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.
World War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
World War II is part of the WikiProject Albania, an attempt to co-ordinate articles relating to Albania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familiar with the guidelines. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.AlbaniaWikipedia:WikiProject AlbaniaTemplate:WikiProject AlbaniaAlbania
World War II is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
World War II is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Bosnia and HerzegovinaWikipedia:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaTemplate:WikiProject Bosnia and HerzegovinaBosnia and Herzegovina
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:23, January 26, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lithuania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lithuania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LithuaniaWikipedia:WikiProject LithuaniaTemplate:WikiProject LithuaniaLithuania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MoldovaWikipedia:WikiProject MoldovaTemplate:WikiProject MoldovaMoldova
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Silesia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.SilesiaWikipedia:WikiProject SilesiaTemplate:WikiProject SilesiaSilesia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
World War II is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
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.
My edits are deemed to be unconstructive but I do think they are constructive. No one actually say "the Holocaust of European Jews", "the Holocaust" is sufficient. Adding link to relevant topics is useful and it doesn't make sense that "European Axis..." links only to German declaration of war. Casau056 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. "the Holocaust of European Jews" is a tautology. It should just be "the Holocaust". If there are no objections from other editors I will make the change. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
World War II was not a fight between good and evil, and good has not won. It was an imperialist war from all sides, a war for economic zones of influence, spheres for capital investment, resources and strategic territo-ries. And virtually all powers committed mass violence against non-combatants,often in connection with the scramble for resources, their redistribution and re-source denial to some, that is, by creating conditions of violence. The Allies killed at least ten million non-combatants. The violence also had to do with the fact thatit was a racist war from all sides due to imperialism. By maintaining that this wasa fight between good and evil, the dominant historiography is a continuation ofthe war with other means, and because of its Eurocentrism and systematic con-struction of non-combatant victims of different importance and value, which in-cludes ignoring or marginalizing certainlarge victim groups (especially thosewith a darker skin tone), the mainstream historiography itself is racist.
Haven't seen this figure before: is it commonly accepted? Is Gerlach right that the number of Allied and Axis killings are on the same magnitude? (t · c) buidhe03:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that The World War II Talk page "isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject." it is not a place to discuss editors' opinions on new books about WWII. If you have a suggestion for a specific addition to the article please provide it with appropriate sources. As the article states, the consensus estimates for civilian deaths among the Axis powers is ten million, compared with 45 million civilian deaths among the Allies. I am not aware of any other historian who argues that the Allies targeted civilians according to the melanin content of their skin. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your edit because you are writing one author's fringe view as if it were an established fact. Every so often German historians of the extreme right or the extreme left argue that there was nothing special about the Holocaust and that the actions of the Nazis and of the Allies were morally equivalent. Those on the extreme right argue this because they want Germans to be proud of Germany's Nazi past, those on the extreme left because they think Germany has been scapegoated for what they see as "universal capitalist/colonialist genocide". The vast majority of historians reject these moral equivalence theories. They remain fringe views and have no place in a high level article on WWII based on the consensus of recent scholarship. But let's see what other editors think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) Buidhe, having now read the chapter, while Gerlach does make a number of provocative arguments—including suggesting a rough moral equivalence between the Allies and the Axis in that both were (in Gerlach's view) racist and imperialist alliances of states that killed/exploited civilians (though this is a very simplified summary of Gerlach's thesis), and stating that the common use of the term "Holocaust" to describe the genocide of European Jews contributes to the "systematic mystification" (p. 164) of the event and should be avoided—I don't see that Gerlach anywhere states or implies "that the number of Allied and Axis killings are on the same magnitude" (as you put it). In my reading, Gerlach acknowledges that "the former killed fewer non-combatants than the latter" (p. 217), but this does not validate "the old good-against-evil stories" (p. 220), as "one who kills ten million non-combatants cannot be considered 'good' except for what would be a very peculiar meaning of the word" (p. 170).
