Talk:World War II

Template:Medcabbox

Soviet Shift

Initially, the Soviet Union was a co-belligerent or even an ally of the Axis Powers, and it didn't switch until Barbarossa. The article needs to reflect that. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem we might find is that these conflicts are not typically considered World War 2. Baltic States, Eastern Poland and to a lesser extent Finland. I have just read the text and am happy that it reflects the things I have read. But have always thought this a wrongly forgotten part of the story. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think this point is raised too much. I don't think the USSR was seen an an enemy of Britain and France. As noted in the article, in 1936, Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, joined by Italy. The USSR and Germany were on opposite sides of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). The USSR was at also war with Japan in 1939. It is not noted in this article, but the USSR offered to defend Czechoslovakia from German invasion (see Munich Agreement). Rather being happy about the Fall of France, Stalin was furious. The success of the Axis in the West was not part of his plan. To sum up, the USSR led the campaign against Fascism up to 1939, was neutral in the European War from 1939 to 1941, and was neutral against Japan from 1941 to 1945. By comparison, the USA was neutral up to 1941.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Most of what you said is false. While it's true that the Soviets and Nazis were backing opposite sides in the Spanish Civil War, they were on the same side in the first part of World War 2. The Soviets and Nazis backing opposite sides of the Spanish Civil War no more reflects alliances in the first part of World War 2 than the Nazis and Mussolini's Italian Fascists backing opposite sides in Italy's Invasion of Ethiopia. History is the study of what happened, not what you wish would have happened. The Soviet Union was very much seen as an adversary of Britain and France in 1939. In fact, Britain feared a Soviet invasion of then-British India, and the Soviets had drawn up plans to invade India. In Germany, mention of the anti-Comintern Pact was censored vigorously by the Nazi-controlled media outlets, which resulted in the anti-Comintern Pact being replaced by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact temporarily. In Japan, the Anti-Comintern Pact was also censored in media due to Japanese media promoting attempts to form an alliance with the Communist Party of China. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Based on my response above, I'm going to edit the page. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And I've just reverted you. The infobox has been extensively discussed, and its current format reflect the outcomes of those discussions. There has been no support here for your position. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: It appears that you're either completely lying or that your assertion that "there has been no support here" for my position is no longer tenable. In fact, TheGoldAge explicitly supports my position on this subject. It is also apparent that Paul Siebert is violating the guidelines on Point-of-View, marginalizing entire nationalities of historians to suit a political narrative. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Where has it been discussed? I don't see it here on this page. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Having seen extensive discussions of the topic, your statement that there has been no support for my position is completely false. Of a sample of twenty major historians who have studied the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, 19 agreed there was collaboration. The only one I found who denied Nazi-Soviet collaboration was literally Joseph Stalin in his Falsifiers_of_History. I'm referring this to Dispute Resolution. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the archives of the talk page. The current structure of the infobox reflects the outcomes of a couple of RfCs with large numbers of participants, where the status of the USSR was one of the many issues discussed, as well as many other discussions. It has been largely stable now for years. Nick-D (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Looking at this very talk page, there is extensive support for my position as well, but a couple of users just want to ignore mainstream scholarly sources, while taking other sources, such as Gorodetsky completely out of context. Geoffrey Roberts, in his "The Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler", readily describes collaboration as a kind of alliance, albeit an informal one, in many places. Roger Moorhouse in his The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 fully supports my position and was written after the discussions you appear to be referencing even occurred. There are at least 18 other major sources that support of my position. None of the users that I have seen on the talk page such as User:Paul Siebert have even addressed Roger Moorhouse let alone any other the other sources in proper context. There is one point that Siebert made that deserves a response: the fact that the Soviet's were at war with Japan while they were at war with Poland. Siebert contends that the Soviets' war against Japan in 1939 means that they were Allies and inherently not Axis allied, and that the simultaneity of the Soviets' brief war against Japan with the Soviets' war against Poland means that they must not be considered co-belligerents of the Axis at this point. To this, I point out that the Soviets' War in Poland was much larger, roughly ten times larger in terms of army size, than their relatively minor border skirmishes with Japan in 1939. Secondly, Siebert's suggestion that the fact that Japan would join the Axis later meant that it should be deemed to have been Axis at the time of the Battles of Khalkhin Gol is simply wrong.

For other historians who support my position, I'll quickly refer you to Ennio_Di_Nolfo, Alexander Nekrich, Bernd Wegner, I. Joseph Vizulis, and James V. Wertsch. What contemporary research are you relying on? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll put my opinion down here. I don't really consider the Soviets as ever part of the Axis. Yes, they invaded Poland, but they only had an alliance with Germany, not the other Axis powers. Annexing the Baltics and Bessarabia also did not make them part of the Axis. Yes, these events are still considered part of World War II by some, but the Baltics were not part of the Allies (when they were annexed at least), kind of like Finland's situation. So yes, the USSR had an alliance with Germany at the start of the war to invade Poland, but that is all. The Soviets were never Axis powers. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

No, my arguments were different. I argued that if we assume some "Allies" existed in 1939, the USSR should be considered the first Allied power who started to fight against the Axis. However, both Allies and Axis were some loose formations in 1939, and, therefore, the "Axis vs Allies" division cannot be made based on fragmentary evidences and ad hoc rules. In connection to that, many historians conclude that in 1939 the USSR was neither the Allled not the Axis side, but, instead, it was on the "Soviet" side (i.e. it pursued its own goals). Incidentally, the US position, despite Roosevelt's personal attitude, was the same (and they even provided Japan with lion's share of oil needed for her war in China). Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's an extremely weak argument. First of all, by that logic, one could easily assert that Japan wasn't a member of the Axis in 1939 since it hadn't signed the Tripartite Pact yet. Secondly, given that Poland was unquestionably a member of the Allies, and that Germany was already in the process of forming its Axis, looking for members, the Soviet Union's attacking Poland made it a co-belligerent with the Axis. Finally, as time goes on, more and more historians, such as Moorhouse, agree that the Soviets were pro-Axis when they invaded Poland with Germany. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

How would you characterize the Soviet Union in Europe in 1939 with regards to their war against Poland? Unlike the Baltic states, Poland was explicitly part of the Allies. Would you say that the Soviet War against Poland was not part of World War 2? The Soviet Union never signed the Tripartite Pact, and the contemporary sources surrounding the Nazi diplomatic efforts to get the Soviets to join the Axis were described as being unsuccessful, so I think your position on that point, that the USSR was never part of the Axis, is at least reasonable. However, just because it wasn't ever part of the Axis doesn't mean it wasn't conditionally supporting the Axis in various circumstances or serving as a co-belligerent of the Axis.

Also, what major historians don't consider the Soviet annexations of the Baltics and Bessarabia to be part of World War 2? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

"the Soviet Union was a co-belligerent or even an ally of the Axis Powers" So I can go with you on the co-belligerent thing as per Co-belligerence where it is already mentioned. However, even though one definition of co-belligerent is "any of two or more nations engaged in war as allies" I struggle with them being in an alliance. That said what I think don't matter, do these historians refer to it as an Alliance? Do your references explicitly say Russia was at war with the Allies or a co-belligerent with Germany against the Allies, not just Poland? I have not read anything academic on this published since the 80s so I am relying on you. Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dushan Jugum: Yes, these historians that I've mentioned, many of them, refer to it as an outright "alliance", including Moorhouse, Roberts, and Di Nolfo. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

A key reason that the USSR is listed only against the 'Alles' side of the infobox is the strong preference in previous discussions and RfCs to keep the infobox simple (e.g. the same reason that only one leader is listed for each country, despite some having more than one). The US was neutral for much of the war, and Italy also fought on both sides of the conflict. Oddly, only the USSR has previously been proposed to be listed on both sides as is being suggested, again, here. The USSR was only at war with Poland of the Allied countries so its status is somewhat complex and presenting it on the 'Axis' side of the infobox would be difficult to explain to readers. I think that the merits of keeping the infobox simple stand, and note that the text of the article covers the Soviet-German alignment and the Soviet war against Poland. The infobox can't cover everything relating to this huge and very complex war. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

At least that's a rational argument: for the part of the War that saw the most casualties and was the longest part of the War, the Soviets were on the Allies' side. Still, such oversimplification is not common on here, and I don't think it should be. For many other wars, the infoboxes aren't particularly simplified. Look at the infoboxes for the Thirty Years War and the Great Northern War, which show countries switching sides. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Good for me. Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

To that, I would add that by 1939, the tern "Allies" implied Entente Cordiale (a British-French alliance), with a limited Polish participation. The Anglo-Polish and Franco-Polish alliances had a limited nature, and they were directed only against Germany. That means these two states had no obligation in a case when Poland were attacked by any other power. In a full accordance with those agreements, France and Britain declared a war on Germany, but they took no action when the USSR invaded Poland, because there were no full scale alliance between Poland and those two powers.

