Talk:Historiography of World War II

message: I am doing a complete overhaul of this article and adding a lot of historiographical stuff. Stay tuned. Borg*Continuum (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete Overhaul Soon

message: There are a lot of sources on the extremely varying historiographies of World War II between the countries of Asia, which should be inserted in some sections here. One piece covering various WW2 events from a comparative Chinese-Japanese-Korean textbook perspective, on issues like Yasukuni Shrine, comfort women, and the Nanjing massacre is Michell, Harding & Mundy's August 2015 Financial Times article Asia: History lessons feed rival nationalisms. Shrigley (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asia 

message: I started a new article entitled Historiography of Adolf Hitler. It will eventually cover the most influential scholarly studies of Hitler over the last 80 years.  Any additional help would be most welcome! Rjensen (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New article on "Historiography of Adolf Hitler"

message: It's a huge topic to undertake but I thought I'd put a note here - the article should probably have a section on German-occupied Europe looking at the concept of resistance and collaboration, résistancialisme etc. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I will add a starter section thst I hope Brigade Piron and everyone here will add to.   Rjensen (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  German-occupied Europe 

message: Should there some mention of how perspectives changed before and after 1974 due to the disclosure of Ultra.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiHistoryReader (talk • contribs) 15:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra 

message: Cite your sources, heathen. 2001:56A:FCDC:4600:D585:5A0D:346:B5EC (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cites? Sources? 

message: This article is throroughly disorganised. "Historiographical viewpoints" is a bit randomly thematic. The Taylor section more or less a review or a single 1961 book. Then random excerpt section leads to Historiography of the Battle of France. A geographical "Eastern Front" section is subdivided in a half-sourced random facts lede section, a thematic "War crimes of the Wehrmacht" subsection, another random 2006 book review posing as a subsection, and a randomly unsourced thematic "Holocaust denial" subsection. Penultimately, a geographic section titled "German-occupied Europe" (in scope overlapping with all previous sections) starts with a random-facts lede section, a thematic "Common themes: heroic liberation from Nazis" subsection, and then some random-facts by countries subsections with dubious links. Finally, a random thematic section "Women" with a main-article link to "Women in World War II" instead of text concerning historiography of women in World War II. This article really needs to be reorganised and rewritten.
Although my comparison of similar Historiography of war X articles at Talk:Historiography of the Eighty Years' War#Structure and scope showed there aren't really commonly established conventions for these types of articles, at least they can be a lot better organised in structure and scope than this one. Pick a main structure and stick to it! Organise it by chronology, geography, theme, or school of thought, but don't jump randomly from one format to the next. I might rewrite it here and there, but I think this is probably something that requires some expertise to do it properly. Cheers Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: Why is this tern used when France, Britain and the US were not democratic at home an slave empires abroad? Keith-264 (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Western democracies"