Notably, while our article cites figures of four million civilian deaths in the main Axis countries compared to 45 million civilian deaths in Allied countries, Gerlach states (pp. 170–171): "Axis countries primarily killed enemy populations ... But most victims of Allied action against non-combatants were not from the enemy side. The majority were actually their own citizens or colonial subjects: in the Gulag and ethnic resettlements, among Chinese peasants and recruits, and in Bengal and Burundi." Among other examples, Gerlach cites (pp. 168–169, 184–186) the Bengal famine of 1943 caused by British policy (3 million deaths), the man-made 1938 Yellow River flood ordered by the Kuomintang (400,000–900,000 deaths), and prisoner deaths in the Soviet Gulag system (974,000 deaths).TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text I added states that there is a popular perception that World War II was fought between good and evil, which is missing from the article despite its big influence on how the war is perceived. Even those who disagree (for example that this framework is reductive and not given to objectivity) don't usually argue that evils by the Allied vs Axis powers are exactly equivalent. How is this fringe? (t · c) buidhe05:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify the text removed was
World War II has often been portrayed in popular culture as a "good war" in which the Allied powers triumphed over evil; this framing is also present, explicitly or implicitly, throughout most scholarly studies.[1] However, this interpretation has been challenged due to the colonialist actions, war crimes, and millions of civilian deaths from famine for which all major Allied powers bore responsibility.[2] The victims of the war also have not received equal treatment, with the Holocaust receiving much more scholarly and popular interest than other war crimes.[3]
Of this, the first and third sentences are not seriously disputed and don't reflect Gerlach's pov. I guess you can challenge the second sentence but that would seem to compromise nPOV because these are very serious criticisms of the Allies made continuously since the war itself. (t · c) buidhe06:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have again reverted your edit. You made a bold edit. Two editors have objected to it in whole or in part. Please don't start an edit war. It is now up to you to gain consensus for your proposed revision. WP:BRDCYCLE. You are using the wikipedia voice Wikipedia:VOICE to present the highly controversial opinions of one author as fact. You are also giving undue weight to a fringe view. Specifically:
1) The statement: "World War II has often been portrayed in popular culture as a "good war" in which the Allied powers triumphed over evil; this framing is also present, explicitly or implicitly, throughout most scholarly studies. The part of the quote in italics is an assertion by Gerlach. No serious recent scholar reduces WWII to a simple conflict between good and evil.
2) "However, this interpretation has been challenged due tothe colonialist actions, war crimes, and millions of civilian deaths from famine for which all major Allied powers bore responsibility." As I said, the "good v evil" interpretation is a straw man set up by Gerlach. No serious scholar holds it. The statements "refuting" this straw man are merely the sweeping assertions of Gerlach. What "colonialist actions"? Which "war crimes"? Which "famines for which the Allies were responsible"? All these are highly contested issues, not facts which can be written in the wikipedia voice based on one source.
3) "The victims of the war also have not received equal treatment, with the Holocaust receiving much more scholarly and popular interest than other war crimes." This is a non-sequitur. There might be good reasons why scholars have written more on the Holocaust than other war crimes and it might have nothing to do with "equal treatment of victims of war". Just as there might be good reasons why there has been more scholarship on WWII than on ship building in 15th century Venice. Frankly I find your wording sinister because the notion that Jewish victims of WWII get special treatment is a classic anti-Semitic trope. (I am not suggesting that you are antisemitic, I am pointing out that we need to be careful of our wording because there is a history of far-Right groups using loose wording in wikipedia articles on WWI and WWII to push their agendas.)
Some of the issues raised by Gerlach might be worth discussing in other specialised wikipedia articles on the Holocaust, or WWII in popular culture, or the Historiography of WWII. But for a high level featured article on WWII all that needs to be said is that there was an event commonly called the Holocaust in which 6 million Jews were deliberately murdered by the Nazis and their allies because of the Nazi ideology that the Jews were subhuman.