Furthermore, after fall of France, the Franco-British alliance ceased to exist, and we cannot speak about any "Allies" until late 1941, when the USSR, UK, and USA formed a new alliance.

Therefore, if someone wants to claim that in 1939-41 the USSR was fighting against the Allies, the first question that has to be specified is "What concrete "Allies" do you mean?" Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they consider those events as a part of WWII. However, I am not sure why you concluded that proves your point. Soviet annexation of the Baltic states can be considered as the Axis co-belligerence only if that were the attack of some Allied (or future Allied) state. Can you remind me when, how, and under which circumstances these three states became the Allies?

Similarly, Finland became the Ally only after the USSR forced her to do that. I doubt the attach of Finland, which, of course, was totally unjustifed and silly step, can be considered as the Axis co-belligerence.

With regard to Bessarabia, annexation of that territory by Romania in 1918 had never been recognized by the USSR (and, if I remember that correctly, by some other countries, including the USA), so that is a quite separate case. And, by the way, Romania was a neutral country, which latter became the Axis member: how the annexation of Romania can be considered as a hostile action against the Allies?

I would say that in a different way: annexation of the Baltic states IS considered by ALL historians as a part of WWII, and a very important, pivotal event. First, per Roberts, the annexation was Stalin's responce to Hitler's occupation of France: Stalin realized that he is alone vis-a-vis Hitler's juggernaut, and decided to move the western border as far as possible to the West. By no means that looks like co-belligerence or an alliance.

Furthermore, per Stolfi, Hitler was very irritated when he learned about the Soviet occupation of the Baltic states, and that triggered his decision to start preparations for invasion of the USSR.

Therefore, whereas occupation of the Baltic states was definitely a part of WWII, it was a demonstration of the lack of any allied relationships between the USSR and Germany.

I would say your approach is superficial, and it can be summarized as "since the USSR was a bad guy, it was definitely the Hitler's ally". History is much more complicated and nuanced than you think. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ally" is a strong term that requires significant evidence, but there are at least a sizable number of historians, particularly in recent years, who claim they were allies. However, there's virtually universal consensus among mainstream historians that the Soviets and Nazis were co-belligerents against Poland, coordinating their attacks and even, on a few occasions, sharing intelligence. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

There's no denial that the Soviets and the Nazis both invaded Poland. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that the USSR was never part of the Axis and to say that it was is not really true. The invasion of Poland was the beginning of the war. The Soviet invasion of the Baltics and of Bessarabia was also during the war. However, the USSR were never at war with the Allies (the only Ally they were at war with was Poland). If they were at war with the Allies and on the Axis, the UK and France would have declared war on the USSR or vice versa. If anything, the USSR's position at the start can kind of be compared in a similar matter to Finland's. There is no doubt Finland was using the Nazi invasion of the USSR to their advantage, but they did not declare war on the Allies, just the Soviets. When things turned south for Finland, they specifically declared war on the Axis. A similar situation with the USSR. I think it is important to remember that being at war with one Allied nation and not the others ≠ being part of the Axis. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 07:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I think the analogy with Finland is incorrect in several aspects. Finland was officially at war with the USSR, and that was recognized by other countries during the war. In contrast, Soviet co-belligerence with Germany against Poland was not recognized by UK and France. In contrast to the Polish case, these two powers did recognise Soviet Union as an aggressor against Finland, and even planned (reluctantly) a military interference in that conflict. However, Finland had never been the Ally (until 1944), and, importantly, it had never been attacked by Germany. In other words, we have several examples of aggressive behaviour of the USSR that, taken separately, do not allow us to speak about Soviet co-belligerency with the Axis. And we cannot combine those cases together because they are quite different.

In addition, recently, there was a very long discussion at the Axis talk page about the very same subject. Most arguments presented in this discussion had already been put forward (and addressed) there. To save our time, I suggest you all to read that discussion first. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an and Paul Siebert:I'm looking at the discussion on the Axis Powers talk page at Archive 9 between Paul Siebert and Volunteer Marek, and while I admit I haven't read all of it, I still see fundamental points that are simply being ignored, and I also see weak points. First of all, the alliance between Poland and Britain specifically promised defense against attacks and invasion from ANY nation, so the fact that Britain didn't recognize Soviet co-belligerence with Germany is completely irrelevant. Poland was unconditionally Allied with Britain for defensive purposes, and the Soviet Union and Germany coordinated their respective invasions of it. Secondly, just because the Soviets weren't members of the Axis, if the term is defined by the signing of the Tripartite Pact, doesn't mean that they weren't allied with the Axis, at a time when it only consisted of Germany, for a specific and important conflict within WW2. Poland was an Ally of Britain and France, and the Soviet Union attacked it with Germany. Numerous treaties, Per the Alliance article here on Wikipedia, "A formal military alliance is not required for being perceived as an ally—co-belligerence, fighting alongside someone, is enough. According to this usage, allies become so not when concluding an alliance treaty but when struck by war." The bulk of the discussion on the Axis talk page predates important recent research as well that reveals the extent of the coordination. Historical relevance is often not established through official legal documents, whatever the law may actually be in these situations, but practical behaviors. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

British guaranties to Poland had a secret protocol (that can be found here). Look at the articles 1(a) and 1(b).

Keith Sword (British Reactions to the Soviet Occupation of Eastern Poland in September 1939, The Slavonic and East European Review, Jan., 1991, Vol. 69, No. 1 (Jan., 1991), pp. 81-101) explained how that clause was implemented:

"On I7 September the Polish ambassador, Count Raczyn'ski, delivered a Note at the Foreign Office protesting against the Soviet aggression. On the following day he met the Foreign Secretary. Lord Halifax said that he understood from the Note that the Poles wished the British Government to make a formal protest at the Soviet move, but he was not sure what was meant by the phrase, 'the Polish Government reserves the right to invoke the obligations of its allies arising out of the treaties now in force'. ('Le Gouvernement Polonais se reserve de faire valoir les obligations decoulant pour ses allies des traites en vigeur'). Halifax pointed out that the obligation of His Majesty's Government towards Poland arising out of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 25 August, was restricted to Germany. While the Treaty had referred to a European power committing aggression against Poland, the secret protocol attached to the Agreement had made clear that by 'European power' was meant Germany. The British Government did not therefore feel under any obligation to declare war on the Soviet Union, and the decision whether or not to do so 'should be determined by which would help most to achieve our common end of defeating Germany'. " Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

And, frankly speaking, Halifax's position is quite understandable, keeping in mind that less that in a month before those events the triple Anglo-Franco-Soviet negotiations failed because of Polish refusal to collaborate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say on this subject, without synthesis or interpretation? That's pretty much all that matters for what Wikipedia should include. (Hohum ^@) 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum: One issue is that, in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of reliable sources researching the nature of Soviet-German cooperation and collaboration in the invasion of Poland. Researchers like Moorhouse reveal that they were coordinating to a much larger extent than many previously though. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure you know the full picture. I would like to see an evidence for your claim that in recent years the views of historians have changed, and there is an increased number of works on that subject. I am not seeing such an increase. With regards to Roberts, I have a strong feeling that you were mislead by the title of his book (Unholy Alliance: Stalin's Pact with Hitler). In reality, the views of his author are totally different, and he by no means consider Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as allies during 1939-41. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that you probably meant not Geoffrey Roberts, but Andrew Roberts. Whereas the former focuses on Soviet history in a context of WWII events, the latter is not an expert in that topic. He is more focused on Germany, and, based on what I've read from his chapter in a popular "What If?" book, his views are rather superficial. In addition, his affiliation with Hoover Institution may reflect his political views, and, therefore, affect his conclusions.

