Talk:World War II/Archive 54

It was not my first goal to speak about images, but, since we started to talk about that, here are my comments on article's images.Europe

Hitler - Correct.

The league of nations. - Did it play any significant role? The section only says it was created. Whenever the League is mentioned in the article, it is being mentioned in a context of its absolute inefficiency. In connection to that, do we really need this absolutely non-informative image? If someone replaced this photo with a photo of a Reichstag session, 99% of readers will see no difference.

Italian invasion of Ethiopia (1935)

Mussolini - Correct.

Spanish Civil War (1936–39)

Guernica - Perfect

Japanese invasion of China (1937)

Japanese soldiers - Ok

Soviet–Japanese border conflicts

Red Army artillery unit - Not an improvement, definitely. I recall, there was another picture, Soviet BT-7 tanks. This change was definitely not an improvement, because Soviet tank superiority was one of the main factors that lead to Japanese defeat, and eventually caused a shift in Japanese grand strategy (towards South Asia - Pacific).

European occupations and agreements

Munich and MRP - looks absolutely logical. Good.

War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)

Too many Germans. The discussion is in progress.

Western Europe (1940–41)

Ok. This is a recently modified section, and there everything looks logical.

Mediterranean (1940–41)

Commonwealth solders - ok

Captured German solders - ???? Germans were winning during this time period. The photo directly contradicts to the text.

Axis attack on the USSR (1941)

German solders - ok.

Map - it is in German, resolution is low, and it covers the whole Europe, including the West, so I don't understand why it is here. I am working on another animated map, hopefully it will be ready soon.

Soviet civilians - well does it means that EF was a theatre where Germans were facing just civilians? Actually, this section tells about the first major strategic defeat of the Axis (I mean the Battle of Moscow). I don't think civilians photo is appropriate here, probably in "Occupation and war crimes"

War breaks out in the Pacific (1941)

Both photos are absolutely relevant.

Axis advance stalls (1942–43)

Casablanca - a totally obscure conference where two western leaders said something, but even failed to come to an agreement with each other. I don't think it is relevant.

Pacific (1942–43)

A map is good, although I would make animation if someone has an idea where other original maps could be found.

Guadalcanal - Good.

Eastern Front (1942–43)

This section covers the most bloody and the most important battles that pre-determined a global Axis defeat. It deserves expansion and an additional image. German Tigers could be good, but other proposals are also welcome.

Western Europe/Atlantic and Mediterranean (1942–43)

US bombing is Ok, the section tells about a start of the Allied bombing campaign.

Allies gain momentum (1943–44)

US carrier - good.

Red Army troops, in a counter-offensive - ??? First, it does not look like an offensive. Second, Kursk was the series of the most intense tank battles in the world history. Does this image reflect that? Absolutely not.

The Allied leaders of the Asian and Pacific Theatre. - I see no reason to show this Cairo photo. The meeting discussed just Chinese issues, importance of Kai-shek was exaggerated by Americans (Churchill was wondering why Americans regard him so high). I sincerely do not understand its relevance. Tehran conference was much more important, although I do not think we need Stalin's photo in this article.

Monte-Cassino - quite relevant.

Allies close in (1944)

Normandy landing - yes, quite iconic and relevant

Poles - actually, this uprising had no strategic consequences. Meanwhile, the battle that was the most calamitous German defeat during the whole WWII, I mean, Bagration, is not reflected at all. I find that ridiculous.

General Douglas MacArthur - Nick-D told me there is an agreement not to show photos of generals. In addition, two landing pictures is too much for the section that describes the period when the Axis sustained the most devastating land defeats.

Axis collapse, Allied victory (1944–45)

Yalta photo - maybe. Yalta, in contrast to Casablanca and Cairo, had a tremendous effect on the whole XX century world history.

Reichstag - not bad, although it is not the best photo. Reichstag had a symbolic meaning only for the Red Army, which selected it as a final goal whose capture marked German defeat. The Germans did not consider this abandoned building too important. In addition, it does not show people, and the traces of devastation are not intense enough to give an impression of a real scale of the battle of Berlin. I'll try to find a better photo.

Japanese surrender - we have Keitel in the infobox, so this photo is a good complement.

Aftermath

No objections.

Casualties and war crimes

I would say one European photo should be added, because Asian photo only creates an impression of some disbalance.

Genocide, concentration camps, and slave labour

Schutzstaffel (SS) female camp guards - ok.

Girls photo - I don't think it is the best choice. If an example is needed, Witold Pilecki's photo can be added, which will provide a link to a totally unbelievable story of a man who voluntarily went to Auschwitz as a prisoner to provide an evidence of mass killing of Jews there, and who escaped it and joined underground resistance back.

[[:File:Pilecki ausch f.jpg|thumb|250px|Auschwitz concentration camp photos of Pilecki (1941).]]

Occupation

No objections or comments.

Home fronts and production

This plot looks strange, taking into account that we show no other statistics. I recall there was a photo of T-34. I propose to return this photo, a photo of the tank and the "Superforterss" photo, as a demonstration of industrial capabilities of US and Soviet military industry. I don't think B-29 was too advanced, it was more a demonstration of US industrial power. I suggest to move it to this section.

Advances in technology and warfare

V-2 is ok.

Nuclear Gadget - it is not the most spectacular photo, I think it is more appropriate for some special article. I don't understand why the Hiroshima photo was removed, because the WWII article without atomic bombing picture looks strange. If B-29 goes to the previous section, there is a space here for one more photo. The first programmable electromechanical computer seems to be a good candidate. I think, two German photos are quite justified, because Germany was more advanced (although industrially less powerful), so both USA and USSR built their scientific progress generally based on German legacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Please can you give it a rest, NO NEED to review in bulk all the images and DEMAND an up or down verdict, it really comes across like you are just pushing cosmetic changes based on the Wikipedia:JUSTDONTLIKEIT criteria, I mean what what kind of an assessment is this... in the War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) you wrote "Too many Germans.", seriously, Nazi Germany by 1942 controlled almost all of Europe, they were the main antagonist in this European theater. I'm not the only editor, who raised concerns that there are too many changes being proposed for any of the other editors to follow and reasonably discuss all of it. --E-960 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec)E-960, I wrote that in responce to your: "We don't need to review every image in this article, the vast majority are well placed, and the collective input from many editors should be retained." This is not an argument, because Wikipedia is not working like that. "Don't touch it, because I think it is good" is not working: if it is good, you can provide arguments in support of that. If no arguments are provided, then it cannot be considered good.

As you can see, the arguments demonstrate that only part (a significant part) of images are correctly selected and well placed. If you disagree, provide your counter arguments.

Having said that, I don't mean we need to take some immediate actions. It is a good practice to review an article or some its aspects, and that allows people to look at it at a different angle. I just propose people to take a look at that and think. We have more importatnt things to do.

Re JUSTDONTLIKEIT, I think this is hardly relevant to this case, because it refer to a situation when some person is expressing a like or dislike for the issue in question is not a helpful or useful argument in a discussion.. Actually, I can even say physician, heal thyself, because everything what I write is supported by logical arguments, but many your statements are not.