As for the issue of alleged allied war crimes, this is a controversial issue which is already discussed sufficiently in this article. If Gerlach has a detailed argument that there were more allied war crimes than generally accepted in recent scholarship then this can be discussed as a minority opinion in one of the specialist wikipedia articles on War Crimes in WWII. If ever a scholarly consensus emerges that the events which Gerlach considers allied war crimes were in fact war crimes then an appropriate sentence can be added to this article in the wikipedia voice with citations to that scholarship. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one else objected to my edit. The article currently says next to nothing about perception of the war, which is a big content gap. You haven't come up with any sources that contradict what I wrote, just saying you think it's fringe based on your own opinion. it is simply a fact that many perceive the war as a contest between good and evil (I would agree that even many scholarly studies do implicitly refer to the Allies as the "good" side). As you note in your response, the Holocaust is the subject of much more studies than other atrocities, reasons for this were not covered. there is no scholarly controversy that the Allies committed many war crimes, enforced colonial rule against foreign populations, or were responsible for large scale famines—any revision to suggest this would fail NPOV. However, if you don't like my text, can you at least propose something else that would address this content gap? (t · c) buidhe08:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to say that Gerlach's arguments about the Holocaust are pretty mainstream among scholars in the field: For example, see The Problems of Genocide, which is all about the different responses to different types of deadly anti-civilian violence, or Raz Segal, who writes, "For “genocide,” together with the term “Holocaust,” maintains a hierarchy of violence".[1] (t · c) buidhe08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sentences you propose reduce several complex and disputed issues to a series of crude and contentious generalisations based on one book. I don't believe it can be rewritten is a satisfactory way for this article. To do justice to the the topic of "perceptions of the war" would require a whole sub-section on WWII in popular culture, a section on the portrayal of WWII in scholarship since 1950 and a section on the Historiography of the Holocaust. Each of these sections would require a thorough and balanced overview of recent scholarship on these subjects. The views of Gerlach and Moses on the Holocaust are not mainstream, they expressly argue that they are challenging the mainstream. They have their supporters but have come in for heavy criticism. More importantly there are literally thousands of academic studies published each year which still use the concept of genocide as an analytical category. I don't see any reason why this article needs to include Gerlach's view that the Holocaust gets more attention than it deserves. The vast majority of scholars obviously disagree. This article has a section on Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour which devotes one sentence to the Holocaust and 14 to other crimes so I don't think the Holocaust is overrepresented here at least. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the views of Gerlach and Moses should be suppressed on Wikipedia. I just think it's a matter of balance and undue weight and that they should be included--along with the mainstream counter views--in the specialist articles on the Holocaust. But let's see what other editors think. It's holiday time so we probably should allow a couple of weeks for other interested editors to comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking again: do you have even one source that contradicts what I wrote? If the content is fringe, you should have no trouble finding many rock solid sources that say the opposite. (t · c) buidhe05:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in improving this article by adding a section or sections on perceptions of WWII then I am happy to work with you to do this. I hope you will agree that for an article rated as a good article, such a section(s) should be based on the consensus of recent scholarship rather than on one very recently published work which the author expressly states challenges the mainstream historiography of WWII and is only a research program guide and not a fully researched history. As I wrote above, this is a holiday period and I am away from my personal library and the main research libraries I use. I am also reluctant to expend the necessary effort to do this properly unless there is a clear consensus among other editors that such a section would be useful. In the meantime, I have objected to your proposed addition for the reasons I have stated and it is up to you to gain consensus for your proposed change. So I'm asking again: please allow a couple of weeks to give other editors time to comment on your proposed addition. I look forward to working with you to gain consensus for improvements to this article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused why you think this needs to be handled in a separate section, rather than a few sentences. The article is written in summary style so it's correct for the details to go into a different article. (t · c) buidhe14:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As this article covers the war at a very high level, I don't think that it's appropriate to give much weight to individual sources. The wording here is also highly unfortunate in that it comes uncomfortably close to claiming, using Wikipedia's voice, that the Allies were every bit as bad as the Axis, which is not a view that any serious historians hold. If we want to discuss a more nuanced version of the war, it would be best to use multiple sources that ideally survey the modern literature. It's fair to say that modern historians take a much more sophisticated approach to the war than was the case in the past (which is one of my many frustrations when people turn up here arguing that we shouldn't list Stalin first in the infobox as he was a bad man - he most certainly was, but modern historians also stress the key role the USSR played in the Allied victory), but we should be careful in how this type of material is presented. For instance, German histories of the war attribute the ultimate responsibility for the devastation the Germany suffered from Allied bombing and the chaotic evacuations in early 1945 to the Nazis. Nick-D (talk) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attached to the particular wording but I do think the article should have some sentences about how its subject is commonly perceived. Do you have another version or other sources to consider? (t · c) buidhe04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest looking at what recent wide ranging histories of the war say. For instance, Anthony Beevor and Richard Overy have published well reviewed general histories of World War II in the last decade or so - both are well regarded experts on the war with an interest in covering a wide range of perspectives. As Aemilius Adolphin notes, the issues you raise have been discussed in the mainstream recent literature on the war. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty good summary of the Nazi viewpoint as advanced in the Nuremberg trials: that Allied bombing was a worse crime than the death camps; that the real crime against humanity was the expulsion of ethnic Germans from the eastern lands; that the Holocaust is overblown; and that it was the Jews that started World War II. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Gerlach 2024, pp. 158–159. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGerlach2024 (help)
^Gerlach 2024, pp. 165, 178. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGerlach2024 (help)
^Gerlach 2024, pp. 163–164. sfn error: no target: CITEREFGerlach2024 (help)
Mention that World War I is the predecessor of World War II.
