Talk:European theatre of World War II

message: Notice: This is a daughter article of World War II - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Will whoever is inserting the word 'Nazi' before every occurrence of the word "Germany" please stop doing it. I understand your desire to distance current day Germany from the atrocities of WWII, but it is very unnecessary. We explain the situation at the top of the article. DJ Clayworth 16:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Nazi policy in occupied countires
  General Government
  Ostland
Is this a todo list? — Matt 00:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: "This article discusses the European Theatre of World War II."
Ummm, I think we can assume everyone can read the title...?--naryathegreat 01:51, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
:It's in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style that the first sentence in an article should contain the title of the article. Perhaps a re-wording would be more appropriate. There shouldn't be links in the bolded title though. Mintguy (T) 01:56, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Then maybe an introduction?--naryathegreat 02:24, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Notice: This is a daughter article of World War II - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article.
WhisperToMe 07:21, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: This article

message: From the sections, Preceding Events through The War comes to the West, there is a remarkable dirth of information compared with the next half of the article, shouldn't something be done?--naryathegreat 01:53, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
This article is in poor shape, there are too many short stubby paragraphs, and the writing is fragmented (I suspect many edits, especially by people unfamiliar with English has caused this), and above all, the flow is not so great.  I've changed some stuff, but I would seriously suggest a rewrite, maybe in a temp somwhere until it could be moved here?--naryathegreat 02:24, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
Update:  I am still of the same opinion as above, though I have taken quite an extended Wikiholiday.  Anywhoo, I am about to begin a possible rewrite of the article at a temp.  My reasons are:
A) The writing is disjointed and overall, poor, just read the first paragraph.
B) The structure is a little awkward, and loses momentum and continuity in several places
C) Some important information, especially analysis, so important to a subpage like this, is nonexistant.
I'd love help, and I think i'll keep much of the basic structure.  Since there has been no comment or objection since my original proposal on Aug. 21, I plan to begin some time in the next few days at User:Naryathegreat/European Theater of World War II.--naryathegreat 20:50, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)
I think that you need to tell the geography (climate, topography, and resources) of the European theatre and how the Allies and Axis handled this
::Also some of the statements are bias such as claim that Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were sworn enemies. That is a straight lie. Stalin was the main supporter of Germany that suufered the most after the WWI. He even helped Hitler win the election by ordering the Communist Party of Germany give their votes to his Party. Soviet Union helped out greatly in Germany revival by trade and exchange of military education overlooking any sanctions of the League of Nations. Later both and Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started the WWII to conquer the whole world which was the main goal of Stalin. For some strange reason the history blames only Germany in the invasion of Poland. But is it really fair? Once again after the WWII Germany became the only scapegoat, and Soviet Union was perceived as the victor. It is the same Russian-Georgian conflict of 2008 when the Europe once again got scared of Russia like back in 1939, and 1945, and plenty of other times. The Sovit Union and Germany were the main aggressors in the WWII.Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Majority Western sources disagree with your statements (although some revisionist theories do exist on that account). And, let me remind you that the other Axis'  name was "Anti-Comintern Pact". In addition, many sources agree that ideology (including the concept of Crusade against Jewish Bolshevism) was one of the most essential driving force of the Hitler's policy...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Unbalanced article

message: Many French soldiers, as well as those of other occupied countries, escaped to Britain.  Any detailed numbers for 1940 and later? Many is 10,000 or 500,000? From Free French Forces I gather that it was approximately 10,000 (by the end of July that year, only 7,000 people had volunteered to join the Free French forces. The Free French Navy had fifty ships and some 3,600 men operating as an auxiliary force). And how about Vichy numbers? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many? 

message: I'd say it is misleading to say that the USSR "contributed very little to the defeat of Japan". While the period in which the USSR was at war with Japan was brief, it included one of Japan's largest and most crushing defeats as the Red Army comprehensively demolished the Japanese forces in Manchuria and took the Kurile Islands.
In the HarperCollins Atlas of the Second World War it states that the USSR used 1.5 million men, 28 000 guns, 5 500 tanks and 4 370 aircraft against Japanese forces numbering one million men, 5 360 guns, 1 115 tanks and 1 800 aircraft. The Red Army advanced 560 miles in 11 days. It goes on to say "Soviet commentators regard the destruction of Japan's last and largest concentration of ground forces as a cardinal factor in Japan's surrender. Western analysts maintain a particular interest in the campaign as a prototype for future strategic operations."
:::By the time of the Soviet action against Japan, were the Japanese facing the Soviets putting up a real defense?  The Soviets claimed to have killed over 80,000 and captured over 500,000 POWs.  See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Storm>.  Does that sound like the Japanese of World War II?71.128.113.75 01:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet role in the defeat of Japan 

message: I think the PD image located here could be of use in this article, but it merges our definition of the European Theatre (action on Europe itself) with the North African Campaign. Oberiko 15:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Useful image?