Instead of picking some concrete authors, try to do a neutral search for sources on this topic. That will give you a more realistic impression of the views of a scholarly community on that subject. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I am doing a neutral search on the topic. At various points, I believe I have referred to bother Geoffrey and Andrew Roberts. Even Geoffrey Roberts acknowledges coordination and a sharing of intelligence during "trade talks," although he tends to think there was far less coordination than Andrew. As for Andrew Roberts, he is a well-established mainstream scholar in History and a visiting professor of War Studies at King's College. Those are strong credentials. There is no reason to think that the Hoover Institute at Stanford would be particularly biased on this topic. This is not a Left-Right issue. The Hoover Institute is generally Center-Right and The Guardian is solidly on the Left as a newspaper, and there are writers at both focus on coordination.(Andrew Roth. Molotov-Ribbentrop: why is Moscow trying to justify Nazi pact?.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/aug/23/moscow-campaign-to-justify-molotov-ribbentrop-pact-sparks-outcry) CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific? I am familiar with G Roberts' writings, and I am not sure I understand what you mean. With regard to A. Roberts, again, he may be a good historian, but he seems not to be an expert in Soviet history. I was not able to find any his work devoted to this issue specifically: here is an example of the search (if you were using neutral search procedure, kindly drop a link, similar to what I did). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

In no way am I denying that the Soviets had a pact with Germany. I am just saying that I think it would be incorrect and false to label them as Axis. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Therealscorp1an: There's a difference between being allied with the Axis and being in the Axis. The Soviets and Germans were coordinating their attacks. Thailand and Finland were, at various points in the war, also allied with the Axis. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: The secret protocol is irrelevant since attacking an outwardly unconditional ally is an attack on the alliance anyways. If someone tries to kill a person because he thinks that person is a member of a family he despises, even if he is incorrect about the family relationship, he is still attacking the entire family. Poland had an outwardly unconditional defensive pact, and the Soviets attacked them and assisted Germany in its attack. That's all that matters. This issue isn't about whether or not Britain broke its treaty with Poland, but rather about whether or not the Soviets attacked one of the Allies and assisted Germany(the Axis) in its attack on one of the Allies. Fundamentally, the secret protocol doesn't change the fact that the Soviet Union consciously aided Germany in its attack on Poland by also attacking Poland, which was openly one of the Allies, regardless of any secret protocol.

Even the text of the secret protocol was to be correctly construed as defining 'Germany' as any party aiding Germany, particularly by Kulski(The Anglo-Polish Agreement of Aug 25, 1939, The Polish Review, Vol. 21, No.1/2, 1976). The secret protocol was not excluding attacks by countries coordinating with Germany or attacking in ways that assisted a German invasion of Poland. Otherwise, Germany could have just set up a puppet state to invade Poland, and Britain would have had no obligations. Additionally, Stirling notes that "the legality and legitimacy of secret protocols, particularly without additional witnesses, was very much in doubt due to constraints under the common law and the lack of statutory authorization to negotiate such an addendum in secret."(Intelligence Co-Operation Between Poland and Great Britain During World War II: The Report Of The Anglo-Polish Historical Committee (Government Official History Series), pg. 187).

Finally, this has nothing to do with your assessment of Lord Halifax, or anyone else's assessment of Halifax for that matter. This dispute simply involves what happened, not your assessment of any people involved. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

CessnaMan1989, first, could you please format your posts properly? I've done that for you, but I expect in future it will be your responsibility. Your formatting violates talk page guidelines, and the page becomes difficult to read.

With regard to what you say, most of that is wrong.

"attacking an outwardly unconditional ally is an attack on the alliance anyways". Actually, the source provided by me says Poland was by no means an unconditional ally. There were a number of conditions, one of them was described in the article 1 of the secret protocol. If you believe the secret protocol is irrelevant, then the same logic should be applied to the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret protocol, which would be absolutely incorrect. Secret protocols were an important (maybe, the most important) part of diplomacy, and they should never be ignored. The secret protocol stipulated some very important conditions, which made Poland a conditional ally. The second condition was that Britain and France did not guarantee territorial integrity of Poland: the treaty guaranteed only Polish independence, whereas some German demands (Danzig, exterritorial corridor to East Prussia) would face no opposition from the Western allies. The third condition was that the Franco-Polish agreement ... was actually not working by Sept 1th, because it the military protocols they had signed in early 1939 would not assume the character of an agreement until the political protocol was signed (at it was signed just on Sept 4th). And, finally, Poland was more a troublemaker than a real ally, because her refusal to collaborate during the triple negotiations with the USSR lead to a failure to sign that military alliance.

"The secret protocol was not excluding attacks by countries coordinating with Germany or attacking in ways that assisted a German invasion of Poland." That is an interesting assertion, but I would like to see a source that says so. So far, I provided the source saying quite opposite, and the Halifax's interpretation of the treaty is quite relevant to the subject of our discussion.

With regard to coordination of German and Soviet efforts, yes, Nazi propaganda was trying to create a picture of a coordinated attack. Since most documents available to Western historians come from German archives, it is not a surprise that the German views affected their conclusions. However, after Soviet archives become available, many historians changed their position.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on formatting my posts, but no, the source provided by you is about a limitation to an alliance, the secret protocol, not an affirmative alliance, which is very different. You're still ignoring several fundamental issues, and also not sourcing many major claims that you're making. The Soviet Union only knew about the outwardly unconditional defensive pact, not the secret addendum, which is the clearest reason why one should say the Soviets were attacking the Allies when they attacked Poland to help Germany. That is trivial. What source(s) do you have to suggest that the attacker's intent is irrelevant for categorizing an attack as being on an alliance?

For other points around diplomatic issues, you're confusing affirmative alliances like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, which can be secret, with what Francis Beer and J.D. Singer call "limitations" to defensive pacts, like the secret addendum which are extremely different and treated differently(Francis Beer, Alliances: Latent War Communities in the Contemporary World. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.) Specifically, in that book by Francis Beer, see the first part, "Alliance aggregation and the onset of war, 1815-1945, by J. D. Singer and M. Small.) At page 249, Singer states "Since the Congress of Vienna, the mere announcing of a defensive pact has been seen as forming an alliance when one or more parties to the pact has been attacked.....Unpublished agreements between two parties to limit or eliminate defensive pacts have generally been allowed only when the pacts have been secret." Singer goes on to write at 257 "The post-War negotiations surrounding the formation of NATO were hindered by an unresolved question: could classified operations result in nations joining NATO in secret? The Spanish Question[whether or not to allow Franco's Spain to join NATO] drove discussion, and it was suggested that Spain be allowed to join with a secret contingency for its expulsion if it privately behaved in a manner repulsive to the Free World. This suggestion was ultimately denied because it would have required new legislation in many member states and the controversy was anticipated." While I admit that I'm not entirely sure what Singer means by "controversy" because I'm not sure if he's talking about public controversy or controversy between the people negotiating NATO, it's pretty clear that he acknowledges that alliances can't be terminated in secret. Notice Singer omits mention of secret limitations regarding defensive pacts. Regarding What source would you cite to suggest that attacking an outwardly unconditional ally is not an attack on an alliance? This is The secret addendum that you are referring to is a secret limitation to an alliance, which made the Anglo-Polish alliance outwardly unconditional for defensive purposes, and only inwardly conditional. See Herdegen for the fundamentals of treaty interpretation(Interpretation in International Law. Oxford Public International Law. Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. https://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e723). I'd like to see a source suggesting that Halifax didn't construe 'Germany' as referring to all parties assisting Germany in an attack on Poland because Kulski certainly did.

No, many Polish sources are also used to show coordination. The sources used from the German archives are not the documents that the Nazis used for propaganda but rather the documents they hid for utilitarian purposes and couldn't destroy because they lost the War. The Nazi and Soviet attacks on Poland were coordinated, and even the Soviet sources such as Alexander Yakovlev later acknowledged a degree of coordination. Also, it's irresponsible to consider Soviet sources to be particularly reliable, as they had time to alter their archives after the War. Yakovlev even acknowledged that Soviet archives were altered. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for you efforts to format your posts properly. Can you please also refrain from wedging your text into others' posts? I moved the text that you inserted into my post to the proper place, and I expect you will not do that in future. That is against our rules, and it creates a false impression that your text was written by me.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I cannot provide sources for every claim, because that will make my posts unreadable. However, I (in contrast to you) am providing sources for the most essential claims, and I am ready to provide a source for other claims upon a request.

