved to a place where very few people will read it.

Meanwhile, out in the Articles forum you can read and comment on "Category: Anal eroticism".

Eh, it's fine. It's the quality of readers not the quantity that matters. Anyway, I'm actually sitting in a bookstore thinking about buying the "War to be Won" per recommendations above.

"War to be Won" is in my personal library. I think it's one of the best broad studies of WWII that I've read, so I recommend it. I've used it as a source in a few WWII articles I've edited for broad overview info.

Another howler:

The Germans split the Army Group South into two groups: Army Group A struck lower Don River while Army Group B struck south-east to the Caucasus, towards Volga River.[155]

Wikipedia - 2/13/12

For those unfamiliar with the topic, Group A was to attack towards the Caucasus oil fields, and actually got there somewhat. Group B was supposed to take Stalingrad, on the Volga River, which would protect the flank of Group A.

A was forced to retreat when B failed. (makes more sense with a map).

WWII is one of those Wikipedia articles that I don't know why anyone without an amateur interest in revisionist history would touch. Besides what has already been mentioned in this thread (the necessity of having a thorough knowledge of a whole damn lot of source material among them), this article is pretty much guaranteed to be in a constant state of flux. You could make the most amazing article that has ever graced this planet and at best it'd be featured, but still doomed towards an unending stream of mediocrity by a combination of people who can't write well, people who want obvious biases to show through, and people whose knowledge of WWII is one-sided and descends into personalities (Hitler, Rommel, Churchill, Stalin, etc.) or is just lame to begin with.

So basically, unless one were to hover over and defensively protect said article every single day for the rest of Wikipedia's existence, there's not one bit of guarantee that it'll survive the month without being made dumber in some section, since Wikipedia apparently cannot differentiate the concept of "owning" an article into two parts: between some random guys who game a system, and those who actually know what they're typing about. Wikipedia therefore gives you the freedom to make an article suck and gives the opposing party the freedom to engage in oftentimes long and irritating bureaucratic processes just to rectify said suckness, and if you're unlucky then you'll just get outmaneuvered anyway.

But yeah I'd be able to write a bit about Albania's small contribution to the Allied war effort at least. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

BTW Emperor, what do you think of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia's take on WWII? See: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...+War+II+1939-45

I wonder if it's better than Wikipedia's in terms of giving information (if obviously at times biased in favor of the USSR.) It probably is.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

WWII is one of those Wikipedia articles that I don't know why anyone without an amateur interest in revisionist history would touch. Besides what has already been mentioned in this thread (the necessity of having a thorough knowledge of a whole damn lot of source material among them), this article is pretty much guaranteed to be in a constant state of flux. You could make the most amazing article that has ever graced this planet and at best it'd be featured, but still doomed towards an unending stream of mediocrity by a combination of people who can't write well, people who want obvious biases to show through, and people whose knowledge of WWII is one-sided and descends into personalities (Hitler, Rommel, Churchill, Stalin, etc.) or is just lame to begin with.

So basically, unless one were to hover over and defensively protect said article every single day for the rest of Wikipedia's existence, there's not one bit of guarantee that it'll survive the month without being made dumber in some section, since Wikipedia apparently cannot differentiate the concept of "owning" an article into two parts: between some random guys who game a system, and those who actually know what they're typing about. Wikipedia therefore gives you the freedom to make an article suck and gives the opposing party the freedom to engage in oftentimes long and irritating bureaucratic processes just to rectify said suckness, and if you're unlucky then you'll just get outmaneuvered anyway.

But yeah I'd be able to write a bit about Albania's small contribution to the Allied war effort at least. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

BTW Emperor, what do you think of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia's take on WWII? See: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...+War+II+1939-45

I wonder if it's better than Wikipedia's in terms of giving information (if obviously at times biased in favor of the USSR.) It probably is.

Actually, the WWII article is pretty stable and editing frequency is pretty low. This is pretty much because some folks have agreed that any kind of edit that may be deemed controversial needs to be (pretty much extensively) discussed on talk page first. It's a bit of a WP:OWN kind of thing, but actually here I think it makes sense - otherwise the article would degenerate in much the way you describe.

My main beef is that there's too little stuff on Nazi occupation - that's a woefully short section on what really was the experience of most of the people who found themselves unfortunate enough to live during this period. Connected to that, too little stuff on resistance movements/partisans.

Other than that there's a bit of the typical Western bias, which manifests itself mostly by the disproportionate attention being paid to Western front and the Pacific (it seems to do a good job of covering the land war in Asia, though that's one side of it that I know less about) - but that's pretty much how WWII is written about in English language sources.

