Talk:World War II
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Show citation statistics for CS1 and CS2 citation elements in the article.
Stats: unnamed refs = 187; named refs = 101; self closed = 14. Click show for details.
|
Other talk page banners | |||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article (experimental) Pageviews summary: size=93, age=13, days=60, min=14028, max=22065, latest=15917.
The pageviews file should be updated soon. If not updated before age exceeds 30 days, the chart will be hidden until it is. See § Maintenance.
│ 0 │ 2210 │ 4420 │ 6630 │ 8840 │ 11050 │ 13260 │ 15470 │ 17680 │ 19890 page views for World War II |
2001–2005: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Combatants: Archive 1 (2006), Archive 2 (2007) |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
Battle of Britain text
[edit]I requested this text to replace the paragraph about the Battle of Britain as is more descriptive and the current text plays down the UK's involvement:
The Battle of Britain, fought from July to October 1940, was the first major military campaign conducted entirely by air forces. It started with the Luftwaffe attacking ships and harbours, then they aimed to achieve air superiority over the British RAF by attacking airfields, infrastructure, aircraft production facilities, and eventually civilian targets. Despite initial successes, the Luftwaffe failed to defeat the RAF Fighter Command, leading Hitler to postpone the planned invasion of Britain indefinitely. The conflict evolved into a strategic bombing campaign known as the Blitz, targeting London and other cities at night, but this too failed to significantly disrupt the British war effort and largely ended by May 1941. Germany's failure to destroy Britain's air defences was the first major German defeat and a crucial turning point in the conflict.
The current text also infers that Britain turned down a peace deal, the deal was that Germany could occupy continental Europe and is widely regarded as propaganda which would not be honoured.
All the text is repeated from the Battle of Britain page and is cited. Can we get this approved? 117PXL (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Interestingly Britannica phrases it like this in their main WW2 article:
- Victory in the air battle for the Luftwaffe would indeed have exposed Great Britain to invasion and occupation. The victory by the Royal Air Force (RAF) Fighter Command blocked this possibility and, in fact, created the conditions for Great Britain’s survival, for the extension of the war, and for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany. 117PXL (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed the reference to Britain rejecting the Nazi "peace offer" after Germany's conquest of France as it is poorly sourced and a trope which is widely used in neo-Nazi propaganda. Basically, the Nazis asked Britain to give up. I have also slightly changed the wording to make it more natural in English. As for the rest of your proposed text, I think the current wording makes the same point more concisely. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That seems much too detailed compared to the coverage of other battles. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, this kind of detail is for the article on the battle of Britain, not an overview of WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I fully understand the detail is not required, so I would like to add the sentence: "It was the first major German defeat and a crucial turning point in the conflict." (fully cited) Which is a key sentence from the intro of the Battle of Britain page in paragraph 4. As we have now removed the 'Peace Deal' sentence, this could replace it without any extra length to the page. It's a key sentence which is toned back as it could easily say Britain successfully beat the the German's in the Battle of Britain which forced them to retreat and prevented a land invasion. 117PXL (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article already states that the result of the Battle of Britain was the indefinite postponement of the German plan to invade Britain. Going on to say that this was "a crucial turning point in the conflict" (which conflict?) and basing this on one source is going too far. Didn't Germany go on to invade Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union after this? All the books on the war I have read state that the Soviet Union forcing Germany to retreat in December 1941 was the crucial turning point in the European conflict. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Modern sources tend to play down the Battle of Britain a bit, noting that Germany was doomed to failure in this campaign from the outset due to the strength of the RAF and Royal Navy as well as the British economy. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was Germany's first major defeat which was a huge deal and also it changed their direction of travel and invaded countries East instead. Multiple sources state this...
