Talk:World War II in Europe

From Wikivoyage
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How to handle cities that were severely bombed[edit]

Some places, like for example Nürnberg (which you could reportedly see burning from 100 km away), Dresden (though February 13th has been blown out of proportion; thanks Vonnegut), Hamburg ("Operation Gomorrah" had more victims than the bombing of Dresden), or Berlin (over 80% of the residential buildings were destroyed or severely damaged by May 1945) to name just some of the worst examples, were severely bombed. However, listing them all is a daunting task that I would assume to be almost impossible, besides creating yet another of the dreaded lists. How do we handle that? Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Surely not all of them have something bombing-related to actually see and visit that´s worth a recommendation, right? We don't need to give a list of every place that was bombed or every place that has a plaque in park somewhere, just places with something more substantial to see. Texugo (talk) 12:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
So what do we do with Frankfurt, which was bombed so badly that there's nothing historic to see... and the absence of pre-1945 infrastructure is itself notable? K7L (talk) 13:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
If the "absence of pre-1945 infrastructure" is something someone would actually make a special trip to see, find the most notable two or three instances of the phenomenon and mention it. If it's not worth recommending travel for, we shouldn't be bothering much with it. Texugo (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
In almost all cases, the incredibly bland 1950s architecture, that is a direct result of the war is a reason not to visit some place. We should however check whether we are doing a good job of mentioning things like that in the respective city travel guides. What may be in order is a little more background on the "automotive city" frenzy combined with a need for (lots of) cheap and easily built housing, that gave us the "beauty" of German cities that look so lovely on old grainy black and white movies and so ugly today. Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Various places in the UK were heavily bombed as well. A Brit I knew taught urban planning & said when he was in university in the 60s the postwar rebuilding of Birmingham was cited as a fine example of doing things right, but by the 80s when I knew him it was being used as an example of things to avoid.
Hamburg was indeed horrendous; I read a book on it decades ago. Continuous bombing over many days, USAF by day & RAF by night. A firestorm; incendiary bombs started so many fires that they merged into one with a huge column of flame, hurricane force winds at ground level as air rushed in to replace the hot air removed by the enormous updraft, more overall damage than Hiroshima. Pashley (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

City Listings Not Helpful[edit]

This article has too many city listings with no actual places to visit listed. It's not supposed to be an abstract collection of locations where things happened; it's supposed to list specific places (museums, battlefields, significant buildings, etc.) like the Pacific War article. If there is a city with multiple sites, I think it's fine to make the city the listing but the information should not be just be that it was part of the war; it should describe the specific places within the city that are of interest to WWII-specific travel. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That is a good point. /Yvwv (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Khalkhin Gol[edit]

Is the Battle of Khalkhin Gol worth a link somewhere in this article? Perhaps Stalingrad since the same general commanded? Or earlier since it may have affected events further West? Pashley (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail?[edit]

Toward the end of World_War_II_in_Europe#Understand we currently have this text:

Subsequently, some German political and military leaders were indicted for war crimes in the Nuremberg trials, during which some were sentenced to be executed. However, some high ranking Nazis had gotten away during the last days of the war or successfully hid from the Allies while others committed suicide before they could be captured or in captivity, most notably Herman Göring the day before his scheduled execution, Heinrich Himmler, and Adolf Hitler himself just prior to the German surrender. Other Nazis were acquitted, sentenced to prison terms (Albert Speer famously got twenty years while Sauckel - arguably below him in the hierarchy - got executed) or never put on trial in the first place, and many war criminals went on serving nominal sentences or none at all, with some continuing in quite successful careers in the German military, government, civil service or courts.

