Warning: file_put_contents(/opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/storage/proxy/cache/2050b5d236189504f1629ba708d0ddd7.html): Failed to open stream: No space left on device in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php on line 36

Warning: http_response_code(): Cannot set response code - headers already sent (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 17

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Arsae/CacheManager.php:36) in /opt/frankenphp/design.onmedianet.com/app/src/Models/Response.php on line 20
Talk:World War II - Wikipedia Jump to content

Talk:World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateWorld War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

[edit]

Main Allied leaders : - Joseph Staline - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Winston Churchill - Chiang Kai-shek - Charles de Gaulle


Please, add Charles de Gaulle to the « Main Allied leaders » at the beginning of the page, it’s a historical fact. That’s why France got a permanent seat at the Security Council of UNO.

Please, add Charles de Gaulle to the « Main Allied leaders » at the beginning of the page, it’s a historical fact.That’s why France got a permanent seat at the Security Council of UNO. 2A02:1210:7691:1300:89B1:88DA:EA3D:AA7E (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While he was certainly an Allied leader (listed here), he was the head of the French government-in-exile and played a much smaller role compared to Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang. JasonMacker (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Previous discussions on the talk page have found there is a consensus against including de Gaulle. Day Creature (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If Chiang is there so should De Gaulle be. Both or neither 109.138.247.207 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Chiang was ruler of a country that had not been conquered or surrendered, De Gaulle was not, as France had surrendered. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it’s time we stop pretending. People still throw around this idea — politely, vaguely — that the 1940 armistice marked the end of France’s role in World War II. That France bowed out, stopped fighting, and that its place among the victorious powers was more of a diplomatic courtesy than a deserved position. That is false. Historically false. Legally indefensible. And politically dishonest.
First, let’s be clear: the 1940 armistice has no legal value today. It was rendered null the moment it ceased to reflect the actual sovereignty of France.
Let’s look at who signed it. The Vichy regime — not a legal continuation of France, but a government born in defeat and panic, set up under German pressure. The July 10 vote giving full powers to Marshal Pétain? It was rushed, held under duress, with missing parliamentarians, no real debate, and zero constitutional guarantees. That’s not a legitimate constitutional transition — it’s an institutional collapse. And this isn’t just a matter of opinion. The ordinance of August 9, 1944, issued by the Provisional Government of the French Republic, retroactively nullified all legislative acts of the Vichy regime. That’s an official legal act: Vichy was never recognized as legitimate under French law. Every decree, every law, every signature under Pétain’s rule — wiped out. France didn’t just “move past” Vichy. It erased it. This legal move wasn’t invented out of nowhere. It followed the consistent Gaullist legal argument from June 1940 onward: Vichy could not represent France, because France had not surrendered as a sovereign state. The Republic had been illegally suspended, not legally replaced. The real continuity of French law and sovereignty lived on — not in Vichy, but in Free France.
De Gaulle made it absolutely clear: the French state cannot be represented by a government installed under enemy influence. That’s why the authority of Free France — and later the Provisional Government — was the only legitimate one. Not out of sentiment. Not out of politics. Out of legal continuity. So from a purely legal standpoint — no rhetoric, no romanticism — the 1940 armistice had no lasting authority. It was signed by a regime that had no right to sign on behalf of France. That makes it void.
Now let’s talk facts. Because law means nothing if it isn’t backed by reality.
France did not stop fighting in 1940. It simply fought elsewhere, under different colors. From 1940 onward, Free French forces took part in operations across Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. They were in Libya, in Syria, in Italy, in the Vosges, in Alsace. The 1st French Army landed in Provence and fought its way into Germany. It wasn't symbolic — it was real. On the ground. With guns and blood. And let’s be very clear: France (Jean de Lattre de Tassigny) signed the German surrender in May 1945. Not as a bystander. As one of the four powers occupying Germany. And who signed the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in September 1945? A French representative (Leclerc). Not a decoration. A co-signer of history. These aren’t favors you hand out to a defeated state. You sign a surrender only if you were at war. And you sign it only if you won. That is not the legacy of an armistice. That