Please add « General Charles de Gaulle » with the main Allies leaders and France into the five World War II biggest winners. It’s a historical fact. Even if France lost the Battle of France, the Free France and the French Resistance went on the fight until 1945. Their participation was important in the Western Front. Of course, without the others Allies, France never won the War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanguyWilly (talk • contribs) 15:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While MOS:LEADLENGTH is not prescriptive, it recommends that leads not be so long that readers are intimidated by them or lose interest. The current lead is almost a full A4 page, which I'd suggest is excessive, though probably not dramatically so. I'd suggest the following lightly revised version to get the length down a bit. In doing so, I've looked for easy wins, especially by removing unneeded details such as who declared war when when this is obvious from the other text. I'd be grateful for views and further edits - there's a case for more dramatic editing to get this to the general norm of 3-4 shortish paras. Perhaps the most controversial element of the below is omitting a mention of Hitler's suicide: my rationale here is that both Ian Keershaw (author of the standard biography of Hitler), Richard E. Evans and some other historians state that Hitler's suicide was inconsequential by the time it occurred given that Germany had been totally destroyed so it doesn't seem significant enough to mention; we (rightly) don't mention the killing of Mussolini or FDR's death either. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
World War II changed the political alignment and social structure of the world, and it set the foundation of international relations for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century. The United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent conflicts, with the victorious great powers—China, France, the Soviet Union, the UK, and the US—becoming the permanent members of its security council. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War. In the wake of European devastation, the influence of its great powers waned, triggering the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Most countries whose industries had been damaged moved towards economic recovery and expansion.
World War II changed the political alignment and social structure of the world, and it set the foundation of international relations for the rest of the 20th century and into the 21st century. The United Nations was established to foster international cooperation and prevent conflicts, with the victorious great powers—China, France, the Soviet Union, the UK, and the US becoming the permanent members of its security council. The Soviet Union and the United States emerged as rival superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War. In the wake of European devastation, the influence of its great powers waned, triggering the decolonisation of Africa and Asia. Most countries whose industries had been damaged moved towards economic recovery and expansion."
I support the proposed changes of Aemilius Adolphin, with the exception of the mention of the major roles played by tanks, aircraft, and strategic bombing, which I think are significant enough to mention. The mention of nuclear weapons can be saved for later in the lead. I also think that these cuts would enable a removal of the line break between the third and fourth paragraphs. — Goszei (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have been working slowly over the past couple of months on Draft:Attacks on the United States, which obviously has several entries from this war (like the attack on Pearl Harbor and the bombardment of Ellwood. If anyone familiar with one or several of the attacks against the U.S. during the war, feel free to help perfect the summaries or help by adding additional sources/references.
@Goszei:, thanks for looking into the change of the introduction to ww2. can we please further shorten it, so it fits on a smaller screen, like maximum 2-3 paragraphs? if we are not able to do that we most likly are not able to distill any valuable information out of the article. currently most of the affected countries are in, and others not, but there is no logic behind it. that russia took baltic states and finalnd is there, croatia and greece is not there. all this little details and time order have without doubt a better home in the other article sections. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 21:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).