Discussion UsefulNotes / WorldWarII
DeemDeem52
Jan 18th 2019 at 1:57:52 PM •••
What\'s the deal with The Stinger ? The quote has nothing to do with WWII, and instead was written on the monument for Sir Christopher Wren, the architect of much of London\'s important buildings following the Great Fire of 1666. Is this relevant?
namapo
Sep 1st 2017 at 7:05:03 AM •••
I dread the day we have to change "only use of nuclear weapons in warfare" to "the first use of nuclear weapons in warfare"
MAI742
Feb 21st 2016 at 4:28:42 PM •••
Should we have a specific page for The Air War? I'd be happy to write it. It was a very popular and expensive part of the Anglo-American war effort, and we don't really discuss it in the Europe-Africa page. A series of operations which singlehandedly accounted for a tenth of all their losses, absorbed a quarter of their budget, and limited the increase in the output of German industry by up to 10% in 1944 deserves a certain amount of attention.
Edited by MAI742 Hide/Show Replies
JulianLapostat
Reply History
OmniGoat
Apr 30th 2015 at 2:44:26 PM •••
Why aren't there any tropes about World War II like the ones for the World War I page?
Hide/Show Replies
SeptimusHeap MOD
They were deleted because we don't really trope real life events.
Achaemenid
Jul 21st 2014 at 6:47:29 AM •••
Should we have a specific page for the Holocaust? I'd be happy to write one. This was discussed a while ago on the old discussion page, but I don't think anything came of it :(
Yeah, sure. Make sure you get a sufficient amount of works that treat it as a topic listed - we aren't in the troping real life events business anymore, but we do reference stuff that a lot of works are about.
OK - I'll write one up in word, and stick it in the sandbox within the next few days. I'll also discuss things in the History Thread in YF until then?
Yeah, that seems like a good way to do it. Make sure that upon launching the sandbox, you put the sandbox on the cutlist.
serialkillerwhale
Oct 7th 2012 at 4:46:17 PM •••
Can we please stop whitewashing everything bad about the soviets?
...I didn't realise we were doing that to begin with - I've been avoiding the POW/Undesirables-paragraphs like the plague. What's brought this all to a head?
Andrey, I just added various fact, such as the importance of the carpet bombing of German industry, while he literally removed every anti-soviet fact stuck on there.
Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Yes, I just noticed it myself. I hope you managed to persuade him/her to see why removing anti-soviet facts is bad?
Sigh, i tryed, he's blaming the US for winning the cold war, saying the US didn't even fight in world war 2, noting that i'm a USSR hater (I'm not btw, Communism is a great idea, just doesn't work that way).
Well its true that the US is responsible for proliferating the 'red-hordes-overwhelmed-us!' misconception first propagated by the Germans. Still, 'blaming' you say? The US may not have been essential to Soviet victory, but they sure as hell made it easier and saved a lot of Soviet lives. Plus there's the whole '(Stalinist) Soviet Union and its puppet-states not being good places to live' thing...
On the bright side, he 'did' take out those sections which were blatantly influenced by the 'Enemy at the Gates (the film)' -type view of the Red Army.
Hopefully he will find the entries I have added, and intend to add, to replace the deleted ones satisfactory.
Lets just hope. I call this new "Russia won WWII" a "Michael Moore Effect" Aka, Boomerang Bigot Effect. Which happens quite a bit these days. In reality WWII was not just one nation vs. another nation as most wars, but multiple nations vs. other multiple nations.
Oct 12th 2012 at 1:21:06 PM •••
Can accused party say a word?
Just where I was whitewashing everything?
Carpet bombing - the way you put that there, it looked like "Carpet bombing from US was enough to defeat the Germany".
"removed every anti-soviet fact stuck on there" - had I done it, article would loose more than pair of lines.
"saying the US didn't even fight in world war 2" - are you absolutely sure you can proof I said that? Because I didn't.
"noting that i'm a USSR hater" - again, where?
"Sigh, i tryed," - when I think where I ceased to take you seriously, I remember the moment where you stated that "1 rifle for 2+ men" was real.
Oct 13th 2012 at 8:13:09 AM •••
I think we edited that particular tidbit because it was an instance of Square-Peg-Round-Trope, not because carpet-bombing wasn't important.