Oh yeah, there's been a very long running dispute - conducted with a level of professionalism and respect that is very unusual for Wikipedia - about how to describe the role of Soviet Union in the early stages of the war. It cycles a bit and I haven't checked lately at which point in the cycle it is currently, but that's about as close as you get to "constant state of flux"

This post has been edited by radek:

wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc has been trying to get old editors to edit maybe you shuld talk to her, I agree people should be trying to get peoples' memories down in writing cos in a couple of decades the last people are going to be dying like with World War 1 where literally everyone is dead now, that chance has been lost:
• wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_I

WW2:
• wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_surviving_veterans_of_World_War_II
•• wikipedia.org/wiki/Surviving_U.S._veterans_of_World_War_II "In November 2011, the Department of Veterans Affairs estimated that approximately 1,711,000 American veterans were still living. Approximately 850 American World War II veterans die every day.[4] The median age for a World War II veteran in February 2009 was 86 years. As of December 30, 2011, there were 13 living World War II Medal of Honor recipients" — ... tick tock (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_military_personnel_of_World_War_II — There isn't even a page like that for Britain it seems, probably wp:WORLDVIEW's ugly face of systemic bias showing again (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_military_personnel_of_World_War_II
•• i <3 THIS ARTICLE wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_women_in_World_War_II
••• wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_in_World_War_II
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Polish_military_personnel_of_World_War_II

I FOUND THE UNFINISHED RESISTANCE STUFF via the Polish military section (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) It seems there's no category for british and american agents who weren't obviously natively resisting but did as much resisting as the rest of them though, hmm:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:World_War_II_resistance_members
• wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_resistance_members_of_World_War_II
...someone suggested to me a while ago that if I visited Dubai they'd want to make me play by their misogynist rules and so there'd either be a revolution or I'd end up dead haha

Awwwh this is horrible: wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_children -.- and this: wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Becker ... hanged at 23 oh god. after a life of being indoctrinated from the age of 13 (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) sympathy for the devil. and wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanze_Manziarly "In her 2002 autobiography Until the Final Hour, Junge alluded to seeing Manziarly, "the ideal image of Russian femininity, well built and plump-cheeked", being taken into a U-Bahn subway tunnel by two Soviet soldiers, reassuring the group that "[T]hey want to see my papers." She was never seen again." the holocaust is horrible but read enough about that before, haven't really read much of world war 2 in general since school... seems a bit like young people were being abused on all sides to fit whatever purpose the army men wanted....
Wow this is horrible, it reminds me of Scouts (yeah no girl guides for me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)), I of course knew of hitler youth etc but this is just wow insidious how innocent it all looks (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)
• commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bój o Kołobrzeg 2010-17.JPG
• commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 133-130, Worms, Jungmädelbund, Werbung.jpg
• commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-E10868,_BDM_in_der_Landwirtschaft.jpg
• commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-77013-0002,_Pressburg,_Frick_und_Globke.jpg
• commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv Bild 133-237, Worms, Aufmarsch der Deutschen Jungmädel.jpg

Well to read the "Occupation" section as it stands now you'd think it was a total picnic to be in an occupied country in western Europe. Nevermind a little organization called the Gestapo (try and find it anywhere in the article) or the fact that your countrymen might be Nazi collaborators and kill you or ship you off to a death camp.

As for "army men" causing all the trouble, a recent book came out about Eva Braun, basically arguing she knew what she was doing and was not the nitwit everyone assumes. Top Nazi generals thought it was important to be liked by her.

But then hardly any mention of women in the labor force or their combat roles on the Eastern Front, so you pretty much know where Wikipedians stand.

Well to read the "Occupation" section as it stands now you'd think it was a total picnic to be in an occupied country in western Europe. Nevermind a little organization called the Gestapo (try and find it anywhere in the article) or the fact that your countrymen might be Nazi collaborators and kill you or ship you off to a death camp.

I know this to be true because I've watched Allo Allo (T-H-L-K-D) only joking I did read a bit of stuff about the OSA before I remember

That is odd taht they would not even have a mention of the Gestapo >:| someone should fix that but I don't know enough about history to put the right bits in the right places, grr. seems pretty much then like how it is in China now, no idea who might be on the government's payroll, BBC reporters have said a few times people are scared to talk in public anywhere about the government even when they don't know they are journalists

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Another example of poor writing quality, error, and biased writing. (note redundant use of "colonial")

First, decolonization was mutual in many cases, not a result of the Europeans lacking prestige or resources.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Lousy analogy, but point taken. What do you think of the quote from the Wikipedia article? Do you think it is accurate to say that the Europeans were unable to retain some of their colonial empires?

