Talk:World War II in Europe

How to handle cities that were severely bombed

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

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

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)

From a military strategy point of view, it was part of the Pacific War. /Yvwv (talk) 13:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Too much detail?

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?

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?

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)

D Day defences

The article says that "the massive German defenses were no match for the superior planning, manpower and technology of the Allies". Isn't that belittling? They were overcome, but "no match"? And "superior planning" also sounds problematic – was it in any way distinctively genial? --LPfi (talk) 07:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it was pretty brilliant, in that the Allies convinced the Nazis that the invasion would take place elsewhere (Brest, was it? I forget), causing just enough diversion of Nazi resources for the Allies to win. And please change the wording however you see fit. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Understand section is way too long

This is another article where we seem to be trying to be an encyclopedia article without the citations. The Understand section is getting longer and longer, and provides much more than a brief overview. Wikivoyage:Article_skeleton_templates/Sections#Understand says that in writing the Understand section we should:

"Keep in mind that all of this information should be useful for travellers. For example, the 'history' section should not compete with ample Wikipedia articles, but help the traveller to link specific places and events to a larger historical period. "

Am I alone in thinking that it is time to (a) stop adding to this section, and (b) start cutting it knack significantly? Ground Zero (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

So what will you propose cutting out then? While I understand your point of view, I also think we should also distinguish WV from what you find in the guides by national tourism authorities and children's books by providing an accurate account and not a sanitised version. For instance, as horrible as the things the Nazis did were, it is most certainly true that the Soviet soldiers engaged in mass rapes German women when they occupied Berlin, which I hope all us are decent enough to agree was also a horrible thing. And as horrible a person Hitler was, his election was just the culmination of a long history of widespread anti-Semitism in Europe; Hitler was, after all, democratically elected, which, as uncomfortable as it may be to admit, shows us just how ugly human nature can be. The dog2 (talk) 17:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hitler was not democratically elected to be Führer, only to be a member of the Diet, leading a party that received but 32% of the vote. If you want to argue that he was democratically elected, "Understand" is definitely not the place to offer such a misleading statement. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hitler's party won a plurality of the seats in the German parliament in a democratic election, which was what allowed him to become Chancellor, and ultimately paved the way for him to become Führer. That's historically accurate and what we have in the "Understand" section. I'm not denying that Hitler was a dictator, but it's most certainly true that Hitler first came to power through the democratic process. And Hitler was not the only example in history. Many dictators were also initially democratically elected, before later consolidating their powers and becoming dictators, often by capitalising on widespread bigotry among the general population. I am not condoning Hitler's actions here, but neither will I stand for perpetuating the myth that the German people were just innocent pawns who were coerced by Hitler; Hitler would most probably not have come to power if anti-Semitism was not widespread among the German people. The dog2 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't have specific proposals for cutting out back at this point. I am looking to see if there is support for the idea that this should provide only a brief overview of the war as an introduction to the list of war-related sites, which I think should be the focus of a travel guide. If other contributors want this article to be a place for debating the challenging or perpetuation of myths, then there's no point discussing what to cut. I think that exploring the controversy around the origins of the war is better done in Wikipedia, with proper citations, but I'm just one person. Ground Zero (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Dog, winning a plurality was not at all sufficient for Hitler to take over, and as a historian, I'm sure you know that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. Hitler had to form a coalition with other parties in order to get the majority he needed to become chancellor. But I think it's safe to say that the fact that the Nazis won a plurality in the German parliament shows that they did in fact have considerable support among the German people. And winning a plurality most certainly played a major part in convincing the other parties to form a coalition the Nazis. Perhaps Hobbitshcuster can weigh in on this. The dog2 (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

That last statement is not controversial and doesn't bear discussion. But you also know that being part of a coalition is not sufficient for a party or its leader to take over the country, either. Please stop with the polemics that you know are inaccurate. You don't think I'm unaware of how the Nazis took over, I hope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you would probably be at least somewhat familiar with that. I had to study the prelude to World War II in detail for my history classes in school for both Japan and Germany, so I am also quite familiar with what happened. I hope you don't think I am trying to defend Hitler here, because that is most certainly not what this is about. Perhaps I am being overly cynical here, but I just feel that we need to be honest about the ugly side of human nature, and unfortunately, it has reared its head multiple times throughout history.

