Talk:World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	To-do list for World War II:	edit - history - watch - refresh
	add suggestions here... Chronology section too long. use of terms such as England when UK or Great Britain is needed Look in to possible cleanup of language - much of the article reads in a fashion that is, at the very least, not neutral. Split article according to WP:SS. An example on how to split this article is already added there. Cleanup and remove non-important pictures. Add use of atom bombs to 'Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities' section Redirect The advent of bombers in WWI, and their development, difficuties, and beginnings (early bombers, technical difficuties (lack of electronic targeting)) - better dealt with in Bomber Stategical bombings of German and British (Luftwaffe, Lancaster bomber, and effects on German and British citezens). - dealt with in strategic bombing Method of bombing (carpet bombing etc...) - as above Most widely used bombers and the reason for their effectivness (B-17, Avro Lancaster, Heinkel, Mosquito, Junker...) Oyo321 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - as above A section or two on strategic bombing - as above Further information required Main article needs revising. Parts of it are of low literary quality Done Axis powers like germany, Austria etc were more commonly known as the Central Powers.Mythamrith92 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC) - see discussion below, moved to done 16 October 2006 Add links to some important battles such as Battle of Greece and Battle of Crete - moved to done 16 October 2006 I have recently set up a second world war forum open to all for discussion of all matters WWII. It also includes a considerable Oral History Archive with interviews with veterans from mostly the UK, but also from all around the world. The link is www.secondworldwarforum.com and I would be grateful if you could add the link to the WWII page User:James1940|James1940]] 10:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

World War II is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

World War II was the Article Improvement Drive for the week starting on December 18, 2005. For more details, see the Article Improvement Drive history.

World War II has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

World War II has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	This article 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.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
More information... PEER This article has had a peer review which is now [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/ World War II|archived]].
Related task forces... Australian military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force Dutch military history task force French military history task force Italian military history task force (c. 500–present) Polish military history task force Russian and Soviet military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Germany Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is supported by the WikiProject on the United States. If you would like to contribute, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.

WikiProject Featured articles in other languages has identified World War II as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic,  Chinese,  Georgian,  Norwegian,  Portuguese,  Swedish or Vietnamese language Wikipedias.

This article was chosen as Article Improvement Drive article of the week on Sunday, 18th December 2005. The archive of the selection process can be found at Talk:World War II/AID vote archive

An event mentioned in this article is a September 1 selected anniversary.

---

Archives
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7
#8 (8/05 - 2/06)
#9 (3/06)
#10 (6/06)
#10 (11/06)
Topical Archives
Britain (#11, 7-8/06)
Intro (#12, 7-8/06)
Start Date (#13, 7/06)
Other Topics (#14, 6-8/06)

Contents 1 Truman 2 Proposal to shorten the article 3 Ouch 4 Battle of the Atlantic 5 Mediation request re Munitions data 6 Mussolini's fate 7 Rex and the Poles 8 Awkward sentence - typo? 9 Communist rise to power and foreign troops 10 Infobox ... 11 Mediation Cabal: Economic Chart 12 The term "Commanders" in table 13 Missing Combatants 14 Gross amount of pictures 15 Famous picture of American soldiers meeting USSR soldiers and shaking hands 16 SU / USSR 17 We need to Standardize this Article 18 Western betrayal 19 Japanese offensives- Alaska 20 Transferral of some pages 21 Holocaust numbers 22 Link 23 World at War: World War II History - External Link 24 About the Length of the Article 25 Casus belli 26 GA Re-Review and In-line citations 27 Zhongwen Wikipedia flags 28 The POV in the overview 29 The lead 30 No Asia/Pacific box in the WWII pic? 31 Germany and "elimination of jewry" 32 THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF ITALY 33 Japanese Flag 34 THE MARITIME WAR IN THE MEDITERANNEAN. 34.1 The Nomonhon Incident 35 ARTICLE IS TOO LONG!!! 36 All Numbers need to be cited 37 Percent of world population 38 Casus Belli 39 Changes to War aims section 40 Canada and China 41 Use of WWII abbreviation 42 Re-structuring of this Article 43 Japan's flag 44 Fall Gelb 45 Truman

[edit] Truman

In the box at the top right of the article, there is a section of commanders of each of the countries. For the United States, FDR is the only one listed. Shouldn't Truman be listed also?

In addition to this, keep the article long, but, if anything, have a summary.

Id say yeah BUT there looks like no room.Opiner 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Then we should also add Chamberlain for UK, maybe also Dönitz for Germany and also there are quite many potential japanese who could be added(Staberinde 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Proposal to shorten the article

While there's obviously a lot to say on the topic, I feel that, at 115 kb, this article is simply too long. It should be much more concise, general, and less detailed, in the first instance concentrating on what the term actually means, how it is differently used, and interpreted, and how it has different names and different starting and end dates in different countries. Further it should provide a very general overview about why it started, where, what happened, how it ended, and what its consequences are/were, giving a general clue about its importance and scale.

For instance, what I feel should not be in the article is the actual outlines of battles, campaigns, offensives, names of the Panzer divisions and armies, and all the specific technical, tactical, political, and territorial elements that are in it right now. There's simply not enough room to keep it clear that way, and the information can be dealt with much more effectively in separate articles. Along with it, some of the pictures would go, making it less image-heavy. Preferably, the article should be pruned to something of around 50 kb size, if possible even less.

Do other people kind of agree here? If so, we could try to come up with some decent strategy to tackle this article and make it featured. I've got many more ideas on it but first want to hear whether I'm talking to the walls or not. --Thunderhead 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article is too long, but disagree about your priorities. There is more than enough to say about WWII without adding a polarizing discussion about terminology and different starting and end dates. As far as the military details, try to cut something and you'll see how fast people come out of the woodwork when they think their agenda is threatened or their country's contribution is being downplayed.

Does anyone else think that the Morgenthau Plan section is unnecessary? We don't have space to be talking about plans that weren't really implemented, do we? Haber 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the postwar section is poor and should be dropped--certainly everything post 1946 can be dropped. The topics involved are very well covered in the Cold War articles. Rjensen 18:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

What I was most thinking about is that I'm reading things like

The Gustav line was anchored by Germans holding the Rapido, Liri and Garigliano valleys and certain surrounding peaks and ridges, but not the historic abbey of Monte Cassino, founded in 524 by St. Benedict.

Make sure this goes in the Cassino article, if removed. Wallie 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely; it is not my aim to remove any information, just order it differently across the articles. --Thunderhead 20:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

or

In December German relief forces got within 50 kilometers (30 mi) of the trapped Sixth Army before they were turned back by the Soviets. By the end of the year, Sixth Army was in desperate condition, as the Luftwaffe was only able to supply about a sixth of the supplies needed.

The Stalingrad text could be improved. I agree this text could be shortened. The key was that the entire 6th army was encircled and Paulus surrendered with 300,000 others. This was one of the main turning points and key battles of the War, the others being Midway, El Alamein, Britain and D-Day. Wallie 21:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's all way too detailed for the main article and should be explained in more specific articles. I myself would probably go too radically about this; I would leave out everything but the most basic plot about the run up, the conquests of '40 and '41, the turning point, and the final defeat of the Axis powers (more or less). Each specification about which exact battles were fought and such, instead all being individually linked to from here, could be explained in a second-level article like European Theatre of World War II, which is very short in comparison to the main article. So it's mainly the Chronology section I'm talking about. --Thunderhead 20:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes the article is full of details that should be omitted in a general overview. I shortened the "Aftermath" to deal only with issues very closely tied to the war itself. Rjensen 20:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Please make sure that anything that is "dropped" is not dropped completely and is covered elsewhere. Wallie 21:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Valid point, but not one I think we really need to worry much about. There shouldn't be any information here that wasn't already in another article. If there is, it should be removed as not belonging in the overview of the war anyway. --Habap 21:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Another danger is which bits do you shorten. Different people have different ideas as to what is important. For example the Battle of the River Plate, sinking the Bismarck and Battle of Britain are probably not of great interest to Americans, but may be to the British. British may not be really interested in the flag raising at Iwo Jima, Anzio or Operation Torch, but these events may have some significance for Americans. Wallie 21:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My idea was not to shorten bits but to simply leave them out, stating them on a second-level article. Right now, important battles are left out and others (undoubtedly perceived by some as less important) are in, so the very danger you're talking about is always lurking, unless you include everything. We could discuss territorial expansion on a broad level in the article instead of trying to mention all the battles. Perhaps it would be something like what is now in the "Overview" section, as opposed to what is in the "Chronology" section. Maybe a bit radical, but it illustrates my point. As that section stands right now, it's just a huge linkfarm with five "main article here, main article there" links per paragraph. Doesn't help legibility much. Could we link to some timeline that in a more structured way has pointers to the specific articles? --Thunderhead 20:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that Habers and Rjensens trimmings of the Morgenthau section were way to rough and not very thought through. If you want to limit the "Aftermath" to 1945 - 1946, then reach consensus for that first. The Morgenthau plan certainly applies there so no reason to remove it. Especialy if the Marshal plan, which was several years removed from the war is to be included, then we really should include what made it necesary in the first place. The economist Vladimir Petrov writes in Money and Conquest: Allied Occupation Currencies in World War II. from 1967 that it was the U.S. repressive occupation policy against Germany that eventually made the Marshal plan a necessity to help a Europe that suddenly went into a tailspin in 1947. Sure the Russians were even worse, but the U.S. sided more with Russia than with the U.K who wanted more lenient policy.

I think the difference between these three articles says more than I with my limited eloquence and curent lack of spellchecker can. 1 Cornerstone of Steel - 2 Cost of Defeat - 3 Pas de Pagaille! --Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The truth is that Europeans turned Europe into a smoking junkpile, and the postwar recovery was amazingly quick thanks to American aid. I think it's interesting how you're trying to somehow pin Europe's 1946-47 problems on the US and USSR, but that isn't really how it went down. Haber 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's intresting to se how strong your opinions on the matter seem to be. Any referenses to back them up with, or is it just so much talk and wishful thinking? --Stor stark7 ^Talk 06:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC) (This pdf seems like a good introduction otherwise The Road Ahead: Lessons in Nation Building from Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan for Postwar Iraq) --Stor stark7 ^Talk 07:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Germany's postwar problems were not the fault of the Jews or the Communists. The Germans were hungry because they had killed millions of farmers to the East, and they couldn't sell stuff because the dead farmers were also their clients. They had to absorb millions of refugees and veterans (who were surely screwed up in the head by that point). Hitler's Nero order and decision to continue the war after it was hopeless did far more damage than a few Allied soldiers puttering around, or a musty years-old internal memo that was never really implemented. Haber 21:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any references in support of your wild claims? It seems to me that you are making stuff up as you go along. And I find your inclusion of the Jews in this discussion to be weasly. Are you weasly trying to make it seem as though I claim the Jews were responsible for the Post war German situation? How very disappointing.

The Nero Decree was never effected, by the way.

Now if you want to learn about the post war German food situation then I can recommend

• Herbert Hoover's 1946 - 1947 fact-finding mission to Germany. (Report No.1), (Report No.3) --Stor stark7 ^Talk 11:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Or even better: *Várdy, Steven Béla and Tooly, T. Hunt: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth-Century Europe Available as MS Word for Windows file (3.4 MB) Subsection: Richard Dominic Wiggers, The United States and the Refusal to Feed German Civilians after World War II pp. 274 - 288 --Stor stark7 ^Talk 22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch

A big revert from Ironplay.

Ironplay:

1. What specifically do you not like?
2. What about the table. Do you not like the table itself, or just the format?
3. Do you think too much has been deleted. If so what?
4. Is there some section you really want left alone?

You know that big reverts never work. However, that doesn't mean to say that you can't get what you want.