message: It seems to me that there is an inconsistency in this article. In section War comes to the west, it is said On 10 June Italy also declared war [on France]., but in the section The Mediterranean and Balkans, it is said Mussolini's regime declared war on Britain and France on June 11, 1940, ... What is actually true? -- Obradović Goran  (talk 08:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is that the whole article is a joke and a fairy tale lacking deep analysis and not stating the true facts. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italia declares war on France 

message: It would be interesting to read about the partisan operations and action and its significance during WWII. Samulili 13:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partisan action

message: It seems to me that undue weight is given to the role of Western allies. For instance, the small and unimportant Battle of Hurtgen Forest is given, while for the Soviets only a few important battles are identified (Many are missing, like the Battles of Rzhev or Battle of the Dnieper)... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 07:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undue weight

message: :Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
— Save_Us_229 22:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:StPaulsCathedral.jpg

message: is not accurate. Much of Yugoslavia was battle field, so it can not be presented as dark blue. And Yugoslav partizans fought on the Allied side-- Bojan  10:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the month guide is in German. Im not sure how important it is to have it in English, its pretty easy to see that Mai = May and Okt = October; i just thought id mention it if anyone feels compelled to correct the mistake pointed out above. Captain Crush (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: German Sourced Animation?--Jakezing (talk) 13:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Animation 

message: The image :Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg

message: Currently we have these articles:
*European Theatre of World War II
*Middle East Theatre of World War II
*Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II
*South-East Asian theatre of World War II
*South West Pacific theatre of World War II
The capitalization of the word "theatre" needs to be consistent. Punkmorten (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't it be a lowercase "t" in each instance? 213.246.114.92 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization 

message: Eva Braun was not Hilter's "life long love."
If anyone qualifies for that, it would be Hitler'r neice, Geli Raubal, who committed suicide before the war started, to escape her uncle's suffocating affections.  Hitler met Braun much later in life.
Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the execution of Mussolini had any major influence on Hitler's view of whether the war was lost, or not.  Hitler's paranoia over his generals, the collapse of the Berlin defense, and the Russian shelling that was clearly heard inside the bunker had the most to due with that. HammerFilms1 (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes about Hitler during last days in the bunker 

message: Balkan theatre section needs to be expanded. It ends with 1941, doesn't mention uprisings in Yugoslavia, Greece and Albania. -- Bojan  Talk  05:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balkans 

message: The Pacific theater page is suffering similarly from a pretty hefty lack of citations. There are whole sections (e.g. The Eastern Front) which have one or two citations, or in many cases, none. That's bad enough when we are sticking to statements of fact (i.e. Germany invaded Poland in x year, etc) But there's a LOT of analysis and opinion represented here, some of it pretty subjective. I don't necessarily disagree with any of it, but it reall needs to be sourced. The whole article should be one big "Citation Needed".
For a subject that has had so much written about it by so many people, there HAVE to be good references out there to back up what is written. If not, this needs to be scaled back. I'd rather the former, but this is nowhere near being a well referenced article. Given its importance and scale, it really should be. Jbower47 (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, all needed refs should be added, however, this article has much more serious problems. I plan to start to improve it soon, so if you have any ideas on that account, please, share with me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations desperately needed 