That said, I 'did' notice The (Soviet-created and perpetuated) Myth of the Mannerheim Line disappearing from the Winter War section, which was a bit galling. It's back now, however.
I don't think we should be afraid to admit the various factions' organisational issues. Not having enough ammunition because your army has an out-dated filing system does not equate to cowardice on the part of one's entire nation. It's fascinating just how badly co-ordinated the war was at times, really.
Aaaanyhow, let's not get into this. We could be here all year trying to convince each other of the relative importance of various aspects of the war in contributing to the Axis' defeat. If we could all just read a few good articles on whatever-it-is we want to add or edit before we actually do anything, I think that should solve most of these problems.
Nov 21st 2012 at 9:21:39 PM •••
Put the myth part of the mannerheim line back, added the chruch section, put in the entire cylic arguement about Zerg Rush military tactics and added flamebait warning, replaced minor with noticable, which seems like a neutral word.
EDIT: Really? Not everyone watched enemies at the gates you know. And infact, if you checked the state of soviet suplly lines during the early 1940s, they just didn't have enough rifles (They were phasing to a semi-auto one and had to pull back for more mosin-nagants which weren't in the front line).
Edited by serialkillerwhale
pittsburghmuggle
Aug 14th 2012 at 3:29:18 AM •••
Someone messed up the markup on this page, and I don't have the time to fix it.
thEpirate
Jul 7th 2012 at 6:23:00 AM •••
So who said that Yugoslavia wan the war alone. i have a medal or recognition for fighting in Belgrad in my pocked. My grandfather was there, and he was Albanian. Can we delete it????? Its too nacional-fashist.
Jul 14th 2012 at 6:15:00 AM •••
How interesting... I'll deal with it.
tsstevens
Jun 11th 2012 at 4:43:33 PM •••
Darkest Hour: [[spoiler: After the war, All of Europe was handed over by the Jews.
Can we please bounce this troll? He doesn't deserve to be given a second chance.
Sep 16th 2012 at 4:03:18 PM •••
That does sound a bit troll-y. At least, one hopes it was troll-y. Sturgeon's Law, innit.
AgProv
Jun 9th 2012 at 10:37:45 AM •••
Quote: (rather than start a flame war in the main article)
"Only a few thousand Soviet POWs were liberated come the end of the war, though many hundreds of thousands were taken. Although German treatment of Russians in captivity was diabolical, the Red Army's attitude to repatriated POWs, who it viewed as traitors and cowards, was almost as bad. As the Red Army moved West and liberated POW camps, it reconscripted ex-prisoners back into the Red Army, often into penal regiments for the crime of having surrendered. Penal regiments got the hard, dangerous, dirty jobs and the death rate for men condemned to them was far heavier. Also, Stalin had no intention of letting men return to Russia who could tell the true story of the military incompetence of 1941 and 1942 that had abandoned so many of them to capture and slavery. (Prisoners repatriated by Finland at the end of the Winter War in 1940 were liquidated for this reason). This policy, of immediately reconscripting men brutalised by years of German imprisonment, arming them, and sending them straight into a battle that more and more was being fought on German soil, was not good for German civilians unfortunate enough to be in the way of angry men with a desire for revenge. Contrary to public belief, many front-line regular Red Army units did not rape and loot their way into Germany and behaved decently. It was men following up in rear echelons - and newly released and re-armed POWs - who ran amok in this infamous fashion.
"The figures of POWs repatriated to Germany and her allies after the war are also very small relative to the (small) number taken. Germans who survived up to ten years in Soviet captivity have told their stories of neglect and slavery in the Gulag. One statistic stands out: out of 260,000 POWs taken at Stalingrad alone, only 10,000 lived to see Germany again at the end of the war; and the last of the prisoners from Russia did not return until 1955."
Apologies if a Russian troper did not like to read this, and edited it significantly, but it remains fact, however inconvenient, and says much for Stalin's paranoia and Ilya Ehrenburg's "kill all the Germans and rape their women!" propaganda - the official Soviet line at the time!
Indeed, General Tito's first communication with Stalin after Russian forces entered Yugoslavia was not one of "thank you for liberating our country" - but an oficial protest that the Red Army was looting Yugoslavia and raping local women... if this is "demonizing the USSR" then go look it up in the history books!