And I am not proposing any changes to the "Understand" section at this point. Have a look at it. I think the current iteration that we have is accurate and covers all the main points. The dog2 (talk) 23:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Without commenting on the accuracy of the specific information, I don't have a problem with the level of detail in the Understand section, especially if helps contextualize some of the listings in the Sites section. Certainly it's one of the longer such sections on Wikivoyage, but I think it's an exaggeration to compare its level of detail to that of Wikipedia's coverage of the topic, not to mention the fact that Buffalo earned Star status despite an even longer Understand section (Dear God, I hope I'm not opening a can of worms mentioning that). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

This could definitely be trimmed of encyclopedic information. There's plenty of trivia here that's not being used to contextualize anything. For example, a quick search shows that the names of Heinrich Brüning and his party only appear once in the page. These are very minor figures; why mention them? There are many other examples. Would definitely support trimming. ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Speaking of concrete changes, I've removed those few sentences. Any opposition? ARR8 (talk | contribs) 00:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ That's fine with me. I've made a few further copyedits though. The dog2 (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

While there is nothing wrong about having three illustrative quotes for a lengthy articles, they should preferrably be from three different people. /Yvwv (talk) 16:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I've shortened it some. More needed, I think. Pashley (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

United States

The USA is not a European country, so sites in the US don't belong in this article, which is after all a travel topic. You could conceivably visit many POIs related to the war all across this continent on a single visa as part of one trip, but you wouldn't add on a detour to Washington. If there are enough places associated with the war in North America, there could be a World War II in North America article created. If not, American POIs are slightly more suitable for the Pacific War article, since at least the US is part of the Pacific region, and that's where its 'home front' against the enemy was located.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I only just saw this, but the museum does cover the European theatre of the war, and American troops played crucial role in D-Day and the Battle of the Bulge. Therefore, I think this listing would be warranted. There was no fighting in continental North America apart from German U-boats sinking several ships off the American coast, so I don't think listing the National WWII museum of the U.S. is unjustified. The dog2 (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. You haven't really responded to the points I made, though, the main of which was that in an article of POIs in Europe, an American POI is a geographical outlier. This matters because all the rest of the POIs (or a selection of them) could form part of a single traveller's itinerary, whereas a side trip to New Orleans (and not Washington as I erroneously stated) will not be on the cards of many.

I don't deny that the USA played a crucial role in the European theatre, and the traveller can discover countless museums, memorials and cemeteries which commemorate this fact across Europe. The way I view this article's scope, perhaps wrongly, is as an overview of the 'highlights' of war sites in Europe. You obviously interpret the scope differently. Correct me if I'm mischaracterising your view, but your interpretation of the scope is if a country, no matter where, played a role in the war in Europe, then we should list some POIs from that country in this article. If this is the case, then logically, we should include listings for equivalent museums in places as remote from one another as Canada, the Maghreb, India, and Australia. Not necessarily a bad thing, but I rather think that undermines what this article had been up till now, solely focused on POIs in Europe. Such an article stood as a useful, practical travel article, whereas one with POIs all over the globe is rather less useful.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the US played a large role in Europe & their museums have relevant stuff. Canada was involved even longer & the War Museum in Ottawa has lots of material. Then there is perhaps the most interesting Canadian location, w:Camp X just outside Toronto, which trained spies & saboteurs for European resistance movements, Canadian, British & US commandos, and members of OSS which later developed into the CIA..Not much is there today, just a park & a monument. ANZAC (w:Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) were not much involved in Europe itself, but they played a large role in North Africa. I imagine Aussie & Kiwi museums have relevant material.