message: I believe the third paragraph of the section titled 'Summer campaign of 1942 and Stalingrad' is biased.  It reads:
::Indecision by Hitler, dissent among the higher-ranked Nazi German officers, and extended supply lines combined in a prolonged battle in the streets of Stalingrad. Germany eventually occupied over 90% of the city, but in an attempt to defeat the remaining Soviet defenders almost all German soldiers in the area were funnelled into the ruins of the city. Months of bitter hand-to-hand combat in the ruins of the city depleted the German forces, leaving only weak Romanian and Hungarian forces to guard the flanks of the Stalingrad army group. In Operation Uranus, the Soviets easily defeated these minor Axis forces as they performed a massive encirclement operation. The German troops remaining in the city were trapped – cut off from their supply lines and starving, amidst a harsh winter, they were ordered by Hitler to fight to the last man, and they displayed incredible fortitude and bravery under unbearable conditions.
It emphasizes the bravery and of the Germans in unbearable conditions, and makes excuses for the poor campaign, such as, "indecision by Hitler, dissent among German officers, etc.," and dismisses the Romanian and Hungarian flanks, implying that they're weak because they're Romanian and Hungarian, and not because they had no tank support against a massive invasion of Soviet tanks. In my opinion, this paragraph sounds like it was written by a German nationalist who tried to justify why the Germans lost the campaign by emphasizing blame on what he felt needed blame.
I'll leave it to others to decide how it should be rewritten, if at all, as that's far from my specialty, but I'm just expressing my opinion as how I perceived the paragraph.--DeaTh-ShiNoBi (talk) 00:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalingrad section biased? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on European theatre of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051227160411/http://www.hro.org:80/editions/karta/nr1/lozinsk.htm to http://www.hro.org/editions/karta/nr1/lozinsk.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 1. Maybe we should create a third column for the Soviet Union in 1939-1940 ("Soviet Union 1939-1940"), as it was a belligerent state, but neither Allied nor Axis during this period? 
2 How to deal with Finland, Estonia and Latvia and in 1939-1940? They were involved in the war, but neither Allied nor Axis. 
This article concerns the European theatre of World War II. The scope is thus a little larger than to only cover the war between the Allies and the Axis powers in Europe, which indeed is clear from the article content. From this perspective, I think the infobox is misleading, notably regarding the Soviet Union. As it is arranged today it seems as if the war in Europe was only a war between the Allies and the Axis powers (and some co-belligerent states), but in 1939-1940 the Soviet union was not an Allied state, and it waged war on two states, including one Allied. It also invaded the three Baltic states. These wars and invasions were also part of the European theatre, and I think this should be reflected in the info box. (However, I understand that four columns in not feasible...) /EriFr (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely there was a collusion between the USSR and the Axis in 1939, but likewise there was a collusion between Poland and the Nazis in 1938, over Czech lands. Should one inscribe Poland with the Axis powers then? Of course all anti-Russian editors—who added USSR under Germany—will staunchly resist it, although for USSR they hold to another standard. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belligerents, Soviet wars in 1939-1940? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on European theatre of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060826035936/http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/bs/bs1-2.htm to http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/bs/bs1-2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Only a fraction of sources agree that the invasion of Poland was a joint Nazi-Soviet invasion. The lead present a "joint" Nazi-Soviet invasion as a single event that started the European theatre of WWII. However, not only that statement is not neutral (it represents mostly Central-European POV), it misleads a reader, who may conclude that: 
:(i) EToWWII started when Germany and the USSR jointly invaded Poland. 
:(ii) Nazi Germany and the USSR were at war with the Allies, and then the USSR changed the side.
That is not the case, however. The EToWWII started on 1st of September, after Germany alone invaded Poland. The Nazi-Soviet pact was not a military alliance, and there were no clauses it its secret protocol that stipulated any joint military activity. Accordingly, the future Allies declared a war only on Nazi Germany, and one of the reason was that the military guarantees for Poland explicitly stipulated that the treaty takes effect only in a case of the attack by Germany.
I removed the word "joint" and the mention of the USSR from the lead's sentence.-Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joint invasion 

message: Should Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini be considered KIA? Most definitions consider KIA as "A casualty classification generally used to describe any person killed by means of the action of hostile forces." (from the Wikipedia article on it). Hitler shot himself in his bunker way before the soviet troops reached him, and he was involved in the fighting. Mussolini did get killed, but he was lynched/executed after a trail made by a mostly legal government. On top of this the page for WW2 does not mark them as KIA. This is very likely to cause some people who dont properly read articles to think that both of them died in battle rather then the ways they actually did. It really should be better addressed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.155.67.63 (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adolf Hitler's and Benito Mussolini's "KIA" staus 

message: The article so far has no mention of why and when the USA entered the European Theatre of the war.
That seems to me to be an important topic. 96.63.53.152 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry of the USA 

message: I think we should make criteria to make belligerents clearly. It is too difficult and vague, because it contains too much information in one template. We can just add "co-belligerents" as Allies of WW2, (we can change that name) or we can make this template as simplest as Pacific War template, which put participants articles independently. We don't have to add all belligerents. I also do not prefer describing some specific belligerents such as Soviet Union in Invasion of Poland whose statue as Axis was controversial at 1939 to 1941, or Finland which describes as co-belligerent which is contradict to other articles. (see Operation Barbarossa, Siege of Leningrad, Vyborg–Petrozavodsk Offensive which is "NOT" described Finland as co-belligerent). -- Wendylove (talk) 05:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think belligerents should have criteria.   