Edited by AgProv Hide/Show Replies
Jun 17th 2012 at 4:55:06 AM •••
"the Red Army's attitude to repatriated POWs, who it viewed as traitors and cowards, was almost as bad. As the Red Army moved West and liberated POW camps, it reconscripted ex-prisoners back into the Red Army" - Well, surrender was considered treasury, but not every surrender. And the numbers I saw (several times) state, that most (90+%) were considered innocent.
"often into penal regiments" - 3-4%. Often.
"Also, Stalin had no intention of letting men return to Russia who could tell the true story of the military incompetence of 1941 and 1942 that had abandoned so many of them to capture and slavery." - And he also ate children.
"Prisoners repatriated by Finland at the end of the Winter War in 1940 were liquidated for this reason." - That's harder, as I can find less information. Still, according to what I found, they weren't liqidated mostly. However, yes, then ones who wasn't found guilty, were send to working camps with 5 years sentence.
"The figures of POWs repatriated to Germany and her allies after the war are also very small relative to the (small) number taken. Germans who survived up to ten years in Soviet captivity have told their stories of neglect and slavery in the Gulag. One statistic stands out: out of 260,000 POWs taken at Stalingrad alone, only 10,000 lived to see Germany again at the end of the war; and the last of the prisoners from Russia did not return until 1955." - Numbers I know: 2,7 million taken, 2,3 returned. Didn't looked for numbers in Stalingrad, but, regardless of real numbers, soldiers there were in bad shape already, so some may die because of already-received illnesses and injuries.
"Ilya Ehrenburg's "kill all the Germans and rape their women!" propaganda" - It was only "kill the german", and it was in 1942 - when it was really "either kill german or he'll kill you and your family" and soldiers should be given right motivation , as there already were occasions of one-sied mercy, when Soviets tried to make Germans reconsider - with preictale result. Also, later, when defeat was averted, he started campaign "Only German with rifle is your enemy".
Worst thing about history books - they are written by the people, and people can't be really objective. After all, for last century West worked hard to make Soviets look like bloodthirsty mosters.
Edited by Andrey159
Sep 20th 2012 at 10:08:07 AM •••
Just to be clear - Ilya Ehrenburg never called for German women to be raped. That was a propaganda invention of Joseph Goebbels. He did however, call for vengeance to be taken against the German nation that could be interpreted as calling for atrocities against the civilian population.
Apr 11th 2012 at 3:25:24 AM •••
Looking through the useful notes pages and this topic, it seems somewhat perverse not to have a separate page on the Holocaust (or even WWII atrocities in general), especially given that there are separate pages for the Home Front and Maginot Line. I would submit that the Holocaust is of greater relevance and was of far greater horror than either of those areas (worthwhile and well-written though those articles are). The amount of films that reference it or take place within it is huge too. I personally wouldn't mind helping to write a page describing it (it should be a collaborative effort, given that it would probably need to be locked after publishing in order to keep away the worst sorts). Thoughts?
Yes. Hop to it on your Holocaust page. :D
Addendum: Might it be an idea either to have two separate pages for "Nazi Mass-Murder" and "The Holocaust" so as to distinguish between the uniquely Jewish experience and the more general policies of extermination?
I propose instead two pages: 'War Crimes of WWII' and 'The Holocaust'. We'll have to monitor them closely... one can only imagine the amount of 'And that's terrible!' that will crop up otherwise...
Should the war crimes section be divided by faction? i.e Allied War Crimes and Axis War Crimes? By Nation? By theatre?
Edited by Achaemenid
By Nation-State would be a bit too... yeeeeah. It could only lead to trouble on account of everyone having a pet page and the need to monitor so very many pages at once. I say one page for the War Crimes of World War Two.
...if we're going to do it.
Sep 17th 2012 at 7:52:34 AM •••
We could add a disclaimer acknowledging the various arguments for all Nazi extermination programs being referred to as "the Holocaust" as opposed to only the extermination of the Jews taking that term. Perhaps we could include the general Nazi policies of extermination under the scope of the Holocaust page, but make the distinction that "the Holocaust" refers only to the Jewish experience and the other crimes are included for the sake of completeness?