Museums & monuments outside Europe are not the same as the actual sites of the conflict, though. I suggest we give them their own section, headed "Outside the European theater" with listings for the important museums & sites like Camp X and perhaps factories or shipyards that were important during the war. (Avro Canada built most of Britain's Lancaster bombers, the US built Liberty ships, D-Day landing craft, etc.)

I fell fairly strongly that such a section should not have sub-headings for each country; those would just be clutter. A short paragraph for each country (maybe only one for Oz/NZ?) plus the listings should do it. Pashley (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think this article as scope should be to cover all the tourist attractions that will appeal to someone interested in the European theatre of World War II. People can then look at this and decide which ones they want to visit. This is, after all, a travel topic, not an itinerary. If those museums actually include exhibits about the war in Europe, then yes, I think they should be listed. If it's just some random military museum in a country that happened to participate but has no exhibits about the war then no, it should not be listed. I'm happy to have this article reorganized though so the European sites and non-European sites are in different sections, and perhaps this will help potential travellers to plan their visits. And on that note, I would support a listing of the Australian War Memorial in Canberra, since that also has exhibits about Australian soldiers contributions to the European theatre of the war. It's true that the Australian army was a minor player in Europe itself, but the Australia air force played a significant role. The dog2 (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I think a separate World War II in North America article would be the best solution, as the U.S. and Canada fought both in Europe and the Pacific. Ypsilon (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

So did the British Empire... But the Pacific War and European War were not "in North America." Yes, I appear to be arguing against my own proposal.

I could support a compromise solution of a "Within Europe" / "Outside Europe" split, but would have concerns that the length of this could grow unwieldy.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

There aren't enough sites in the US to give the European Front a US-only article. I think you could just put it in the "Go Next" section. Would there be too many if it included the Australian and Canadian sites, too? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I do not think a separate article is a good idea, because there was no WW II in NA, unless you count Pearl Harbor or Japan taking over part of the Aleutians. Mention any relevant sites in a new section of the existing articles, as I suggested above, or use the Wimbus's proposal. Either lets us handle Oz & NZ too. Pashley (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume American and Canadian WWII museums usually present the war effort both in Europe and the Pacific, not only in one of the theaters. Sites related to the Manhattan Project and WWII factories for military equipment (one important factor that helped the Allies to win the war) could definitely be listed, along with sites related to preparations against possible invasions. And if there are some museums and memorials to the little military action that did happen on the North American continent like the Japanese balloon bombs and Bombardment of Ellwood, the U-boot attacks and landings by Germans on the east coast to perform attacks on factories and power plants etc., they should naturally be added too. Ypsilon (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The Aleutians and Pearl Harbor should be listed in the Pacific War article. I think what we can do to keep this page from getting too unwieldy is to have more stringent criteria for listing sites outside Europe. We should only list sites in the countries that participated, and have educational value for people who want to learn more about the war, or have a direct connection to the war in Europe. How does that sound? To highlight the distinction, this would mean that the Australian War Memorial in Canberra should be listed, while the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne should not. The dog2 (talk) 15:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

And what is the difference between those two, for those of us who don't know? Sounds like a good distinction to draw, however.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:17, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

[unindent] I think the question of how to assist readers who'd like to make an itinerary out of visiting WWII-related sites in Europe is to have a map that shows only European sites. Any other point of interest that focuses only or overwhelmingly on the European Theater can be mapped separately, although a little map of the whole world would not really help readers much. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:42, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The Australian War Memorial has a museum that has exhibits which explain the role Australian soldiers played in World War II. The Shrine of Remembrance is simply a memorial dedicated to Australian soldiers who died in various wars, including World War II, but does not actually have any educational exhibits. I would definitely recommend visiting it if you're ever in Melbourne because it is a very grand monument, but I wouldn't list it in this article. We could consider making exceptions though for cemeteries that house a large number of the war dead. The dog2 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

World War II in Africa

I recently launched the article World War II in Africa. Please provide your opinions on Talk:World War II in Africa. /Yvwv (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Soviet POWs?