I have no idea why do you call Molotov-Ribbentrop non-aggression treaty "an affirmative alliance". All sources available to me describe it as a non-aggression/neutrality pact, and it stipulates no military obligations. In addition, as you probably know, each military alliance signed or negotiated in 1930s had two components, a political part and a military part. These were two different documents, which were signed separately and which had different purposes. The (failed) triple alliance (France-UK-USSR) was an example of a full scale alliance, and military and political agreements were discussed in parallel. In contrast, no military agreement were signed or even negotiated between Nazi Germany and the USSR, which is not a surprise, because MRP was a neutrality pact, and it never pretended to be an alliance (despite some authors use this word in a colloquial meaning). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems Beer is not a good source for two reasons. First, it is rather old (1979), second, it does not discuss this issue, and by applying this source to our topic we step into a realm of original research, which is not allowed per WP:NOR.

Re "I'd like to see a source suggesting that Halifax didn't construe 'Germany'" - the source was provided, and it says that quite unequivocally.

Regarding reliability of Soviet archives, this issue has been analyzed by historians in details. If professional historians find some information useful we have no reason to trust them. Yakovlev's opinion is well known, but that is just an opinion. Yes, some documents were released selectively, but, as many historians pointed out, it is possible to forge a subset of documents, but it is not possible to forge a whole archive (especially in 90s, when the people from the former Soviet secret service were mostly focused on personal survival). In addition, to consistently forge a whole body of historical documents, one has to have a set of skills that people from FSB do not have.

With regard to Polish sources, keeping in mind recent resurrection of nationalism, especially aggressive pushing of a "double genocide theory", writings of Central European authors cannot be considered truly neutral. At least, they are not more trustworthy than the works of modern Russian authors. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

This seems to all be from the original post saying "the Soviet Union was a co-belligerent or even an ally of the Axis Powers". If that is the crux: Does a reliable source unequivocally say that? Not interpreted by an editor with paragraphs of argument/synthesis. (Hohum ^@) 21:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

I would re-phrase it as follows: "Does majority sources say that?" I am sure it is possible to find some sources saying so, but the question is if that view is shared by a scholarly community Paul Siebert (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum and Paul Siebert: A majority standard is flawed for several reasons. First of all, if there were a slim majority, it would hardly be responsible to present it as a scholarly consensus. Secondly, what pool of sources should we consider? Paul Siebert doesn't seem to want to consider Andrew Roberts, Roger Moorhouse, [[Ennio_Di_Nolfo]], and others to be reliable sources for this matter. Siebert doesn't seem to even want to consider Polish sources ranging from Włodzimierz Borodziej to Anne Applebaum, as well as many others. Other important points are that some kinds of sources are usually considered to be far more reliable than others: historical volumes, diplomatic documents, legislative records, military diaries, and legal treatises(which I admit aren't as "common" for the common law in England as they are in other common law countries) are usually seen as more reliable than newspaper articles and blog posts. I would value a historical volume over a hundred newspaper articles. Lastly, scholars almost universally regard Soviet sources as often having reliability issues, as even the famous photo of the Soviet flag in Berlin is universally acknowledged as being altered/airbrushed(https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/stalin-photo-manipulation-1922-1953/). Scholars also see some value in the sources and don't necessarily dismiss them, but they're hardly seen as being particularly reliable. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly A. Roberts and Moorhouse say on that. Do they just call MPR "an alliance"? Or they put forward some fresh arguments that are based on newly discovered evidences? Had other authors commented on their claims? Are their new findings and arguments accepted positively or negatively by others? You provided no information, you just gave some names and propose me to trust you. That is not how Wikipedia works.

With regard to Borodziej, I see no his works where he analyzes this question specifically. And, as soon as we use Polish sources, we should include modern Russian sources too.

Similarly, whereas Appelbaum is a brilliant journalist, I am not familiar with any work where she presented any new analysis of the nature of the "Nazi-Soviet alliance". If she just calls it "an alliance", that is not sufficient, for journalists are famous for being inaccurate in usage of terminology. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Anne Applebaum is a significant historian in addition to being a journalist. She plainly describes a "Hitler-Stalin alliance" when she writes "Academic defenses of the Hitler-Stalin alliance began appearing again in Russia in 2009, timed to the 70th anniversary of 1939; one collection of essays published at the time even included an approving introduction written by Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister."[Anne Applebaum. Putin's Big Lie. January 5, 2020. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/putin-blames-poland-world-war-ii/604426/] CessnaMan1989 (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum and Paul Siebert: Also, the time period of the historical works for a majority standard would have to be considered. Are we talking about a majority of sources from 2014 or a majority since, say, 1970? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

It depends. Thus, many pre-1990 works on Soviet history may be considered outdated, because of "archival revolution" that happened after fall of the USSR. Since then, no outstanding events happened that advanced historical knowledge to the same degree. That means all works published in 1990s, 2000s and 2010s may be considered equally trustworthy (unless they had not be explicitly debunked by subsequent publications).

However, the same cannot be said about other events. Thus, I am not sure similar "revolutions" took place in historiography of Napoleonic wars or British history, so the threshold is different for those topics. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum and Paul Siebert: Paul Siebert writes "With regard to Polish sources, keeping in mind recent resurrection of nationalism, especially aggressive pushing of a "double genocide theory", writings of Central European authors cannot be considered truly neutral. At least, they are not more trustworthy than the works of modern Russian authors." I think it's rather irresponsible to dismiss an entire nationality of historians because of a few politicians. Would you completely disregard American historians because of things Trump said? The idea that Anne Applebaum is somehow "right-wing" and biased in favor of the political Right is absurd. Plus, even when historians are biased, and bias is inevitable, it doesn't mean that they should be outright ignored. For an extreme example, almost all Holocaust survivors are naturally quite biased against the Nazis, but I'd still seriously value their accounts for historical purposes. While I don't see where you've mentioned specific Soviet sources, many Soviet sources directly refer to Falsifiers of History by Stalin as authentic and outright deny the existence of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Soviets didn't even acknowledge the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact until the 1980's. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hohum and Paul Siebert: One other point I just remembered, at least one major Soviet historian, Alexander Nekrich, repeatedly references the pact as an "alliance" in "Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations 1922-1941". He also amply describes coordination. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not saying Polish historians are not trustworthy because Polish politicians say some specific things. I am saying something totally different. Recentky, I was approached by some American historians who expressed a serious concern about a way some WWII time events in Poland are described in English Wikipedia. A key reason for that was the fact that Polish sources are overrepresented in some WP pages, and those sources are obviously biased. In addition, it is well known that an infamous "double genocide theory" and similar concepts that are becoming popular in Central Europe include, as an important component, a recognition of the USSR as an equal or even greater evil than Nazi Germany. That narrative is not shared by most Western historians, and, therefore, we should not rely on Polish sources saying that.

Yes, I am familiar with Nekrich's writings. His point is that Stalin had always been a proponent of an alliance with Hitler, and the "Litvinov's line" and Soviet attempts to establish a collective security system in Europe before 1939 did not reflect their real intents, and were aimed just to mislead Western politicians and public opinion. This point of view is not shared by most historians, including G. Roberts. By the way, thanks to you I found an interesting recent paper by Carley, who, based on newly discovered archival documents, suggests that the USSR was more sincere and Britain was less enthusiastic in signing the anti-Hitler alliance, which additionally demonstrates that Nekrich's ideas were wrong. Although it refers to per-Sept 17, 1939 events, that demonstrates that Nekrich was probably wrong in other aspects too. And, in addition, he is desperately outdated.

By the way, that article demonstrates that not only Soviet, but other pre-WWII governments had skeletons in their closets. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

To summarise, I am familiar with many books and articles where the author use the term "Nazi-Soviet alliance" and variations thereof: many authors are not precise in terminology, so a colloquial "alliance" does not necessarily mean the author implied the parties were military allies. Thwerefore, just a usage of the term is not sufficient for claiming that the USSR was a real Nazi ally in 1939-41, or that there was a considerable military collaboration between them (for example, G.Roberts uses the term "alliance", but it is clear from his works that there were no military alliance between Soviet Russia and Nazi). In contrast, most sources available to me (including the sources that sporadically use the term "alliance/ally" to describe Nazi-Soviet relations) demonstrate that Stalin was very cautious to avoid creating an impression that the USSR and Germany are closely collaborating or that the USSR is a co-belligerent of Germany, and, importantly, the sources say that it was not seen as a German co-belligerent by contemporaries. That is what the sources say.

The sources also say that occupation of the Baltic states and annexation of Bessarabia is seen in a context of a ripening Soviet-German conflict rather than collaboration by those sources, and that during the Winter war sympathies of German public opinion were mostly on Finnish side.