Also, with regards to moderation, I suggest writing the page, then asking the moderators to lock it. That way, any changes can be closely monitored via unlock requests. Also, should we include tropes on the page? I personally feel that the entire sorry episode defies such categorization, but I would seek advice from longer-serving members of the wiki.
Dec 30th 2011 at 10:20:28 PM •••
Way, way too much in the summary of this article as it now stands. Way too much. I propose to start cutting.
boydthemilkman
Feb 25th 2012 at 10:40:43 AM •••
I agree. Currently reads like a badly written WWII textbook. Need just emphasis on the Hollywood History. All the other details can be put into their respective tropes.
Mar 10th 2012 at 7:32:44 PM •••
A pity. I'd like to think it was becoming a reasonable summary of the war as a whole, in its myriad aspects. We 'could' just stick to an incredibly condensed version where we state the shares of population, resources, industry, wealth, and name the numbers of the dead.
But where's the fun in that? : (
Then again, I suppose it would've taken quite some time to branch out to covering the entire summary on my own. X )
Sorting out the China-Japan bits really isn't enough... and it's true, you really do learn something new every day.
... or maybe that's just unique to people in the midst of history degrees? Eheh. ^_^
Jun 9th 2012 at 4:26:10 PM •••
I folderized it and tacked the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article on as a quick explanation.
If you want something done, you gotta do it yourself. :)
ta for that.
It's coming along... slowly. It's a bloody long entry! But it's rewarding and stuff, ay, producing a pretty-damn-complete picture of such a gigantanormous series of events.
rydelfox
Apr 13th 2011 at 10:40:51 AM •••
www.wwii-movies.com seems to have died and is up for sale. Does anyone know a new list to replace that link with?
TurkishDelight
Nov 9th 2010 at 5:17:56 PM •••
I don't mean to start an edit war, but can we get a general agreement going that the Red Army probably shouldn't be treated as particularly more 'heroic' than the Japanese or the Germans? They were led by Stalin, one of the nastier Complete Monsters of the 20th century, they were (with the Nazis) one of the two parties that partitioned Poland and enabled the war to even start, they annexed and invaded a number of their neighbors and deported/murdered their opponents in those countries, and when they were victorious they imposed vicious totalitarian police states in their wake across Eastern Europe.
That doesn't mean that average soldiers of the Red Army, fighting for the survival of their people and country, shouldn't be counted as heroic. But I see absolutely no reason that the Red Army as an institution should be put on any kind of pedestal. It isn't particularly heroic to save people from one nasty government only to impose a new one on them at gunpoint.
Edited by TurkishDelight Hide/Show Replies
TBeholder
Nov 13th 2010 at 12:17:23 AM •••
Well, duh. The thing is, who was shiny and all in white? What with Dresden and all? And speaking of deportations, his friends Allies gave Uncle Joe his runaways — which Finland managed to avoid after losing a war to him, probably the only participant who escaped from this mess with dignity.
As one Troll Fic called it, "The First Socialistic War", that's why it was this dirty. With three strains of The Virus in one jar: Communism, National Socialism and New Deal. Churchill wasn't, but still managed to make a clown of himself.
Scardoll
Dec 8th 2010 at 7:56:10 PM •••
Yes, you wouldn't believe how many innocent people the United States killed trying to zealously spread New Deal Socialism. The other countries could barely contain them at the beginning of the war.[/sarcasm]
Dec 13th 2010 at 4:43:12 AM •••
A slow suffocation is more humane than an execution by a guillotine, yes. Plus, the Great Depression and dust don't count — the same way as Trotskists' shenanigans don't count against Uncle Joe.
Jan 8th 2011 at 6:20:33 PM •••
No, that's stupid.
The United States wasn't spreading Socialism (And they had no reason to), nor was Socialism the main cause of the violence. Japan's atrocities, for example, came from extreme Nationalism, Imperialism, xenophobia, and militarization, not to mention a need for industry and modernization. The majority of Americans didn't even want to enter the fucking war until Pearl Harbor; sure, some did, but it took an actual attack to get us there.
And I'm sure the private contractors really hated the extra business that the war gave them.
You know what? I fucking hate Communism with a passion, but your comment is still stupid. Learn about history before bashing politics with history.