Second, "retaining some or all of their colonial empires" continues to this day. Britain, France, the Netherlands, all have little islands here and there, so in fact the statement in Wikipedia is false.

France has no colonies in any normal sense of the word. It has overseas territories that are an integral part of France and represented in the French parliament. If they are French colonies, Long Island is an American colony.

Lousy analogy, but point taken. What do you think of the quote from the Wikipedia article? Do you think it is accurate to say that the Europeans were unable to retain some of their colonial empires?

Generally when people think "colonial empire" they get images grander in scope than, say, Pitcairn or Mayotte.

WWII did see a rise in anti-colonial sentiment across the major colonies (French West Africa, Algeria, the Gold Coast, etc.) There was also an increase in urban phenomena like native trade unions and suchlike which contributed to this development. With the exception of small islands (and, say, French Guiana) the end of WWII was also the beginning of the end of colonial empires, in the sense of them being significant.

This post has been edited by Mister Die:

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) Hey, that's crap! Algeria is an indpendent country!

Algeria certainly regarded themselves as a colony but they were incorporated into France.

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/nope.gif) Hey, that's crap! Algeria is an indpendent country!

I think the point was France tried the same legal tricks with Algeria but the Algerians weren't having it.

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

Basically making the debate here about some hyperliteral definition of "colony", in order to argue that the statement in Wikipedia is somehow technically correct.

Hyperliteral? There is such a big difference between living in a colony and in an area that is fully a part of some other country and is represented in its Parliament. I can tell you that. Try going to an American colony like Puerto Rico and compare that with Hawaii (if you don't like Long Island as an example).

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.
* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.
* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

Thus there is yes much truth in the statement but far from 100%.

While European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation.[266][267]

Is your argument that this statement is 100% true and accurate?

How could you deduce such from what I have said? However, the following is true:

* Britain (under Churchill) and Russia did their best to retain an empire; I have no doubt that France did too. Russia went so far as to use military force against Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
* All three of these countries lost huge resources during the War. I do not know how much prestige they lost. Russia at least gained; it became one of the two superpowers.
* There was large decolonisation. As I understand it, France has no colonies at all. Britain has only very few, and in at least two cases (Gibraltar and the Falklands) the colonial citizens want their status to continue. In Russia's case, many people in its ex-colonies would like to go back to being colonies. Admittedly, these are mostly Russians.
* America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries, and certainly gained in prestige. Since then it has absorbed Alaska and Hawaii just as France absorbed some of its colonies. Other American colonies remain such.

Thus there is yes much truth in the statement but far from 100%.

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

That and the fact they were somewhat late to a party they only reluctantly attended.

My issues with the statement are:

1) "retain some" --> "unsuccessful"
Not true or there wouldn't be French in Guiana or British in the Falklands or Dutch in Aruba.

2) "losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful"

It was much more complex than lack of prestige and resources. India, for example.

I am totally at a loss to know why you are arguing with me. Where do we disagree? You may disagree with what you thought I said. If so I do suggest that you acquaint yourself with what I actually did say.

I'm trying to criticize a specific statement in a Wikipedia article, to show that a top 20 article in Wikipedia can have errors and bias in it for years.

You seem to be trying to make some point about colonialism.

America is of course not in Europe. It too lost some resources in the war, though much less than European countries

And we all know why that is don't we children. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Because neither the Germans nor the Japanese were in a position to do serious damage to the American mainland.

That and the fact they were somewhat late to a party they only reluctantly attended.

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

It wasn't our fault we were better soldiers.

In terms of men killed, the USA lost more than Britain or France in absolute numbers. Only resource that really matters.

It wasn't our fault we were better soldiers.

I have nothing but the highest respect for the British during World War II. Now stop trolling.

I wonder what'd happen if a bunch of guys got together and basically made "Wikipedia's World War II Article: The Good Edition" and submitted it in one single edit, modifying the entire article from top to bottom. Like something so detailed (within acceptable encyclopedic limits), well-written, and informative that it clearly looks superior to anything that preceded it.

Probably "YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THIS" and it'd get reverted, but yeah.

I wonder what'd happen if a bunch of guys got together and basically made "Wikipedia's World War II Article: The Good Edition" and submitted it in one single edit, modifying the entire article from top to bottom. Like something so detailed (within acceptable encyclopedic limits), well-written, and informative that it clearly looks superior to anything that preceded it.

Probably "YOU DID NOT DISCUSS THIS" and it'd get reverted, but yeah.

yeah it would be World War III, but still a good idea. You could have a bunch of ten year olds write it. At least they'd know to put a picture of Hitler at the top, not Keitel.