Therefore, unless you present some serious and fresh arguments directly supported by quotes from reliable sources (the quotes should not be taken out of context, and the sources should be devoted to this issue specifically, and not just mention that issue in passing), I see no reason to continue this discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert and Hohum: Nekrich clearly describes the Soviets as entering an alliance with Nazi Germany against Poland in 1939. When you write, "many authors are not precise in terminology, so a colloquial "alliance" does not necessarily mean the author implied the parties were military allies. Thwerefore[sic], just a usage of the term is not sufficient for claiming that the USSR was a real Nazi ally in 1939-41, or that there was a considerable military collaboration between them", you don't provide any standard for evaluating an author's usage of the term "ally", and you definitely don't provide any sources justifying your method of source construction, i.e., your interpretation of the language in the sources. Basically, you're saying that when all of these historians such as Nekrich use the term "ally" or "alliance", they don't really mean what they say. That seems rather capricious. As for your link the Michael Jabara Carley's book, that link doesn't work for me. Fortunately, this link does[1], and I see nothing in it that denies an alliance, or massive coordination, between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The fact that Carley suggests that Stalin had previously been looking for allies against Hitler by no means refutes Nekrich's claim that he later became an ally of Hitler against Poland. Alliances change. Denying that alliances can change is simply wrong. When you write "By the way, that article demonstrates that not only Soviet, but other pre-WWII governments had skeletons in their closets.", you are going on completely irrelevant tangents and resorting to ad-hominem attacks, which is rather unpersuasive. What do moral flaws of other nations have to do with Soviet-German relations between 1939-1941? There is much more to say, but I'm busy and will have to respond later. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, I have no obligation to trust you: in future, I am going to respond to that type argument only if you clearly write (i) what exact source do you mean (a book/article/interview), (ii) what exactly the source says, (iii) in what context does it say that.

Assuming that you meant his "Pariahs, Partners, Predators: German-Soviet Relations 1922-41", I looked through all reviews on that book. I found 12 reviews, which implies this source is by no means ignored by a scholarly community. What those reviews say?

• Finney (History, April 1999, Vol. 84, No. 274 (April 1999), pp. 389-390 ): " This interpretation of Soviet policy has gained great currency since the collapse of communism, and it is certainly not implausible to see Stalin as a rapacious revisionist rather than a sincere defender of the status quo. Yet Nekrich's relentlessly critical account is rather one-dimensional, relying on a loaded and strained reading of the relatively sparse direct evidence available as to Stalin's intentions, and thus remain unconvincing. (...) while the book will be of interest to specialists, the publisher's claim that it offers a 'definitive analysis' is frankly absurd."
• Geoffrey Roberts (Europe-Asia Studies, Dec., 1998, Vol. 50, No. 8 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1471-1475): "Nekrich propounds a variant of what I have dubbed the 'German school' of thought on Nazi-Soviet relations.1 This is the view that, despite appearances to the contrary, Soviet foreign policy remained oriented to an alliance with Germany even after Hitler came to power. Nekrich's version of this argument is that Stalin had an '"official" policy of rapprochement with France and her allies, as well as an "unofficial" policy of seeking not only cooperation but also a comprehensive agreement with Germany' (p. 70)." In this long review, Roberts, who does not share the "German school"'s ideas, criticizes Nekrich and puts forward his own ideas. One of subjects of criticism is Nekrich's "complete reliance on evidence from German documents, ignoring the Soviet diplomatic correspondence published in the early 1990s".
• Erickson (The Journal of Military History, Apr., 1998, Vol. 62, No. 2 (Apr., 1998), pp. 418-419): "e. The evidence Nekrich presents for this debacle is weighty, the analysis penetrating, and the judgement on Stalin's "self-hypnosis" eminently convincing." The problem is that Eriksson's opinion relates not to the thesis about Nazi-Soviet allied relationships, but to a different question: why Stalin overlooked Barbarossa. Therefore, this brief review is not too helpful in our case.
• Stent (German Politics & Society, Vol. 17, No. 2 (51) (Summer 1999), pp. 123-129) " Nekrich's argument that Stalin's dream would have been a long term alliance with Germany against Britain may be disputed by some. However, he presents compelling evidence for a Soviet policy that clearly preferred alliance with Nazi Germany and territorial gain to any partnership with Britain or the United States. Ultimately, Pariahs, Partners, Predators explains why the wartime alliance disintegrated so quickly once Germany was defeated."
• Mawdsley (War in History, Vol. 8, No. 4 (November 2001), pp. 485-487): "Although Pariahs, Partners, Predators is useful in covering the full chronological span of the interwar relationship, the interpretation is not strikingly original, especially for a Western specialist audience. It has many of the features of what Geoffrey Roberts has aptly called "German" school of thought', although the book is based on Russian as well as German sources."
• Jakobson (Central European History, Vol. 32, No. 4 (1999), pp. 485-487): "The work is limited in its coverage of issues and sources. (Nekrich, who died in 1993, was unable to take full advantage of the opportunities now afforded by access to the archives in Moscow.) Specialists in the history of Germany, and of German foreign relations in particular, will find it rewarding reading nevertheless."
• Gorodetsky (Slavic Review, Summer, 1999, Vol. 58, No. 2, Special Issue: Aleksandr Pushkin 1799-1999 (Summer, 1999), pp. 489-490): " A graver fault is the tenuous thread that ties the story together. Nekrich's intuitive tendency is to present a continuous determinist course for the "special relations." He assumes that the relations were forged by a distinctive ideological symbiosis, a "brown-red" fascist-communist ideology that drew the two countries together. By so doing, he endorses the obsolete totalitarian model. Thus, for instance, he plays down Stalin's intensive efforts to achieve alliance with the west by implementing a system of collective security in 1934-1939. Instead he blows out of all proportion the sporadic and low-level contacts maintained with the Germans, contacts that are attested only by dubious and unreliable sources.(...) Unfortunately Nekrich's book only perpetuates the mist that obscures the already complex story."
• Uldrick (The American Historical Review, Feb., 1999, Vol. 104, No. 1 (Feb., 1999), pp. 279-280): " Overall, Nekrich has made a useful contribution to our understanding of Russo-German relations, but this book does not eliminate the need to consult the valuable works of Haslam, Roberts, Fleischhauer, and Gabriel Gorodetsky."
• Haslam (The International History Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 1015-1016): "Nekrich's book thus places greater weight on German documents than Soviet materials and not surprisingly fails to come up with anything new. Worse than that, Nekrich deliberately ignores all existing work on the subject by Western scholars, whether that of E. H. Carr, whose pioneering work in uncovering the Rapallo relationship does not appear even in the bibliography, historian of the Red Army John Erickson, the reviewer, and even Robert Tucker (who actually has made the same case as that made by Nekrich rather more eloquently). For what Nekrich gives us yet again is the tired old thesis, which he is unable to document, that Stalin always wanted to deal with Germany above all else and in spite of everything else. Whenever the evidence points in the other direction, he simply ignores it. Here the standards of Soviet historiography are transmuted into a Western publication, but with Stalin's foreign policy as all evil rather than all good. In these circumstances, the volume cannot be recommended as offering anything new or much that is scholarly ..."
• Kanet (The Russian Review, Vol. 58, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 160-161) This reviewer just summarizes the book, without commenting on it, so the review is not informative.
• Peterson (German Studies Review, May, 1999, Vol. 22, No. 2 (May, 1999), pp. 319-320): this reviewer mostly re-iterates main Nekrich's theses.
• Clark : " That said, I remain an admirer of this work. Nekrich has brought to light new information, the interpretation of which is open to question. This, of course, is the nature of historical scholarship. While we should not automatically accept any historian's interpretation of his or her sources, we should also commend an historian who provides us with new insight into a period so widely studied as the decades between the two world wars of the twentieth century. Nekrich certainly deserves this commendation. Also deserving of substantial credit is Gregory Freeze who has brought up this excellent translation"

As we can see, the reviews are mixed, and majority of detailed review articles contain serious criticism. I think that is sufficient to conclude Nekrich represents a significant minority view, and the extent this view is presented in the article is quite sufficient.