Thanks. Wallie 23:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The graph from 1988 it is from 1988 and I hate the fact that it only shows Items made it dosent show that the Axis had 5 times yes 5 times yes that is right 5 times as many raw materials then the Soviets and it dosent show that the Axis had 2 times sometimes 3 times larger labour force then the Soviets yes that is right 3 times as large. All it shows is items built. Look at the graphs on the eastern front article. And above all lets try and keep this article slim and trim make sub-catagories where all information can be gathered because such bits pieces with scraps of information is bad bad bad. Ironplay 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Ironplay does not seem to have any facts or sources of his own. He better start doing some reading--rather than delete the results of sophisticated economic history published by leading scholars in leading journals. His numbers ("3 times as large") are very interesting but he invented them himself. Rjensen 23:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Look here Eastern Front (World War II) under industrial production it is all sourced just look Ironplay 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem was that a vandal changed the numbers -- adding an extra zero to multiply German output by 10. I think it's fixed as of this afternoon but let's keep a lookout for vandals there. Rjensen 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Atlantic

I've noticed that the Battle of the Atlantic is all over the place, and seems very fragmented and redundant in places. Would anyone be opposed to breaking it out from the chronology and treating it separately? Haber 16:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation request re Munitions data

I have requested mediation on this edit war via Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-25 World War II Economic data Rjensen 03:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe the table could be a bit smaller and "prettied up" a bit. Maybe we could have a compromise here. Leave a prettier and smaller version of the table with the same data, and also leave the bit in about Mussolini's mistress. There is surely room for both. Thank you. Wallie 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mussolini's fate

This keeps getting deleted by Rjensen: "A few days before the surrender of German troops in Italy, Italian partisans captured Mussolini, trying to make his escape to Switzerland. He was executed, along with his mistress, Clara Petacci. Their bodies were taken to Milan and hung upside down on public display." Apparently, these two lines of prose have to go so that there is room for the widget production chart. Mussolini's death has been in the article forever. Past editors obviously thought that it was important enough to warrant inclusion. Haber 21:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini was ousted from power in 1943; the story of his death and the death of his mistress two years later has no bearing on the war. This is the sort of trivia that does not belong in summary article. Haber keeps demanding that cuts be made--here's an easy one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) .

Actually sorry to disagree with you. But I think it does. Mussolini is a significant figure. Hitler's death is covered also. Wallie 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Mussolini was a key player in WWII and his ultimate fate is of interest to anyone who reads the article. This is not trivia. Jimmy1988 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rex and the Poles

What is it about Poland that so fascinates people? I have news for you, Rex. Poland was a small fish in WW2. We have been through this before. Bring them in, and in come another 15 or so countries, like Holland, Australia, Norway, India etc etc. Another thing. You mention the Netherlands was liberated by Poland on Market Garden. I always thought they lost that one. At least they did in the movie "A Bridge too Far", and Gene Hackman played the part of the defeated (prima-donna) Polish Commander brilliantly. Also, if you bring in Hirohito, you must mention King George VI, who was King of Canada, Australia and a few orhers. Wallie 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, first of all I never claimed the Poles liberated the Netherlands during market garden. I know the Netherlands are small but they're not that small. I trust this was your memory mixing up certain things I wrote in my edit summaries rather than an intentional attempt to make me look stupid.

I ask you wallie, who are you decide which country was a major force in the second world war? Who are you to decide which country or nation decided the war? For all we know, the Low countries could have been captured within the time the Germans expected them to be then maybe the British and French wouldn't have gotten to dunkirk. Maybe if during the battle of brittain there hadn't been any foreign pilots Britain might have been invaded and then what? Point is we'll never ever know. If a human life is priceless then its all the same from a moral view. Nobody will the deny the war contributions of the countries listed now, but that's no reason to leave others out.

If you ask me, all actively participating countries should be mentioned. If only to be accurate. Nevertheless I'll drop the issue, I'm not so good at maybes.

Rex 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Replies

Wallie, first of all I never claimed the Poles liberated the Netherlands during market garden. I know the Netherlands are small but they're not that small. I trust this was your memory mixing up certain things I wrote in my edit summaries rather than an intentional attempt to make me look stupid.

I thought you had. I do not consider the Netheralds "small". In fact it is a very important country, which started the European influence in Australia (New Holland), Indonesia (Dutch East Indies), South Africa and New Zealand (a Dutch name). I certainly don't think you are stupid, and did not want to portary you as such.

I ask you wallie, who are you decide which country was a major force in the second world war? Who are you to decide which country or nation decided the war? For all we know, the Low countries could have been captured within the time the Germans expected them to be then maybe the British and French wouldn't have gotten to dunkirk. Maybe if during the battle of brittain there hadn't been any foreign pilots Britain might have been invaded and then what? Point is we'll never ever know. If a human life is priceless then its all the same from a moral view. Nobody will the deny the war contributions of the countries listed now, but that's no reason to leave others out.

I have no more rights than you or anyone else. I just want consistency and clarity, without too much detail (covered elsewhere). The countries are all listed at the bottom of the article. If Britain had been invaded, the war would have just carried on. There was still the USSR, Canada, India, South Africa, Australia and of course the US to conquer. Japan would have been overjoyed and attacked the United States. But the outcome would have been the same, with the war carrying on longer, and Tokyo and Berlin devasted by Hydrogen bombs.

If you ask me, all actively participating countries should be mentioned. If only to be accurate. Nevertheless I'll drop the issue, I'm not so good at maybes.

Exactly. You have to decide a level. But not just Poland and Canada.

Wallie 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not reply on the first segment, you admitted you were wrong, fine. The ,with all due respect, ass kissing with the Dutch colonial empire was entirely unnecesary.

As for the list, Maybe one could list (active) powers per period (1939-1940-1941-etc) this would allow one to for example show France in 1939 and 1940 but leave them out in 1941 as they were defeated by then, same goes for the poles. Rex 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Rex 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did not admit I was wrong. I was just being diplomatic. Your wording: my country was liberated by Poles and Canadians. Poles were also a major part of Operation Market Garden, anyway; Polish contribution to World War II speaks for itself. I think that is very clear, don't you? As for ass kissing, it does seem you have to always be confrontational these days. Finally, you need a history lesson. Indonesia was called the Dutch East Indies then. This is fact, not ass kissing. Wallie 13:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Awkward sentence - typo?

In the participants section:
"The British Over 50 countries on every continent were involved at various times in the conflict."
Anyone know what this should say? --NEMT 03:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Who knows? Probably an editing foulup caused by someone (maybe me). I'm sure someone will get rid of "The British" and all will be OK. Thanks for noticing this. Wallie 21:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Communist rise to power and foreign troops

User:Kelstonian added this to the the section on Aftermath:

Communist control of Eastern Europe

At the end of the war the Soviet Union occupied much of Eastern Europe. In all the Soviet-occupied countries, with the exception of Austria, the Soviet Union installed Communist regimes in power. Furthermore, it annexed the Baltic countries: Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. The war resulted in Communist control of Eastern Europe that continued for over forty years.

I find this highly POV and inacurate.

1. Soviet troops entering eastern Europe were in most cases liberators, not occupiers.
2. Soviet troops stationed in Eastern Europe (excluding Germany and Austria) where in now way more occupation forces than U.S. and UK troops stationed in Western Europe.
3. The presence of Soviet troops did tip the ballance in favor of Communist. It is however wrong to claim that Soviet Union installed Communist regimes in power. The situation was not much different Western Europe (Italy and France) and Greece where communist were near to come to power by elections or other means, but were ultimately prevernted by the presence of U.S. and UK forces.

-- Petri Krohn 09:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Denying the Allied instrumentality in creating the soviet/communist rise to power throughout europe and asia is just foolish. Add whatever euphemisms you'd like, but the section should remain. --NEMT 12:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was an occupation. They claimed to be liberators, but it was just propoganda. They murdered or sent to Siberia thausonds of people. Fake elections (only comunist party was allowed an people who didn't wote were treatened to be punished)were run. Politicans were already preselected by Stalin. So I will say it was an occupation. Kaspar K 08:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Kaspar K 22 September 2006

This is not all the true. It was a liberation - from nazi regime. And not all the nations were suffered by stalin's commies - Norvegia and Austria are good examples. I know nothing about massive "siberization" for foreign people. Popularity of local commies was high long before liberation/occupation. The "occupants" didn't preserve their military control over "cooupied" territories. And so on. I'm not a communist. I just want to say that things are much more complex than somebody display here. --jno 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

commies were popular? Were? In Poland, for example, where Red Army left in 1990s? JNo, I am sorry, but what do you know exactly about the means Communists grasped the power in Poland, NKVD regiments hunting AK soldiers across the countryside, tens of thousands arrested people, falsified elections etc? Szopen 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

what does 1990 Poland have to do with this? In the end of WW2 communism was much more popular in the world than now, especially considering that a "communist" country did most of the work during the war. And surely, USSR helped install friendly regimes in eastern european countries. Also, as for Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria - those countries were Hitler's allies. Don't forget that the US still has troops in Japan.

[edit] Infobox ...

World War II
Date Location Result
Combatants
Allies: 1939 Britain France Poland 1940 Britain France Belgium The Netherlands Norway 1941 Soviet Union United States Britain 1942 Soviet Union United States Britain 1943 Soviet Union United States Britain 1944 Soviet Union United States Britain 1945 Soviet Union United States Britain France and others	Axis Powers: 1939 Germany 1940 Germany Italy 1941 Germany Italy Japan 1942 Germany Italy Japan 1943 Germany Italy Japan 1944 Germany Japan 1945 Germany Japan and others
Commanders
Joseph Stalin Franklin Roosevelt Harry S. Truman Winston Churchill	Adolf Hitler Hideki Tojo
Casualties
Military dead: 17,000,000 Civilian dead: 33,000,000 Total dead: 50,000,000	Military dead: 8,000,000 Civilian dead: 4,000,000 Total dead: 12,000,000

I think that this, or similar box (specifically the combattants part) would be better. Theres little to discuss about the fact that Japan, Germany US, GB and SU were the leaders of their "factions" but the was wasn't just Italy, Japan, Germany vs. US, SU and GB.

You think wrong. Please do some more research as to the purpose and spirit of infoboxes. --NEMT 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of the lenght of the conflict there has been a continuous shift of power. At first the French had more troops than Britain, but they were rapidly defeated but untill that moment they were a major participant ... Same goes for itally ... they were defeated relatively early while again others joined the war later. Rex 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it over-simplifies things. Belgium is mentioned here, but not China and India. I would contend that India was more important than Belgium, as it fought (usually out-fought) the Italians, the Germans and the Japanese. The Indians were involved in major battles, usually the nasty ones that really count. Again, it is easiest to stick with the major powers, who were the United States, Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan and the United Kingdom in that order. The war only became a world war when Germany declared war on the United States. Wallie

You're not supposed to look at how it looks now, it's a working concept. But if you don't like over simplifying you must certainly oppose the current box. Rex 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying is that if you bring in this level of detail, it can become inaccurate, or at least start a complicated debate. As mentioned, Canada and Poland will be included. And then everyone will want to bring in their country too. Wallie 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So? Rex 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So it doesn't quite work, does it? Wallie 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it work? Rex 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Tell you why. There are at least 60 countries involved in WW2. That means 60 countries multiplied by 7 years. That's an awful lot of flags! (around 420?). You might have to include Hawaii too. After all, it was invaded... Wallie 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My idea is to include the countries that notabily engaged in combat (per time period).That would limit the numbers greatly. Rex 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Military_conflict_infobox

Haber 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think most of them were engaged in combat all the time. Take India for example. They fought solidly from 1939 right through to 1945, and in Asia, Europe and Africa. The same applies to Australia. They fought in all these places plus Australia and the Pacific sea battles too. There are a lot of other countries that never stopped fighting. This has to include all countries, not just current EU members. Wallie 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case perhaps a grade system can be made, in which major, secundary and minor participants are represented. Rex 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, or we could leave things the way they are, you know, the way that works just fine and isn't ridiculously cluttered or byzantine. --NEMT 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, many people would think their own country was a major participant every year. I'm sure the Chinese would, given the number of people they lost. Your own country fought the Germans, including while occupied. So how could you leave the Netherlands out in any year. (OK maybe 1939, but no others, please). Wallie 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence the major minor difference. Rex 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal: Economic Chart

Hello all! I am part of the Cabal, and am here to help with the dispute about the economic chart of munitions production. I would ask that all future discussion of that issue occur in this section. I understand that certain users, particularly Haber, have concerns about the chart's placement. There are a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

1.) Haber noted that the chart lacks units, which is a deserved criticism. Rjensen, this is certainly a critical charge against the chart. Without them, the data does not make sense. For the chart to be used, I must also ask that they be included.