- "The Battle of Britain was a significant turning point in World War II. It was the first major defeat for the Germans and showed that they could be stopped" - https://avi-8.com/blogs/the-aviation-journal/the-battle-of-britain-a-turning-point-in-military-aviation
- "In the event, the battle was won by the Royal Air Force(RAF) Fighter Command, whose victory not only blocked the possibility of invasion but also created the conditions for Great Britain’s survival, for the extension of the war, and for the eventual defeat of Nazi Germany." Britannica
- "Meanwhile, Berlin turned to a new objective. Hitler in December ordered his forces to prepare for Operation Barbarossa, the invasion and destruction of Russia." https://www.airandspaceforces.com/article/0808battle/
- "During the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe was dealt an almost lethal blow from which it never fully recovered."
- https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/8-things-you-need-to-know-about-the-battle-of-britain
- There are lots of sources. 117PXL (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Going to have to agree with the others that stated that there already seems to be sufficient coverage, I also do not believe these sources you have cited (one of them a blog advertising watches) are suitable WP:RS for such a crucial and high profile article. TylerBurden (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response, I sourced those immediately from the web, I can easily get similar quotes from textbooks or journals. My concern is that sources like Britannica make a big deal about it, have a look at their text. 117PXL (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Also Chat GPT, Claude AI and Microsoft Copilot all put the 'Battle of Britain' in the top 10 key events in WW2, therefore we should look expanding the amount of text as well. I understand it isn't in US history as they joined the war later. 117PXL (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I tried to take into account the above discussion and added the following as the text misses out the significance of the battle, also we've removed a sentence:
- At the height of the battle, the RAF had only 749 fighter aircraft available, against 2,550 Luftwaffe aircraft. It was the first major battle fought entirely in the air and Nazi Germany’s first major military defeat.
- (source: www.raf.mod.uk/what-we-do/our-history/anniversaries/battle-of-britain/)
- I felt this clarified what the battle was and and explained it's significance, is there any objections to this particulate text? Thanks. 117PXL (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well for a start, this is one source (a wp:primary one). Secondly, whilst they may say "MAJOR" other battles are claimed to be the first German defeat (such as Narvik), so (again) we need multiple (and third party) sources claiming this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks I'll look into it. 117PXL (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it improves the article. The figures on the number of aircraft in the air are meaningless without a detailed discussion of what type of aircraft they were, how far they had to fly, whether they had an effective fighter escort and a million other factors. The content about whether it was a major defeat is subjective and contested. You seem to think that the article understates the importance of the Battle of Britian but that's a debatable position best discussed in an article about the Battle of Britain or the historiography of WWII. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the number of planes shows the reality of what the pilots were up against, but yes the British planes were regarded superior. I think these stats give the reader a good visual image of what is happening. The stats simplify things for an overview just as other simplified sentences on the page do. If it needs to say that the British planes were superior that is not a problem. 117PXL (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- I can see the battle of Narvik did start a little earlier but had less of an impact on the war, so your points are noted regarding that. 117PXL (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Likewise talking about the Battle of Britain without saying what it was is also meaningless. The next paragraph also reads badly, the Germans attacked undefended merchant vessels but it reads like they beat the British Navy. 117PXL (talk) 11:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article is worded so the British can't have a success over the Germans but the Germans can have a success over the British. It needs fixing. 81.78.69.222 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well for a start, this is one source (a wp:primary one). Secondly, whilst they may say "MAJOR" other battles are claimed to be the first German defeat (such as Narvik), so (again) we need multiple (and third party) sources claiming this. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
- Going to have to agree with the others that stated that there already seems to be sufficient coverage, I also do not believe these sources you have cited (one of them a blog advertising watches) are suitable WP:RS for such a crucial and high profile article. TylerBurden (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The article already states that the result of the Battle of Britain was the indefinite postponement of the German plan to invade Britain. Going on to say that this was "a crucial turning point in the conflict" (which conflict?) and basing this on one source is going too far. Didn't Germany go on to invade Yugoslavia, Greece and the Soviet Union after this? All the books on the war I have read state that the Soviet Union forcing Germany to retreat in December 1941 was the crucial turning point in the European conflict. But let's see what others think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I fully understand the detail is not required, so I would like to add the sentence: "It was the first major German defeat and a crucial turning point in the conflict." (fully cited) Which is a key sentence from the intro of the Battle of Britain page in paragraph 4. As we have now removed the 'Peace Deal' sentence, this could replace it without any extra length to the page. It's a key sentence which is toned back as it could easily say Britain successfully beat the the German's in the Battle of Britain which forced them to retreat and prevented a land invasion. 117PXL (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, this kind of detail is for the article on the battle of Britain, not an overview of WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Codebreaking and Enigma