I think I've done my part of the job, and I see no need in a further discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "my part of the job", but I certainly don't think that book reviews, especially from a small group of people, are too relevant for assessing the reliability of a source, especially when those reviews didn't really attack the source's reliability, mainly its presentation. Even Haslam isn't attacking the reliability of the facts presented, merely Nekrich's interpretation of the facts. I think a more relevant indicator is whether or not the work is cited by respectable historians, which is definitely the case. You're even ignoring reviews that you actually found because of your interpretation of the reviewers' intentions. If you don't want to discuss this more, you don't have to, but I've got a lot more to say based on your responses, methodology, and apparent lack of objective standards for source evaluation. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems you don't understand the most fundamental things: the reviews I presented is not a an opinion of "small group of people", that is an opinion of reputable experts. Actually, a couple of positive reviews in such journals as American Historical Review is sufficient to consider a source reliable. With regard to Nekrich, there is no universal support of his views. Haslam unequivocally says Nekrich brought worst kind of Soviet propaganda methodology, except the signs are switched. Roberts says that Nekrich represents just one ("German") school of thought (and other authors support that view). Gorodetsky clearly says Nekrich's view is one-sided. That is quite sufficient to avoid usage of Nekrich as a source for such universal claims as you made.

In addition, I don't have to prove that the Nekrich's ideas are not supported. On the contrary, the onus is on you to prove that Nekrich's ideas are shared by the scientific community. So far, you failed to do so, whereas I've done my job well: I demonstrated that many reviews on his book contain serious criticism, that the book is based on a limited data, and that it may be outdated. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the reviews you presented were from no more than 12 people, which I certainly consider to be a small group. Within this small group, Cherry-picking statements about their overall opinions about the work considering their views on the reliability of the facts presented regarding German-Soviet collaboration is academically unsound. Flat-out dismissed reviews simply because the reviews' narratives are unpalatable is also a rather sloppy way to evaluate a source for reliability. Kanet, Peterson, and Clark all consider the work reliable, and it looks like you're simply ignoring those reviews because you don't like what they say. That is not how sources are evaluated for academic works. There are lots of reviews that you simply have not found, one of which is Barbara Keys' review in H-Russia in March of 1998. Keys, who gives a review that's negative overall, acknowledges the Nekrich's reliability, writing, "Soviet policy toward Germany in the wake of Hitler's Machtergreifung is deftly summarized in Chapter Three. Misreading the international situation in typical fashion, Stalin did not immediately see Nazi Germany as a threat to the Soviet Union (a point that, despite the evidence, is still disputed by some historians).[9] Instead, according to Nekrich, the Soviet dictator hoped that fascism would accelerate the revolutionary process in Germany. Nekrich asserts that Stalin in fact welcomed the Nazi takeover because he had a certain "affinity" for Hitler and "probably" preferred to deal with a dictator, whose thinking and behavior would likely have seemed "more comprehensible than the mentality of politicians from democratic states" (pp. 63-4). Later Nekrich refers to "the genetic bonds between the Soviet and Nazi regimes" (p. 66). The Soviet Union's public antifascist rhetoric and Litvinov's pursuit of collective security with the Western powers were, in Nekrich's view, intended as a fall-back position for Stalin's preferred alternative: a deal with Germany." And this is just one of the reviews you didn't consider. This is why reviews are a weak method for evaluating a source. Citations of the source are far more reliable.

Also, I have yet to read a single affirmative case for the reliability any of your offered sources. By comparison, when you write, "a couple of positive reviews in such journals as American Historical Review is sufficient to consider a source reliable", you fail to take into account that even you have presented more than a couple of positive reviews of Nekrich in terms of assessing the reliability of the facts, and you didn't even include Keys' review. When you write "With regard to Nekrich, there is no universal support of his views", you seem to forget that none of the authors mentioned here have universal support for their views. "Universal support" is not the standard, and you're being rather capricious when you only apply it to Nekrich. When you write "Haslam unequivocally says Nekrich brought worst kind of Soviet propaganda methodology, except the signs are switched," you seem to forget that you made a significant effort to defend Soviet sources as being more reliable than Polish sources or sources from historians of other nationalities. You're also ignoring the other reviews that suggest reliability. You're completely ignoring the negative reviews of the works of historians that you're relying on. When you write, "Gorodetsky clearly says Nekrich's view is one-sided.", you seem to be suggesting that Gorodetsky considers the issues to be multi-sides, and yet you are specifically advocating only including one side in the argument. That is grossly inconsistent. We're still going through all of the errors in your dismissal of Nekrich's work, and we haven't even begun to cover the many sources that your cavalierly disregarding. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Please. Never. Ever. Use. The Words. "Cherry picking". If. You. Are. Not. Ready. To support. It. With. Compelling. Evidences.

Not only I'll stop any discussion, you may be reported for making personal attacks.

With regard to the rest, I am not going to convince you, my goal is to provide needed evidences as our policy requires.

If you still maintain that those authors are just "few individuals", then you should (re-)read what our policy says.

When I said "a couple of positive reviews", I obviously implied "in the absence of an obvious criticism". I didn't write that explicitly because I believed that was obvious to any reasonable person. In our case, we have serious criticism, and many authors clearly say Nekrich represents just one (out of four) schools of thought. From that, it is clear that his views by no means reflect scholarly consensus.

Re "you seem to forget that you made a significant effort to defend Soviet sources as being more reliable than Polish sources or sources from historians of other nationalities" I expect you to either quote my words where I say so, or to apologise.

In general, it seems you are repeating your old arguments, so I see no reason to continue this discussion. I reserve a right not to respond unless I see some really fresh arguments. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You have every right to not respond, but there were far more than 12 reviews of Nekrich, and from the entire text of the three reviews that you considered to be merely recitation, it's pretty clear to me that they considered Nekrich to be professionally reliable. Concerning my claim of "cherry picking", consider the snippets of reviews that you posted. When you cited from April of 1998 issue of The Journal of Military History, you cited Erickson, but you completely ignored Karpat's review, which immediately preceded Erickson, and Karpat unequivocally wrote that the Nekrich's "Pariahs" is "the best available succinct study of the subject."(The Journal of Military History; Lexington, Va. Vol. 62, Iss. 2, (Apr 1, 1998): 416.) Now, he was writing some time ago, and I'm sorry if it sounds harsh, but when you ignore thorough reviews like the one from Karpat when they immediately precede terse reviews, and then pretend that the reviews were either universally or overwhelmingly negative, it looks like you're cherry-picking out of that issue of The Journal of Military History.

When you cited from Mawdsley, you neglected a significant concession that Mawdsley makes right above the passage you quoted. Mawdsley writes "As a result, the treatment of this later period has been superseded, notably by Gabriel Gorodetsky's Grand Delusion (1999) --although in some important respects Nekrich anticipated some conclusions about the triangular relationship between Britain, Germany, and Russia. " I think that concession, where a critical reviewer still acknowledges value in a source, matters. The reason I think such a concession matters is because it seems to me like you don't want to ascribe any scholarly value to Nekrich.

I'm not sure why you cited Uldrick because he ascribes significant merit to the work, and when Uldrick says "this book does not eliminate the need to consult the valuable works of Haslam, Roberts, Fleischhauer, and Gabriel Gorodetsky.", it's pretty clear, even from the snippet you cited, that he values the work's contribution to scholarship. If you wish to report for saying these things, I can't and won't stop you from doing so.

Regarding your statement, "Re "you seem to forget that you made a significant effort to defend Soviet sources as being more reliable than Polish sources or sources from historians of other nationalities" I expect you to either quote my words where I say so, or to apologise.", sure. You wrote "However, after Soviet archives become available, many historians changed their position.". Now, when I first read this, I thought you were saying that the historians I was quoting from would change their positions once more Soviet sources were to be released in the future. Reading this again, I think you were talking about historians already having changed their position from already released archives. If that is the case, then at least your position makes a little more sense since, if that is the case, you are not basing your opinions on sources that haven't actually been released yet. I thought before that you were literally anticipating what yet-to-be released archives were going to say. Still, you go on to defend the reliability of released Soviet archives, writing "Regarding reliability of Soviet archives, this issue has been analyzed by historians in details. If professional historians find some information useful we have no reason to trust them. Yakovlev's opinion is well known, but that is just an opinion. Yes, some documents were released selectively, but, as many historians pointed out, it is possible to forge a subset of documents, but it is not possible to forge a whole archive (especially in 90s, when the people from the former Soviet secret service were mostly focused on personal survival). In addition, to consistently forge a whole body of historical documents, one has to have a set of skills that people from FSB do not have." Regarding Polish sources, you write "With regard to Polish sources, keeping in mind recent resurrection of nationalism, especially aggressive pushing of a "double genocide theory", writings of Central European authors cannot be considered truly neutral. At least, they are not more trustworthy than the works of modern Russian authors." Later down, you follow-up on this point by writing, "I am not saying Polish historians are not trustworthy because Polish politicians say some specific things. I am saying something totally different. Recentky[sic], I was approached by some American historians who expressed a serious concern about a way some WWII time events in Poland are described in English Wikipedia. A key reason for that was the fact that Polish sources are overrepresented in some WP pages, and those sources are obviously biased. In addition, it is well known that an infamous "double genocide theory" and similar concepts that are becoming popular in Central Europe include, as an important component, a recognition of the USSR as an equal or even greater evil than Nazi Germany. That narrative is not shared by most Western historians, and, therefore, we should not rely on Polish sources saying that."