2.) Haber, you also mentioned that the chart lacks data. I am aware that Italy is not mentioned, but is there any other data that you think the chart should possess if it were included? Rjensen, was Italy mentioned on the chart, but not included by you when you made it? If so, could you please add that data? (If the authors did not include it, did they give a reason?)

3.) Wallie suggested, as a compromise, that the chart could be reduced in size, made to be more aesthetically pleasing, etc. If these concerns mentioned above were met, would you Haber (and everyone else interested) be willing to allow the inclusion of the chart? Rjensen, what are your thoughts? Would you be willing to make these changes? LawrenceTrevallion 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no cabal. --NEMT 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Units--ok: yes they certainly can be added.

2) Italy--ok: I included all the countries and all data given in the source. Italy was not included. (It left the war early and as a result had much less production than Canada--for example Canada shipped ten times as much in terms of motor vehicles/trucks as Italy, and more airplanes.). 3) size--ok: the 12-line length was never really an issue; it can be put in a smaller font. More pleasing aesthetics, yes that is certainly a goal, but surely is not central to the issue. So: yes I am amenable to all points. Rjensen 07:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Note on units. The data are "(annual expenditure in $ billion, U.S. 1944 munitions prices)". That is the economists went to each country and priced the output of large warplanes, smnall warplanes, large tanks, small tanks, etc etc using US 1944 prices, and added them up. This was a huge project of course--hundreds of economists worked on it. (from Harrison Economic History Review (1988) v.41 page 172.)

I still think the chart doesn't need to be here.

2) Italy formally left the war in 1943, but Northern Italy, where most of the industry was, stayed under German control far longer. Italy+Austria+Bulgaria+Hungary+Romania > Canada.

3) The chart is large and ugly. The article is too long and is already criticized for lacking coherent prose.

4) Redundancy: The point, that the Allies outproduced the Axis, is already expressed in the previous paragraph. The chart is also already in Home front during World War II.

5) Context: The data is highly processed and needs explanation. There is not enough space in an overview to present the methodology behind this chart properly.

6)POV: Many people think that the primary reason the Allies won the war was by economically overwhelming the Axis, but this is far from unanimous. We don't have a "Why the Allies won" section. If we did, we would have to include many competing theories, and the article would be too long. Haber 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Haber, for pointing out that it exists on the home front page, as I had not checked that. Rjensen, do you have an argument for why the data should exist on both pages? (Or are you wanting to delete it from that page if it is accpeted here?) LawrenceTrevallion 03:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

It can be deleted from the Hone Front page. The point is that comparative munitions output was a major part of the WW2 story --it was part of winning on the battlefront. Rjensen 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright. Haber, I wish to resume addressing your points:

2.) Do you have a source that notes northern Italy as having a high industrial production?

3.) It is my understanding that Rjensen is going to work to make the chart more aesthetically pleasing and smaller; so I hope this concern is resolved.

4.) While the results of the chart are mentioned in the paragraph, I do think it is helpful to have a quantifiable demonstration of it. It certainly seems as legitimate as some of the other art used in this article.

5.) You said that the chart is "processed" and "needs explanation." I am not sure as to what you mean by "processed"? Also, what "explanation" do you feel the chart needs? I did not see that any was required to go with it outside of what is already present in the article. Also, what aspects of the methodology do you think need to be addressed?

6.) I do not see this as POV. The chart does not claim the war was won solely on economics. Could you please elaborate?

I have been addressing Haber's concerns during this mediation, but if anyone else wishes to discuss the matter, please feel free to do so. LawrenceTrevallion 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Haber wants to include data on Italy or the other countries ; rather he proposes removing data on US, USSR, Britain, Germany, Japan and Canada. Rjensen 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

2) I thought it was common knowledge that northern Italy has historically been more industrialized than southern Italy. This is noted in the article, Italy, unreferenced.

3) He can work on it if he wants to. At least it will be better for the Home Front article.

4) disagree

5) processed data: What is the definition of a munition? Tanks, bullets, guns, gasoline, ships, radar stations, trucks, U-boats, aircraft, rockets, atomic bombs? How is quality factored in? Are we going by cost of materials, labor involved, R+D spending, what? Is slave labor accounted for? These economists wave a wand, convert everything to US$, and we're supposed to take it for gospel?

6) POV - we have nothing about all the boneheaded strategic decisions of Hitler, with which we could fill an article. We don't say that the Allied soldiers were better trained and led. We don't say that the Russians built sturdy, cheap, effective equipment. Or simply that the Allies owned the sea and were predisposed to win a long war on that alone. How about that the Germans alienated the Ukraine, a potential ally, by killing so many people? No, we just throw out numbers and make it look like the Axis simply ran out of stuff, when in fact they were beaten because of their totalitarian leaders, their idiotic ideology, and the better planning and execution of the Allied war effort. Again, I don't think this high-level article, or even an encyclopedia, is the best place to get into all this. So if you spend a good portion of the article harping on industrial production, and then just leave it at that, people will get an oversimplified view of the war. Where is Ironplay anyway? He likes the Russians. Haber 21:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

5.) I assumed that "munition" meant "ammunition," which is the traditional meaning of the word. Rjensen, can you confirm that in the case of the chart? Also, what about the other concerns Haber mentions here?

6.) As I understand the chart, it does not indicate economics alone won the war. Also, economics seems important to just about every war. This would explain why the Allies bombed German industrial centers. It does not seem to imply that the Axis just ran out of stuff, but that as the war progressed, the Axis did not have as much stuff, which hindered them. LawrenceTrevallion 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to source: “Munitions for the purpose of these statistics include all aircraft, naval ships, guns, small arms, armored vehicles, ammunition, electronic and communications equipment. However, merchant vessels, unarmored motor vehicles, engineers' supplies, quartermaster items and medical supplies are excluded. This definition concentrates attention on the combat items that are of prime military importance.” The table (please don't call it a chart) gives users the information they can use to gauge the relative importance of factors. Otherwise users are in ignorance, or make very vague assumption (like Haber does about the Italian munitions). Every historian mentions the munitions supply -- it's a famous quote that "amateurs talk about tactics and professionals talk about logistics" Rjensen 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

More appropriate quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Haber 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Haber, would your concerns be answered if the chart had a footnote adding some of the details you have pointed out here? Rjensen, would that work for you? LawrenceTrevallion 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This topic is currently introduced in prose in World War II, and covered nicely in Military production during World War II and in Home front during World War II. It's obvious that this table needs to be taken with a handful of salt, and Rjensen's sloppy, incomplete presentation and hostility when faced with criticism make me wonder why we should continue to babysit this project, much less consider showcasing it in the main article. Haber 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion: I still get the impression that the debate is about presentation of the article rather than the content. It may be best to have a brief bit in the World War 2 article and write a sub-article about Industrial Production in World War II. The table, as it is now could go in the sub article, and more details given there too. Later, if the table could be formatted OK (smaller and prettier), and was in keeping with the overall article, I cannot see anyone objecting to it going in the main article. Wallie 09:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If Rjensen improved the appearance of the chart, and added a footnote to address some of the concerns you mentioned Haber, would this make it fit for inclusion in everyone's eyes? LawrenceTrevallion 16:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

With some work this chart could be ok for a subarticle. I am not opposed to reviewing an amended version here in this discussion area. Haber 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen, what are your thoughts? This article is long, so creating a subpage as a place to discuss the economics of the war is not a bad idea. If you are not satisfied with this idea, please explain why you think the table should appear on this page, which will allow us to discuss the merits of your proposal. LawrenceTrevallion 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I want the table in the main article. The main article is a summary of the war, and the table is a summary of the main homefront activity (producing munitions used on the battlefields.) Haber has a POV reason for hiding the table: he does not want users to think about the economics of war. This is an unacceptable attitude on Wiki (the field of economic history is very well established and it not some sort of whim.) Omission leads to serious misinterpretations--Haber himself in this discussion shows a flawed misinterpretation of the economic roles of countries like Canada, Italy, and Hungary. I imagine most readers will also have gross misconceptions about the munitions output of the major countries and this table will resolve that flaw. Keep in mind that the single main goal of strategic bombing was to cut the munitions production of Germany and Japan, and it is very controversial to this day how suuccessful that goal was. As for length, that is a red herring: I have cut at least 25 lines out of the article and will cut more if you think it necessary--so that 12 lines of table will fit.

Alright, Haber does your disagreement about the chart regard the chart itself (appearance, clarity, length, etc.) or is it that you feel the addition of more economic data is inappropriate? LawrenceTrevallion 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Both. See above. Haber 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Haber, would you please explain your disagreement with the inclusion of economic data in greater detail. You mentioned earlier that you thought two paragraphs of on the subject was coming close to POV because it indicated a theory as to why the war was won. I do not see this as POV however. All wars, to a degree, are influenced by economics. (Imagine how quickly Hitler would have failed if he had not stabilized the economy of Germany.)
2. As for the length, perhaps the economic section itself could be shortened a bit, along with making the table a little smaller. Do you have any other concerns with the appearance that should be addressed? LawrenceTrevallion 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It may be that formal intervention is required for this case. It is up to the parties involved, but a request through the formal dispute channels may be in order for this. LawrenceTrevallion 16:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

theres something you all seem to be forgetting...canada, australia, india, new zealand, etc. were all still part of the british empire. they weren't sovereign nations, thus it should all be simplified as the british empire. Parsecboy 21:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you right now that Australia and New Zealand were no longer a part of the British Empire at that time. Australia became a democratic federation in 1901. Australia and New Zealand belonged to the British Commonwealth. The British Empire was old and dying by that stage. Personally, I wouldn't simplify major war contributors like India and Australia, but if you do you should simplify them as the British Commonwealth. Just James 16:37, 7 October 2006 (GMT+10:00)

[edit] The term "Commanders" in table

The term "Commanders" in the top table should be replaced with "Leaders". Pavel Vozenilek 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. The headings could be improved. However, the table seems pre-formatted, which seems to mean you have the headings given to you by the "system", and can't change them. I may be wrong of course, in which case, just change it. Wallie 18:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The list is rather a mess. Why Eisenhower and not George Marshall? Why Montgomery rather than Brooke and Alexander? I'd say that line should be taken out entirely, or limited entirely to political leaders (Roosevelt, Truman, Churchill, Stalin, on the allied side; Hitler, Dönitz, Mussolini, Hirohito, Tojo, on the Axis, say?) john k 01:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree except for Donitz. I'm not sure about Hirohito, but if you feel strongly that he should be in go ahead and add him. Haber 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dönitz was in charge of Germany for the last days of the war. Removing Hirohito would leave us without a Japanese figure for the last year of the war. john k 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

(On the other hand, trying to cover the whole war would force us to include Chamberlain, so never mind - I'd say just Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin is fine. But no Truman, either. john k 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC))

I agree. It is best to have one leader for each of the six countries, who was leader for the longest time. Wallie 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. Haber 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely convinced that the name of Hirohito should be there. Go read what I have added on the article about this person to see what the actual historians say about the way decisions where made in Japan. Tôjô has never taken any important military decision without the consent of th Emperor; and besides, what about 1937 to 1941 ? Tôjô was not there... --Flying tiger 21:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

No. Of course he needs the consent of the Emperor. So what? Churchill would not act without the King's approval too. Are you proposing that we put the King of England up there too? Wallie 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

By refering to the king of England, you do not show here a very deep knowledge of constitutional system in Japan before and during the war. Maybe you should begin by reading the article on Hirohito..... --Flying tiger 18:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

It also shows that you have little knowledge of the system in the UK either. I will just ask you one question. Who is the leader of Japan now? Wallie 20:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I certainly won't start here a debate on a subject on which I have argued in detail in a former discussion on another article but your question is irrelevant since the actual constitution of Japan is not the same as the one adopted under Meiji (Shôwa's grandfather) and that the social context is completly different as the Emperor is now really a figurehead. As you seem to like England, you can make a parallel between the monarchy under the Tudor and under the Windsor.