is the legacy of a continued war effort — a war effort carried by Free France and, later, the reconstituted French Republic. And the Allies knew it. Free France gradually gained recognition — first reluctantly, then openly — as the legitimate government of France. The Provisional Government, established in 1944, wasn’t created from scratch. It was the result of years of resistance and reconstruction, a state that fought to exist and then helped win the war. By 1945, France was occupying German territory, a founding member of the United Nations, and a permanent seat holder on the Security Council. You don’t give that seat to a country that bowed out in 1940. So anyone claiming that the 1940 armistice defines France’s place in WWII is choosing to ignore everything that followed. They're ignoring the Resistance, ignoring Free France, ignoring the soldiers, the diplomats, the territories reclaimed, and the flags raised in victory.
The armistice isn’t a defining moment. It’s a false pause. Free France broke it — not with words, but with bullets. (I'll let you judge based on the quote at the end.)
I have been studying French participation during the Second World War for 13 years. I myself had an ancestor who joined the African army in 1942 and who participated in the campaign in Italy, Provence and Germany. Anglo-Saxon sources are propaganda to erase the role of France during the Second World War in reaction to Gaullist policy during the war and after the war, for example on the subject of NATO or Europe. Therefore, Wikipedia must be used to erase this historical manipulation and tell the incontestable truth that France played a major role during the Second World War but that Anglo-Saxon propaganda wants to erase it. It feels like 1984 with all these manipulations. Sorry if I was vehement but I hate propaganda that is so strong that it is considered an incontestable truth. What I stated is not an opinion, it is an uncontested and incontestable truth.
Multiple sources :
Ordinance of August 9 1944 — “Ordonnance relative au rétablissement de la légalité républicaine sur le territoire continental.” Journal Officiel de la République Française.
Charles de Gaulle, The Appeal of 18 June 1940, BBC, London.
Charles de Gaulle, War Memoirs, Vol. 1: The Call to Honour (1940–1942).
Jean-Pierre Azéma, From Munich to Liberation, Seuil, 1992.
Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac, Free France, Gallimard, 1996.
Eisenhower's memoirs — Crusade in Europe (mentions French forces’ essential role).
Diplomatic records: France’s signature on the surrender of Germany (Reims and Berlin, May 1945) and the surrender of Japan (USS Missouri, September 2, 1945).
United Nations Charter, 1945 — France listed as founding member and permanent Security Council member.
Forgive me if this was long, but I think I have provided a sufficiently detailed argument to definitively assert that Free France rendered the 1940 armistice null and void. Therefore, this argument cannot be used in the debate.
And forgive me if I wrote it wrong, English is not my mother tongue, which is why I had a lot of difficulty writing this text, which took me about 40 minutes.
And I would like to finish on a quote from Adolf Hitler:
"You hear, gentlemen, what Koch is saying. It is indeed further proof of the thesis I have always maintained, namely that the French are, [after us,]* the best soldiers in all of Europe. France will always be in a position, even with its current birth rate, to field a hundred divisions. We will absolutely have to, after this war, form a coalition capable of militarily containing a country capable of accomplishing military feats that astonish the world, as at Bir Hakeim."
  • Nazi Propaganda, The French Army is the Best.
source of quote Utygiolyrc (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#c-2A02:1210:7691:1300:89B1:88DA:EA3D:AA7E-20250516010000-Semi-protected_edit_request_on_16_May_2025 2409:40E4:1002:71BB:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Legal Argument in Favor of the Exclusive Legitimacy of Free France and the Invalidity of the 1940 Armistice
----
I. Constitutional Illegality of the Vichy Regime
The Vichy regime cannot be considered a legitimate government under the constitutional law of France in effect in 1940. The constitutional law of July 10, 1940, which granted full powers to Marshal Pétain, was marred by significant procedural irregularities. It was adopted under duress, in the absence of many parliamentarians who were either abroad or otherwise prevented from voting. Moreover, it violated both the spirit and the letter of the constitutional laws of 1875, which did not authorize the suspension of the Republic or the transfer of sovereign power.
This rupture of republican legality invalidates all subsequent decisions made by the Vichy government, including the signing of the June 22, 1940 armistice. As such, the Vichy regime cannot be said to have represented the French Republic in any legal or constitutional sense on the international stage.
----
II. Breach of France’s International Commitments in 1940
In May 1940, France signed a joint declaration with the United Kingdom pledging not to make a separate peace with Germany. By concluding a unilateral armistice with Nazi Germany, the Vichy government violated this international commitment, effectively breaking France’s diplomatic continuity.