It sounds to me like you're valuing the works of Soviet-era historians over Polish historians by default because there may be biased sources in some articles. Keeping in mind that the Soviet Union denied that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact even existed until the late-1980's, that you're not specifically pointing out which Polish sources that you consider to be biased(effectively singling out the nationality), and that you're suggesting that there's a problem with an "overrepresentation" of Polish sources for events that literally took place in Poland, I think you are wrongly dismissing Polish historians.

And we haven't even gotten to all of the mixed reviews of Gorodetsky's work, such as the review from Truman Anderson of the London School of Economics. While Anderson writes that "On balance, Grand Delusion is a valuable work.", he also notes that his work is "hamstrung by his failure to take the pre-war history of Nazi Germany into account, especially Hitlers relationship with the armed forces and his decision for war in 1939. Gorodetsky simply does not deal with German motives for the Nazi-Soviet pact, or with Hitlers explanations of the pact at the time". Now, to be clear, that specific criticism is not directed towards Gorodetsky' explanation of actual nature of the pact between Stalin and Hitler, but rather to Gorodetsky's explanation of the both leaders' respective motives behind it. And that is just one part of one review. Here is a link to the review: [2] CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The reviews cited by me are copyrighted materials, so, per our policy I cannot post them in full. I quoted small part of the text, but I gave you links, so I do not understand what you are dissatisfied with.

My job is much easier than yours. You want to add some claim that is supposed to look like a universally accepted fact. In contrast, I need just to demonstrate that the claim is not universally accepted. I sustained my burden of evidence, whereas you failed to do so.

WRT, "It sounds to me like you're valuing the works of Soviet-era historians over Polish historians by default because there may be biased sources in some articles", where did you find that claim? I thought I clearly explained that all sources that were published before the "archival revolution" should be considered outdated, and all Soviet sources by definition fall into that category. Furthermore, the only time when I used the word "Soviet", I did that in a context of Haslam's opinion on Nekrich, who is bringing the worst traditions of tendentious Soviet historiography, although with an opposite sign. If you are reading sources equally attentively, I am not sure you can produce a high quality content. Please, don't put your own words in the opponent's mouth. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: When you write "My job is much easier than yours. You want to add some claim that is supposed to look like a universally accepted fact. In contrast, I need just to demonstrate that the claim is not universally accepted. I sustained my burden of evidence, whereas you failed to do so. ", what are you basing that claim on? CessnaMan1989 (talk) 01:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: I'll ask again. When you write, "My job is much easier than yours. You want to add some claim that is supposed to look like a universally accepted fact. In contrast, I need just to demonstrate that the claim is not universally accepted. I sustained my burden of evidence, whereas you failed to do so. ", what are you basing that bold statement on? You need to show that your reviews and sources are as well acknowledged as mine or anyone else's sources. You certainly appear to be cherry-picking from various sources and reviews, while also attacking entire nationalities of historians. When you write "I cannot post them[reviews of Gorodetsky] in full. I quoted small part of the text, but I gave you links, so I do not understand what you are dissatisfied with.", several of those links don't work. Also, again, you're cherry picking. As I said previously, many of the reviews of Gorodetsky are extremely positive in one of the very sources that you cite, and you completely ignore those reviews. I suggest you reread the Neutral point of view article. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

No. The statement: "Some fact X is universally accepted (and, therefore, should be presented as a fact, not an opinion)" is much harder to prove than the statement: "Some fact X is NOT universally accepted (and, therefore, should be presented as an opinion at most)". The statement that you advocate is the type 1 statement, whereas my point of view is better described by the type 2 statement. That means my job is much easier to do, and it is not a surprise that I've done it quite well. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Complete non-sequitur at best. I don't know what your job is, but both of our duties as editors is to write the relevant truth and remove falsehoods and misleading statements. Editing this encyclopedia is not an inherently adversarial system like you're making it out to be. I have yet to see you provide the slightest bit of evidence for your double-standards. I suggest you reread the policies concerning NPOV again. It doesn't matter if your job is to advocate for a position, party of your duty as an editor is to have a neutral point-of-view. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Correct. If you write that USSR was an Axis member or co-belligerent, that would be a false statement, because only few sources say so, and they do not do that clearly and unequivocally. Other sources say otherwise. Therefore, I am performing my duty ("to write the relevant truth and remove falsehoods and misleading statements") quite well. I am going to stop at that point, and I have no interest in continuation of this discussion. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No, that would not be a false statement, and far more than a few sources either state that explicitly or state that in substance with different terminology. The sources that you're citing are dubious in light of recent evidence, and you're really disregarding your duty as an editor, apparently, based on your previous replies, for professional motives. I urge you to reread Wikipedia's policies on requiring NPOV. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

No. I've shown far more credible sources to form my position than you appear to have in forming your position. The other major fallacy in your statement above is in assuming that just because some of your sources don't establish my position that it somehow means they oppose or aim to refute it. You're ignoring the historical facts by cherry-picking and dismissing most reputable sources on the matter. The fact that you refer to this as your "job" also suggests extreme bias. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

Can you briefly summarise again what are your "god sources", and what they say? And why my sources are bad and outdated? Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Took me a while to read all the text, apologies if I missed something.

- Yes, the article needs to reflect that the Soviet Union was a co-belligerent and even an ally of the Axis Powers and it didn't switch until Barbarossa.

- Baltic States, Eastern Poland and to a lesser extent Finland are typically considered part of World War 2. Even the Second Sino-Japanese conflict is typically conisdered part of World War 2 despite starting in 1937.

- USSR was seen an an enemy of Britain and France, but Britain and France hoped USSR and Germany would eventually turn against each other.

- "To sum up, the USSR led the campaign against Fascism up to 1939, was neutral in the European War from 1939 to 1941, and was neutral against Japan from 1941 to 1945" -> False. USSR was supporting Germany since 1939. It even offered to join the Axis, but Germany refused. What happened between them before 1939, does not reflect what happened between 1939 - 1941. USSR was a supporter of Germany, not neutral. User CessnaMan1989 is right.

- The historical consensus is that USSR was a supporter of Germany in that period. Some call it support, others co-billegent, some even go as far as calling them allies.

- Nick-D simplicity should not come at the cost of falsehood. I agree that the infobox should be as simple as possible, but disagree that it should have wrong or misleading information because of this.

- And CessnaMan1989 makes a good point. The vast majority of infoboxes on wikipedia are not oversimplifications, why should the most complex conflict in human history be?

- User Paul Siebert: Finland and Baltics were annexed with German permission, the whole continent was split between them by the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, if that isn't a sign of Soviet co-billegence I don't know what is. Poland was part of the Allies and Romania had a French and British guarnatee. The historical consensus is that USSR clearly acted against the interests of the Allies and in cooperation with Nazi Germany, but the USSR's actions were tolerated by the Allies as they hoped for an eventual German-Soviet clash and didn't want to alienate USSR any further.

- Therealscorp1an: USSR's position is not comparable to Finland. Finland did not act outside of the Allies' interests, the Soviets did on numerous occasions. It's incorrect and false to label the Soviets as Axis. But correct and fair to label the Soviets as Axis co-billegent or Axis supporters.