I will just put here a citation of historian Akira Fujiwara, from his book The Shôwa Emperor's fifteen years war, p.122 : "Considering the discussions that went on behind the scenes prior to these imperial conferences and the liaison conferences that preceded them, the thesis that the Emperor as an organ of responsibility could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth (shinwa) fabricated after the war." If someday you read updated books about Hirohito,(why does historian Yamada has called in 1994 one of his books "The Shôwa Emperor as commander in chief" ?) you will see that he abundantly used the power that was given to him by the constitution and millitary men like Tôjô whom he called his "loyal servant". Tôjô himself said at the Tokyo trial : "No one could had gone against the Emperor's will."

But after all, if you are happy, keep your way of thinking. Who cares ? These are just little flags... --Flying tiger 00:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Combatants

For combatants Canada and a bunch more like France etc, should be added. It is disrespectful to these nations which lost tens of thousands of men to not even be listed! --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs) .

For combatants, Canada and a bunch more like France etc, should be added. It is ignorant, and disrespectful to these nations which lost tens of thousands of men to not even be listed! France was the biggest player aganst Germany prior to her defeat. Canada took huge losses at Normandy, etc, etc. Australians fought and died agianst the Japanese, and the Germans in N. Africa. You might not be able to list them all, but these are needed. BTW, italy became allied and was never a major threat to the allies, unlike France's potential threat to Germany. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs) .

Two words: and others. --NEMT 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Italy never a threat to the allies? That if I may say so is complete rubbish, and an insult to Italians and those that fought them. Incidentally my uncle was killed in the desert by Italian troops, so to me that comment is bordering on offensive. The Italians put up a hell of a fight in the desert. They completely overran the Allied positions on a number of occasions. Wallie 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Populations - Italy 44 million; Canada 11 million; Australia 7 million. Haber 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gross amount of pictures

There is a gross amount of pictures in this article which not only makes it hard to read but makes it look like a picture book. Someone within the last month added a lot of pictures and simply made the article look terrible. I only cleaned up a couple that were the least importance pertaining to the articles content but someone needs to go through and remove non-important pictures. These clutter up the article so bad that if you're viewing wikipedia with 800x600 resolution, you won't be able to read it at all. I'm also adding this to the to-do list because it is pretty bad. Ddahlberg 15:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely - here's a list of the current pictures in the article and my suggestions for discussion. Lisiate 22:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Pictures (as of 8 September)

1. Montage - Clockwise from top: Allied landing on Normandy beaches on D-Day, the gate of a Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, Red Army soldiers raising the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, the Nagasaki atom bomb, the 1936 Nuremberg Rally, -keep.

2. Mussolini & Hitler - Keep as Axis leaders.

3. Japanese arty in Shanhai - Remove interesting but not gripping (Chengdu photo later can represent war in China).

4. Chamberlain with scrap of paper - Remove leave it at Munich article.

5. Polish infantry - Keep Poland deserves a picture.

6. U-47 & Scharnhorst - Keep Battle of Atlantic

7. German plans for France - Remove hard to see unexpanded leave at Invasion of France article.

8. French Troops after Dunkirk - Remove Leave at Dunkirk

9. Rotterdam before an after Remove Leave in appropriate article.

10. Heinkel over London - Keep Or remove if Rotterdam pair kept.

Comment: What has Rotterdam to do with London? (Different battles.) Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Both photos show strategic bombing or its effects, I'm ambivalent either way but we don't need both. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

11. Afrika Corps - Keep but move down to proper place.

12. German Paras in Crete - Remove Leave in Crete invasion article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Crete was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course not but we need to be selective and we already have a number of German soldier photos.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

13. Barbarossa Map - Keep Map clear enough in thumbnail.

14. German soldiers training - remove

15. Moscow metro - Remove leave in Battle of Moscow.

16. Soviet troops near Moscow Keep

17. HMS Hood Remove or at least move down to proper place.

18. USS Virginia & Tennessee at Pearl Harbour - Keep.

19. Canadians at Dieppe - Keep

Comment: Unqualified keep. But other pictures are removed of much greater events. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I put this as a keep so we'd have at least one minor ally photo. I'm not that fussed though. And no - I'm not trying to say that Dieppe was bigger than Torch, crete, El Alamein, Cologne and Warsaw. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

20. Germans at Stalnigrad - Keep

21. British at Alamein - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Alamein was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

See Crete above (same goes for Torch).Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

22. Operation Torch - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Torch was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

23. Lexington - Remove leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? This is a great picture, and an important event. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

24. Yamamoto - Keep Need a Japanese leader.

25. Soviets crossing Dnieper - Keep only need one of these

26. Germans before Citadel - Remove only need one of these

Comment: Why? I thought there was only one (photo of Germans at Citadel). Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant we only need one photo for this section - Kursk etc. Personally I find the Soviet picture more interesting but it's no biggie. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

27. Civilians in Smolensk - Keep

28. Line of Us battleships and Cruisers - Remove a great photo though.

29. Battle of Changde - Keep fro war in China.

30. 1944 Soviet offensives - Keep

31. Soviet gunners in Budapest - Remove Leave in battle article.

32. Destruction of Cassino town - Remove Leave in battle article - a hot of the destroyed monastery might be better.

Comment: Why? Are you trying to say that Cassino was smaller than Dieppe? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We're going to have a lot of destroyed town photos and this shot could be almost anywhere. A photo of the destroyed monastery however would be more recognisable. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

33. V-1 Keep to show technology advances.

34. Destruction of Cologne - Remove Leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

35. Ruins of Warsaw Bank - Remove, Leave in battle article.

Comment: Why? Again, are you suggesting that raid on Dieppe was bigger than the destruction of a major world city? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

36. Liberation of Bucharest - Keep.

37. Omaha Beach - Remove in montage.

Comment: Why remove one of the most important pictures? Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Because it's already in the montage at the very top of the page.Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

38. US in Paris Remove

Comment: A memorable pic. Please don't touch. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of the photos are memorable, but you're right we should show the liberation of Paris somehow. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

39. Operation Market Garden - 'Keep shows the scale really well.

40. Jochen Peiper - Remove too minor a commander.

Comment: Not minor. You may be not familiar with this battle. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Operational commanders don't need to be shown in this article which is about the whole war. If we are going to show Peiper then surely we should show Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel etc. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Peiper is such a character that they based a whole film around him, namely the "Battle of the Bulge". He is like Custer, maybe a minor commander, but a noteable one. Of the group you mention, Montgomery, Eisenhower, Patton, Slim, Mountbatten, Aucheinleck Rommel, the odd one out is Rommel, as he is not a victor. The losing commanders are often more interesting and remembered more in history. Shakespeare writes about losers not winners. Wallie 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

41. Marines attacking bunker - Keep only need one of these

42. Mcarthur wading ashore - Remove only need one of these

Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

As with some of the other pairs I'm not too fussed about which one we keep, I'm just trying to keep to one photo per section though. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

43. Japanese in China - Remove leave in battle article.

44. Berlin & Prague offensives - Keep

45. Marshal Zhukov - Remove

Comment: Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I was tempted to say keep but then we'd have the generals problem above, Zhukov on his white horse mgiht be a compromise. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

46. Germans in Courland - Remove Great colour photo but we've seen enough German soldiers.

47. Yalta - Keep iconic photo of Allied leaders.

48. Flags over Reichstag - Remove in the montage.

Comment: Important Soviet pic. Keep. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

49. Omar Bradley - Remove

Comment: Keep Brad. Need pictures of major figures. Wallie 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Same reasons as for Zhukov and Peiper. Lisiate 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

50. Captured Standards - Keep only need one of these.

51. Zhukov on parade - Remove only need one of these.

52. Flag on Iwo Jima - Remove a cliche and not necessary.

Comment: Please no. This is probably the most famous picture of the war. It is represents why the war was being fought. Wallie 06:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

53. Fat man explosion - Remove in montage.

54. Chiang Kai-shek and Mao toast - Keep.

55. Germany partitioned - Keep

56. German refugees - Keep

57. Un Building - Remove marginal relevance.

58. Diorama of Leningrad - Remove we've had enough real photos.

59. Holocaust routes - Keep - shows scale.

60. Ebensee Camp survivors - Keep.

61. Warsaw surivior - Keep.

62. Us paratroops and Dutch resistance - Keep.

63. Woman factory worker - Keep

64. Engima machine - Remove.

Instead of busting a gut over which pictures to keep and which to jettison, why not set up a picture gallery? It would make the article less cluttered, yet provide illustrations for the subject. Heck, World War II is a big enough subject to warrant an encyclopedia of its own, so why try to water it down to two or three pages of print? Words alone will never do the subject justice.
—Quicksilver^{T @} 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good comment. Thank you. Wallie 18:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the picutures that are removed were really iconic and also there are too many american pictures and not enough russian pictures. We need to sort this out. 72.140.14.106 02:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea of a picture gallery, but we'll still need to tidy up this page. As for the pictures - no one's removed anything yet, this is just an attempt to get some agreement on things before we do a picture prune. Lisiate 21:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous picture of American soldiers meeting USSR soldiers and shaking hands

Hello,

there is this very famous picture (which unfortunately I haven't found yet here) of an American soldiers shaking hands (I think in Germany) with a Soviet soldier. Do we have it on Wikipedia and could we add it somewhere? (I know the user above me thinks that there are too many pics already...) Thanks,Evilbu 15:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Would be great if you could get it. You are probably referring to when the Red and US Armies met up at the river Elbe. Don't worry about too many pics. Pics will come and go, and come back again. (I think I'll add back that one of the yank sailor kissing the gal on VJ day. It was a good one.) Wallie 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] you are talking about this? I think the image I had in mind was like this : [2]Evilbu 23:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the handshake that symbolized over half a century of soviet oppression. Thanks again, FDR. --NEMT 01:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But you agree that it is this handshake that became famous! I don't see how this meeting symbolizes the oppression (hey they still got along.) but the Japanese article about Hiroshima has a picture of the mushroom cloud too, bad or not it is famous...Evilbu 01:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it's definitely famous, and encyclopedic. I just think the US made a terrible mistake allying with the the soviets. --NEMT 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again displays of ignorance. During the war, the Soviet people were referred to as "Our Noble Russian Allies". For this reason, many older folk who lived during the war will get very annoyed if Russian people are vilified, and believe we all owe a debt of gratitude to the brave people of the Soviet Union. It is interesting to note the way the United States turned on their friends the Soviet Union soon after the war. It is about trust. Wallie 05:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing noble about killing millions of dissidents and starving your people to death. --NEMT 07:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You could probably say that the Soviets made a terrible mistake allying with the Americans. After all their allies soon betrayed them. Wallie 10:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read this article, the soviets joined the war long before the US did. --NEMT 17:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to what the US did after the war. Read the section heading again. This happened in 1945. Wallie 18:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be very adept at missing the point. The Soviets didn't "ally" with the Americans, the Soviets joined the war before the US, and had no idea or concern over US involvement. The Americans, however, in joining the war after it had essentially turned to a USSR/Germany conflict allied with the Soviets. Regardless of what happened during the war and how the average american soldier felt about the soviets, the USA-USSR alliance was a grave mistake. This doesn't mean the image of American and Soviet soldiers greeting each other doesn't belong on wikipedia, in fact, I think it would make a great addition to this article - I was merely offering some relevant commentary. --NEMT 21:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what you are trying to say. The reason for the alliance was that Germany declared war on the US, and as the Arab say, your enemy's eneny is your friend. I cannot understand why you think the USSR/US alliance was a "grave mistake", as it was an abberation, and things were soon back to normal. Wallie 17:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Without the allies opening up a western front the Soviets would've likely been defeated or severely weakened by the Nazis, rendering neither a threat to the world and preventing the dozens of millions of deaths under communist oppression. --NEMT 18:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering what the point was to this. Now I know. A Nazi Victory to leave the world safe from those nasty Commies... Wallie