In international law, a government that flagrantly breaches the state’s treaties and commitments loses part of its recognition as a legitimate legal subject. In contrast, Free France, from July 1940 onward, upheld France’s international obligations—particularly to the Allies. This commitment to legal and diplomatic continuity supports the conclusion that Free France preserved the legal personality of the French state, despite being in exile.
----
III. Progressive and Effective International Recognition of Free France
Although initial recognition of Free France was limited (notably by the United Kingdom in 1940), it gradually expanded. From 1942 onwards, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other Allied powers recognized first the French National Committee, and later the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF), as France’s legitimate authority.
This recognition is more than a political gesture. Under international law, recognition of a government confirms its capacity to represent the state in legal matters, enter into treaties, and act on behalf of its people. From this standpoint, only the GPRF had the legal capacity to sign binding international acts on France’s behalf.
----
IV. The 1940 Armistice: Legally Null and Void in the Postwar Order
The 1940 armistice signed at Rethondes was not a peace treaty but a military cessation of hostilities. It was never ratified by Parliament or concluded by a government with full international standing. Furthermore, Germany’s own breach of the agreement—through its occupation of the southern zone in November 1942—rendered the armistice null and void de facto.
From a legal standpoint, the armistice lost all binding force. The authority that signed it lacked constitutional legitimacy, and the agreement was never formalized as an enduring legal instrument. Meanwhile, Free France, by continuing hostilities and maintaining international obligations, preserved the state’s legal identity and sovereignty. Thus, France never legally surrendered in 1940.
----
V. The Only Valid Acts: Berlin and Tokyo, 1945
On May 8, 1945, Germany’s surrender was signed in Berlin by the four Allied powers, including France, represented by General de Lattre de Tassigny. This signature was made on behalf of the Provisional Government of the French Republic, which had replaced Vichy after the Liberation and had been internationally recognized as France’s legal authority.
Similarly, on September 2, 1945, at the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri, General Leclerc signed the act on behalf of France. These two acts are the only legally binding instruments of surrender involving France, as they were concluded by a government that had regained full sovereignty, recognition, and legal legitimacy.
----
Conclusion
From the perspective of both constitutional and international law, the only government that maintained the legal continuity of the French state during World War II was Free France, later formalized as the Provisional Government of the Republic. The Vichy regime, born of an unconstitutional seizure of power and in breach of international commitments, cannot be considered to have held legitimate authority.
The 1940 armistice is thus legally null. The only valid international acts signed by France during the war were the 1945 instruments of surrender in Berlin and Tokyo—acts that affirmed France’s sovereignty and legal standing, not as a defeated state, but as a victorious power represented by its only lawful government: that of Free France.
Why have you never studied French participation during the Second World War or you are deliberately lying In both cases you are not legitimate to speak about France during the Second World War Utygiolyrc (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why General de Gaulle's Free France Should Be Among the Top Five Allied Powers of World War II:
It is historically justified to recognize Free France, led by General Charles de Gaulle, as one of the five principal Allied powers during World War II. This is supported by military, diplomatic, and strategic contributions that were far from minor.
1. A major military force by 1945
By the time of Germany’s surrender on May 8, 1945, France had the fifth largest army in the world, with approximately 1.8 million soldiers. In terms of actual contribution to the Allied victory, France ranked as the fourth most involved Allied army, ahead of China. This reveals the significant, yet often overlooked, role of the French military in the final defeat of Nazi Germany.
2. Diplomatic recognition at the highest level
France was not a secondary player on the diplomatic stage. General de Gaulle took part in major Allied conferences, including the Casablanca Conference in 1943, alongside Churchill and Roosevelt. Furthermore, France was granted a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council , alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China—solidifying its status as a global power.
3. Active participation on multiple fronts
French forces, whether Free French Forces (FFL) or the reconstituted French army after 1943, fought across virtually every major theater of the war:
  • In the Atlantic, with the Free French Navy;
  • In Africa, notably during the North African campaign;