[edit]The following text needs improving:
"Most major belligerents attempted to solve the problems of complexity and security involved in using large codebooks for cryptography by designing ciphering machines, the most well-known being the German Enigma machine. Development of SIGINT (signals intelligence) and cryptanalysisenabled the countering process of decryption. Notable examples were the Allied decryption of Japanese naval codes and British Ultra, a pioneering method for decoding Enigma that benefited from information given to the United Kingdom by the Polish Cipher Bureau, which had been decoding early versions of Enigma before the war."
Nothing about Bletchley Park, Alan Turing or how the code breaking was a game changer and helped win the Battle of the Atlantic. 117PXL (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a very high level article on the war, that covers most major battles in a single sentence (or sometimes even less). The level of coverage seems OK for this. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I agree this is why we have a separate article. Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Possible minor grammar change in lead?
[edit]"...and it set the foundation for the international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century." -> "...and it set the foundation of international order for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century"? Fred Gandt · talk · contribs
01:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think "of international relations" sounds better than "of international order". "The international order" is a common phrase with a different meaning than "international order". Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Hermann Göring has an RfC
[edit]Hermann Göring has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Countries under the Allies and Axis
[edit]For the sides of ww2 it just says Allies and Axis and under that the leaders. Shouldn’t it have the actual countries listed like it does for every other war article? MaxwellWinnie102 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try clicking Participants, as there are too many and it clutters the infobox. Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Main Allied Leaders
[edit]A good idea would be to add Charles de Gaulle, leader of Free France. He was the leader of a country that became a permanent member of the UN Security Council (as did China). So I don't see the reason for it not being mentioned (like Kai Shek) Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 18:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try searching his name in the archives and you'll find countless times this has been discussed already. TylerBurden (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- And how I can find it? Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paste the n ame into the search box at the top of the page under "Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting." and then click "search Archive". Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- And how I can find it? Νίκος Αστέρης (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
When did WWII started in Europe?
[edit]One (non so common but possible) suggestion for the start date of WWII in Europe could be said to begin with the first day of the Italian invasion of Albania on 1939-04-07. 130.238.112.129 (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is not a forum, and it is highly unlikely this is mentioned enough in reliable sources to merit mention in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 19:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Philippe Pétain has an RfC
[edit]Philippe Pétain has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Emiya1980 (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Names
[edit]The World War I article has a section titled "Names" that discusses the naming of the war. I think this article could also benefit from such a section. Based on a cursory glance at sources (such as 1 & 2), the naming of this war is noteworthy enough to be included with a brief mention. At the very least, an explanatory note stating that this war's name was chosen because of ww1. JasonMacker (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I should also note that it could be helpful to also include within the Names section wikilinks & explanations for Pacific war, Great Patriotic war, Second Sino-Japanese war (War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression), and other names used for either the conflict as a whole or a specific part of it. JasonMacker (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a worthwhile idea.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I think that would place undue weight on comparative linguistic trivia; think about how much value 100 words has in an article like this one. The "sub-conflict listing" idea seems more like redundant clutter than pure trivia though, but certainly best avoided in any case. Remsense ‥ 论 11:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
The Axis leaders