Your irreverence would likely go unappreciated by the families of the hundred million people who died under communist rule. --NEMT 06:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It actually would have made a difference in defeating Nazi Germany, between having the USSR as an ally and not. Soviets, put forward a tremendous amount of sacrifice and energy to defeat German forces in their land. USSR did suffer the highest casualty rate maong all countries that participated in WWII. WIthout the Russians, America and Britain would have had to confront almost the entire German army. USSR helped to demolish the Germans sent against them. Think about the T-34 for almost the entire war, it was the only tank able to withstand the incredibly powerful Panzers and Tigers. The US would have been a sorry sight, Shermans trying to punch Panzers to absolutely no avail. True, it just happened to be that Russia was fighting Germany and so were the Americans. I don't think I'd say that the Truman allied with Stalin because he wanted to. If Truman had refused, the outcome of WWII would have been questionable. Oyo321 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems if left to their own devices the nazis and the soviets would've destroyed each other, rendering neither a threat to global stability. As opposed to the real outcome, in which the USSR became a global spectre. --NEMT 03:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound mean or anything, but this discussion has gotten really off topic. The fact is that the Russians made the mistake of trying to ally with the Germans and take over Poland. Then the Germans Pwned them at the beginning of Operation Barbarosa and now the Russians needed help, so they called for the Allies to attack on D-Day. Thats the reason for the alliance. It should be noted that Roosevelt and Stalin afterwards were not on the same step from there onwards. Probably the Cold War started in the Race for Berlin or the Fall of Japan. But the photo that you guys started talking about is most likely not of signifigance for the main WW2 page because it is anachronistic to the true feelings between the "Allied Force". Maybe in a page dealing with the Cold War or whatever, like as an introduction.72.90.242.26 04:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC) User:Xlegiofalco

If the western allies didn't open the Second Front (D-Day), Europe would be communist up to the English Channel. As for beginning of war - first the western democracies tried to have Hitler and Stalin to fight it out, so that they could join later on (like USA in WW1) to rip the benefits - but Stalin outplayed them, and Hitler went west. However, Stalin hoped for a long bloodshed in Europe so that he could finish the war preparations, and that didn't happen. Thus, in the end, the allies outplayed Stalin... Truman said in regards to the beginning of Operation Barbarossa - (wording not exact) - "If the Germans will be winning, we shall help the Soviets, and if the Soviets will be winning, we shall help the Germans, and let them kill as much as possible". While this might seem cynical, it is very logical and pragmatic - if your enemies (or potential enemies) are fighting each other - that is very good, and it should go on. Ko Soi.

P.S. to NEWT - no matter what modern nationalist leaders of your country propagate, Nazi occupation for 50 years would be much worse to your people if they were of Slavic origin. And if they weren't, than your country was an ally of Hitler, and if anything, it got what it deserved.

[edit] SU / USSR

As a non-historian I was somewhat thrown when I came across "SU". I had to take a moment to stop and figure out it was an acronym for Soviet Union. Nowhere in the 57k Soviet Union article is the abbreviation SU used - not a single time. However USSR is used 35 times in that article, and only twice in this article. It is extremely inconsistent to use different acronyms in different articles to refer to the same thing. Since Soviet Union is an abbreviation of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, SU is then an acronym of an abbreviation - a little too indirect for my taste. Couldn't we use "USSR", "Soviet Union" or "Soviets" instead of SU? --Dan East 03:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for bringing that up. I've never heard of "SU" before ever. Oyo321 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have changed this to Soviet-or Russian-where appropriate. I agree; the designation SU is truly awful White Guard 00:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to Standardize this Article

There are still major problems with this article which needs to be addressed.

But before that, we need to standardize this article...

I mean, for Example, the Soviet Union is being written as SU in some areas and Russia in others. We need to fix that.

The dates. Sometimes the year comes before the month and others the month comes before the year. That needs to be fixed.

Some German Generals are written by their German spelling Generaloberfest or others Field Marshal. This needs to be fixed.

The British are called British Empire, Commonwealth. We need to arrive at an agreed upon terminology.

The German Military is called Wehrmacht, Nazis, German Army, etc...We need to arrive at an agreed upon term.

The Soviet Military is called Red Army, Russian Red Army, Soviet Army, Soviet Red Army, etc...We need one term to describe it and stick to it for the entire article....

And Many others......

Please work on this and get this article standardized so that I can fix up this article some more and submit it for FAC consideration.

Once the standardization is done, I will write a more concise Battle of Atlantic, Strategic Bombing Campaign articles and others....

Mercenary2k 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could say no one is in a Russia to fix it. --NEMT 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Or no one is Russian to fix it. --NEMT 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with variety? Also worth noting that "Generaloberst" is not clearly directly translatable into English (no English speaking country has the rank of "Colonel-General," while "Feldmarschall" directly translates to "Field Marshal". "Russia" can be used as a geographical term, although it shouldn't be used when discussing the Soviet state. The German Army is not the same thing as the Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine as well. We shouldn't call the German military "Nazis," though. In terms of dates, this is perhaps true, although I'll note that one can set one's preferences to always show dates the same way. We shouldn't assume, though, that readers will have done this. john k 10:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Wallie 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I also agree completely. However, synonyms are fine if they are well distributed. For example, one section shouldn't use the term Feldmarschall exclusively, while another section only uses the term "Field Marshal". You're quite correct about the subtle nuances of various terms that people often use interchangeably (USSR / Russia, Nazis / German military). --Dan East 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that in the "Germany surrenders" section it says "...during which the Great Britain and the United States were accused by the Soviet Union..." Saying "the Great Britain" is incorrect, you can either say "Great Britain" or "The United Kingdom," but not "THE Great Britain." SerialCoyote 09:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Proper term for the Soviets is the RKKA (Red Army of Workers and Peasants, Raboche-Krest'yanskaya Krasnaya Armiya), as the term Soviet Army was introduced only after the war (in 1946 I think, but not sure). Since in english there is no difference between Russians (russkie, in a narrow view - ethnicity - compatible to the english) and Russians (rossiyane, state affiliation - compatible to the british), using Russians and Soviets interchangebly should pose no problem, as it is common in english. With respect, Ko Soi.

[edit] Western betrayal

I feel that the link to the Western betrayal article, in the section relating to the invasion of Poland, ought to be deleted. It is a totally POV article that is also intellectually and conceptually incoherent: to link to it from here undermines the credibility of one of the most important articles on Wikipedia.--Stonemad GB 20:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I second. Haber 13:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not completely incoherent, it just needs to be rewritten, cleaned up, and standardized - much like another article we're all familiar with. --NEMT 19:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Any information on why England declared war on Germany and not Russia? I thought that a peace treaty with Poland is usually given as England's reason - was it only for half of Poland or only for protection against Germany?

[edit] Japanese offensives- Alaska

Although i'm not a member or anything, and certainly cannot live up to the skill of the poeple who wrote this article, i would like to mention the fact that the Japanese did invade two islands off the coast of Alaska. I would just like to mention this so the battles in Alaska would be mentioned in this article. Please disregard this if the battles inAlaska have alreadyt been discussed

It's true about Alaska but not important enough to be in this article. Rjensen 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Unsigned poster: I agree with you. Auroranorth 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't even know that fact until now. It is important for readers to know that Japan actually directly attacked two pieces of US territory-Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian Islands. If you can, put some info in,thanks. Oyo321 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Well by that logic the multiple bombings of Darwin should be mentioned as they involved more Japanese planes than Pearl Harbour. The article will get too massive if we talk about every tiny little battle that happened when compared to the bigger battles. 58.107.175.127 04:44, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

i disagree as well...the japanese also attacked the western coast of the u.s. with submarines, and also their failed hot-air-balloon fire bombing campaign against the pacific northwest. but are we going to talk about all of these things on the overview? the attacks on the aleutians aren't important enough for the main page. and they weren't really battles. the japanese landed mostly unopposed, and when the u.s. came to retake them, the japanese slipped out unnoticed because of fog. hardly the tipping point of the war. leave them on the midway article. Parsecboy 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that at the very least we should add a link to a new page, to be named, Japanese attacks on US soil during WWII. This will address the need to mention these events while not adding more info to an already packed paged. I would have created it myself but don’t know enough about these “smaller” events (few people do, which is precisely why this new page could add a lot of value to Wikipedia). Jimmy1988 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this is much too insignificant to be in this article. We don't have links to auxilary Soviet and Chinese battles, thus overburdening it with something like this is unnessesary, especially considering that the scale of warfare on the Soviet front made even the most important allied battles seem like auxilaries anyways. On a side note - during the campaign one of the islands (i think it was Kiska, but i'm not sure) was properly assaulted by americans and canadians (bombardment from planes and warships, naval invasion), who, to their surprise, eventually found out that the island was undefended. My pity goes to those few unlucky soldiers who were killed by friendly fire in that shameful "battle". Also, a similar situation occured during the Winter War, this time the idiots attacking an undefended island were the Soviets. With respect, Ko Soi.

[edit] Transferral of some pages

Hello

I have begun to transfer some sections to separate pages. Do we need a main index for all those new World War II pages? World War II Aftermath Auroranorth 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to at least leave a link to the subpage and also make sure that no content is lost. Haber 18:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holocaust numbers

There are multiple conflicting figures and references given for Holocaust deaths, spread across close paragraphs; can someone merge these into a statement reflecting the differing estimates?

[edit] Link

This site [3] is a really good and detailed day by day account from the German side up until Crete. I don't understand why it was taken off. I'll put it back after a day if nobody can tell me why it shouldn't be on here. Richard Cane 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World at War: World War II History - External Link

Please add this external link to the World War II page: http://poopdeck90210.com/ww2his

[edit] About the Length of the Article

I think that this article should be divided into three or four parts or be categorized to correspond with the article size rule. I don't know how anyone can read an article this long and understand every single section. The discussion page is getting very long as well. I'm glad something is done about this but more work is needed. Sr13 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Divided chronogically, participant-wise, battles etc.? Do you have one in mind? Oyo321 03:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the length of such a universally important article is good. It is one good, consolodated resource for a highly-researched topic, and simply an interesting subject, which I wouldn't want to have to read thoroughly about via a series of linked pages.