  • In Western Europe, with the 1st French Army under General de Lattre de Tassigny;
  • In Eastern Europe, through volunteer fighters and the Resistance;
  • In Asia and the Pacific, with French units operating in french Polynésia and New Caledonia.
  • In Middle East, with Syria–Lebanon campaign
4. A key role in the Provence landings
Often overshadowed by the D-Day landings in Normandy, the Allied landings in Provence (August 1944) were a major military operation, led in large part by French forces. This landing enabled a rapid liberation of southern France and the opening of a critical second front against the German army.
5. Eisenhower called the French army “indispensable”
General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, explicitly stated that the French army was "indispensable" during the 1944 campaign in Western Europe. Such a strong endorsement highlights how essential French forces were to the overall success of the Allied effort.
6. Bir Hakeim: The Heroic Stand That Gave Free France Its Military Legitimacy
Among the most glorious and strategically significant episodes in the history of Free France during World War II stands the Battle of Bir Hakeim, fought between May 26 and June 11, 1942, in the deserts of Libya. This battle marked the first major engagement where the Free French Forces, under the command of General Marie-Pierre Kœnig, stood alone against the German and Italian Axis armies—most notably Rommel’s formidable Afrika Korps—and emerged with both tactical credibility and symbolic triumph.
At the isolated desert stronghold of Bir Hakeim, roughly 3,700 Free French troops, including soldiers from the Foreign Legion, colonial troops from Africa, and volunteers from across the French Empire, held out for 16 consecutive days against more than 30,000 Axis troops, backed by hundreds of tanks, artillery pieces, and air support. Vastly outnumbered, outgunned, and facing the brutal heat and isolation of the desert, the Free French resisted wave after wave of assaults, artillery barrages, and air bombardments with exceptional discipline and courage.
Strategically, Bir Hakeim proved decisive in the broader North African campaign. By tying down Rommel’s forces for over two weeks, the French delayed the Axis advance toward Tobruk and ultimately Cairo, buying invaluable time for the British Eighth Army to regroup and fortify positions at El Alamein. This delay was a key factor in preventing an early Axis breakthrough into Egypt and the Middle East. British commander General Claude Auchinleck later acknowledged that the stand at Bir Hakeim significantly contributed to the eventual victory at the First Battle of El Alamein—a major turning point in the war.
However, the importance of Bir Hakeim extends beyond its tactical implications. Symbolically, it was a moment of resurrection for France—a nation humiliated by the 1940 armistice, now rising through the valor of its sons and daughters under the Free French banner. In standing firm against the Axis while many doubted the relevance or capacity of Free France, the defenders of Bir Hakeim validated Charles de Gaulle’s claim that France had not surrendered—that a true France continued to fight.
The moral impact was immediate and profound. The battle electrified Allied public opinion and reshaped perceptions of the Free French Forces. Winston Churchill praised the defense of Bir Hakeim in the House of Commons, declaring that the French had "covered themselves with glory." It also inspired many French citizens at home and in the colonies to join the Resistance or the Free French movement. From that point forward, Free France was no longer viewed as a symbolic remnant of a fallen nation, but as a fighting force worthy of respect, sacrifice, and strategic alliance.
Moreover, Bir Hakeim became a foundational myth for post-war France. It demonstrated that national honor had been preserved not through words but through sacrifice in blood and fire, far from Paris but in the name of its liberation. The battle’s legacy continues to resonate in French military history as a prime example of tenacity, cohesion among diverse forces, and the will to restore France’s dignity through action.
Conclusion:
Given its military strength, global diplomatic recognition, and widespread contributions across multiple theaters of war, France should be recognized as one of the five principal Allied powers of World War II. To exclude it is to neglect a crucial part of the Allied victory and the post-war world order that followed. Utygiolyrc (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is your opinion, with impressive arguments. However in Wikipedia information is added basing of cited references to reliable sources. Got some? --Altenmann >talk 05:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't up to we editors to detail our personal views on a matter. You will need to cite reliable sources indicating that Free France was one of the major allies. This issue has already been discussed many times and the consensus is that the majority of reliable sources do not to classify Free France as such. However, the contribution of Free France is discussed in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Readers need to read wp:or. Slatersteven (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Names