If you don't like something, provide your arguments, please. If you cannot do it right now, just let me know, no problem, I can wait. However, to accuse me of JUSTDONTLIKEIT without providing any arguments is a kind of oxymoron.

Let me reiterate, I don't think revision of images is the most important thing. We can do that step by step (or leave some of them as they are). However, I disagree with you claim that the wast majority of them are well placed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow, the more I think about what just happened... what kind of behavior is this, user Paul Siebert, can I go ahead and write my MEGA LIST of the things that I don't like about this article and want to change? --E-960 (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not only you can, you should. We have a special peer review procedure. In addition, this article, being a good article, is supposed to be reassessed periodically, so, if we don't wanht this article to lose a good article status, we need to take a fresh look at it periodically and fix the flaws anticipating possible criticism. However, keep in mind that I never write "I don't like it", I write: "I find this illogical (incorrect, irrelevant), because ..." and then I explain why. Don't you see a difference? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Pilecki went to Auschwitz to study crimes on Jews specifically. Xx236 (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Poles - actually, this uprising had no strategic consequences - There are different opinions. BTW - the uprising had less consequences beacuse the Nazis were too dumb to cause them. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe you agree that it had much less strategic consequences than "Bagration". During the period of time this section describes there were several major strategic offenses in the East, each of which was much more important strategically. I think you cannot disagree with that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I support the switch to Pilecki's image. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't agree, the lower sections of the article relate more to civilian issues, and the focus on that should remain — I think that the two images in that section are just fine and should stay as they are (focusing on civilians, women and children). Pilecki was a Home Army officer sent to the concentration camp on a mission (that would shift focus more to military related issues, though I agree it was a very heroic thing to undertake). --E-960 (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Whereas Pilecki was send with the mission, it pretended to be an ordinary civilian, which means his photo is quite representative, and it gives a good impression of an average photo of an average camp prisoner. It also serves as a link to a very interesting story about a first discovery of the fact of mass killing of Jews and other civilians in Auschwitz. That means this photo serves a dual goal, it presents information in a highly concentrated manner, which is especially important for such a high profile article.

BTW, can you please change a caption of the Afrika Korps photo (you expressed some concern). I am going to put the draft in teh article soon.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that the current images in that section don't need changing, again focus on women/children. However, if you think that the the Africa Corps image should be changed I think that it does need to depict early German advances, but I suggest that we look for a more compelling image, there is a lot of Africa Corps images that presents better subject matter. --E-960 (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you think women/children should be shown, then less switch to the most typical case: a Jewish girl photo.

Re Afrika, don't you find it ridiculous that the section describing overwhelming Rommel's successes shows captured German solders?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you are really focused on "Poland" related images is not lost on me, so we jump all the way down the article just to change this picture — btw, I think the other image in that section relates to the Holocaust. So, again no need to change images in that section. --E-960 (talk) 17:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I find this your comment both unfriendly and incorrect. I don't think I provided any ground for a conclusion that I am biased. I proposed Pilecki (a Pole) - you objected because the image should show a typical civilian, desirably a girl. I responded that in that case a typical girl should be a Jewish girl - you accuse me of an anti-Polish bias. That is hardly a good way to collaborate.

Your assertion that "the other image in that section relates to the Holocaust" is may be correct or it may be wrong, but there is no reason to conclude the second image shows the bodies of Jews, which means no Jews are explicitly covered by these photos. I am neutral about the photo choice, it can be Pilecki (a very specific specific person, whose photo tells a fascinating story) or a Jewish girl (as a typical Holocaust victim).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I find your approach rather arbitrary, if you are going to just argue if the image should be a Jewish girl not a Polish girl it does come across as a bit dismissive towards Polish civilians, after all Auschwitz was first created to house Poles. If you would like to also include an image of Jewish women and children, I would suggest this one [13] or [14] to replace the mass grave which is a somewhat graphic. --E-960 (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, my logic is quite clear: I proposed the image that (i) shows a typical photo of Auschwitz prisoner and (ii) provides a link to a fascinating story about the men who discovered the fact of mass killings in Auschwitz. You argued that this image is not typical enough, and that outweighs the consideration (ii). I accepted your logic, and proposed to take the most typical photo (because I don't think why the photo of one Pole (a Polish girl) is much more typical than the photo of another Pole (Pilecki)). You responded that my attitude is anti-Polish, and that there is no logic in what I am saying. That is something I cannot understand.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say anit-Polish, however you do focus on Polish related images for some odd reason, we go from sections 'War breaks out' and 'Mediterranean' all the way to the bottom of the article just to debate this image, yet I would really consider revising images way before that such as adding Battle of Midway image (decisive naval battle of the Pacific), or having a tank image for the Battle of Kursk (larges tank battle ever), kind of obvious fixes — those are very factual changes not more subjective suggestion such as the Polish girl image. --E-960 (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• In any case I don't see a real need to replace the current images in that section. --E-960 (talk) 19:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I am focused on Poland related images for a very concrete reason: we are discussing Poland related events. I provided a long list of comments on all photos, but you ignored all comments besides Poland related ones. Obviously, I responded, and as a result of this discussion, you accuse me of obsession with the Polish topic. Don't you find it would be correct to direct this accusation at you yourself? Look: I expressed criticism about 12 photos, two of them are Poland related. I proposed to replace one Poland related photo for a very concrete reason: Warsaw uprising was not even in the top 5 most important events during the period this section describes. I believe you should agree with that.

With regard to the Auschwits photo, I proposed to replace one Poland related photo with another Poland related photo, which is much more informative. By the way, you still provided no rational objection to that.

In summary, I find your arguments totally illogical.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, you need to stop with making inaccurate statements every time I provide you a reason to my objection, and you respond back with this "you still provided no rational objection". I did... you just go right past them: regarding your first suggestion of the Pilecki image I said "...the lower sections of the article relate more to civilian issues, and the focus on that should remain — I think that the two images in that section are just fine and should stay as they are focusing on civilians, women and children.". Then you responded by saying that in that case there should be an image of a Jewish girl, and to that I responded: "Auschwitz was first created to house Poles. If you would like to also include an image of Jewish women and children, I would suggest this one [1] or [2] to replace the mass grave which is a somewhat graphic." Those are clear rationales, pls consider them as valid.