Miketanton 16:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It is World war II. It is big and complicated conflict. There needs to be atleast one article that summarizes it all. Yes its long, but it is justified as WW II was a huge conflict. I agree that there needs to be smaller articles about different parts of conflict. But those articles already exist(European Theatre of World War II, North African campaign, Pacific War etc) So no need to break through opened door. (Staberinde 17:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

Wow! Even we break this topic into subtopics, the article is still long. Rather than talking about each specific battle (probably not every single battle is documented), shouldn't we just make a very general summary of the war and create a list of battles from each year of the war? Sr13 08:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why keep shortening this article. It is not so big for such a major subject. For those who have a short attention span, could try to start with a simpler article, and for those who have a slow computer, either be patient or get an upgrade. Wallie 21:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article needs to be shortened. This is not so much because it is too long to understand (though it is) but because by the very nature of things it will keep on growing. Every editor wants to add something to it, and taking things away is going to cause controversy. However it would be good to get suggestions of where we think the article should be cut. Dividing it is not going to help - we will still need an article that covers the whole subject at one pass. DJ Clayworth 17:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. I've been reviewing past arguments on the length of the article. World War II is a very, very complicated war. We still have many mysteries that shroud the war, and we continue to uncover new facts unknown before. When the scale of the war becomes as big as World War II, its inevitable. The length of the article is more than acceptable, and I actually think we should work in adding more information into it. I also wish to set a poll, on whether or not we should lengthen or delete some "unnecessary" sections. Oyo321 04:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casus belli

I'm sure this has been discussed at least once before in the gargantuan archives that we have for this article, but I still need to ask: why is the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor listed as a reason for the start of the war? Surely it was a reason for American entry into the war, but a casus belli for the war itself? Not really. Hopefully we can get a good discussion going on this. If not, I will wait for two or three days then simply remove it as it seems very inappropriate (and just factually wrong too).UberCryxic 21:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Just leave it dude no need to reinvent the wheel. Haber 23:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed, as it took place years after the war began. --NEMT 03:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that attack of Pearl Harbor is not needed there. German invasion of Poland is enough for casus belli as it started WW II. Although I have thought that maybe Molotov-Ribbentrop pact should be also added behind it in brackets. (Staberinde 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC))

Interesting point, but I don't know if that would really be needed. The solitary casus belli of ww2 is the invasion of poland - which likely would've taken place with or without a soviet/nazi non-aggression deal. --NEMT 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually changed the article and introduced Pearl Harbor as a "casus belli". Having seen the comments here, I was probably wrong to do this. I had a look at the WW1 article, and this does not mention the sinking of the Lusitania as a cause. So it is now clear to me. If someone likes to remove Pearl from the cause of the war, that's OK by me. If it hangs around, I will remove it myself. Wallie 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

German-soviet invasion of Poland can be considered to be a fulfilment of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact(which was signed a week before invasion started). I doubt that Hitler would have made pact with his main ideological enemy if he would had though that Poland can be invaded without it. Btw, I removed pearl harbor from casus belli. (Staberinde 15:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC))

Thiis absolutely correct: Hitler would not have invaded Poland without the approval of Stalin. To have done so would have meant an automatic war with the Soviet Union, for which he was not ready in 1939. Another small point-the connection between the Lusitania sinking and American entry into WWI is a long established myth. The Lusitania was sunk in May 1915. America did not enter the war until April 1917, during the second phase of the unrestricted U-boat warfare. White Guard 05:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The connection of the Lusitania and America entering the war is hardly a myth. An excuse, maybe. Who knows why the United States entered the war. Only Woodrow Wilson would know the answer to that one. However, the Lusitania is an important fact, and not just a myth. To say that Hitler needed Stalin's permission to invade Poland is really strecthing the imagination. Wallie 21:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The US entered the Great War after the initiation of a new phase of unrestricted U-boat warfare by Germany in 1917, and the subsequent attacks on American shipping, nothing at all to do the sinking of the Lusitania two years before. Any historian will tell you that the reasons for the declaration of war were not known only to President Wilson, as you seem to believe, but were made clear to Congress. I did not say that the sinking of the Lusitania was a myth; I did say that the connection between this sinking and the American entry into the war was. Please read carefully and think clearly.

For Germany to have invaded Poland without the agreement of Stalin would have meant war with the Soviet Union, with the western Allies unsubdued in the rear; not even Hitler was that mad. The chief aim of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, as far as the Germans were concerned, was to neutralize Russia. The objective for Stalin was to increase Soviet security by pushing his borders westwards. Can I suggest that you take time-out do some serious reading before you decide to make any more of these interventions? I think you are best to avoid appearing ignorantly ill-informed, for the sake of your own self-esteem, if nothing else. White Guard 23:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't be getting on Wallie's back now. Wallie is not "ill-informed," and definitely not stupid enough to be making "interventions," that are not reaching your expectations. Respect him, he works hard. Oyo321 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Read again what 'the Wallie' has written. You say he is not ill-informed? My expectations are that people at least know what they are talking about, and thus earn my respect. A fool may work hard at being a fool. Above all, I hate anyone to look like 'a Wallie.' My advice to you is to resist the temptation. White Guard 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

There is some confused thinking here. "The Second World War" is a bucket term for what was in reality two (or more) separate large-scale regional conflicts. The Pacific conflict became a "world war" after Pearl Harbour when major extra-regional powers (the US and Britain+Empire) became involved. Similarly, the Nazi-Soviet pact laid the groundwork for the invasion of Poland and the consequent entry of France+Empire and Britain+Empire. Both can be validly held as triggers for war- but not the same war. Badgerpatrol 03:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The dates of the Second World War are 1939-1945, just as the First World War is 1914-1918, notwithstanding the late American entry.. All the revisionism and hair-splitting in in the world will not change that. White Guard 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making any judgements as to whether he (or you) is in my opinion ill-informed or not- please actually read what I wrote. My advice to you is to mind your attitude and get on with editing the article. Badgerpatrol 13:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Clearly some confusion here: the opening remarks were not addressed to you, Badgerpotrol, but to the previous user. I would have thought it would have been obvious from the context, but I suppose I should have separated them out. My apologies if I caused you any offence, but the attitude I take will always be determined by the responses I receive. White Guard 23:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Observations now arranged to allow a more accurate reading. White Guard 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Haber removed Molotov-Ribbendrop pact from casus belli saying: ""casus" not = "cause". read dictionary.". So i started thinking why the hell is "german invasion of Poland" considered to be casus belli? I mean it was casus for France and UK, that's true but those countries joined war at 3rd september. War started at 1st sempember. So what was casus for german invasion of Poland? There are 2 possibilities, Polish corridor or Gleiwitz incident. I mean its ridiculous to have german invasion of poland as casus belli for german ivasion of poland. (Staberinde 12:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC))

Good point. So why not include Pearl Harbor again? Haber 14:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WW II started in 1939 not in 1941 (Staberinde 16:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Ok. I don't completely agree, but I like having Gleiwitz incident in there. Haber 20:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've started a new section on this at the bottom of the page. DJ Clayworth 18:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't need much citation. Around a billion people lived through this period and were directly imvolved. So there were plenty of eye-witnesses and the text written here is pretty much "common knowledge". I agree that some of the more obsure facts may warrant a quote, or if the factual data was being disputed. However, I don't think you need a citiation to show that D-Day or the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima happened. Wallie 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Oyo321 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Every article always needs more citations. This article needs lots, lots more. VERIFIABILITY, not "truth". Badgerpatrol 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zhongwen Wikipedia flags

Has anyone noticed on the | Chinese Wikipedia version of this article they used the Chinese Communist Party flag in the info box with the war description whereas in the english article we use the Republic of China Flag? Does this indicate a point of conflict, where the ROC believed that they were fighting a war against the Communists Chinese and the Japanese at the same time, whereas the Chinese article possibly claims that the ROC was ineffective as a government and thus the PRC came about to fight the Japanese?Xlegiofalco 03:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC) nm,but what country does the chinese wikipedia recognize as the official chinese government during WW2? Apparently it doesnt list China as an ally under the info box.Xlegiofalco 04:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The POV in the overview

Right now overview does a couple things, one, it says the war started when Germany invaded Poland, but we might say it started when England and France declare war? its easy to imagine they didnt declare war, then this would be called the fourth partition of Poland not a world war II. Im not sure on this but...It is definitiely POV not to mention here that Soviets and Germany already agreed to divide Poland and USSR invaded, too. if Germany started war by invading Poland, then Germany and Russia started the war together when THEY invade Poland.Opiner 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

FX:Rolls eyes. For a brief overview it is perfectly ok to say 'WWII started with the German invasion of Poland'; we explain later the subtlety that Japan and China were at war since the mid-30s, that Britain and France took a day or to to declare war, that the USA declared war in 1941, and so on. The Land 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No eye rolls needed. My point is that this make sit sound like Germany started the war which is not that simple. Its not apologism we can agre that Nazis were the bad guys here, but are we really sure Hitler wanted to fight England for example? Probably not. Fairer to say Germany PROVOKED the war by breaking their deals and invaded Poland.

Wosre than the antiGerman POV is the pro-Russian. No mention at all that Russia participated in invasion and was German ally until stabbed in the back. Makes Russia sound like innocent victim!

We should say instead, Germany provoked the war by breaking Munich agreement and invading Poland with Russia. Britain and France then declared war. Later, Germany betrayed agreement and attacked Russia.Opiner 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We do say that. Just not in the introduction. DJ Clayworth 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Going through this article Im not pro-German AT ALL but I gotta say theres a whole lotof POV that doesnt need to be here. Why the scaring quotes around "ethnic German" is this really disputed? Etc. I agree Hitler was main problem here but just tell the story.Opiner 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a repeated Wikipedia phenomenon that someone comes and criticises the introduction section of an article saying "that doesn't give the full story". No, the full story is given later. On a subject this complicated the really full story is given in a huge number of subarticles. DJ Clayworth 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably we could add all my ideas in a few dozen words.Opiner 08:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Some more obvious non-neutrality is 'The main aim of the Nazi aggression was the conquest of Lebensraum (living space) for a greater German Empire at the expense of the peoples of Eastern Europe.

That was a long-term aim of course but aims which prompted the war was aim of REGAINING territory in Poland which had been taken from Germany at Versailles! See Prussia, Silesia. In Czechoslavakia it was to bring Germans again under German rule which they had until the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Aim of Lebensraum doesnt come up until Barbarossa. So, Lebensraum was goal of German aggression against USSR but NOT of the things which actually began the war!Opiner 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. Prague and Warsaw are not German. Haber 01:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep. While some territories of contemporary Poland were formerly German (and even earlier (Middle Ages) they were Polish...), much of the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany were never before controlled by Germany.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

We are all three of us right. What was made Czechoslovakia was part of (ethnic German) Kingdom of Austria until after WWI. Part Germany demanded and got at Munich was only Sudetenland. Hitler obsession was to unite German speakers in one nation. In Poland Germany attack supposedly because Poland refuse to give back Polish corridor which WAS part of Germany until only twenty years before and was almost completely German speaking. But if Germany ONLY took former German land there still would be war. They did take more but No one said if you only take German territory no war and Germany didnt ask for anything that wasnt.

Lebensraum? Yes that was ideology and MAYBE war happen anyway BUT that was NOT proximate cause of war. Unifying former Germany plus Austria was enoiugh to cause and DID cause war. England and France didnt mention Lebensraum in war devclarion did they? Did they declare war to stop later attack on Russia where was all the Lebensraum? Russia who had just signed friendship with Germany and was in on the plot? They DID violate their deal at Munich no one denies that but to say that endless territorial ambition cause war is wrong. It is conflating of the two ideas.Opiner 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that territorial ambition causes wars is wrong? I am a political socio-military historian, and all of the wars I have seen are result of the endless territorial ambition of one nation or another. WWII - Germany wanted Lebensraum, I mean were they thinking that the USSR would go: "sure, we have a strong army, but please take our land, we don't want it anymore, and we feel that you'd take better care of it through genociding our Slavic brothers"? The whole damn principle of endless territorial ambition leads to wars! Country A has endless territorial ambition, where it will eventually (endless, remember?) reach country B that isn't planning on losing land, and hence BOOM we have a war. It's a simple concept really, kinda like military history 101. You cannot have a single entity, a single country dominating the entirety of the planet, cause that would simply kill off all of our culture, and people jealously guard their cultures! So that single, ever expanding (endless to use your words) entity/country will eventually have war! Looks at the whole principle of Imperialism, and understand why it fails! No empire, whether first reich, second or third will last indefinetely, becuase not everyone thinks the same way. Would you want people entering your country, and telling you how to run it, due to their endless territorial ambitions? Or perhaps their endless economic ambitions? Most people would be pissed off, and on the verge of declaring war, and there's always some crazy person who would trigger the ignition, it's just a cycle. That's how it works. As for WWII, Germany started it, becuase once that's out of the equation, no world war, duh! Hitler wanted World Domination, which required fighting everyone, (yes even Mussolini and Tojo) but fighting them eventually, not this very minute! Luckily this mad man was stopped by the Red Army, to whom we all owe our deepest gratitude. And look, in a post WWII world, no countries claim to have endless territorial ambitions, they've learned their lessons, have you?