World_War_II_in_Europe#Russia has a paragraph about POWs. I want to delete it & add the simple statement "POWs were horribly mistreated on both sides." to the previous paragraph. The current stuff strikes me as irrelevant in a travel guide.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 05:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

"POWs were horribly mistreated on both sides" requires the clarification that the following lines provide, but it could be reworded to keep the focus on the Soviets. Maybe something like:

The Soviets mistreated their own POWs, as well as returning Soviet POWs. A large number of Soviet prisoners, especially those from Ukraine and Byelorussia, were known to have collaborated with the Nazis. many of them were used by the Nazis to shoot Jews and serve as guards in the extermination camps, so the Soviets were suspicious of their returning POWs to the point of deeming many of them "traitors" and killing them. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection. I do not think such "clarification" belongs in a travel guide at all, since I neither see any connection to travel nor consider it essential background info. If it does belong then it should go in the Holocaust article. Pashley (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Nor do I think we should "keep the focus on the Soviets" here. The Germans also treated POWs abominably & we should mention that. Pashley (talk) 06:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

This discussion was only about the "Russia" subheading, which is why I thought it read better to "keep the focus on the Soviets". Obviously, in a "World War II in Europe" article, I would expect a reference or two to German activities in the broader article. As far as whether or not POW treatment is warranted, I'm not sure. The information is interesting and is somewhat unique. Just whittling it down to the statement "POWs were mistreated on both sides" (as you suggested) to me does not seem clear that we are talking about the SOVIETS treating both badly, which is the point. It's not very interesting that Germans would treat Soviet captives badly and that Soviets would treat German captives badly, but the point there is that the Soviets treated the German captives badly AND fellow Soviets returning after being captured by the Germans badly to the point of killing some/many. Perhaps it would seem to fit more if one of the listed sites was a place where returning Soviet POWs were tried and/or killed. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 12:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

I would point out that the Nazis murdered millions of Soviet pows, and that does definitely belong in the Holocaust remembrance article, where I believe it's mentioned, but it is also true that all sides did mistreat pows at least sometimes. For example, both the British and Americans gave low food rations (though ones I've read they then erroneously believed were the bear minimum to be adequate) to German pows after the war, resulting in deaths of tens of thousands from malnutrition and other aspects of physical weakening. But bad as that is, it's not the same as shooting or gassing millions. So I would suggest careful language and a travel connection. And Chubby is right that we need to be careful in how returning Soviet pows are referred to, because many of them committed heinous acts of genocide as death camp guards or militiamen collaborating with the Nazis, and the considerable duress they were under doesn't justify their notorious and enthusiastic savagery toward Jewish and Romani victims. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Blatant flouting of terms

The article now says "After coming to power, Hitler blatantly flouted the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, ...". This is in accordance with what I learnt in school, but from the memoirs of Rommel I got the impression that this was at least partly done by the silent acceptance of the West. I think we should adjust the wording not to support the myth, if that's what it is.

(The passage that gave that impression was about the German army training tank tactics in live war games (what's the English term?) with British etc. generality as invited spectators. I think Rommel did not write anything about building the tank weapon in secrecy, only on clever ways to cope with insufficient resources.)

While Germany probably did not break the terms in front of the general public (the U boats were prototyped and tested in Finland, away from most eyes but those of local's here in Turku), I cannot believe the military intelligence did not notice what was going on – and I believe there were no diplomatic protests but very much later.

I suppose the explanation lies in the relation between the West and the Soviet Union; the West thought the army was built as defence against the Soviets, and only later did they realise that Hitler was a real threat also to them.