Also, I do admit it's a bit strange that once I provided you with a legitimate rational for keeping the image and not replacing it with that of Pilecki, you then just switched your approach and suggested a completely different image, just to replace the current one. So, in short it all comes across as an issue of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. The current images in the section are fine, related to the text and don't really need changing. You are demanding that every item you don't like in the article is changed. However, many of the images you listed above are just fine, and don't need to be removed just because you say they need to go. --E-960 (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just wanted to raise one point that having 4 images in the section as recently edited by user Piotrus is just too much — having an image at each corner of the text [15]. Also, with the various discussions held earlier regarding 3 of the images, we ended up with the most random (poorly considered) pictures that all relate to the invasion of Poland; naval bombardment by Schleswig-Holstein, Polish Army AA-gun, German tanks, Soviet and German offices shaking hands. I think that having only three images in the section is enough. Also, one of the images should be related to either Winter War or the annexation of the Baltic States, and the other two showing German Wehrmacht during the September campaign and the Polish Army (as suggested by user Piotrus, and incorporated into the current set up). But, anything more then three images is too much for a small section like this one. --E-960 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Earlier, I proposed to move the annexation story to the 1941 section, because this event was a key point that convinced Hitler to order a start planning Barbarossa, and, in my opinion, it should be discussed in the context of German invasion of the USSR. In connection to that, I think either the "shaking hands" picture or this file [:File:A Finnish Maxim M-09-21 machine gun nest during the Winter War.jpg] should be used. My own vote is the Finns.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would be ok with Finnish soldiers image, but the first image needs to be of the German Wehermacht, Piotrus changed it back to naval bombardment and that's an image not representative of the September campaign - an image of rather trivial nature/interesting side fact, not the place for it in a general overview artice such a this one (Invasion of Poland article, yes), it gives the impression the campaign was like island hopping in the Pacific or invasion of Norway. Just a bad choice when you remove the image of German tanks to limit section to 3 images. --E-960 (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)-

We discussed this above. I am ok with removing the image IF we mention battle of Westerplatte in text. Paul moved the mention of the battle to the image. If we remove the image, the mention of the battle should be restored to the text. I don't care how it is done, but Westerplatte is the symbolic first battle of the war and has to be mentioned in this article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding the text, that the first battle was at Westerplatte in Free City of Danzig (that topic could be expanded since this was a free city, and include a note about the attack on Polish Post office) with a naval bombardment and infanty assult on Polish garrison stationed there at Westerplatte. --E-960 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Piotrus, we need to think how can the mention of Westerplatte be added. I think it can be done as follows. Currently, the text says"

"On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents, which served as a pretext for Hitler to initiate hostilities against the country. Britain responded with an ultimatum to Germany to cease military operations, and on 3 September, after the ultimatum was ignored, France, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand declared a war on Germany."

First, I think the words "which served as a pretext for Hitler to initiate hostilities against the country" are trivial and redundant, because, obviously, the only reason for staging border incidents is justification of hostilities, and any reader can add 2+2 and make this logical conclusion by themselves.

In connection to that, I propose:

"On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents. The German attack began in Danzig, with a naval bombardment of Polish positions at Westerplatte, which was followed by a full scale land invasion from the west and from East Prussia. Britain responded with an ultimatum to Germany..."

This would add an information about a semi-autonomous state of Danzig and about the geography of the invasion (a simultaneous invasion from the west and from the north).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest this text: On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack. The German offensive began in Danzig, with a naval bombardment of a Polish Army garrison stationed on the Westerplatte peninsula, and an assault on the Polish Post Office in the free city. --E-960 (talk) 17:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you find it correct when an assault of a post-office is described in the article that does not tell about, for example, a Battle of Voronezh (where around 1 million troops participated and which caused quarter million casualties)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

We can cut out the last part. --E-960 (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Look, if a reader sees this: "On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the attack. The German offensive began in Danzig, with a naval bombardment of a Polish Army garrison stationed on the Westerplatte peninsula." they may conclude that Danzig was the only "entry point" of this invasion, whereas the actual story was totally different, because Wehrmacht invaded through the whole Polish-German border, from Silesia to East Prussia. In that sense, my version is much more informative and less misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

We also have to avoid propagating the incorrect myth that Westerplatte was the first act of war or battle. It is important, but as a symbolic first battle (see battle of the border). Also, it was not just a naval bombardment, there was land and air offensive too. Here's my proposed version for the second sentence. On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents. The Battle of Westerplatte is often described as the first battle of the war.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I would add "as a pretext to initiate the attack" just to close out the thought, the text begs the question 'why' was this done — as a strategic diversion or a deliberate provocation. --E-960 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to this, through I don't think it is that necessary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with this? Roddy the roadkill (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. Drmies (talk) 05:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Why? Roddy the roadkill (talk) 05:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

For one thing, your image greatly enlarged the infobox and made the accompanying text harder to read (see MOS:SANDWICHING), as well as the infobox not vertically aligning as well with boxes below it. Then there's the matter of more images do not make for a better collage, as it, and the accompanying caption, becomes too complex, unfocused, and distracting. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Well someone already reduced the size, so there’s that. The second part...hmmm. I don’t think the difference is that appreciable. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 22:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Reducing the size, without reducing the number of images, just makes the images harder to see. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not an improvement: there are too many images & they seem fairly repetitive / present a limited picture of the conflict. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Not an improvement at all. Actually, many other WWII related articles have the same style collage, so it would be good to maintain a common style. In addition, it is a significant change, and page rule require to discuss it first on the talk page. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – That's really overkill for the infobox, and net effect of combining so many pictures into one is that none of them is large enough to have a visual impact. Better place individual images from the collage in the relevant sections of the article. Same remark at Talk:World War I. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Reverted due to unanimous opposition so far. Feel free to restore if you later obtain consensus. — JFG ^talk 15:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve redone both WW1 and WW2 collages and saved the previews, I want to know your thoughts File:WW2preview.png File:WW2montageredux.jpeg I’ve reduced the number of images for both and changed the style a bit. Also, I changed the captions to commas in-between to reduce space. The images at the bottom are obviously smaller, but not the others. I’ve posted the WWI collage in it’s respective talkpage. My issues with the old collage 1.) No depiction of the Western European theatre, but one for the North African theatre, arguably the least significant of the major theatres of the war 2.) Though the Infobox goes with the premise of WWII staring with the invasion of Poland in 1939, it includes the Battle of Wanjialing from 1938 3.) Both collages are too Allied centric, they may have won, but that’s just half the perspective 4.) Though even I think now that 12 images was overkill, surely an increase to 9 is a reasonable number. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Still not an improvement: the current collage (2X3) is not great, but this new one takes the drawbacks of the existing one and augments them because there are more of the images :-). WW2 was a total war but all we see is military hardware and a few soldiers, nothing about socio-political issues, the home front, genocide, etc. Even the signing of Germany's surrender was removed. That's a rather myopic view, sorry. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

You make a really good point about it being myopic. In fairness to myself I primarily wanted to show how the number of pictures could be larger without taking up a bunch of room or looking bad. Are you open to the idea of it being changed at all? Roddy the roadkill (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If I remember correct, main criteria for the current collage were (approximately) as follows:

• Europe vs Asia-Pacific: 2:1.
• Europe East vs Europe West: 3:1 - 2:3

That reflects an overall importance and scale of the events. Two photos from the Eastern Front are quite adequate, taking into account that > 50% of total combat deaths (for both the Axis and the Allies) occurred in the East, and about 50% of all Axis troops were fighting there during 4 years. Given that one Eastern photo depicts the Allies and another one the Axis, the balance is observed. Keitel relates to both the Axis and the Allies. Regarding Mediterranean, yes, that a kind of British bias (I am not telling that is good or bad).