User ABC

Did not say territorial ambition didnt cause war only ENDLESS terrotiorial ambition. BECAUSE endlessness of ambition not obvious until Barbarossa. Even then not literally 'endless' right. Russia big but still finite. Main point it was recreation of pre great war Germany itself break treaty because including what then called Polish corridor which was proximate cause of war. NOBODY say declare war on Germany because they want Lebensraum in Russia. Only because attacking POland because Poland not giving the land back. No real moral point here since Going back further Germany take a bunch of land from POland to begin with in series of partitions with Russia and Austria. Just the observing of the facts September 1939.Opiner 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead

Is it just me or is the lead for this article extremely short? Shouldn't it be just a bit longer given the size of this article as WP:LEAD states? Periklis* 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody permanently deletes the intro.--Nixer 11:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted your addition because inaccurate and non-neutral. See section above here.Opiner 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Asia/Pacific box in the WWII pic?

The collage of boxes showing the war is good except it feels only a part of the world war, there was a whole hemisphere in asia/pacific btw that all i'm asking for is one box to show recognition of it, maybe cut the huge D-Day one in half and add a asia/pacific one. It's kind of degrading all those that fought in those theaters.--12.72.30.219 06:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. It is a grim subject, but if we take deaths as a measure of significance, it is possible that no country in the world suffered as many casualties in 1941-45 as China (see Second Sino-Japanese War and World_War_II_casualties#endnote_China). There were also war-related famines which killed several million in countries like Indonesia, India and Vietnam. Japan suffered 2.6 million dead and the U.S. military had more than 100,000 KIA in Asia and the Pacific. Grant65 | Talk 08:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actualy Nagasaki atom bomb is from Asia/Pacific. Cutting D-day image sounds as quite bad idea for me, from current pictures maybe nuremberg rally would be easiest to remove as it is about pre-war event. (Staberinde 08:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

How about part of this image? It is an icon of the Sino-Japanese War. Grant65 | Talk 14:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This picture from the bombardment of Shangaï is a great choice !!! I support. The rising on the Reichstag and the atomic explosion are already in the sections of the article, maybe removing one of them would be more appropriate. --Flying tiger 14:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also a great pic, a personal favorite. Grant65 | Talk 15:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The user who made up that collage put a huge amount of work into it, and canvassed a lot of opinions. I don't think you will find the decision of which image to remove so easy. If you remove the Reichstag image then there is no representation from the Eastern Front. DJ Clayworth 15:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The collage is perfect. Thanks again to Dna-webmaster for making it. Haber 16:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Grant65, if it is too difficult to change the collage, maybe it would be better that you simply add the Shangaï picture in the section "The second sino-japanese war" at the beginning of the article but having read some comments that there are already too much pictures, there may be some unhappiness too with this decision... --Flying tiger 18:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we could squeeze one more picture into that section. DJ Clayworth 18:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to change the collage without support from several other editors.

DJ, the "lot of opinions" must have come only from people in Europe and North America. I think Staberinde's suggestion that the Nuremburg image could be dropped from the collage is very sound, especially as it is not a war image.

Haber, the collage is "perfect" if you live in Europe. But it is not called a "World War" for nothing. I refer you once more to World War II casualties for some perspective. Grant65 | Talk 04:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

From pacific in my opinion would be nice some naval pic(especially as there aren't any at the moment in collage). Best what i know is that battleship picture. (Staberinde 14:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

With respect, I believe that you are missing the point. This is not about which theater of war was better, or making sure we acknowledge everybody equally every time. I sincerely hope we can rise above that and try to do what's best for the article.

World War II, to a lot of people, is about more than just a bunch of battleships and bombs going off and people getting hurt. It is about civilization gone haywire. No other symbol expresses this better than the Swastika. The reason the collage works so well is that every picture in there dehumanizes its subjects. The Nuremburg picture forces you to think about all those dots in the crowd. Who are they, why are they there? Is this really a German thing, or could this happen where I live? It's a very powerful image, and has a much deeper meaning and relevance to "WWII" than some godforsaken baby left on some train tracks, or a bleeding Australian walking with a buddy, or even some battleships, cool as they are. Haber 16:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you guys wasting your time on such trivial matters? This article needs major help. Its badly written, bad grammer, very choppy, uncited casualty estimates, major elements missing, major events which need more coverage and smaller events which need less coverage. And you guys are worrying over a picture? Mercenary2k 06:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There definitely NEEDS to be a box for China's effort. THAT is the Asia box needed to be added to the collage. I believe the USSR and China suffered the greatest amount of casualties, i think that narrows down the scope of what type of pictures are needed. I also lend my vote to the famous Shangai photo, definitely.--12.72.30.112 08:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Mercenary, Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars is full of far worse examples of "trivia". I support Staberinde's suggestion re the battleship pic, especially since it is fairly generic and the collage doesn't have a naval pic.

I note as well that four of the six images are from western Europe (and even the Soviet flag raising was in Berlin) when, going on death toll, at least half should be from eastern Europe. Grant65 | Talk 10:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree with Merc more. Please, less time giving equal props to all, more time finding, sourcing, and organizing information. Haber 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, but to get back to the subject of the conversation ... I also think the D-day image could be reduced in size; the Rape of Nanking, Attack on Pearl Harbor, the Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Kursk, Operation Bagration and Battle of Leyte Gulf were no less significant. Grant65 | Talk 12:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A. J. P. Taylor said something along the lines of "at no time did the Red Army occupy the attention of less than half of the German army and sometimes up to two thirds". Along similar lines, we might also ask where the majority of the U.S. Navy spent the war. Grant65 | Talk 12:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is going to insert a China box into the collage?

--67.118.132.2 08:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not bad. It adds an image while retaining the key element of the D-Day image. I would still like to see a war image rather than the Nuremburg rally. The motivation of people from all countries is interesting, not just the Germans. I think we should have an image from Eastern Europe. Grant65 | Talk 10:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a good one, and it contrasts with the darker colours in the other images. Grant65 | Talk 12:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the collage is good, but however what strikes me is that the victorious Soviet flag over Berlin is on the last spot (bottom right) while the less significant, although heart warming to western allies, d-day is first (top left)... Sure, this may seem like petty squabling, but considering the immense propaganda efforts of the west to downplay the Soviet war effort to glorify their own far more minor involvment... With respect, Ko Soi.

[edit] Germany and "elimination of jewry"

The phrase "Germany also pursued another aim, the elimination of European Jewry" is not accurate enough and should not be used. This was a Nazi aim, not Germany's, there is a difference. A better phrase could be something along these lines "The Nazis in control of Germany during the conflict also pursued the elimination of European Jewry". Peoman1982 11:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. Germans as group were involved. To their credit, their behavior has been very admirable as a group in the years after 1945 and they have apologized, but all the same this example should not attempt to shift blame onto a political party. Haber

When talking about diplomacy or war we say Russia did this, England did that. doesnt mean everyone in Russia or England help or agree.Opiner 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there a source for "elimination of European Jewry"?

[edit] THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF ITALY

The formal surrender of Italy was signed by Marshal Badoglio and Eisenhower on the battleship "Nelson" on September 29, 1943. This article about WWII ignores this FACT. It is an other FACT that 180,000 Italian soldiers rejected the surrender. It is an other FACT that the Italian surrender hindered the attack to New York City by midged submarines, which the Royal Italian Navy wanted to start in December 1943. Read the Italian books about WWII and you will see this is no phantasy. (unsigned)

If you read the section entitled Allied invasion of Italy you will find that we do talk about the Italian surrender. The other things you mention are probably too detailed for this overview article. You are welcome to add them to other articles (perhaps Allied invasion of Italy) assuming you have sources for them. DJ Clayworth 15:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

No mention also that Germany tried to negotiate a surrender years before the end of the war - also happened in WW1. In both wars it was the allies who continued the war to the bitter end.

[edit] Japanese Flag

In the upper right corner, you have the country flags. I think you have the wrong Japanese Flag. You should use the on with the red rays coming out of the red circle.

Oops, can some one make this flag smaller for me?

just did Mercenary2k 00:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no mention of the TO&E, or Tabble of Organization & Equipment, the numbers of troups involved in the various armies, the numbers of tanks, planes, guns etc. Some one with the time and expertise should add this to this article. SFD.

Current japanese flag is correct as its state flag. You are proposeing a naval flag. (Staberinde 10:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Oh, Ok, I C. I though it was the flag forthe whole country.

Gotta say this flag looks a lot cooler.Opiner 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] THE MARITIME WAR IN THE MEDITERANNEAN.

In this article of Wikipedia there is almost no word about the maritime war in the Mediterranean Sea. Battles like Punta Stilo (July 1940), the British attack to Tarent (blueprint for the Japanese attack to Pearl Harbor!)(November 1940),Cape Matapan (March 1940), the Italian attack to Alexandria (December 1941), The battles of Syrte (December 1941 and March 1942), the battle of Pantelleria (June 1942), the battle of August 1942 in the western Mediterranean, the battle of West Sicily (April 1943) (= end of the destroyer "Pankenham") are forgotten! Forgotten is also the end of the brave admiral Carlo Bergamini (September 1943). Forgotten is also the role of the 144 Italian submarines.

Hi, you can sign your posts (so that everyone knows who you are) by adding four tildas to the end of your post. I suspect that what you are seeing here is a lack of knowledge on the part of the (mainly) English-speaking contributors. I looked up Bergamini and it seems he attempted to sail his fleet to North Africa to attempt to remove the Italian fleet from Allied control 1; I'm puzzled why you view this as heroic, in the context of postwar Italy, he was an anti-Allied traitor, although I see he was subsequently honoured by the Italian government, so evidently Italians don't look at it that way. I looked this incident up in Churchill's works and he described it as the "pitiful termination of a useless, demoralised and under-equipped tail-end of a Navy bowing to the inevitable". So I'm sceptical that it was that big a deal that it needs special mention on this page. MarkThomas 16:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, much as I hate to make this article longer, I agree. The Mediterranean naval war isn't even mentioned. The naval attack on Taranto and the defence of Malta should probably get a mention (though probably very brief). DJ Clayworth 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all. If I made mistakes it is only because I have only a little experience with wikipedia. Every information I wrote for Wikipedia is full correct. Never I wrote something untrue. So. Bergamini got two golden medals: 1 from the Kingdom of Italy one from the RSI.As far as Churchill said, I can only answer: the Royal Italian Navy trained for weeks in perspective to face the last battle in the Thyrrenian Sea. There is only a fact: Bergamini didn`t want to surrender. Who sais the contrary, he lies. He wanted to attack the British-American Navy in front of Salerno (he wanted for the Italian Navy an epic end)but the king decided to surrender. His ship was attacked by American planes and then by German planes. He didn`t want to go to Malta but to Spain. The battleship "Roma" was going towards west, when she sunk. Only after the tragedy of the "Roma" the Navy decided to go to Malta. In Tarent Vice-Admiral Galati wanted to ignore the royal surrender and wanted to attack the British Navy.He was arrested by the admirals who said we have to accept the royal orders. On the battleship "Giulio Cesare" a tumult broke out when the order to go to surrender in Malta was divulged.

