Military history: World War II Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Template This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  World War II task force

I have made a change to include resistance to Communism in World War II which, to a great surprise, was reverted. I call for inclusion of it on a following basis:

• WP:DUE: While for most countries in Western Europe the resistance was primarily against Nazism, for the countries in Eastern Europe it included resistance to both Nazism and Soviet Communism. After all, Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a prelude of the World War II, followed by the joint Nazi invasion of Poland as well as Soviet invasion of Poland. Today, Black Ribbon Day in Europe is specifically for commemoration of victims of both regimes.
• WP:N: The notability of anti-communist resistance is self-evidenced by the existing WP articles which were included in the template.
• Worth pointing out that the anti-Communist movements and conflicts started before World War II (but so was the case with anti-Nazism) and lasted well after it. However, armed conflicts escalated in WWII and that is very much notable in the historiography of a number of countries (with the long lasting historic consequences following the war). It can also be debated whether we should use "Soviet Communism" or just "Communism" in this context, as there is a certain difference.

웬디러비, Brigade Piron: On a general note, just because parts of Europe didn't experience it shouldn't diminish the notability and importance of anti-Communist resistance. Awaiting for your reply. Mindaur (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Mindaur, thanks for taking this to talk. I do not think personally that this belongs here, but look forward to other people's contributions. As you say, anti-communist insurgencies do not really map neatly onto WWII and were arguably most significant in the early post-war years. On the whole, they weren't really defined by it. The only issue here is whether the articles belong in this specific template - not whether we should cover these subjects on Wikipedia - and hence the policies you cite are not relevant. I would be perfectly happy with a separate template entitled something like Template:Cold War anti-Communist insurgencies? —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brigade Piron: It seems that we don't have many participants in this discussion. My concern here is that this template simplifies WW2 to "Nazis vs everybody else" (and for many Western Europeans, perhaps, that's how it feels; yet that's only a part of Europe). However, it was more complex than that. Ultimately, there were two main expansionist powers. While there were earlier and unsuccessful Soviet Communist attempts to expand (see Soviet westward offensive of 1918–1919), WW2 was the decisive event, as evidenced by its prelude (Winter War and Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), its beginning (Soviet invasion of Poland and the new status quo. Let's be clear on this: Soviet Union was effectively an ally of Nazi Germany at the beginning of the war (specifically, between 1939 and 1941). Why resistance to the Soviet Communist expansion shouldn't have its WP:DUE in the context of WW2 (and this template)? Ultimately, it is WWII when the Soviets succeeded in conquering vast parts of Europe and established a new status quo. --Mindaur (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see no reason why this should be restricted to anti-nazi resistance movements.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If I remember correctly, the Polish Home Army was both anti-Nazi and anti-communist. Italian guerrilla war in Ethiopia isn't really about a resistance organization, but it's an example of an irregular/asymmetric campaign waged by pro-Fascists and was definitively defined by WWII. The Chetniks in Yugolsavia were briefly anti-occupation forces before becoming much more concerned with being anti-communist and Nazi collaborationist (also very much defined by World War II). While the popular imagination in the West may usually think of the French Resistance or the Polish Home Army, resistance movements propped up to oppose many systems, foreign forces, and ideologies. I do not think "Resistance in World War II by country" can solely be defined by opposing Nazis. This furthermore excludes organizations like the Viet Minh, which were fighting both the Japanese and the French in Indochina, and the Free Thai Movement. I think it's perfectly acceptable to either broaden the scope of inclusion for this template or explicitly move it to "Resistance to Nazism in World War II by country" and create other templates for WWII resistances. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What about the substantial number of anti-Nazi communist movements in Western Europe? Do they fit with anti-communist (sometimes pro-Nazi) resistance movements in Eastern Europe? If this template becomes too expansive, it will cease to have any use as an aid to navigation. I would certainly have no objection to a move to Template:Resistance movements in Axis-occupied Europe. The others, while notable, are a separate subject. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we should have a reasonable criteria (e.g. listing national/state level resistance movements, as opposed to every resistance organization/group) and, perhaps, limit the geographic scope (i.e. making this template exclusively about Europe), so this template doesn't become crowded (as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE). However, again, why do you want to limit it to Axis-occupied Europe excluding the Soviet-occupied Europe? The Eastern Front was gravely affect by both powers. --Mindaur (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's fine to have different templates for different broad geographic areas or create geographic sections within the template (though it could get large). Geography is an easy distinction to make. I think trying to break it down by ideology or "who they fought" is an unnecessarily messy exercise, since you had groups like the Ukrainian Insurgent Army and the Polish Home Army which fought both the Soviets and Nazis and the Chetniks who basically switched sides. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Mindaur that this is not the place to list different resistance groups - such a list would be massive and entirely unwieldy. I suppose the issue is how different ideological positions (and, frankly, time periods) can be presented in the template without making it impossible to navigate. This is why I think that framing it by "German-occupied Europe" rather than "Europe" because it gives some coherence to the whole.—Brigade Piron (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fair enough, though "German-occupied Europe" is not necessarily a statement of ideology. The National Royalist Movement in Belgium was hostile to Nazi occupation but itself pseudofascist (by my read) and the Chetniks ended up working with the Germans. But they fought the German occupation forces (at least at times for the Chetniks) just the same as communists did. So with that criteria you still get a basket of different ideological groups. I support "German-occupied Europe" as a geographic category, which is fairly easy to distinguish; ideological dispositions is much messier to sort through. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many resistance movements were driven not only by the ideological resistance, but primarily by the resistance to foreign intervention (invasion). So it's a fair point that ideological grouping is not ideal.. nevertheless, it is characteristic of WW2. However, then why exclude "Soviet-occupied Europe"? Please note that the name of this template is actually "Resistance in World War II by country". It's the navbox title which includes Nazism. I think if we change the template name to "Resistance in Europe during World War II by country" (and keep the same navbox title), then it covers both cases. --Mindaur (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having a "Nazi-occupied Europe" resistance template does not preclude the creation of a "Soviet-occupied Europe" template. We ought to wrap this up soon. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I think that Indy beetle has summarised this better than I ever could. So I will simply express my support for what they have written. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Yes, acknowledging the existence and significance of resistance movements that haven’t been widely represented in English-language pop-culture cinema would be an example of overcoming WP:systemic bias. —Michael Z. 16:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not about "acknowledging the existence and significance of resistance movements". It is about whether it is helpful to include them in the same template! —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay. Well at the bottom of articles about resistance movements in this encyclopedia, it’s helpful to include the ones people haven’t seen movies about.  —Michael Z. 04:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, can we reach a conclusion? It seems to me that there is a general agreement that the template shouldn't be restricted to resistance against Nazism. I propose creating two groups based on location (rather than ideology) then: "Resistance in Nazi-occupied Europe" and "Resistance in Soviet-occupied Europe". I don't think there should be separate templates for this, though. --Mindaur (talk) 11:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]