[edit]

It would be great if the lead mentions that World War 2 has multiple names applying to either part of it or in-whole. This should include the "Great Patriotic War" for example which even has it's own article already, but going unmentioned here despite this being the main article. 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E5DE:440B:5DAC:753 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, the Russian term "Great Patriotic War" only refers to the Nazi war against the Soviet Union, not WWII as a whole. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is already included as an alt name at Eastern Front (World War II). Mellk (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The post you read explicitly says "either part of it or in-whole". It does not say that that term was in-whole. It is an example of an other name with common-enough usage to justify mentioning in the lead paragraph as happens in other articles (see either the article on the Second Gulf War or the Second Indochina War).
2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E5DE:440B:5DAC:753 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why we would include other names here that refer to only specific theaters and not the global 1939–1945 war. Mellk (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Great Patriotic War", as well as only referring to one front for a limited time, is also largely unused outside the former USSR. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like World_War_I#Names, this article would benefit from a section describing the various names used for the war or theaters of the war, such as Pacific war, Chinese names ("Anti-fascist war"), and other names JasonMacker (talk) 18:06, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Führer Directive No. 25

[edit]

I have just created Führer Directive No. 25, mostly using the layout of already existing Führer Directive No. 30 as an example. If someone wants to change/add/remove something in the new article, and to somehow improve it, they are more than free to do so. Especially when it comes to this section, which I didn't really have enough time to work on. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 21:36, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work! Lova Falk (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing a new article on a rather significant aspect. I'd like to link it from here, but right now the article doesn't mention the word sabotage. Since I know this is watched by many folks more familiar than me with the article structure and content, perhaps someone would be kind enough to link the article from a relevant passage, or add a sentence somewhere? I certainly believe this concept is significant enough to warrant linking to from here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:13, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "Occupation" section? (Hohum @) 16:28, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hohum Sounds good. Can you add a mention/link there? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WW II did NOT include "the only nuclear weapons ever used in war."

[edit]

Daniel Ellsberg insisted that every president between Eisenhower and George W. Bush, with the possible exception of Ford, "used" nuclear weapons in the same way that a pistol displayed threateningly in a robbery is "used" even if the pistol is not fired. A table summarizing the incidents he cited is included in a section on Nuclear threats by the United States of the Wikipedia article on Ellsberg.

The lede to this article currently includes the claim that World War II included the "only nuclear weapons ever used in war."

Might there be some way to reword this, so it is consistent with Ellsberg's remarks on this issue?

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe say the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in war?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I made that change, and User:Hawkeye7 reverted it, saying, "Take this to the talk page - the Trinity test was a wartime detonation too." ??? DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This looks like a non-problem created by semantic nit picking. The current wording is fine. There is a clear distinction between threatening to use nuclear weapons and actually using them. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely with Aemilius Adolphin. While Ellsberg is entitled to his opinion, the issues regarding nuclear deterrence in conflicts since 1945 are hotly debated and there isn't a consensus on the issue. Some experts argue that nuclear weapons are useless as threats to use them aren't credible, for instance. Other experts disagree. See the Nuclear taboo article for a taste of the debate here. The current text is accurate and seems likely to reflect the consensus in reliable sources; privileging Ellsberg's views seems inconsistent with WP:NPOV. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this is in no way confusing. It is a made up issue based on semantics. Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect WorldWarII has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 20 § WorldWarI until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Missing resistance section

[edit]