I think that is too detailed & encyclopedic for a travel guide & want to cut it to just the first sentence. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I think we should mention that way too many Nazis got off way too lightly, but that's probably just me... Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
It helps people understand the aftermath of the war, so I tend to like it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I partly rewrote it. Comments? Pashley (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why Blue and Green?[edit]

Does the coloring have meaning? Why are most of the sites green on the map while those in Belgium, Italy, and the UK are blue? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

At least for the few I checked, the blue are cemeteries, tagged "see", and the green are everything else, tagged "listing". Pashley (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
The "see" sites are pasted from destination articles; many of the others have been added manually. There is no policy whether all destinations in these article should be categorized. /Yvwv (talk) 15:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Listings get different colors according to their type. Change the type of the listing and you change the color. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I know how to change the color. I was asking why. Three of the sites are cemeteries but 2 are museums. It looks more like a country divide (all Belgium and Italy and the only UK one) but it's arbitrary and not explained. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I doubt it was anybody's conscious choice. Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Would there be any objections then to making them all the same color? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
The colour could be either uniform, or thematic. Uniform colour seems simpler. /Yvwv (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If we go with thematic color (of some sort) now, we won't have the problem of coming up with thematic color if and when we have dozens upon dozens of listings... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Can we please stop trotting out the old myth of the "overly harsh" Treaty of Versailles?[edit]

Seriously, I get irritated by the "poor, poor Germany had no choice after WWI other than turning to fascism" line of "argument" almost as much as I get by Lost Cause propaganda. The Versailles Treaty was - if anything - not harsh enough. If one imposes a harsh peace, the "victim" of said peace is not able to wage major war barely twenty years later. Reparations were ended before Hitler came to power, Alsace was never willingly German between 1871 and 1914, Colonies are nobody's "right" and with very few exceptions the other border changes only happened after referenda. So where exactly was the Treaty of Versailles humiliating or harsh upon anybody but nationalist fools gunning for round two? Germany lost the war and while it did not start it alone (like it did WW2) it was the one country that did most to bring about European and later World War, backing up Austria in its aggressive stance towards Serbia, sending an ultimatum to France that France could hardly respond to with anything but war, provoking Britain by attacking neutral Belgium and to cap it all off needlessly provoking the US with a telegram to Mexico so amateurishly stupid that I was actually inclined to believe it might have been fake for a time. So can we please stop crying crocodile tears over the oh-so-harsh treatment of Germany after WWII? What's next? Mythical figures about the dead in Dresden February 13, 1945? Seriously, I will never understand why a "poor, poor Germany" narrative could gain traction with the US left, but it needs to go. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've never heard this view expressed, and by a German yet. That's quite interesting. I will say that the U.S. left always considered WWI an imperialist war and essentially has a "pox on all your houses" view of it, but when you visit France, about 1/3 of which was laid waste during the war and where President Wilson is considered a national savior, the war does look different. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think World War I has this about right, pointing out that "neither the reparations nor the territorial losses imposed on Germany were notably harsher than what Germany itself had imposed on Russia in the Treaty of Brest Litovsk a few months earlier" but various myths, including this one & a claim that Germany had only lost the war via internal betrayal, were used in Nazi propaganda. I think resentment over Versailles bears mention, but it should likely be toned down. Pashley (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry that I didn't see this earlier. But at least in my history class, we were taught that the Treaty of Versailles was deliberately designed by the vengeful French to cripple Germany's economy and military so it could never be strong enough to invade France again. At least my history textbook said that during the Roaring Twenties, American loans helped German industries recover, and also went towards paying the reparations to the UK and France, but this stopped during the Great Depression and Germany was now stuck with massive debt that it could not pay. So this caused a massive economic crisis and a lot of resentment among the German people, and Hitler was able to capitalise on this resentment to rise to power. And at least based on my understanding, in the same way that Putin is very popular in Russia today because he has promised to make Russia strong and influential again, and a country Russians can be proud of, Hitler was very popular in Germany for the same reasons. Apparently Germans regarded the defeat in World War I as a huge national shame, and Hitler's promise to restore German power and influence resonated well with the people, who suddenly felt they could be proud to be German again. Hobbitschuster, correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but this was what I learnt when I studied the lead-up to World War II in Germany in my history class. The dog2 (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)