Actually, although the current collage was made by me (and slightly modified later), I do not think it is ideal. I see no problem with its replacement, provided that the new one will be a real improvement. The one that you propose does not fit the above criteria, although I personally like your concept.

I suggest you to think more about that. If other people agree the number of photos and the overall design should be changed, I propose to discuss how many photos should we include, and how should be different theatres represented.

I also propose to think strategically, and to create the collage that will be used as a template for the Eastern Front (World War II), Western Front (World War II), and other articles in the same way as we have now (the EF and WWII collages are the example of what I propose: they are designed based on the same scheme, and they share some photos). I think such a connection is a good thing we should preserve. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

As a possible improvement of the existing collage, we can use this:

It fixes the major omission in the current collage, because WWII, in contrast to majority of previous conflicts, was the war where many categories of civilians were being killed deliberately and systematically. I think, this collage emphasizes that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

This does not look good at all, staying with the traditional 3x2 frames is optimal. --E-960 (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm also really uncomfortable with including a graphic image such as that proposed here in the collage - it lacks context. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel as if the image montage so to say at the top of the page does not include that many images of the war. At the least, I was surprised that the mushroom cloud image of the atomic bombings is not included. What do you guys think, should more images be added and if so which ones? Personally, I think the mushroom cloud image should be included along with the image at the top of the Battle of Stalingrad page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fluffy89502 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Fluffy89502, we already discussed these two images a couple of weeks ago. Instead of starting a new section on the same subject, please read the previous discussion and join it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

To continue on the discussion earlier on the page ([16]), here are some proposals for possible replacements. My rationale is to present a wider story of this global conflict:

1. WW2 victory was driven by the "Grand Alliance"; I think it's worth including:

2. Stark; powerful. I think it would look fine in a collage:

3. This is a fascinating image; the entire might of Anglo-American indusrial and military capacity landing on continental Europe:

The above three images could replace the entire right-hand section of the collage; the images currently there are kind of meh.

4. This next one could be a replacement for a fairly non-descript Stalingrad image currently in the collage (2nd from top left):

I would appreciate hearing comments or feedback. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re 1. The war was fought by people, not by leaders. Don't think the leaders should be added to the collage. If we add them, they should be paired with Hitler+Mussolini, and it will take too much space. However, it would be absolutely correct to add this photo to the article to replace the Kaishek photo (he was just a regional leader, and his role was not comparable with the role of Stalin).

Re 2. A real Hollocaust image is much more relevant, because this article is about the war, not commemoration of the war.

Re 3. It is really good, although not for a collage (too many small details). Very good for the article itself.

Re 4. I am not sure. It does not show the actual street fight and the degree of devastation of the city. Just a solder waving a flag is hardly informative. The buildings look pretty intact, which is not typical for Stalingrad,, which was demolished almost completely. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It sounds good, but I would like to see it together. And should we have something on the Pacific War?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Paul on all points, especially no. 2. I was even unsure re 2. (Thank you Paul for writing it all out and saving me the trouble.) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

If someone wants Holocaust (or some other atrocity) included, then I would say that obvious choice would be putting it in place of Keitel image. I think right side of collage is quite solid. WW II was fought extensively not only on land but also on sea and in air, which those images help to depict relatively well. That said, I am not a huge fan of top right artillery image, it is a bit poor visibility in my opinion. Also I would consider replacing top left Chinese image with Japanese image if something suitable is found, as war in Asia could be basically summed up as "Japan vs everyone else".--Staberinde (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert a real image of the holocaust should be used mayby this one on the ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, 1944 (Auschwitz Album) 1b.jpg, also out of the other images the d-day landings is the only one that perhaps should be added to the new collage, the other images are not particularly compelling. --E-960 (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree to replace lower-left picture of Keitel surrender by Holocaust triage. — JFG ^talk 01:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A

B

How about one of those two images (on the right) to replace the current top right one? One offers relatively good image of artillery firing, while other displays armoured warfare. Both are better visibility than the current one. They are somewhat different shape but can be easily cut into collage proportions without loosing any vital parts--Staberinde (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree that either of these images would be an improvement on the current top right one. Personally I would prefer B. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree to replace top-right picture with B. — JFG ^talk 01:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Atomic bomb

I would suggest replacing the lower-right picture of naval warfare by a picture of an atomic bomb detonation, which remains a more impactful memory of the war to this day. Suggesting the Nagasaki mushroom cloud. — JFG ^talk 01:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, the collage should present not only the most spectacular photos, but also the most crucial events of WWII. It must present the key theatres of the war, and, taking into account that this war, in contrast to, for example, WWI, caused more civilian deaths than military deaths, we need an image or images that show that it was an immense humanitarian catastrophe.

I propose to take the Eastern Front (World War II) collage as a starting point, and to replace three photos from it with the photos from other theaters of war. The photo that definitely must stay is the Holocaust photo, because it adequately represents the humanitarian catastrophe in Europe as whole: it symbolises not only the Eastern Front, and not only the tragedy of Jews, because civilians were massacred everywhere, from Oradur in the West to Khatyn in the East. Moreover, the amount of civilians (not only Jews) who were massacred as shown on this photo was probably greater than the number of people killed in death camp. That means this photo should stay.

The Keitel's photo should go (I propose to move it to the 1945 section). In my opinion, two photos on the top should stay too: the Soviet Il-2 was the most numerous and one of the most efficient planes of the WWII, and the Tiger tank was the most formidable WWII tank (I am not speaking about the tanks produced by the very end of the war: their role was minimal). In addition, this photo was taken during the Battle of Kursk, which was the greatest tank battle in human history, and one of the two pivotal WWII events. These three photos seem to be essential, because they show two major opponents of the conflict (USSR and Germany) and they represent the theatre where 50% of all WWII battles had occurred. The third image symbolises the humanitarian catastrophe.

I think by adding three more images, we can give a summary of the WWII. These images should be:

1. One photo from the Western front. I think Africa should not be in the collage, because it would be too Britano-centric. It was the major theatre of war for Churchill, but its importance definitely cannot be compared with the Second front. I think Normandy landing should be one of three photos.
2. The second photo should be from Pacific. We need at least one photo that shows naval battles. The current photo is not good (actually, it is more like a photo from a navy parade).
3. Maybe, it is not a bad idea to put a photo of a nuclear explosion.

In summary, I think the collage can be like that:

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The Auschwitz-Birkenau triage picture suggested earlier better represents the Holocaust because it shows mass extermination, whereas the one you picked shows only one person and their child being shot. Your rationale about massacres is commendable, but the picture does not tell that story. — JFG ^talk 03:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree that the landing in Normandy makes sense to add, however the overview picture suggested by K.e.coffman looks more impressive. — JFG ^talk 03:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your proposed collage lacks urban warfare; I would keep the picture of Stalingrad which is currently at middle left. The ship being sunk at Pearl Harbor is unclear and could go, if we show ships at Omaha Beach as suggested above. — JFG ^talk 03:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I find the image of German soldiers in the ruins of Stalingrad more visually compelling than the one we have in the current collage. what do you think? — JFG ^talk 03:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed collage

Here is the overall collage I would suggest:

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-R85077, Sowjetisches Schlachtflugzeug über Berlin.jpg

With appropriate cropping of the vertical pictures, it would look pretty compelling, and cover all bases (Western Front, Eastern Front, Africa, Japan, urban warfare, tanks, aircraft, navy, Holocaust, atomic bomb). — JFG ^talk 03:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Il-2 - no objections.