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: I think we can make combatants as simple as Pacific War did. Here is my suggestion. 
# Put major countries on infobox
# Make paragraphs titled "Combatants", and describing all the countries and party (such as resistance) on there.
# 
Which countries to put as major countries should need consensus, but I think that the infobox needs some clean-up. Wendylove (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Resistance movements would add 1,000% more clutter than the inclusion of state-combatants (including clients/puppet-states), especially since many of them were not really "fighting" resistance movements or united-national-movements (but spread into many groups), it would add a lot of arguing and ultra-fine precision which would never be finished. Limit it to states and governments.Also, I think trimming to these infoboxes should be done carefully in contrast to the new trend on Wikipedia to remove actual combatants from campaigns etc which is occurring because users "dont like them". I.e. "the other side didnt recognize that government, so the actually participating forces of that state should be removed from the listing" or "this country is smaller than that one, lets delete their participation". --Havsjö (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants  

message: Havsjö I have re-added Vichy France due to the heavy action against the allies such as in Syria in 1941.  However the other combatants should not be added without adding the Allied equivalents, which in turn would make the infobox far too crammed.  Not every combatant is listed on the Allied side for a reason.  Regardless Morocco (a French puppet state de facto colony) raised 2 full divisions other troops under French control with the Sultans blessing and these troops saw heavy action on the Western Front in 1944-45 not even inclunding the forces in the French campaign in 1940, and countries like Syria and Lebanon (no longer mandates at the time of declaration), Iran, Iraq, Oman, Kuwait, Transjordan etc had various degrees of independent status and all formally declared war on the Axis, none of them are listed for obvious reasons, there cannot be double standards regarding these things, the most significant and involved is ok but not every collaborationist regime that existed as a combatant on paper or signed the anti-Comintern pact.  Turkey was a significant power but is not listed on the Allied side for a reason.  The process of recruiting troops into foreign volunteer units is a complicated one, but wouldn't change this principle either.  
And this statement "you should read up on the relations between the listed countries to the Axis if you equate them to as colonies of colonial empires." they were invaded and had puppet states set up so their status was little different, Croatia was a more unique case since Yugoslavia was a multi-country state that it severed from and it behaved more like an actual individual participant than a more convenient way to administer occupation as was the case with the others (hence I didn't remove it), but in the case of war participation I assure you there are plenty of states not listed on the Allied side that had a more notable war time participation than the ones I removed.  Will Tyson for real (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Morocco was a officially a protectorate in the French colonial Empire, not a puppet (i.e. formally independent). The listed France and especially "Free France" includes such colonial forces as they were part of the French armies. Oman, Kuwait, Jordan were also protectorates and would serve in the wider British forces but did anyway not participate in the European Theatre. Neither did actually independent Turkey, Iran, or Iraq after their declaration of war. The Serbian and Greek states under Axis occupation authority, did however field thousands of troops in the European Theatre, fighting against countries listed on the Allied side of the infobox. Why not include these very real forces participating in the war the article is about. Denmark I can agree on, but Serbia, Greece, Albania (who was a formally a co-belligerent of Italy, whom it was in a personal union with, and Albanian Army troops fought against Greek and Yugoslav armies and later guerrillas (also listed on the Allied side)) should be included as they participated on the Axis side in this conflict. --Havsjö (talk) 10:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  it is debatable how different protectorate and puppet state are to begin with, they have almost the same meaning, and in this case Albania, Denmark, Norway and Greece did not have any independence in any real sense and were under direct military occupation, and the official pre-war governments in exile for several of them. And groups like the Chetniks were on both sides of the war for example. There are still the other states I mention as well not being included.  Perhaps we could bring more users into the discussion. Will Tyson for real (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Btw here is what the article on Greek collaboration has to say  Although their administrations did not directly assist the occupation forces, they collaborated with the German forces, creating armed "anti-communist" and "anti-gangster" paramilitary organisations such as the Security Battalions and others. Greek National-Socialist parties, like the Greek National Socialist Party of Georgios Merkouris, the ESPO organization or openly anti-semitic organisations, like the National Union of Greece, helped German authorities fight the Resistance, and identify and deport Greek Jews.[31] It was also the Organization BUND, with her leader Aginor Giannopoulos, who trained a battalion of Greek Volunteers, who fought with German Uniforms in SS and in Brandenburgers.  the situations in the other countries was similar and I don't find this sufficient enough to include them as combatants for the infobox.  Firstly these were paramilitary forces for use against partisans within the country in the case of the units raised by the de jure state, and when it comes to the SS and Brandenburgers fielding foreign volunteers they're allegiance is directly to Germany. Will Tyson for real (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the inclusion of puppet states 

message: With the above arguments in mind, I propose that the infobox legends like “(from 1941)” that are currently hidden in pop-up notes be made visible for all the states, as they already are in the “former Axis powers” section. The few longer explanatory notes on the Axis side can remain hidden. —Michael Z. 13:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  From 1941