I am surprised this is missing, given this is a GA. I know this is a highly watchlisted/edited article, but the lack of resistance section about Resistance during World War II (it is just briefly mentioned under occupation as a main article) seems to me like a major Anglophone systemic bias. Sure, US and UK were never occupied, so occupation gets three paragraphs, and resistance - a single sentence. Sigh. Occupation and resistance is a major part of war memory and narrative in most European countries. To compare: Resistance gets a long section at Polish Wikipedia (with subsections for Poland, USSR, France and Yugoslavia); pl:II_wojna_światowa#Opór_przeciw_okupantom. At French Wikipedia, Resistance gets a subsection comparable to our current Occupations section (fr:Seconde_Guerre_mondiale#Collaborations_et_résistances_en_Europe). Ru wiki aritcle is just a chronological overview with no topical subsections, so it is not a very good comparison (most other wikis, like ours, have both chronological and topical sections). Would anyone volunteer to create such a section? Otherwise, I am afraid this article (IMHO) does not meet GA criteria and should be delisted due to aforementioned lack of coverage of a major aspect (systemic bias). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:52, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about you have a first crack, and post a draft here? This seems a lot more productive than threatening to have the article delisted from GA status because someone else hasn't done so. As this is a very high level article, a few sentences would do the trick and would reflect the weight this topic gets in the English language literature. There are also likely areas where the contribution resistance movements made to campaigns could be better recognised in the body of the article, for instance in relation to the Eastern Front and war in Burma. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there is a systemic bias towards resistance movements in the non-English wikipedia articles? The issue is how much did they really contribute to the defeat of the Axis powers? Also this article already discusses resistance movements as part of the narrative of war events. The Yugoslavian partisans, the Warsaw uprising etc are discussed at appropriate points in various sections. That said, I think the one sentence dismissal of resistance movements in the article is inadequate: "Although resistance groups formed in most occupied territories, they did not significantly hamper German operations in either the East or the West until late 1943." If you would like to draft a short section on collaboration and resistance in the occupied countries that might well improve the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a total of 3 seperate mentions of resistance. excluding the fact we have articles (and links to them, in the infobox) on each nation's resistance movements. This is an overview, it is best not to weigh it down with material, best left to seperate articles. Slatersteven (talk) 10:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the extent to which the actions of violent resistance groups may have accelerated the end of the war, but Jacques Sémelin's (1993) Unarmed Against Hitler[1] documents multiple incidents where nonviolence saved many Jews. Examples:
  • "Danish resistance movement" includes a section on "Nonviolent resistance: 1940–1943" The second paragraph in that article includes the comment that, "The resistance was responsible for the rescue of almost all Danish Jews." The article on "Rescue of the Danish Jews" notes that "The Danish resistance movement, with the assistance of many Danish citizens, managed to evacuate 7,500 of Denmark's 8,000 Jews, plus 686 non-Jewish spouses, by sea to nearby neutral Sweden during the Second World War. ... As a result of the rescue, and of the following Danish intercession on behalf of the 464 Danish Jews who were captured and deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, 99% of Denmark's Jewish population survived the Holocaust." That rescue was initiated by "German diplomat Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz", who " tipped off the Danes about the Germans' intended deportation of the Jewish population in 1943 and arranged for their reception in Sweden." But Duckwitz was not the only German who supported the rescue. It involved an "unusual stream of people travelling on trams" and going into hiding in northern Denmark until they were able to cross into Sweden. "Often German soldiers turned a blind eye to" those unusual activities.
  • But helping Danish Jews escape the Holocaust was not the only nonviolent action by Danes against the occupation: Danes also organized strikes, slow work, sabotage, and other tactics. Similar actions were taken in the Netherlands but were less well coordinated.
  • "The Rosenstrasse protest was the only mass public demonstration by Germans in the Third Reich against the deportation of Jews. ... This demonstration was initiated and sustained by the non-Jewish wives and relatives of Jewish men and Mischlinge, (those of mixed Jewish and Aryan heritage)." Goebbels ultimately ordered their release, arguing, "if force was used to crush the demonstrations, it would prompt wider protests all over Berlin, which might soon become political, and could possibly even lead to the overthrow of the Nazi regime."
I remember having read of nonviolent noncooperation that hampered Nazi efforts elsewhere, but I cannot find documentation for such at the moment. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything is missing from this article as it is a relatively short overview. I think there is bias towards the resistance in non-English Wikipedias because the resistance was important in their national stories. I don't think it was really that important overall.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you mean by "a total of 3 seperate mentions of resistance". Resistance during World War II is mentioned three times (I've added a link to the first mention of the concept; two old ones were in occupation section; one as main - feel free to remove the other one if anyone cares about overlinking). Looking at interlinks, we only link to French Resistance, Italian resistance movement, Yugoslav Partisans and Soviet partisans (these only in the caption). Some may be mentioned by names of local groups, ex. Polish resistance in World War II was not mentioned (but Home Army was; I'll add a link to the parent article to that sentence now for context as not all readers may be familiar with what Home Army is). Anyway, yes, we mention resistance here and there, but the lack of discussion in the occupation section is glaring. Also, note the current sentence/paragraph is logically unfinished. We say "Although resistance groups formed in most occupied territories, they did not significantly hamper German operations in either the East or the West until late 1943.". Fine, but what about 1944+? The reader is left wanting. I'll see what I can draft. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A separate section on resistance movements—appropriately balanced—would be beneficial. Soviet and Yugoslav partisans tied down significant Axis forces, while Chinese partisans engaged Japanese troops in Mainland China. The Warsaw Uprising, launched by the Polish Home Army, was one of the fiercest instances of urban combat during World War II. Their contributions to Allied intelligence, as well as non-armed resistance (for example, the rescue of Jews), should also be acknowledged.Dreamcatcher25 (talk) 07:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting

[edit]

There is a sourcing SYNTH and OR problem with the main resistance sentence we have, i.e. "Although resistance groups formed in most occupied territories, they did not significantly hamper German operations in either the East[419] or the West[420] until late 1943." I've checked both sources. First, neither supports the claim that "Although resistance groups formed in most occupied territories", so effectively, that needs a {{fact}} (granted, it should not be hard to add a citation, and the claim seems mostly correct). Second, the first source talks about Soviet partisans only (while the East encompasses Poland and Yugoslavia, perhaps Greece too); the second is only about France, not the West. Lastly, neither source supports "late 1943" in that context. The first source states that "[Soviet] partisan units rapidly expanded in late 1943 and early 1944" and that "the early effectiveness of the partisans may have been low". The second says "Whether [the French Resistance] made a major difference or not is debatable" and "more or less mass Resistance developed in 1943". Wikiblame tells me this content was written in 2008 by one User:Oberiko, inactive since 2022. I am going to c/e that sentence to remove SYNTH/OR (extrapolating from Soviet/France to East/West) until better sources are found, and if I can, I'll add a ref to the first part (until then, I'll tag it with a cite request - perhaps someone else will be able to find a good source). If I find relevant sources, I'll add a few more sentences about resistance in general. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please post that new material for discussion here first, per the usual arrangements. Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D Sure. I've c/e-ed what we have here, and I am woring on Resistance_during_World_War_II#Assessment (that article was very poor, still needs much work). Based on the section linked here, I'd suggest splitting the current unfinished sentence on resistance into a new short paragraph, and expanding by adding 2-3 sentences, summarizing major types of resistance (violent and non-violent) and how historians view the effectivness. Something like: "By 1942, resistance spread widely across occupied territories, and steadily intensified, with activities ranging from sabotage and intelligence-gathering to clandestine press, escape lines, assassinations, guerrilla warfare and uprisings. Overall effectiveness varied by time and place: resistance rarely altered the strategic course of the war on its own, but it tied down Axis forces, disrupted communications and logistics, and contributed to liberation when coordinated with major Allied operations—particularly from late 1943 onward." Ref: [1] (p. 24, 60-61), [2]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Jacques Sémelin (1993). Unarmed against Hitler: Civilian resistance in Europe 1938-1943. Praeger Publishers. ISBN 0-275-93961-8. Wikidata Q127386701.

Civilian labour in Allied army camps in mandates/colonies

[edit]

In continuation to User:Aemilius Adolphin's comments on my talk page, propose a short addition acknowledging the supporting role of colonies and mandates like Mandatory Palestine in the Allied war effort. While the territory was small compared to other parts of the British Empire, scholarship shows that it hosted British military camps, employed both Jewish and Arab labor in those installations, and expanded agricultural production to provision Allied forces in the Eastern Mediterranean. This is a modest but notable example of how such territories to Britain’s vital global war mobilization and logistics, and is comparable to the treatment of other small colonial territories already mentioned in the article. There is no reason to ignore this issue:

Proposed text

“Though a minor territory within Britain’s empire, Mandatory Palestine played a supporting role in the Allied war effort. British army camps were established in the territory, drawing on both Jewish and Arab labor, while local agriculture was expanded to supply food to Allied forces across the Eastern Mediterranean.”

suggested citations:

  • Yoav Gelber, Palestine and World War II (Cambridge University Press, 1990).
  • Roy Marom, “RAF Ein Shemer: Forgotten Case of Jewish and Arab Work in a British Army Camp in Palestine during the Second World War,” War & Society 39.3 (2020): 189–209.