North Africa - I already explained why we cannot afford a luxury to use the space for this theatre. In my opinion, the naval warfare should be shown instead.

German solders in Stalingrad - it is just a staged photo that shows German solders near the city's ruins. The solders are relaxed, and the atmosphere of the battle where the rifleman's life expectancy was just one hour is not shown. The (staged) photos that depict Soviet solders (the one that is currently in the collage and the one in the article) describe the battle much more adequately. In addition, this photo shows not Stalingrad proper, but Stalingrad's suburbs; this area was captured pretty quickly during late summer (as you can see from the solders' uniform).

I already explained (see above) why this photo is not good for a collage: too many small details; a good collage photo should have several big details which immediately give an impression of what event does the photos depict. This concrete photo is very good for the article (where it is clickable), but not for the collage (where the resolution of each separate image is low, so the major part of the information will be lost from this picture).

The Auschwitz photo is absolutely unclear: it shows just a crowd standing on some square, and there is almost zero emotional load in this photo. What happens on the photo is absolutely unclear without reading a description. In addition, in contrast to a common stereotype, more people (not only Jews) were killed by shooting and similar type execution than perished in gas chambers.

Nuclear explosion - already agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I suggest a bit more thought (images need to show the scale of the conflate), still need a bit of brain-storming to pick the best and most representative (not just interesting images). So far I would these 4 suggest:

--E-960 (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think these photos are better for the collage, but let's see how it look. Compare this and the previous version.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

While we should aim to have generally sensible geographic balance, I don't think collage is the place where we should heavily focus on the most famous battles. Collage is really more about "at a glance" information about different aspects of war, so it is perfectly reasonable to use image from somewhat less famous battles if those images themselves have higher quality for part we want to illustrate. I would say that major question is the optimal thematic distribution, for me it would be with six images: 1. infantry 2. tanks 3. aerial warfare 4. naval warfare 5. nuclear cloud 6. civilian atrocity/holocaust. That would reasonably cover everything, from a simple soldier with his rifle, all the way up to weapons of mass destruction.--Staberinde (talk) 17:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

In all honesty, I actually like the current collage, I would just replace the upper right side (artilery) image with that of the tiger tank. That original collage has many of the points that user Staberinde suggested. Btw, for A-bomb I would use this image instead as the last image of the collage replacing Keitel signing surrender, but move it to the end. --E-960 (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If we have to choose between atomic bombing and the Holocaust, I would prefer the Holocaust picture (the one where a solder is killing a mother with a child). And I think the Pearl Harbor photo represents naval warfare conditions better than the current one. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not really a huge fan of that Pearl Harbor image in collage, for an uninformed reader it is not very clear that it is even a ship burning there without reading the caption text, which is in my opinion quite bad for a collage image. Also that image is currently already in article and we pretty definitely should not duplicate images. Now I did some digging for actual naval combat images, will throw whole bunch of them here, note that some of these would require quite extensive cutting to get pictured ship (and planes) into somewhat adequate size in collage:

USS South Dakota + Japanese bomber

USS Yorktown + Japanese bomber

Yamato under air attack

HMS Ark Royal under air attack

USS Intrepid kamikaze attack

--Staberinde (talk) 19:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I would agree that some naval combat picture would make sense; and that the raid on Pearl is not a true naval combat. However, considering the WWII basically showed that the era of surface ships battling it out for dominance of the seas had passed, I suggest we would shortlist only air-to-ship or U-boat campaigns. In that light, the picture do cover that but are generally a bit vague on the type of attack - the intrepid attack being most clear there. But other picture with planes engaging into battle with a major surface ship may be even more suited. Arnoutf (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Proposed collage by the OP

World War II

Allied forces unloading supplies during the Operation Overlord, June 1944*The "Big Three" at the Tehran Conference, 1943. Left to right: Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill*Wehrmacht soldier during the Battle of Stalingrad, 1942*Adolf Hitler announces the declaration of war against the United States to the Reichstag, December 1941*Selection ramp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, May/June 1944*Atomic bombings of Nagasaki, August 1945

Here's my proposal for discussion. My rationale is that WW2 was a total war and the photo collage conveys socio-political issues, the home front, genocide, etc - to the extent possible. This was a global war; 60 to 65 million people died and ~80 per cent of those killed were non-combatants. The history of the war is geopolitical, not only battlefield action. Borders were redrawn; empires lost; two new super-powers emerged; there were tremendous advances in military technology, culminating in the atomic bomb, etc.

The top row represents the Allies; the middle row covers the Axis war effort; and the last row focuses on civilians. Note that the collage is composed of individual images; I believe that this is preferred so that the readers can enlarge each image to see more detail. The captions may not be in the right order, as I was moving the images around.

K.e.coffman (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Frankly, there are almost no photos I can agree with.

Tehran & Hitler - WWII was the most devastating and most deadly conflict, it was not fought via negotiations or official announcements. The main actors of the war were people, not politicians.

Atomic cloud - it is absolutely unclear from this photo if this is a volcano eruption or just a thunderstorm.

Stalingrad - no real battle is shown: just a staged photo near a remnants of some destroyed building. Does not show a real atmosphere of this the most deadly battle in human history.

D-day: due to small size, it is absolutely unclear what is going on on the photo: clickable and non-clickable photos must meet different criteria. A good collage photo must catch a reader's eye immediately.

Auschwitz: does not transmit the horror of the Holocaust. I see just a crowd that is standing calmly and waiting for something. In my opinion, killing of a (Jewish) mother with a child by a single solder tells about war crimes in general more than that Auschwitz photo.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. The war was fought with alliances and official proclamations. If it weren't for the "strange alliance" of Britain, US, and Soviet Union, there may not have been a victory. And what about "We will fight on the beaches..."? Germany declaring war on the US was a political action, that turned the war into a truly "World" war. Etc. Reducing the imagery to battlefield action and military hardware actually diminishes the impact of the war, I feel. Or at least it only was a portion of what occurred.

I'm not wedded to particular images; for example, the Stalingrad image is what was suggested on this page. Same for Birkenau. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually, although I don't like the implementation, the very concept looks interesting. The core idea (to abandon the old approach that consisted in presenting photos from the most important theatres of war) looks productive. I need to think about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

More options

World War II

Allied landing during the Operation Overlord, June 1944*Atomic bombings of Nagasaki, August 1945*The "Big Three" at the Tehran Conference, 1943. Left to right: Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill*The memorial (Jewish menorah) at the site of the 1941 massacre at Drobytsky Yar.*Barricades on city street during the Battle of Moscow, October 1941*Adolf Hitler announces the declaration of war against the United States to the Reichstag, December 1941

Here's another sample proposal. I think the images can be swapped out; my main thrust is to present the war as a global conflict, the likes of which the world had not seen before.

