Merge from Battle of VirginiaEdit
I believe the episode referred to "battles" in Virginia, not a single battle. If it was more than one they should just be mentioned as part of the new Nazi occupation of the United States article.--31dot 09:23, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
- Support merge. Furthermore, the spelling of Virginia is wrong throughout.... :P --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:30, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
- That's now fixed. And the assumption is removed. I do hate how people create random orphaned articles with no information or citations though. -- sulfur 13:35, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
- That's good. When I came across the article, I was wondering what the circumstances were behind this Battle of "Virgina"... --| TrekFan Open a channel 13:51, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
- I would say this could be it's own article, we are talking about the overall occupation here, if anything, the Virginia article should be merged here. How was this done for the Occupation of Bajor stuff, was that all into one article, or were battles and events given their own article? --Terran Officer 16:12, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- You're bit behind -- Virginia was merged here. :) -- sulfur 16:34, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I see... I guess I misread things, and usually there's a bit of discussion before moves take place, but alright, no biggie. --Terran Officer 17:20, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
proposed re-orientation of pageEdit
I've been thinking, and while the existence of this page reflects the fact that the episodes were set in Nazi-occupied America, that's only a narrow part of what we know. Nazi occupied America was only a small corner of a war of which we've gotten surprisingly much information. The episode offers information of how things went in Europe and Africa and Russia, and how things are still evolving outside the States. Surely there's enough to create a World War II (Na'kuhl timeline) article. And if this page has a right to exist, then a good point can be made that so does Nazi occupation of Russia, of which we learned enough tidbits to combine into a coherent picture. And this page focusses on the occupation, but surely the conquest of America is a topic upon itself.
I thought of creating the alternate World War II page as a start, but then it hit me, it already exists right here. This article is overtly broad in scope, trying to shoehorn all kinds of information about the war in an article about this narrow subject. I think the most sensible thing would be to rename this page, and make it about the whole war. I know that's a radical change, so I'm looking for imput. Good idea, or not? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:48, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
- We had a Nazi occupation of Russia page which was deleted so any discussion on bringing it back would need to occur over at the undeletion page.
- My suggestion would be to create the page on the war first, and if needed we could merge this with it. 31dot (talk) 14:53, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
I guess my idea is to start from this text rather then from scratch (even though it would still be almost completely rewriten). I don't suppose that would be ok if I were to create a new article? -- Capricorn (talk) 14:55, October 4, 2012 (UTC) As for Nazi occupation of Russia, I wasn't suggesting that such a page should exist per se, only that I found it odd that a page on a narrow sub-subject like the occupation of America would be created before a page giving an overview of the war overall. -- Capricorn (talk) 14:58, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
- It's almost always OK to create a new article, especially if your only motive is to be an improvement. :) If it was me doing it I would copy this to the new article as a starting point for it; but don't feel that you have to or that I would prevent you from rewriting this one. 31dot (talk) 15:26, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
That does sound like a good idea; I'll create a new article with this as a starting point, then rewrite this article to work as a subchapter (so to speak), and I guess we'll see how things look then. Thanks for the advice, it's obvious in retrospect, but I guess I needed a sounding board :) -- Capricorn (talk) 18:53, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this and World War II (Na'kuhl timeline) need to be separate articles, as this is clearly part of the other and there isn't so much info that one article would be overly long. That said, we could keep this as a redirect. - Archduk3 06:15, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not strongly against this or anything, but I don't think it's really necessary. Both articles are pretty well fleshed out, and the United States occupation article does cover the subject in a lot more detail than the section on that particular theatre at the World War II article. As it turns out, the episodes offers a surprisingly large amount of information both on the war in the US and outside it. -- Capricorn (talk) 12:59, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I am troubled by the title of the article. It was the German army, navy, and air force that did the heavy lifting. NAZI was a political party. This is not the greatest analogy, I admit, and I am loathe to compare anything in my country with what happened in Germany. (I think there has been enough of that, especially over the past five years, thank you very much.) However, for me, it would be like me calling the Iraq war the Republican occupation of Iraq. There is an implicit statement in both descriptions, that every German or American is a member of that party, when that is far from the truth. Throwback (talk) 18:35, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- That's a completely different discussion you're somewhy trying to introduce into this. Maybe you should start a separate topic about that. Also, no offence but your personal feelings about your country don't really count as arguments. -- Capricorn (talk) 19:31, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
While I think there is more than enough content here to "justify" a separate article, I don't think the information on either page is "best served" by being an extra click away from the rest, both in reading and linking. That said, while were on the names of things, if this is merged I would also suggest changing the disambiguation in the name from "Na'kuhl timeline" to "Temporal War", to match that article, and I don't remember the phrase Na'kuhl timeline being used in the episodes. - Archduk3 20:30, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Na'kuhl timeline is indeed not ideal, the Na'kuhl didn't even have anything to do with the creation of that timeline, nor were they active in it for most of its existence. (heh, maybe we should call the conflict "Na'kuhl occupation of the alternate timeline" :-p). But is it just me, or does "World War II (Temporal War)" sound confusing and weird? Then again, maybe what you'd really prefer, if I may be so bold as to try to guess so, is a single page detailing the whole alternate timeline rather than a single page detailing the defining war in it. And I think that would actually make some sense. Maybe "Lenin assassination alternate timeline" or "Temporal War alternate timeline" might work.