These additions can be generalized more broadly to other colonial dependencies throughout the war. רמרום (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of due weight. Policy states: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." WP:BALASP. This is a high level article and the section on war production and the home front is only meant to include a very concise summary of material that should be discussed in detail in the specialist articles linked in the section. So, on the Allied side, this article only talks about the US and British empire in general and only mentions the Soviet Union is passing. If we are going to talk about civilian contribution to the allied war effort there are scores of countries which should be mentioned before Mandate Palestine. If we want to mention a British colony then India should get 150 times the space allotted to mandate Palestine if we allocate space in proportion to the weight in reliable sources. If you haven't already done so, perhaps you should add your sentence to the the article on Military production during World War II or Home front during World War II. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It can't be mentioned here.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern about due weight (WP:DUE), but I think this discussion highlights the need for a very short, generalized acknowledgement rather than silence. At present, the article frames “civilian contribution” primarily through the United States and Britain, with only a passing nod to the Soviet Union. I am concerned that this reflects a negative systemic bias (WP:WORLDVIEW), given that civilian labour and provisioning in colonies and mandates underpinned Allied logistics across multiple theatres.
I am not proposing a long section on any single minor territory. Instead, a single bridging sentence can resolve the imbalance while keeping the section concise, consistent with WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Something like:

“Beyond the major powers, the Allied war effort also drew on civilian labour and agricultural production from colonies and mandates, where local populations supported military installations and provisioning.”

This approach avoids undue emphasis on any one case (Palestine, India, or others) but accurately reflects what the secondary literature shows about the empire-wide mobilization of civilian labour. It also parallels the article’s current handling of the Soviet Union—acknowledged in a sentence without detailed elaboration—while pointing readers to specialist articles for depth.
Such a sentence, with citations to scholarship on colonial labour mobilization, would ensure balance without overextending the article.
רמרום (talk) 08:36, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the top level article on the war, so can't acknowledge all contributions to it. There also isn't material on, for instance, the British colonies West Africa, South Africa or Rhodesia, even though all were involved in the war. New Zealand gets a single passing mention. Australia is mentioned a few times, but it was strategically important in 1942-43, and there's no material on the Australian war economy which was more heavily mobilised than almost any country. I'm not seeing any reason to call out Mandatory Palestine's role in the war. This kind of thing is best covered in articles on theatres of the war and groupings. The new sentence being proposed above is quite problematic as it portrays the residents of empires as being united in supporting the war effort, when this was very far from the case. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the point about proportionality (WP:DUE). However, I think Mandatory Palestine is not simply “another small colony” like West Africa or Rhodesia. Reliable secondary scholarship makes clear that Palestine was the central logistics hub for the Allied war effort in the Middle East. British army camps, airfields, supply depots, and agricultural provisioning there served as the base from which operations across the Eastern Mediterranean and North Africa were sustained.
This is why Palestine is often treated differently in the literature from territories that provided manpower or raw materials but were not themselves the key operational base. In other words, it played a strategic logistical role disproportionate to its small size, similar in kind (though obviously not scale) to Australia’s position in the Pacific.
That said, I agree the article cannot single out every territory. The compromise solution I suggested earlier—a brief, generalized sentence noting that “colonies and mandates provided civilian labour and provisioning for Allied logistics”—would keep this high-level article concise (WP:SUMMARYSTYLE), avoid systemic bias (WP:WORLDVIEW), and allow readers to follow links to specialized articles for cases like Palestine.
This way we neither overstate local unity of purpose (Nick-D’s valid concern) nor erase the well-documented fact that colonial dependencies like Palestine underpinned Allied supply chains in their respective regions.
רמרום (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]