Caption order has not been updated. The mushroom cloud image can be easily replaced. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think Yalta was more important than Tehran. A mushroom cloud should definitely be replaced. No real fighting are shown. D-day was definitely not the most crucial battle. The most important objection is the war crime presentation: all images proposed so far have a tendency to anonymize the victims, whereas they were real people, like you or me. This photo File:The last Jew in Vinnitsa, 1941.jpg

demonstrates my point: it is actually a picture of the human (just look at his face) who is being killed by subhumans. There is a technical problem with this particular picture that does not allow us to put it in the collage, but the picture of that kind would be the best one.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm a little weary about putting atrocity images into a collage; it seems disrespectful somehow. That's why I originally picked the memorial photo. And it was not just individual crimes; 30,000 people were killed at Drobytsky Yar, for example. It's the massive scale - of the fighting, of genocide, of military production - that was mind-boggling about this conflict.

Again, I'm not set on any particular image, but I do think the three Allied leaders and the Dec 1941 declaration of war are important to include in some form. I look forward to additional feedback / options. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Putting explicit atrocity images into a collage is a bad idea in my view. Such an image would violate MOS:LEADIMAGE as it would shock readers - the example used at MOS:LEADIMAGE actually warns against the use of explicit Holocaust images. The lack of context for such an image also seems a poor way to remember the victims of the war. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D, we don't need to include image of atrocities, also as noted earlier I agree with Paul Siebert when he mentioned that we include a real image from the Holocaust (though not graphic) but not an image of a post war monument, which is not an image from WWII. Last note, this new collage is not much better then the current one, it misses the mark, bit of a focus on diplomatic/government items instead of soldiers and hardware. Also, pay attention to the order, this collage that was propose is all over the place and the images look random and their order not very logical. --E-960 (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Nick-D, with due respect, I don't understand why we should avoid shocking images. The WWII story is really shocking story, and suffering of millions and millions of people are not comparable with a shock a modern reader may experience upon having seen such a photo. In my opinion, by caring too much about emotional comfort of a modern reader, we show a deep disrespect to the sufferings of millions and millions of people. A modern reader must be shocked upon having read this article, and thin is the only way we can show respect to the WWII victims.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

This is going nowhere fast, we are all over the place with the image suggestion, instead of trying to debate the entire collage, can we just change two of the images which are a bit lack luster, in my opinion we should just change the TWO of the images, of Keitel for N-bomb and the artillery gun for Tiger tank (for now) — change out the most uninteresting images instead of debating all six images at once. --E-960 (talk) 19:24, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I can try to do that if this idea is supported by others. I prefer the Tigers photos taken from the Battle of Kursk film (two black tank silhouettes), which shows the battle conditions better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Agree to swap Keitel for atomic bomb, there are no objections in the discussion so we can proceed. However we don't seem to have consensus on which tank illustration is best. Perhaps do a quick survey? — JFG ^talk 13:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I can agree with removal of Keitel only if several conditions are met. First, its replacement with atomic bomb shifts a balance between Europe and Asia/Pacific: we agreed many years ago that 4 photos should be devoted to Europe, which was the major theatre of war, and two to Asia/Pacific. That means if we replace Keitel, one of two photos (Chinese solders or US fleet) should be replaced with some photo from Europe.

Second, it is highly desirable that this collage shared three photos with the Eastern Front collage (that symbolises the fact that EF was, by scale, amount of troops involved, casualties and strategic importance, was about 50% of WWII). In connection to that, the Tiger tank photo must be the one from Kursk (the same photo as in the EF collage).

One more argument in favor of this photo is that is not just a Tiger photo, but the photo taken during the greatest andn the most decisive tank battle in human history.

If Keitel is removed, it must be moved to the Victory section to replace the Japanese surrender picture.

Chinese solders are hardly good in that case, because it will look like they are either being chased by Tiger tanks of are German co-belligerents. The Allied troops should look to the right to symbolise opposition.

In summary, removal of Keitel shifts the brittle equilibrium, and we will need to think about the whole design of the collage again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If that's the case, perhaps we just keep the collage as is, if we start moving around images in the text because of the collage (Japanese sounder) it's just a bit much confusion. --E-960 (talk) 17:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Although I participated in the work on the current collage, I am do not think it cannot be improved. My only point is that its improvement requires a serious discussion and significant efforts. --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Did the war start in 1939 or in 1941?

The problem with the current proposals is that none of them cover the period from 1939 to 1941, when Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were Non-Aggression Pact partners, which was a third of the entire period of WW2. So I propose at least two images from that period should go into a six image montage. With a war that spans six years we should pick the picture that best represents each year of the war. Perhaps one of these for the year 1939:

--Nug (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Besides the fact that this is raising the discussion when the war exactly started, it remains clear that the war (assuming you mean the september 1 starting date) did not last 6 full calendar year but rather 5 (it ended september 2 1945) with both 1939 and 1945 being broken years. So I think your suggestion is less obvious than suggested.

Nevertheless some kind of timeline might be interesting as 1939-1940 was the moment where German armies were victorious on the Western fronts. 1941 brought the USA, USSR and Japan into the war with Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour. 1942-1943 were the years in which the war started to turn against the axis with major losses (e.g Midway / Stalingrad) after which the allies started their offensive in 1943 onwards. Arnoutf (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the Nig's proposal is really good. If we give 5 pictures for each year plus one general picture, which is, obviously, should be the Holocaust/war crimes photo, that may give a good overview of the war. Although the photos proposed by Nug do not work for obvious reasons, the very concept definitely deserves attention. Besides the Holocaust picture, I suggest.

- 1939-1940 Wehrmacht in Poland or Paris;

- 1940-1941 Pearl Harbor;

- 1941-1942 Stalingrad;

- 1942-1943 Kursk;

- 1944-1945 D-day;

- Holocaust;

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Lets not open a new sub-section for every new suggestion about the collage, this is starting to get confusing. --E-960 (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

While the Holocaust was a terribly heinous crime unprecedented in scale and horror in all history, I'm not sure we should include an image in the montage for a number of reasons. The montage should include key milestones that had the most impact on the course of the war, for example Barbarossa, Stalingrad, etc. As terrible as the Holocaust was, I don't think it had any impact upon the course of the war (apart from depriving Germany of pool of talented people like Einstein). Even though the Allies became aware of the Holocaust it didn't really impact their operational planning to a significant degree. Also many sources contend that the Holocaust actually began in 1933. So my list would be:

- 1939: Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. The key enabler to Hitler’s invasion of Poland in September 1939, and subsequent impact upon the post-war order with formerly independent nations absorbed into the Soviet Union.

- 1940: Blitzkrieg. France, Holland and Belgium become overwhelmed by Germany's tactically innovative Blitzkrieg.