Edited by Scardoll
Jan 10th 2011 at 5:54:21 AM •••
Leaving aside ismophrenia, Socialism isn't defined by hammer and sickle, but by manipulation of politics and economics to reach social goals (A.Zinoviev's example was "hidden underemployment instead of visible unemployment" trick in late USSR).
Whatever "majority" wants, the question is, how much their wishes are connected to the results? Most people in USSR probably didn't want even Winter War—let alone full-contact with Germany—either, so what? Uncle Joe didn't exactly ask what he can do for people. Speaking of which, "Suddenly! Pearl Harbor!" tale perfectly mirrors "Suddenly! Brest!" story, even if versions without retcons wouldn't be so similar.
I have to agree, learning before preaching is a good idea.
Jan 12th 2011 at 11:04:57 PM •••
Leaving aside ismophrenia,
I have no idea what typo you made, but ismophrenia isn't a real word at the moment, unless Google managed to fuck up completely. Mind telling me what you actually meant to say?
Socialism isn't defined by hammer and sickle, but by manipulation of politics and economics to reach social goals (A.Zinoviev's example was "hidden underemployment instead of visible unemployment" trick in late USSR).
I never said it was.
Otherwise, filler.
Whatever "majority" wants, the question is, how much their wishes are connected to the results?
Depends on the government.
In a government with regular elections, there certainly is quite a connection. In a dictatorship, there is very little. Either way, there can never be a 100% connection, unless it's a full Democracy (Which would suck).
Most people in USSR probably didn't want even Winter War—let alone full-contact with Germany—either, so what?
The USSR invaded parts of Europe. They went to war long before Hitler threw tanks at them.
The United States didn't want to go to war, both in the government and in the general populace, and the government needs to keep popular with the people (Since approval=votes). Isolationism was the prominent idea because we were still recovering from a depression. And no, FDR wanting to go to war did not mean that the entire government wanted to.
Uncle Joe didn't exactly ask what he can do for people. Speaking of which, "Suddenly! Pearl Harbor!" tale perfectly mirrors "Suddenly! Brest!" story, even if versions without retcons wouldn't be so similar.
The Japanese had two options, since they needed resources. They chose the poorer one.
And yes, I know about the embargo. No, it's not shocking news for anyone, unless you count elementary students.
You are still not explaining your point. The United States wasn't TRYING to spread Socialism to other governments. And what about the other sides? I hardly think you can talk about World War 2 without mentioning Italy, France, Japan, or Britain.
Finally, on another note: Are you really going to say that socialism made the war dirty? Not extreme racism, nationalism, total war, etc? Are you going to ignore the Rape of Nanking or similar events?
Don't use real life atrocities as tools to demonize some target.
TheNamelessBox
Oct 1st 2011 at 11:50:37 PM •••
T Beholder:
I asume, ismophrenia is a combination of ism (an idea) and phrenia (a mental disorder.) Please do not make up new words just to make yourself sound smart. It never works.
Socialism is defined by some appearance of "production for use." The word your thinking of is "beauracracy."
Nationalism, suppression of belief, and xenophobia were the main political ideologies that ran the war.
Nationalism made people kill, maim, and rape, "for their country" in a blind patriotic fervour. It didn't matter that they were violating the Hague conventions and the Geneva protocol, they were doing it "for their country."
Xenophobia allowed people to believe they were fighting other human beings, they were all fighting subhuman monsters. Look at artwork in propoganda posters. See how the Japanese were drawn by Americans. See how the Chinese were drawn by Japanese. And of course, they each viewed each other as barbaric in rule.
Suppression of belief meant anyone who was opposed to this was "the enemy." They were shunned- if they were lucky. Many were threatened, arrested or even "eliminated."
There were other individual factors, as Scardoll stated, but the factors above are required for any war to exist. They must believe in their country, they must fear or hate the enemy, and they must be unchallangable.
Rodiggidy
The amount of bias is surprising to say the least, even for a TV Tropes article.
Oct 15th 2010 at 12:41:33 PM •••
Well, but on the other hand the next time someone says that WWII is quite buried and covered with grass, you'll have a good laugh.
Oct 2nd 2011 at 12:58:26 AM •••
Well, take a rag and some Windex and help clean it up.