–LPfi (talk) 09:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Nazi memoirs are blatantly self serving documents that have blinded western historiography to a lot of easily recognizable truths about the war (especially the eastern front) that became obvious when Soviet archives were opened. As for blatant flouting of terms, those include the introduction of a draft, the occupation of the Rhineland, the annexation of Austria and many others. The Brits let it slide because they thought they could avoid war that way which is insane troll logic Hobbitschuster (talk) 10:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I understand these documents should not be taken at face value. Still, did the German succeed in doing this in secrecy? Were the British afraid of a war already when these things started to happen? –LPfi (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

What can I say? People are stupid. And the British right wing was eternally terrified of the "reds". Heck, the Daily Mail openly endorsed fascism at the time... Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

If the British did not intervene because they endorsed fascism, that is something worth noting. Likewise if they did not because they thought a strong Germany was useful against communism. I have started to believe there was something like that involved, but I don't have the facts. –LPfi (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(And I am happy Mannerheim had a background – aristocratic officer in the Russian imperial army – that made him despise the Nazis. I think that might have kept the pro-Nazi people in Finland from getting too much influence. –LPfi (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC))

Battle of the Bulge

This battle is mentioned at World_War_II_in_Europe#Belgium but the link is to the WP article. It could also be mentioned at D-Day_beaches#After_Normandy, but is not yet. Search shows it is also mentioned in several other articles.

Should it have its own WV article? Just a redirect to Diekirch#See for the most important museum? Or would anyone volunteer to write an actual article? Pashley (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Irish

@DeFacto: The only reason I though of that was because I was reading about the taoiseach's condolence over Hitler's death yesterday, and noticed that it was widely condemned in America because of the number of Irishmen who'd fought and died in the U.S. Army against Hitler. Obviously, whether they were legally "Irish" or "American" may be something up for debate on a site that requires full citation, but given the near constant emigration up to the 1930s, it's highly likely that many of the Irish-American G.Is were at the very least born in Ireland.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@ThunderingTyphoons!: oops, I just changed it again before I read this, but still disagree that they were from neutral Ireland. DeFacto (talk) 12:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No worries. What specifically do you disagree with, that "it's highly likely that many of the Irish-American G.Is were at the very least born in Ireland"? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

No, that they left their home in a neutral Ireland to join the US forces. Sure emigrants to the US may have joined the US forces, but that's a very different thing. DeFacto (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does it say they left their home in a neutral Ireland to join up? It says "tens of thousands of Irish people volunteered to join..."

The fact is there were thousands, if not tens of thousands of Irish-Americans in the war and that many of those would have been born in Ireland, so what alternative wording would you suggest to present that fact in this article? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is about Neutral Ireland, and not neutral Irish people. If the people had already left Ireland, it wouldn't be notable if they joined the military of their new country. Why not add another sentence to discuss the non-US-citizen Europeans who joined the US military? DeFacto (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Did serving in the U.S. army ipso facto lead to loss of Irish citizenship? If so, per the laws of which country? Ireland, the U.S. or both? And does a person cease being Irish just because they lose that citizenship? Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Not just the US. There have been Irishmen in the British military for centuries (e.g. Taxila#Nicholson's Obelisk) & some in this war. Canadian, Aussie & NZ forces certainly had men of Irish descent & perhaps some born there.

But in the context of a travel guide, why should anyone care? I cannot see that either the condolences or the volunteers are relevant to travel. Pashley (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Immortal Regiment

We now write (originally added by @The dog2:):

Every year, on 9 May, major Russian cities hold an Immortal Regiment march as part of their Victory Day celebrations, in which the locals march down the street holding up pictures of their family members who fought in the war.

