Talk:History of Germany during World War II

Redirect

Ummm...all of this information was available elsewhere and there is a European Theatre of World War II page. Therefore I am redirecting there.--naryathegreat 01:44, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

Where was the info specific to the German army available? AlainV 02:50, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia can't help, ...as can't any encyclopedia, that some information get repeated in different articles. That is absolutely no reason for erasing this article. As a comparison, I would guess that a merge of Military history of Britain during World War II with European Theatre of World War II wouldn't be too popular.

It's of course no hurry, but I expect this article to be restored and ultimately improved. /Tuomas 11:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Restored. This is one in a series of country specific articles about the military history of World War II. GeneralPatton 20:28, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad this article has been restored. Not only because it is right and proper to do so, but also because the core of it was originally written by me before it was moved here from the Nazi Germany page :-). Mintguy (T) 21:59, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• One of the main reasons for the creation of this article was to lower the amount of military info from the main Nazi German page so it could focus more on the 1930’s politics and economy. Same with the Military history of Britain during World War II. Moving this to European Theatre of World War II was not that good of an idea as there are many Germany specific things, such as unit organization, chain of command, operations, personnel... But they're still needing to be worked out in this page. Now that it is restored, people can finally start working on improving it.GeneralPatton 22:35, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. When I wrote this potted history of WWII for that page, it was to replace the nonsense that had added before me which said: Hitler "reannexxed" Austria in ?1938? in a military action he called "Liberstruam"(Living Room in german).Although it was essentially without any fatalities, it was in clear violation of the Versialle Treaty and Austrian right to self determination. England and the U.S.A. decided to negotiate with and finally appease Hitler through a English diplomat named Neville Chamberland. (sic) I tried to write as consise a history of WWII as possible, but it ended up being bigger than hoped. It unbalanced the article but I hoped that that would be redressed. Hey I'm glad I came here a good book ref hads just popped into my head for the economics of the Third Reich for the Nazi Germany page Mintguy (T) 23:43, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Honestly, name a single scrap of information on this page not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. This is merely a quick overview of the German side of World War II. It's not as if there is anything really military like about it, no troop figures, no economic/production figures, no military leader information,...there's nothing, not anything that isn't a quick summary. This article serves no purpose. The actual World War II page is more detailed than this, not to mention, the thorough, albeit convoluted, European Theater of World War II--naryathegreat 02:01, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

There is more to History than data or biographical info. Analysis is essential, to summarize and to place in perspective. Just look at the foreword I rewrote. --AlainV 23:32, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ummmm....look at your article. It isn't an analysis. It's a quick summary. Your "analysis" isn't even as detailed as that elsewhere. I haven't read your foreward yet, but if this page was on the scale (of quantity or quality) of the British military world war ii page (sorry, I forget the actual title), I would be all for it. As it is, there is no information here that makes this page worth anything--nor has it changed radically since my first comment/redirect on July 29. That was how many months ago? So, I am obviously right that little has changed. (And my point about the figures was that the page title implies it talks about military, which means troop figures, individual corps, leader info, the works. This is merely a quick review.--naryathegreat 02:08, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

One of the best military history essay books by one of the best military historians (The face of battle by Keegan) spends very little time on troop figures or leader info: It gives you a feel for what war was like. On a more modest scale go look at the Tank article here in Wikipedia: It is an essay on what tanks are like in the most generic terms possible. There is room both for quantitative articles (in the tradition of the last print editions of the Britannica) and encyclopedic "essay" ones (in the tradition of the 11th edition of the Britannica, in 1911) and/or combinations of both. It is not my article or my analysis by the way. In sense it belongs to all who edit and read it. I just rewrote the foreword because in its original form it was too light to be

Innaccuracy

There is a definite inaccuracy in the removed sentence "Prior to this, the Germans had settled on an agreement with the Polish people on giving up Sudentenland, a Polish territory inhabiting Germans" , and it's not just the little language slip-up at the end. The Sudetenland was a part of the area that is now the Czech Republic. The only reason I didn't just change this is because I'm not sure what agreement is mentioned here, what it's called, or if it exists at all.

A brief look through the souces didn't reveal what this agreement could be. KevinPuj 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page?

I suggest that the article be placed under semi-protection due to the vandalism that seems to be prevalent. Anyone agree?Repdetect117 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a considerable amount of vandalism. If you think it should be protected, report it at WP:RPP.--Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)