World War II, The anti-US version Options

[Emperor]

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: Tue 10th June 2008, 9:40pm

[Emperor]

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

source

[Milton Roe]

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.

[LessHorrid vanU]

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.

[Milton Roe]

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.

[LessHorrid vanU]

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.

[dogbiscuit]

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.

[Milton Roe]

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).

[Emperor]

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!".

[Milton Roe]

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.