I just read about these marches, and it seems this was the original version. However, the regime thought it was a good idea, and nowadays (according to that story) many of the participants have photographs of people they don't know (as seen by the photos being thrown away after the march). The story wasn't specifically about the marches, so many details were missing, but it hinted that these marches nowadays aren't about people's relatives, but about celebrating the big day in a way that suits the regime. Do we know the reality? Otherwise we should say little enough that we don't perpetuate some false information. –LPfi (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@LPfi: My understanding is that originally, it was the veterans that marched, but because today most of the veterans are already dead, while those who are still alive are probably too old and frail to join the march, so these days, it's mostly their younger family members who join the marches holding up their photographs. I think from a travellers' perspective, the important thing to note is that you will likely see these marches if you happen to be in Russia on Victory Day, so I think all that is needed is for people to understand the significance of these marches. The dog2 (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps we could drop the "family members", as that is contested. The photographs are or pose as of people who fought in the war (veterans or once who fell), which we could say instead. –LPfi (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That's fine with me too. The dog2 (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I changed it now. –LPfi (talk) 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Raising a flag over the Reichstag 2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Listing details

Per Wikivoyage:Travel topic article template, "Details, such as street addresses, prices and phone numbers, should be omitted from the travel topic article. Instead link the full listing, or the section or article containing it." Ground Zero (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Collaboration with the Nazis

I am uneasy about the edits of 2 October on Nazi collaboration.

Yes, there was collaboration with the Nazis – Nazism and similar thoughts were all too common in many countries. Racism was widespread, as was antisemitism and many other ingredients of the ideology – and many did not know what Nazism really was about.

However, younger readers often know little about this, and as Nazis are often portrayed as personifications of the Evil, there may be little understanding for other motives of collaborators. Without going into the nuances, we risk stigmatising the peoples of countries we point out as having had collaborators or still thinking highly of some people fighting in the SS. I believe that what we reasonably can tell in this article won't change the attitudes enough to remedy this.

As the "virulent anti-Semitism" wasn't exclusive to the named countries, we should handle it in the background section, and tread much more lightly in connection with specific countries.

(I am happy that Mannerheim detested Hitler for unrelated reasons, which probably contributed to Finland resisting deeper cooperation, as probably did the failed right-wing attempt of a coup d'état in 1932. The Nazi sympathisers had to keep a low profile.)

–LPfi (talk) 12:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

There may be exceptions, but in general this is historical information not relevant to travel & should be deleted. Pashley (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as irrelevant. This is the "World War II in Europe" article, and the information didn't overwhelm the article. It seemed to provide a small glimpse into countries on the continent that are usually never mentioned which helps give a fuller picture of the continent at the time. I don't like the argument that we should cover up the information because of the ignorance of "young readers" who only believe portrayals of Nazis as "the personification of evil". Is the intent of the article to target Germans and Italians specifically as evil and promote stigmatization towards them? If so, we should delete it. If not, why is the "harm" and "stigmatization" okay for Germany/Italy but not their collaborators? Why would we cater the article towards the most "ignorant youth" anyway? A bit of education would seem better than trying to make sure the article conforms to the sensibilities of the most ignorant.

The sections states, "including virulent anti-Semitism, resentment towards Russians from stemming from over a century of Imperial Russian and Soviet domination, among others". Were these NOT reasons for collaborations? The fact that "virulent antisemitism" was continent-wide doesn't change the fact that hatred for the Jews helped lead some of THESE specific countries to collaborate with the Nazis. The two are not mutually-exclusive, but the antisemites who did not collaborate are irrelevant to this particular point. The second point that they collaborated simply because they opposed Russia is very clearly a motivation that is different from "they agreed with the Nazi ideology" which seems to be the concern. I think this is very concise and doesn't require any elaboration. I think it should stay. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 15:28, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't realize that concise, accurate explanation had been deleted. I completely agree with ChubbyWimbus. Why should we tread so lightly in speaking truth? Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I want to point out that even today, Ukraine and Latvia still hold marches commemorating SS units. I know Ukraine has a Jewish president now, but back then the Ukrainian nationalists did massacre many Jews and ethnic Poles, which is why Poland gets very upset when Ukraine celebrates Stepan Bandera's birthday on 1st January every year. My understanding is that modern-day commemorations of some Nazi collaborators in Ukraine and Latvia are not necessarily in support of their anti-Semitic ideology, but rather because their resistance against Russia is seen as far more important. I'd say it's similar to how Americans today celebrate George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, even though they were slave owners. It doesn't mean most Americans today support slavery, but rather because their role in founding the United States of America is seen as more important. The dog2 (talk) 16:55, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