After that is more of the same discussion. In the end I agree with user CessnaMan1989's position. In the meanwhile, would it satisfy you if I continue with my list for all nations that took part in World War 2 but leave the Soviets alone until this discussion is concluded?TheGoldAge (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Stalin threatened the Baltics before not after the start of WWII

@Paul Siebert: Thanks for your attention to my recent edits. My reading of Background of the occupation of the Baltic states#Soviet ultimatums and occupation suggests that "Stalin threatened Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania with military invasion" BEFORE NOT AFTER the official beginning of WWII on 1944-09-01. That was the problem I was trying to solve. Please solve it or explain why I'm wrong. Thanks again, DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure your interpretation is right. Soviet authorities forced the Baltic states to sign so called treaties of mutual assistance. Formally, that was not a treaty of military invasion. Retrospectively, it was interpreted as a preparation for full occupation (that happened in 1940), but it is not clear if that occupation was planned in 1939. A primary concern of Soviet authorities (which was discussed with Britain and France in 1939) was to avoid a scenario when teh Baltic states aligned with Hitler, and "treaties of mutual assistance" were aimed to prevent that scenario. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Stalin started threatening Baltic States with military invasion on 24 September when an ultimatum was presented to Estonia, forcing it to accept treaty allowing Soviet forces on its territory. Same process was done very soon afterwards with Latvia and Lithuania. Molotov-Ribbedrop Pact secret protocol dividing spheres of influence was not a public knowledge, in fact Soviet Union denied its existence up until Perestroika.--Staberinde (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand that, but the description of the events is too focused on the MRP. It is a type of a narrative that is common in a modern Central Europe, and that presents evil USSR and Nazi Germany acting in concert against other states. Furthermore, it equates Poland (which opposed to Germany from the very beginning of WWII) and the Baltic states, which were leaning to a German side, and whose position was one of the key factors that lead to the triple negotiation's failure. The Baltic states had never been on the Allied side, whereas the description of the story of their occupation by the USSR creates a false impression that they were the Allies. I agree that the current wording is not completely precise, but the new wording is more misleading. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert and Staberinde: I'm happy you two are discussing this. I trust you will find better wording and citations to back it up.

I think it's relevant to today: I think the vast majority of the people in the US think that Stalin was 100 percent evil. There's clearly a big gap between that perception and the results of opinion surveys in Russia currently. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The original text in this article was fine. I don't have anything more to add as the rest of the argument appears to be going offtopic.--Staberinde (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: We need to focus on the facts, not the sensitive opinions of people in any country. CessnaMan1989 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The historical consensus is that World War II started with the invasion of Poland. Anything after 1 September 1939, including the occupation of the Baltic states and the Winter War are generally considered by historians to be part of World War II. There are some fringe opinions that say otherwise, but this is the general consensus of historians. So technically speaking: Stalin threatened the Baltics after the start of World War II. Start of the Eastern Front =/= Start of World War II. TheGoldAge (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

World War II Start Date Narrative very distorted?

I have a problem with this European centric narrative that WWII started in 1939 specifically 1 Sep 1939? Is Europe the World? Why is the invasion of Germany called the start of World War II when infact the war did not become global until more than a year later? Why is the invasion of Italy on Ethopia not the starting point of World War II? No the Japanese invasion of China? This is a very European centric view, are Africans and Chinese not considered part of the larger World who were already fighting for their survival? Only when the European started fighting then we call it World War?! Can we have a correction on this view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElectionWatcher (talk • contribs) 03:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. What are the sources for the other proposed dates for the beginning of World War II? Dimadick (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Part of the larger world" is not "the world". The declarations of war in 1939 brought the European nations and their worldwide empires into the conflict. That is what lifted it from some regional struggles into a world war. Britmax (talk) 12:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you consider America(USA) and Russia to be part of "the worldwide empires" of the European nations? Your explanation still falls short! and to Dimadick do we always need a source? History is written by the victors and the victors have distorted it TheElectionWatcher — Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

do we always need a source? On Wikipedia, absolutely, yes. See: all of WP:NOR, WP:VERIFY.  — sbb (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

A site called rationalwiki says this 'The page claims "World War II is generally considered to have begun on 1 September 1939" in the lede in with no references to back up this claim. This is in spite of material made even during the war (including Prelude to War by the United States Army, which pointed to September 18, 1931 as the start date) as is the case with least five 21st-century reliable sources. It then tries to put up a fig leaf using sources that talk about when the war in Europe started and comically contradicts itself in the body text ("The dates for the beginning of war in the Pacific include the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War on 7 July 1937, or the earlier Japanese invasion of Manchuria, on 19 September 1931.") with reliable sources from what the lede in claims.' Sources: Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7

Spencer C. Tucker (23 December 2009). A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle East. ABC-CLIO. p. 1850. ISBN 978-1-85109-672-5
Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116
Olson, James Stuart (2001) Historical Dictionary of the Great Depression, 1929-1940 Greenwood Publishing Group pg 160
Rollins, Peter (2008) Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky Page 246 Dogmatic skeptic (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Why should we only post Major Axis-Allies nations?

All other war pages on Wikipedia don't do that. For arguably the most important conflict in human history, it seems problematic that this is the exception.

Allies: - United Kingdom - France - United States - Soviet Union - China - Canada - South Africa - India - Australia - New Zeeland - Poland - Czechoslovakia - Yugoslavia - Greece - Italy (1943 - 1945) - Romania (1944 - 1945) - Brazil

Axis: - Germany - Italy - Japan - Vichy France (1940 - 1944) - Hungary - Bulgaria - Romania (1940 - 1944) - Slovakia - Croatia (1941 - 1945) - Thailand Axis Co-beligerent: Finland TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 21:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hitler and the Jews

World war II started in 1937 and started in Germany. Adolf Hitler was killing the jews. What do you call between The Jews and Hitler... The Jews didn't kill themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.179.116.83 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That is genocide, not war.Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Gender roles

Gender roles before the start of the WWII 41.114.123.230 (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I am unsure what edit you are suggesting.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender roles before the start of the war would probably by definition be outside the scope of this article anyway. Britmax (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

American casualties

What do you guys think. Which front was the most bloody for the United States. I read articles about the Italian, North African, Western fronts where references to American losses were opened and gave the figure of 185k dead soldiers. But with the Pacific Ocean, everything is not simple, the figure speaks of 161k dead soldiers fighting with Japan (185 + 161 = 346k, which is 60k short of the official 406k killed) and besides, a source indicating US losses in an article about the war in the Pacific the ocean doesn't work — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I would remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum. Britmax (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2022

Foxburger233 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC) because I feel like people have changed it and I want to rewrite it so people can know the truth (my great grandfather was in the war)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Nthep (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize the article

The lead is meant to summarize the entire article. Yet not a single word is given on the Background and Pre-war events, both of which are substantial sections. Surely a single sentence or two could be given to state some of the factors and at least mention the existence of World War I? Aza24 (talk) 20:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a good point. Can you suggest some text? Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Given the debate over what was the bigger cause, I would think a more neutral statement would be appropriate. Maybe something like "The exact causes of World War II are debated, but contributing factors include the Second Italo-Ethiopian War, the Spanish Civil War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts and rising European tensions since World War I." I am by no means an expert on this period, so I propose this wording with some hesitancy. Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've added this given the lack of response. I presume it is uncontroversial as merely summing up the "Pre-war events" section, but defer to others. Aza24 (talk) 23:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The infobox, again

The Russian invasion of Ukraine seems to have sparked yet another round of edit warring to have Stalin listed below other Allied leaders in the infobox. This edit warring is plainly politically motivated given the edit summaries (e.g. [3], [4]). As a note to the editors doing this, the issue has been extensively discussed and the current shape of the infobox reflects the outcomes of those discussions. I will be reporting any further edit warring to WP:AN3. If editors are really interested in relitigating this issue, please start a good faith discussion based around reliable sources (noting that only quoting sources that supports your position is a giveaway that you are cherry picking sources). Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Peace treaty stalls

The WW2 peace treaty talks between Russia and Japan have stalled following sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine invasion. [5]. Might be worth including? Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 09:22, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Not really as its not really a hot war. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

49.146.154.255 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that involves vitually by the hostilities, with a vast majority countries in every part of the world. It is a worldwide military conflict which including by all of the great powers and forming two opposing combatant alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers. The war was lasted from September 1, 1939 to September 2, 1945, from Europe and North Africa in the east and the Asia-Pacific in the west covering by two-thirds of land area. In a total war directly involving more than 100 million personnel from more than 30 countries across the globe, the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, blurring the distinction between civilian and military resources. Aircraft played a major role in the conflict, were used for reconnaissance, as fighters, bombers, and ground-support, and each role was advanced considerably, and of strategic bombing was enabling to targeting the enemy industrial and population centres to destroy the enemy's ability and the only two uses of nuclear weapons in the war. World War II was the deadliest, destructive and largest military conflict in human history. An estimated total of 70-85 million fatalities, including military and the majority of civilians was directly caused by the war. Tens of millions of people died due to genocides (including the Holocaust of 6.3 million Jews murdered), starvation, massacres, and disease. In the wake of the Axis defeat, Germany and Japan were occupied, and war crimes tribunals were conducted against German and Japanese leaders.