- 1941: Operation Barbarossa. Hitler began Operation Barbarossa in June 1941, breaking the terms of Soviet-Nazi Non-Aggression Pact. (Pearl Harbour also happened but the USA was already a de facto participant with its navy fighting German U-boats)

- 1942: Battle of Midway. A crucial and decisive naval battle in the Pacific, which turned the tide to an eventual American victory.

- 1943: Surrender at Stalingrad. German defeat at Stalingrad was a turning point in WW2 and is regarded as one of the bloodiest battles in modern history.

- 1944: D-Day. The Allied invasion of France began on 6th June 1944. It led to the eventual liberation of France from the Nazis and contributed to the Allies victory in the war.

- 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The final stage of WW2 saw American forces drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagaski in August 1945, killing at least 129,000 people, and ushering the beginning of the Atomic age.

--Nug (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no consensus among historians (besides a narrow group of EE nationalistic historians) on the role of MRP in the WWII outbreak. Taking into account that Nazi-Soviet negotiations started only in August, and there were no guaranty that they would be successful, it is hard to believe Germany managed to prepare for a full scale war in just a couple of weeks. In addition, Hitler did not believe invasion of Poland would provoke a global conflict: he expected British reaction would be of the same type as her reaction on the invasion of Czechoslovakia. In any event, MRP was an important prerequisite for the WWII start, but not an absolutely necessary one. Re "formerly independent nations absorbed into the Soviet Union", annexation of the three Baltic states by the USSR was not a consequence of MRP, it was one of the key factors that lead to deterioration of Nazi-Soviet relations. This act was seen by Hitler as hostile, and it gave a start to Barbarossa planning.

One way or the another, if the photos of Stalin and Ribbentrop are shown in the collage, the Big Three photo must be shown too, because that alliance was much more important. That breaks the whole structure. If the photo of hostilities in Poland is shown, that should be a photo of Germans, because Soviet-Polish hostilities were minimal. Joint Soviet-German photos are just staged photos that were produced by Nazi propaganda, which tried to emphasize Nazi-Soviet friendship (they even made a montage of two different films made in Brest during two different days to make an impression of a joint Nazi-Soviet parade). Do we really want to reproduce Nazi propaganda cliches in this collage?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems a bit dishonest to misrepresent John Hiden, David J. Smith, Roger Moorhouse, Richard J Evans and others as a "narrow group of EE nationalistic historians". As Richard Evans states, the MRP was "a crucial feature of the run up to the outbreak of the war". Arguing that "annexation of the three Baltic states by the USSR was not a consequence of MRP" is just repeating Soviet era propaganda, it was only in the 1980's that the Soviets finally admitted the existence of the MRP's secret protocols which explicitly consigned the Baltic states into the Soviet sphere. Your argument that the annexation led to deterioration of Nazi-Soviet relations that gave a start to Barbarossa planning is irrelevant since WW2 had already started in 1939. With 20,000 Polish officers are slaughtered in the forests of Katyn, the claim that "Soviet-Polish hostilities were minimal" rings somewhat hollow. And given that the images above were originally publishes by the soviet TASS news agency, it is nonsense to claim they were "staged photos that were produced by Nazi propaganda". --Nug (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Do Hiden, Smith, Moorhouse, and Evans reflect a scholarly consensus? I wouldn't say so. If you read my post carefully, you probably noticed that I wrote that "there is no consensus among historians (besides a narrow group of EE nationalistic historians) on the role of MRP", which literally means that there is no agreement among Western historians on that subject (some, like Hoden, believe MRP was a key component, others, like Roberts, see its role differently). I didn't write that only EE nationalists share this view, I wrote only EE nationalists achieved a consensus about the role of MRP. I believe, you see a difference, which means, we can speak not about someone's dishonesty, but about someone else's tendency to make far reaching conclusions based on a superficially read text.

Throwing accusations of "repeating Soviet era propaganda" is also not the best way to conduct a discussion. Discussion started in that way usually ends at AE, and I believe neither you nor I want that.

Being an intellectual person, you must agree that something happened during the period from late 1939 to early 1941, and these events were a sharp transition between de facto alliance (in October 1939, not September 1939) to a full scale preparations of a massive military invasion. Which events triggered it? There is a broad consensus among historians that annexation of the three Baltic states and North Bukovina was seen by Germany as a hostile act. Hitler openly said that the carte blanche the Soviet Union got in the Baltics according to the secret protocol did not stipulate full annexation of these states. According to Hitler, the USSR had a right to impose "mutual assistance" pacts on those states, to station military troops there, to create military bases, but annexation was not stipulated by the protocol. Many authors, including those this article already cites, agree that serious preparations for Barbarossa started as a result of the annexation. Later, Ribbentrop made a last attempt to fix the relationships, but November negotiations failed because positions of both parties were very different.

To summarize: "mutual assistance" pacts and Soviet military bases in Baltic states were a direct consequence of MRP, but their annexation was seen as a deeply unfriendly act by Germans. Some authors, such as Roberts, believe that the annexation was a result of Stalin's panic when he saw how quickly Germany defeated France.

Many authors think too teleologically, and they believe Stalin had some diabolic plan by the moment Ribbentrop arrived to Moscow in August 1939. These authors believe "mutual assistance" pacts were just a first step of general Stalin's plan to fully occupy these states, and they conclude that, since "mutual assistance" pacts were a direct consequence of MRP, the annexations were the result too. In contrast, other authors, such as Haslam or Roberts, believe Stalin was acting opportunistically, and each his step was more an improvisation.

In any event, I believe you will abandon your battleground tactics, and we will continue our conversation in a peaceful and respectful way. To accuse someone in repeating Soviet propaganda claims is something that any good faith user should avoid (unless this accusations have a very solid ground), because outstanding claims require outstanding evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Re "With 20,000 Polish officers are slaughtered in the forests of Katyn..." Murdering of POWs was a war crime, it was not a part of any than hostilities. The fact that Stalinist repressions continued during 1939-41 does not add anything to this story.

Re the images, yes, there were significant attempts to make a sharp propagandistic U-turn after August 1939. However, Nazi propaganda made much more efforts in that direction. If you look at the Krivoshein photo, you may see he is surrounded by German officers, and no other Soviet military was there. He got an order to prevent any situation when Soviet and Nazi troops could be pictured together. Actually, what happened was the following: Krivoshein was standing with German officers during the Wehrmacht parade. Next day, after German troops left the city, Soviet troops organized their own parade. Later, Germans combined these two events in one film, thereby creating an impression of a joint parade.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? It is a complete fiction to suggest the Germans combined film from two separate parades of give the impression of a single joint parade. There are other photos showing Soviet armour and personnel participating in the same parade. There are eye witness accounts of the joint parade, and Krivoshein himself admitting that a battalion of Soviet troops participated, see The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 by Roger Moorhouse. --Nug (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with Moorhouse is that the prologue to his book (where the "joint parade" is described) is based on very odd sources. It cites a local modern newspaper Вечерний Брест, some its articles that he cites are currently unabvailable, others do not cite any primary sources. If I went to RSN and ask if Вечерний Брест is a reliable source for Wikipedia history articles, the answer would be, probably, negative. It also cites some obscure blog [17], youtube video, etc. By writing that, I do not imply the book is not good: other chapters seem to be based on quite reliable primary sources (although I haven't finished reading it yet; thank you for the reference anyway). My point is that the description of the "joint parade" provides no fresh information in addition to what I already know. By the way, the prologue cites Krivoshein's memoirs, but it cites it selectively: Krivoshein writes that Guderian was insisting on the parade, but Krivoshein was trying to avoid it, and finally they agreed on the procedure when German troops march first and leave the city, and then the Soviet troops enter. He also recall that his comrades were very worry about Krivoshein's visit to Guderian, because they were very concerned about his safety (they thought Nazi could kill him). That is hardly an indication of friendly relationship between Soviet and Nazi troops.