• I must declare, at this point, I get horrified and bellyached with all this modern trends of normalizing Nazi shit. Nazifascism doesn't invite dialog, it invites violence and bloodshed "in the name of The Good Citizen". I find it vile and detestable, I'm against it. There, I said it. Ibaman (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not justifying it. I'm just stating the reality that the Baltic states and Ukraine celebrate some Nazi collaborators as national heroes on the account of their fierce resistance against the Russians. In addition to being New Year's Day, 1st January is officially commemorated as Stepan Bandera Day by the Ukrainian government. See . In fact, one of the main streets in Lviv is named "Stepan Bandera Street", and what was once "Moscow Avenue" in Kyiv has been re-named "Stepan Bandera Avenue" by the Ukrainian government. The dog2 (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

it's Nazi shit all the same. It's horrid. It's undefensible. You can go on for hours defendin these edits. My belly aches all the same. Ibaman (talk) 18:17, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Khmelnitsky, notorious among Jews for being bestial toward us, is also celebrated in Ukraine. They've made tremendous progress against Jew-hatred, but they have horrendous massacres of Jews in their history. And let's not assume that people who celebrate Jew and Pole-murderers are somehow all pro-Jewish and pro-Polish today or something. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No disagreement there. I'm not in any way defending the Ukrainian or Latvian governments for their veneration of Nazi collaborators. I'm just trying to find the right balance so we don't come across as defending Russia's invasion of Ukraine, or Stalin's atrocities. The dog2 (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

How is there a risk of that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The Russian government cites "de-Nazification" as one of its justifications for invading Ukraine. I don't want to come across as endorsing the invasion, but at the same time, it's true that since Euromaidan, the Ukrainian government has venerated Stepan Bandera as a national hero. The dog2 (talk) 21:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

So what? This article is not about the Russian invasion of Ukraine; it is about World War II, and no-one, least of all today's democratic Ukraine, is helped by lying or omitting basic facts about World War II. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

by the way, it must be said, from here on the Southern Hemisphere, this discussion seems very in line with the official pro-UKR+NATO view, pretty "Russophobic", please consider this bias, I said this before and was labeled "pro-RUS, anti-UKR".

However, it is really a regime sponsoring Nazi values,nomenclature and simbology, headed by a Jew. No sympathy for it, not one damn bit, no. Ibaman (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree at all, but none of it is relevant to World War II! Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference, I know many people are going to disagree with the view expressed in this article, but it does give a good summary of the historical baggage between Ukraine and Poland: . The dog2 (talk) 23:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

the point in this discussion is SB, a WWII notorious figure, bent on ethnic cleansing, a Nazi collaborator, whose "shady connections" have been whitewashed for the benefit of the present UKR administration, for some. A true patriot and righteous leader of freedom fighters, for others. Let's exercise real care on what we write about this guy. Ibaman (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

No, if we mention him in particular, let's describe what he did and let others concern themselves with what they want to think he was. But the censored reverted edit didn't mention him, anyway. I will not stand idly by while history is whitewashed because someone is uncomfortable with stating truths about the Holocaust. Sorry, I don't think young people in Europe who are ignorant of facts should be coddled. Who the hell benefits from that? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

And unfortunately, because the fact that there were non-Germans fighting for the Nazis is not well-known, that led to the recent debacle where a Ukrainian Nazi was given a standing ovation by the Canadian parliament. The dog2 (talk) 23:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

that's it, TheDog, exactly, precisely. This old bloke who got applauded - he is SB's Ukraine, he is VZ's Ukraine, they're one and the same, how come you guys still don't get it. Ibaman (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I only expressed concern. I didn't revert the edits and nobody else has. Let's see how we want to express those things, and whether we want to add more background in Understand, where I think most of the talk about Nazi sympathising belongs. –LPfi (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into the discussion about modern Ukraine/Latvia, but just to circle back to the edit in question: My impression is that myself and everyone who has contributed after my edit all agree that the deleted information should be reinstated. Is that correct? ChubbyWimbus (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

???