DoctorHD
People have gotta stop calling everything the Axis do "evil" in these lists. It's really childish.
No, I think we're gonna roll with calling the Axis evil, thanks.
Call me a British Scholar and baste me in brandy, but I think stating the way things were, elaborating on policies, and providing numbers is quite good enough. Elaborating on all the myriad kinds of institutionalised crazy at the time ought to suffice. 'Evil' is a superfluous adjective to the effect of 'And That's Terrible'.
If we really need to tell people that mistreating PO Ws, reprisals against civilians, and good ol' genocide are not nice things to do, then... well, I don't think those people who need to be told that these things are bad would give a fig.
Basically yes, 'evil' is childish.
I'm having an occasional chip at the article as a whole... looks like the summary may be pulled in favour of raw figures. If we are to have a summary involving anything more than that, it'll almost inevitably balloon out to the same size as it is now, if never quite reaching comparable or better quality. Scary thought.
So yeah. Covered most of China and Japan, cut back on the 'America Saves the Day' and 'Everyone lives in America'... and other conspicuous bits, like the badly integrated bits about the Philippine and Australian contributions. And other bits which are just plain silly...
No, there's a long road ahead still. I've barely looked at the bit about Europe from 1933 to 1942, and I've only really skimmed the rest of the European theatre. Gave the Depression-and-lead-up a makeover, mind.
Where do we end the summary? I'm in favour of leaving out the aftermath entirely, and keeping it strictly to the events of the war itself.
Edited by MAI742
Many thanks, pittsburghmuggle - good idea with the summary there.
So yes, it's coming along slowly. I'm pleased to report that some nice folks managed to take out the morality tropes, albethey along with a few tropes that didn't actually stray into morality territory but by their nature, (destruction, death, murder) had a fair bit of overlap.
Spain and Finland have cameos now, too. I don't know why people insist upon seeing the Red Army as throwing wave upon wave of its own men at the Axis! I decry 'Enemy At the Gates' as the Red-Army-Cannon-Fodder trope codifier.
It's funny how you can really see the links between all the constituent parts of the conflict, when its laid out like this. Or rather, when its laid out like this as a summary of the things you had to find out to make such a summary. Fascinating, truly.
With regards to leaving out an aftermath, I am strongly, strongly, strongly against that. For Americans, Brits and Western Europeans, sure, the war ended on VE and VJ day. But look at Eastern Europeans, or Greeks, or Koreans, or Chinese who had to deal with a second act - the struggle for their country's future. For instance, historians in the Baltic States look at the period as one long struggle, beginning in the 1920s with Soviet expansionism and ending in 1991 with the final death of the U.S.S.R. What about the Forest Brothers? What about the horrific hardships and scarcities that the people of Eastern Europe endured through the 40s and 50s? Ultimately, the military conflict between the Great Powers is only the whole story in the English-speaking world. To ignore the continuing fighting, ethnic-cleansing, tragedy and human story of Eastern Europe and Asia in the years following 1945 would be Creator Provincialism of the worst sort. Just my two cents. I would recommend this book.
I doubt any one would dispute that but, well... needless to say, the legacy of World War Two is a bookshelf in itself. Just like every other aspect of the war. I'm sure the summary - unlike the article as a whole? - probably won't need much maintenance. Editors know, usually, when they're pushing the limits of relevance.
Oct 8th 2012 at 8:10:08 AM •••
Fair enough. Certainly, the civil wars only need a brief mention and links to the articles in question (if any). What might be relevant is describing the reconstruction and migrations that arose as a direct consequence of WWII?
Have written an appraisal of the aftermath. It is long, but not overlong IMO. How is that?
I... will look at it tomorrow. There's a fair bit of redundancy in there since you're re-iterating some of the stuff from the previous, shorter summary... I'm not sure about the anecdote, we haven't kept any others (except down in the tropes section). Yes, it's alright. However, if anything the picture is too bright. Tomorrow. I dare say I can reference up a few bits from earlier in the article to give context to the elements you've described.
We're in business, I think.
Oct 9th 2012 at 12:58:41 PM •••
Cool. I am not aware of the protocol for launching Useful Notes pages, but are we defo on for a Holocaust one?
Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Archived Discussion