Anyway, I am glad to see that the parade story is the only point seems to be the only point of disagreement. That is good.

Let me just reiterate one point: by signing a secret protocol, Ribbentrop gave Stalin free hand in Baltic, but it seems Nazi did not interpret it as a Soviet right to fully annex the Baltic states. That was in agreement with Nazi's own approach to its satellites: they didn't occupy Chroatisa, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, they even didn't occupy France completely. Their standard approach was to convert the states in their sphere of influence in puppet states, and it seems they expected Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania would become just semi-independent Soviet puppets (which happened in late 1939), but full annexation was not they agreed with. That is why I say annexation became the event that Germans saw as a violation of the pact, and it gave a start to a rapid deterioration of Nazi-Soviet relationship. --Paul Siebert (talk) 12:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because I don't respond to every point in your wall of text does not imply agreement. Claiming a "broad consensus among historians" support your view that annexation of three Baltic states was the reason Germany attacked the Soviet Union is just another misrepresentation of the sources. Baltic Germans were evacuated precisely because the Nazis understood what "Stalin's free hand in Baltics" really meant. Of course Nazi propaganda may have affected outrage at the annexation (after all they also claimed to be the defenders of Europe against Judeo-Bolshevism), but Hitler had long spoken of conquering Lebensraum to the east, the only thing stopping them was the then perceived might of the Soviet Union, until perception was shattered by the Red Army's poor performance in the Winter War. --Nug (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Whereas it is a big question if I misinterpreted anything, you definitely misinterpreted my own words: I said "a broad consensus among historians does not support your claim", which is not the same as "a broad consensus among historians does support my claim". The first statement is much easier to prove: I need just to provide a couple of good sources that say the opposite to what you say, and what is exactly what I do. Thus, a review article devoted specifically to the origin of Barbarossa says:

"... the beginning of military planning was not a matter of anticipating Hitler's wishes, but a deliberate reaction and initiative by the OKH and OKW in view of Russia's activities in the Baltic countries and Rumania." (The Historical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 377-390)

Although that was written in 1988, I doubt new arguments have been brought in last decades: I am not aware of any recent sources that reconsider this subject.

Regarding alleged Hitler's fears of the USSR, that is also a very questionable thesis. In 1939, the USSR's military capabilities were not considered as significant by Western politicians (for example, Foreign Office analytics estimated military power of the USSR was comparable to that of Poland).

Re "Of course Nazi propaganda may have affected outrage at the annexation" - that is exactly opposite to what happened in reality: official reaction of German leadership on the annexation was minimal. Anti-Judeo-Bolshevist propaganda was essentially stopped during that time. In addition, you just contradict to yourself: from one hand, you emphasize the allied relations between Nazi and Soviets, from another hand, you speak about anti-Communist propaganda. Don't you see a logical flaw in that?

Here is a direct quote that says the same what I wrote in the previous post:

"Hitler, and Ribbentrop for that matter, had interpreted 'spheres of interest' rather literally, neither of them expecting the total destruction of the sovereignty of the states concerned" (the author means the Baltic states) The source (The Historical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 4 (Dec., 1983), pp. 891-920) is relatively old, but I saw not fresh sources that question this idea.

In reality, in 1940, Hitler's concern was not a crusade against Judeo-Bolshevism (that rhetoric became predominant later), but the desire to deprive Britain of the last sword in the continent (taking into account some signs of rapprochement between Britain and the USSR).--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Holy cow, do you really need to cherry-pick passages from obscure journal articles written in the 1980's (when the Soviets still denied the existence of the MRP secret protocols) to support your POV that the Soviet annexation of the Baltics was unexpected and ultimately triggered Germany's attack? Seriously? The scholarly consensus is that conquest of Lebensraum was the primary motive and dealing with Bolshevism the secondary motive:

"To summarise: amid the 'tangle' of motives involved in German decision-making, the primary one was to eliminate a growing Soviet political and strategic threat. Removal of the British 'continental sword' in her rear would give Germany the freedom to create Lebensraum by conquest, and to construct an impregnable continental empire, the all-important consideration of which was economic self-sufficiency. This fully concurs with Hitler's statement made several months after the highly successful beginning of the campaign: 'The struggle for the hegemony in the world will be decided for Europe by the possession of the Russian space. It makes Europe the one place in the world that is most impregnable to blockage.'

In this sense, the campaign in the east was a war of aggression and conquest, designed to destroy the enemy state and exploit the conquered territory. At the same time it would pave the way ideologically for a 'final accounting' with Bolshevism." - source: Heinz Magenheimer, Hitler's War: Germany's Key Strategic Decisions 1940-45. 2015.

--Nug (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Nug, by writing "do you really need to cherry-pick passages", you again accused me of disruptive editing. I suggest you to avoid that without providing a really serious evidence. To demonstrate that I "cherry-picked" anything, you have at least to read this article in full and prove that its general idea contradicts to the idea I am trying to convey using this particular quote. If you have any doubt about a reliability of this source, go to RSN, and people will explain you that it is a peer-reviewed academic journal published by Cambridge University Press, and, therefore, is the top quality secondary source. And, last, but not least, it is not clear what period of time does the extended quote provided by you describe. Of course, the Lebensraum idea became predominant at some point, and the article I quoted is devoted exactly to that question: when exactly did Hitler start to prepare for the conquest of the USSR? The answer was: no practical steps were taken until late 1940, and initial planning started only after annexation of the Baltic states.

Again, occupation of Eastern Poland was not seen by Hitler as a hostile act, moreover, during the first half of september 1939, Ribbentrop repeatedly asked Stalin to invade Poland citing the Moscow agreement. In contrast, both Hitler and Ribbentrop were very irritated when they learned about annexation of the Baltic states. Your problem is that you think that occupation and annexation of Eastern Poland, Bessarabia and Baltic states were similar events, which is absolutely not the case: all these cases were totally different, and their relationship to the MRP was totally different.

Finally, I provided you a with direct quote that almost literally coincide with what I say. In responce, you gave me a long quote that does not support your idea and does not contradict to what I say (my point is that that quote correctly describes the state of things starting from mid 1940).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

• • • objection***, not single photo of Second Sino-Japanese War. This is a GLOBAL war, not a Europe war. Eurocentrism is non-neutral.Rwat128 (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)