[edit]Should the infobox not include the “KIA” template for Adolf hitler and the “executed“ template for Benito Mussolini? E4t5s.new (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- Just because there exists a convention that is used on many articles does not mean it is logically necessary for every applicable article. I don't think there's a need to adopt it here, anyway. Remsense ‥ 论 11:43, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think you have real justification to believe strongly that this would be the case. People are encouraged to read the actual article if they wish to know anything but the plainest possible facts at a glance. If we treated such an element as vital to presentation, it would be codified in the Manual of Style as a guideline. It is presently not, so it is subject to inclusion based largely on per-article consensus as per usual. Remsense ‥ 论 12:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- But they are real historical events in the Second World War, and if not applied, it may lead people to believe that Hitler and Mussolini were alive for the duration of the war. E4t5s.new (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
- No. Just because an option exists in a template it doesn't have to be used. And it is misleading: Hitler killed himself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hitler was not killed in action with enemy (Russian) forces so definitely not KIA - if you apply KIA to Hitler you could also add it to Roosevelt. Arnoutf (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in History
- GA-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in History
- GA-Class vital articles in History
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class military historiography articles
- Military historiography task force articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class military memorials and cemeteries articles
- Military memorials and cemeteries task force articles
- GA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- GA-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- GA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- GA-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- GA-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- GA-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
- Middle Eastern military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class European history articles
- Top-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- GA-Class Africa articles
- Mid-importance Africa articles
- WikiProject Africa articles
- GA-Class Albania articles
- High-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- GA-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- GA-Class Austria articles
- High-importance Austria articles
- All WikiProject Austria pages
- GA-Class Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
- High-importance Bosnia and Herzegovina articles
- All WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina pages
- GA-Class Brazil articles
- Mid-importance Brazil articles
- GA-Class history of Brazil articles
- Mid-importance history of Brazil articles
- History of Brazil task force articles
- WikiProject Brazil articles
- GA-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- GA-Class Canada-related articles
- High-importance Canada-related articles
- GA-Class History of Canada articles
- High-importance History of Canada articles
- All WikiProject Canada pages
- GA-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- GA-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- GA-Class Croatia articles
- High-importance Croatia articles
- All WikiProject Croatia pages
- GA-Class Czech Republic articles
- High-importance Czech Republic articles
- All WikiProject Czech Republic pages
- GA-Class France articles
- Top-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- GA-Class Germany articles
- Top-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- GA-Class Greek articles
- High-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- GA-Class Hungary articles
- High-importance Hungary articles
- All WikiProject Hungary pages
- GA-Class Italy articles
- High-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- GA-Class India articles
- High-importance India articles
- GA-Class India articles of High-importance
- WikiProject India articles
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class Lithuania articles
- Top-importance Lithuania articles
- GA-Class Moldova articles
- Top-importance Moldova articles
- Moldova articles
- GA-Class Netherlands articles
- All WikiProject Netherlands pages
- GA-Class Poland articles
- Top-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- GA-Class Romania articles
- Top-importance Romania articles
- All WikiProject Romania pages
- GA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance GA-Class Russia articles
- GA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- GA-Class Serbia articles
- High-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- GA-Class Slovakia articles
- High-importance Slovakia articles
- All WikiProject Slovakia pages
- GA-Class Slovenia articles
- High-importance Slovenia articles
- All WikiProject Slovenia pages
- GA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- United States military history articles with to-do lists
- GA-Class United States History articles
- Top-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- United States History articles with to-do lists
- United States articles used on portals
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class Vietnam articles
- High-importance Vietnam articles
- All WikiProject Vietnam pages
- GA-Class Zimbabwe articles
- Mid-importance Zimbabwe articles
- GA-Class Rhodesia articles
- High-importance Rhodesia articles
- Rhodesia task force articles
- WikiProject Zimbabwe articles
- GA-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Pages in the Wikipedia Top 25 Report
- Spoken Wikipedia requests