I cannot find any edits of yours in the edit history of this article (made a search back to 2016 – is my browser broken?).

–LPfi (talk) 07:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I presume Chubby was talking about Special:Diff/4755202 on this talk page, not the article itself. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 08:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah! Still, there is nothing to reinstate: the only edits to it are tweaks by TD themself. –LPfi (talk) 08:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For modern U/L, I know too little. Besides the possible defamation of modern nations, my main concern is that Nazism isn't understood. Those with a similar ideology around Europe just had to tone down their most extreme views and could go on, as long as they weren't caught in the Nuremberg processes or convicted for high treason. Racism and antisemitism were mainstream ideologies until the Nazis made them unacceptable. Today, as long as you don't carry a swastika, you can have very similar thoughts and be accepted as an honoured citizen. E.g. in Finland, Junnila, who had to resign as minister because of extreme-right flirting, remains chairman of the Naantali city council.

That may partly be off-topic rant, but Nazism and this war were obviously coupled, so a (short) explanation of how Nazism relates to the ideological landscape of the time is very much on topic, and having it in Understand relieves us from having to describe it for certain countries, thus avoiding stigmatising those specific countries.

–LPfi (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Those countries that I mentioned actually contributed entire units to the SS. The guy who just got honoured by the Canadian Parliament for fighting the Russians was part of a volunteer SS division that was comprised mostly of ethnic Ukrainians, plus some Slovaks. There were also volunteer units comprised of Estonians, Latvians, Croats and Belarusians. The dog2 (talk) 15:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

LPfi, your desire to avoid "stigmatizing" countries by being frank about what some of their citizens did during World War II smacks to me of prioritizing kid gloves and a type of falsification by omission over Jewish lives or the memory of the murders of Jews (and also Romanies and others). I don't think that's your motivation, but I'm telling you how it comes across to me, and I again strongly object. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel badly about it, and I understand you. But what I am trying to say is not that we should let those guys get away with it, but I don't like that the others, who aren't pointed out, get away with it. As for Finland, initiatives at systematic expelling of Jews were stopped at government level, and most of those who were being expelled by lower instances got saved by alert and gutsy people (I think eight were sent to Germany, out of a significant Jewish population including recent refugees). By not talking about this in Understand, we let the guys who made the tries, and those who would have done their best at that end, get away with it. I believe that the operation of saving the Danish Jews to Sweden was close to being hindered by high-level Swedish antisemitists and Nazi collaborators. –LPfi (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

The purpose shouldn't be to "stigmatize" or "destigmatize" any country or group of people. I also don't think the purpose should be to "hook" or "let off the hook" any country's actions. We should simply try to be accurate in as concise a manner a we can. Overall, when it comes to the Scandinavian countries or Allied Powers that had significant factions that were sympathetic to the Nazis, I think a distinction can be made here in that those mentioned (Ukraine, Latvia, etc.) actually DID choose to collaborate with the Nazis in the end while others did not, and stating that gives the reader an idea of where they ultimately stood whereas mentioning "X country almost did" or "--% of the government or people in Y country supported the Nazis" may be getting into too much details if the results were that those countries decided to oppose Germany. Because of this, I think the information that is contested (I assumed the edit was reverted/deleted, which is why I said it should be "reinstated" above) should stay regardless however, if you think there is a way to say what you want say in the article about these other countries, I think it would be helpful if you to wrote a draft of the sentence(s) you'd like to add here so we can see what exactly "holding them accountable" would look like as part of the article. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. I might do it at some point. Formulating a concise non-biased description is not too easy. –LPfi (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)