- Then again, I still don't really see the need for such a consolidation, I'm really having a strong "if it ain't broke..." vibe about all this. If both articles are just fine, and they're clearly different topics, then how much a point is there for joining them except that they could technically both fit on one page? In fact, all in all the occupation of the States seems just one of a whole bunch of major things that happened in the war. (we know there's major other action in Africa, Russia and the Pacific at least). It's the part we know most about, because that's the episodes focused on. I think if you merge the articles, then you'll get one article in which 60% of the text is about a story that takes up maybe 20% of the hypothetical history books that would be written about this war. By keeping both articles separate, you have two articles which are not only both pretty ok, but which both offer a more balanced-feeling treatment of their specific subject matter. In my (subjective) mind that advantage easily balances out the minor disadvantages of having to click a link to learn every detail you'd want to know about that one particular campaign. -- Capricorn (talk) 22:20, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
I think my main problem here is that I do see this as broken, probably because I was a History major and I hated how poorly the subject was taught due to classes only focusing on "Western" or "Eastern" history, for example, as if the two existed completely independent of each other. Depending on the century, what was happening one hemisphere/side of Eurasia could be very much effecting the other, but I certainly wasn't presented with the "big picture" in that way until I had to pay for it.
Sidestepping what that says about the US education system, I think covering the topic in two articles segregates information on what we know is a two front war for the US, and that makes this seem as if it is only a Germany vs. the US (by 1944) conflict. Leaving out the information on the sinking of the Enterprise changes the way the subject matter is perceived, and we should avoid that. While I don't remember Japan or Italy being mentioned by name, the way this is broken down into two articles pretty much removes the suggestion/inference that at least one of them is also in the war against the US. The only way I can think to address this is to present all the information in one location, which, as you mentioned, would mainly cover everything we know about this timeline. I'm less concerned about where the information ends up name/scope/topic-wise, so long as we present the whole picture. That said, there are clearly issues with the current name(s). - Archduk3 02:06, July 3, 2014 (UTC)
- The sad fact is that this story is very much a product of the state of your country's education system. Italy and Japan were indeed not mentioned, a jarring omission given we know the US was fighting in the Pacific, and the Germans in Africa. Nothing about this alternate history makes any sense, but there is only so much we can make good if the writers decide that "Hitler conquering the world" would make a good story.
- That it wasn't Germany vs the US but Germany vs half the world is pretty clear in the other article. I've just made some changes, including trying to make sure the article on the war as a whole is more discoverable. (though I suspect the occupation article is also less known then the alternate war article because it tends to be piped as "alternate World War II" and people assume they already know the info needed behind the link from history class) Those are the kinds of measures I think are most suited to dealing with the concerns raised. Other than that, I don't think unnecessary compartmentalization is what is going on here. There's a special article for the US occupation for the same reason we have separate articles for certain battles in the Dominion War, even battles that we'd had to name ourselves. Because putting every detail about them that we knew in the main article would bloat it. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Capricorn (talk • contribs).
- I agree with you, Capricorn, that the episodes were flawed from a historical standpoint. There's a lot of assumptions built into this history, which don't stand up to scrutiny in my opinion.
- As for merging the articles, I am for it. There is an important dialog snippet from "Storm Front, part one":
- Archer: World War Two.
- Alicia: I haven't heard it called that before, but that's as good a description as any.
- In the historical timeline, our timeline, the term "World War II' was first used in September 1939. Grey Friday, Time, Sept. 11, 1939: World War II began last week at 5:20 a. m. (Polish time) Friday, September 1, when a German bombing plane dropped a projectile on Puck, fishing village and air base in the armpit of the Hel Peninsula. If the people in the alternate timeline don't refer to the war as World War II, then it isn't World War II.Lakenheath72 (talk) 14:01, March 16, 2015 (UTC)
Title Change Edit
After receiving a message from Capricorn, I have thought to open up a new thread. I feel that when the title describes the event as the NAZI occupation of America that the implication was that all Germans were NAZIs. This was far from the truth. There were Germans, both civilian and military, who weren't NAZIs. NAZI was a political party in Germany with Adolf Hitler as the leader of his party. He needed the German military - air, sea, and land - to do the work of occupying lands. I think the title should be changed to the German occupation of the United States.Throwback (talk) 22:51, June 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Your reasoning is actually the inverse of what most people with your concerns tend to argue, they tend to prefer "Nazi" because they were the ones putting the rest of Germany on a course many Germans didn't want to be on. Nonetheless, I agree it might be better to use "German invasion" because that's the name of the nation state doing the occupying. Plus, looking at transcripts, the episode uses both "Nazi" and "German" to describe them, but uses "German" much more often. An alternative might be to combine the two, and talk about the "Nazi German occupation" in reference to Nazi Germany being the common name for Germany during this era. Of course, all this is probably moot if the articles end up merged as is being discussed in the concurrent discussion. -- Capricorn (talk) 11:01, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
I am an avid reader of history magazines. One of the eras that these magazines cover in great detail is World War II. In those magazines, they refer to the German occupation of [country name here]. I occasionally read the name of operations, like Operation Barbarossa. I have never come across NAZI occupation of [country name]. I have read of NAZI Europe or Fortress Europe. So, in this case, I can see the military operation being called the German occupation of the United States and the territory controlled by the Germans as NAZI America.Throwback (talk) 11:45, July 1, 2014 (UTC)
- I read the issue you raised to be essentially one of Vergangenheitsbewältigung. I don't know how it is with your magazines, but where I live there is very little of that in those kinds of articles. They tend to tell stories, where Germany was just some player and the main concern was how well their chances were for succeeding or losing in their objectives. Questions as to how to frame the period are mostly left for scholars with moral or other more sociological and philosophical backgrounds. -- Capricorn (talk) 02:48, July 5, 2014 (UTC)