Oct.27, 2006: I thank you for adding a chapter about Cape Matapan and the war in the Mediterranean! Lovely. I say good-bye to the staff!

no problem. let me know if there is anything else that is missing which needs to be covered.Mercenary2k 11:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Nomonhon Incident

This was one of the most important events in World War II, with 27 THOUSAND people killed and was directly responsible for the Molotov/Ribbientrop pact, what with Stalin knowing that if Hitler invaded Poland he'd be in the middle of a two front war and all.

Also, I might add a short bit on the 1931-33 Sino-Japanese war.

[edit] ARTICLE IS TOO LONG!!!

Actually this article is way to short. Covering any part of WWW2 or WW1 would take much more space.

This article is oversized- by toooooooooooooooooooooooo faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!

Do we really need these photos???

(((wtf?)))

wow, resistance with army, that will really help me

Rubble, stupefying

Please leave any of your comments in my talk page

Dukakis 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry, but the normal procedure is to leave responses on the article's talk page. Thanks for showing what you mean, I've just reduced the images to a more reasonable size. I agree with everything you say, except for the the paratroopers -- parachute troops were an important (albeit rarely successful) feature of the war. Grant65 | Talk 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, aside from seizing vital bridges in Holland in 1940, taking Crete in 1941, protecting the flanks of OVERLORD on D-Day in 1944, capturing the majority of assigned objectives in MARKET-GARDEN,and securing ground on the opposite side of the Rhine in February 1945, paratroops did nothing at all during the war... :-) Michael Dorosh^Talk 05:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree on the Kursk Waffen-SS pic as well, we kind of have to see just who were these 'elite soldiers' on the 'bad guy side' during the -- oh i don't know -- LARGEST ARMORED AND AIR BATTLE in the history of the human race. Yeah.--67.118.132.2 06:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that pic says much about Kursk or the Waffen SS. There are far better pics of both and I would rather have two separate pics than that one. Grant65 | Talk 10:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dukakis, I guess you really want to remove any pictute that does not involve the heroic exploits of the United States, (which incidentally would leave the first three years of the war completely free of pictures)... Grant65, why not put up your better pictures of Kursk? Wallie 21:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Prokhorovka was part of the larger battle of Kursk.

Better SS pic (Totenkopf LMG team in action). There you go. Grant65 | Talk 17:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I realise that a few people have complained about the length of this article, but:

It looks like quite a lot of people, actually. I can only assume that you are accessing it via DSL, because on a dial-up connection it is obvious that the length is totally unacceptable; I just timed it at over seven minutes to load the page. At that speed, most dial-up users will simply abandon this page and seek their information elsewhere, and that is a tragedy because it really is an important topic. And it is a mistake to think that dial-up users are an insignificant minority. -- 144.138.137.22 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

But if you want to get rid of images, why are you so worried about waiting for them to load? I measure the size of the HTML file to be about 300K, which shouldn't take much more than a minute or so to download over a dial-up connection. Unless you have a very dodgy browser, you should be able to read or edit the text while you are waiting for the images to load or even turn off the images all together. All the images are well labelled, so you can easily pick and chose to manually load ones you are interested in. -- Seth ze 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1) WWII is one of the most significant events in world history (if not the most significant), so it deserves a thorough treatment. I realise we can link to more detailed sub-pages, but I think that having a reasonably good overview of the entire conflict is useful.

OK, but "a reasonably good overview" doesn't require a photograph of diplomats raising a toast, or officers reviewing a parade. It is said "Wikipedia is not paper". True: on paper an image takes the same resources as a few dozen words, on the web an image consumes the resources of not a thousand words, but ten thousand. -- 144.138.137.22 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The images are all kept in a central repository, so having them on this page doesn't actually consume any additional storage resources. Sure, they can consume additional bandwidth resources, but that's something that a decent browser/cache will minimise. -- Seth ze 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

2) WWII is relatively modest in length compared to certain other pages. Here's a table to illustrate my point (word and picture counts are approximate):

Erm, no it isn't! See my analysis below -- 144.138.137.22 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Rank	Name	Words	Size	Images
185	Condoleezza Rice	16,077	123,726	27
206	Hugo Chávez	15,436	120,879	16
222	Immigration to the United States	16,696	117,445	4
225	Byzantine Empire	17,584	117,008	22
227	World War II	16,573	116,810	47

Firstly, your "size" column is just the raw text size. The images are much more significant from the point of view of slow downloads, and this article has double the number of images of the "Condoleeza Rice" article, and nearly double "Byzantine Empire"; the others are tiny by comparison. And if we look at the talk pages, we find that "Byzantine Empire" and "Immigration to the United States" both also have complaints about being too long. I don't know if "Condoleeza Rice" or "Hugo Chávez" do or not; I didn't bother to drill into their dozens of archives of controversy and argument. -- 144.138.137.22 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. Not sure why you are waiting for the images to download when you are arguing for them to be removed. Just start reading/editing. -- Seth ze 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

3) Pictures (where WWII stands out) are actually useful in longer articles to break up the article and make it visually more appealing. Whilst you may not like some of the individual pictures used, you need to realise that this is a personal preference. I think that each of the pictures you complain about are interesting and/or informative. Seth ze 02:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they break it up beautifully. With a total page weight of 1.23 MB, more than 12 times the accepted limit, they put lots of nice blank squares all over the page until long after one has given up on it. You need to at least halve the number of pictures, or else shrink a lot of them to thumbnails. Maps would be a good start; you can barely make the small copies out anyway, so you might as well have thumbnails leading to decent sized ones. Then scrap all the potraits, pictures of diplomats and so. -- 144.138.137.22 10:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

So if we halve the number of images, how does that actually help you? What you seem to be complaining about is that the images are taking too long to download, but there should be nothing to stop you reading/editing while you are waiting or simply turning them off and loading them manually if you're interested in a particular image. The images are in fact thumbnails. You could make them smaller, but that would then disadvantage other users. If you can't read a map, click on it to go to the bigger version. -- Seth ze 02:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, long and influential periods in history, especially ones that redefined society, need long articles. In my opinion, this article barely scratches the surface of WWII. -- THL^CCD 03:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

121K is certainly not "WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LONG" or whatever. The idea that articles lengths need to be based on increasingly rare dial-up connection speeds seems questionable, as well. john k 06:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] All Numbers need to be cited

All Numbers whether its casualty estimates, number of troops deployed, number of tanks destroyed, etc..., need to be cited. Mercenary2k 10:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason my browser shows a picture over laping the first line of this paragraph. "The German forces in Italy surrendered on May 2, 1945, at General Alexander's headquarters, and German forces in northern Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands surrendered on May 4. The surrender in Italy was preceded by the controversial secret Operation Sunrise in March 1945, during which the Great Britain and the United States were accused by the Soviet Union of trying to reach a separate peace. The German"

[edit] Percent of world population

We record that 2.5% of the world population died in the war. Are we sure that this is only the deaths due to the war? We would typically expect around 10% of the world's population to die in any five year period. DJ Clayworth 15:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casus Belli

I'm looking at the Gleiwitz incident listed under this in the summary table, and it's clearly not appropriate. Having a relatively obscure incident mentioned in this box is pointless. What people are looking for here is a marker incident for the start of the war. Casus Belli doesn't mean this, as people pointed out above. However rather than change the name of the entry someone filled in one of the actual 'casus bellis' for the war. What we should do is change the name of the entry to 'starting event' or some such, and put the German invasion of Poland in there. The trouble with listing a Casus Belli is that there are different ones for different countries. For Germany it was the Gleiwitz incident. For Poland, France and Britain it was the German invasion. For the US it was Pearl harbor, for Japan it was - well I don't know, something to do with western colonialism. For Italy it was Ethopia. What we need to do is abandon using 'Casus Belli' in the box and replace with something people understand. DJ Clayworth 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The concept of "casus belli" is useful when war occurs within the framework of an international system, where two countries have a clear dispute, and seek to resolve it within the framework of common values, even when at war with each other. I know it sounds strange to our ears, but this is why "casus belli" exists as a formal concept within international diplomacy. Nations used to disagree about the correct ownership of a specific territory, for example, and would resort to warfare to settle the issue.

This was not the case in World War II. For Germany, the issue was whether all norms and international standards of decency were a mere illusion to be discarded, and which had been forcibly imposed on civilization by some supposed Jewish conspiracy. For Japan, the issue was whether they had the right to rule Asia, and to treat conquered peoples like chattel.

For Britain, the issue was whether they had the right to live free of dictatorship. the fact that, by the end of the war, the British system of class and imperialism had been totally discredited, was simply a side-effect of the war's intensity, and does not lend any credence to any iota of the Axis war aims or effort. Hence this is why it is a little unfeasible to refer to a "casus belli."

By the way, for all of you who seek to provide some "context" for Axis war aims, the preceding is why there is an intrinsic difference in morality between war aims of the Axis, and those of most other countries throughout modern history. The war aims of most countries, though obviously in conflict and sometimes extremely contentious, can still be accorded some context within the realm of modern normal historical trends This includes the Germany of the First World War. This is not true of the Axis countries, or their dictators. this is why you will see us calling for an intrinsically different treatment of these things historically, than of any other set of national aims. Thanks. ----Sm8900 19:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Axis behavior was evil espcecially obviously towards Jews but your characterization of motive is still unfair.

FOr Japan international economy locked up by colonial powers. COlonial system denied equal access to raw material and markets. Two ways to fix this, either fight all colonialism or build own empire. Their motive of ruling itself no different than Spain, Portugal, Holland, Britain, France motive and except for China what they took over was ALREADY taken over by the British, Dutch and Americans! This very similar to some Germany motives before WWI of building a navy and finding a 'place in the sun.' The character of the colonial system legitimize this logic and make it almost inevitable. Even anti-colonialist like America still have colonies Cuba and Phillipines and quasi-colony 'sphere of influence' in Monroe doctrine.

For Britain, issue was not freedom from dictarship but same as in Napoleonic war, Great war and COld war, no domination of Europe continent by any one power. They say England foreign policy hasnt changed for centuries and in this way its true. Greater germany simply too big too populous and too powerful to have balance if not split up. This proven in first war where it took four big countries together to match and defeat Germany, even then Russia was knocked out first, so had to split it up. And now it would be only worse with Austria added. No accident that each wars followed by dismantling and shrinking of germany plus limits on builds as part of treaty. Of course evil character of nazis made the case much easier BUT cause of war again was recreation of greater germany which ITSELF violate the treaty by design.Opiner 20:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we agree then that 'Casus belli' is not a useful thing to put in the summary box? DJ Clayworth 21:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Gleiwitz incident shouldnt be there because incident only staged as a pretext for gettng their land back.Opiner 22:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thread. I do think it's rather unfair that the first country to start a war gets to have their casus belli listed alone, to the exclusion of other, truer ones. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of infoboxes and quick ways of getting the picture, so "invasion of poland" really tells the story for me even though it raises other problems. If the rules for the template need to be changed maybe we should take this up at Template talk:Infobox Military Conflict? I'd be in favor of leaving casus as an option (for places where it works), and having another field with another name, possibly "Cause" even though the POV-accusations will be neverending. Haber 03:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think 'Cause' will get us into too much argument, possibly for the good reason that trying to sum up the causes of a complex situation in a single phrase is going to result in oversimplicity. Even "Start" or "first incident" is going to get us back into the argument over whether the war started in 1939 or 1937. I think the best way is to remove Casus belli and replace it with nothing. DJ Clayworth 15:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with removeing casus belli completely. (Staberinde 16:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

I also agree with removing casus belli. Opiner, thanks for your response. What you say is valid; the Axis war aims did have some relation to the general direction of their countries' past resource needs, etc. My point is that underneath their military aggression was a real desire to wipe out their enemies, and entire ethnic groups. That's my point, and that's how this differs from previous European wars. this cannot be grouped even with past wars between monarchs, where say, the issue might be royal succession, teritory, etc.

The point is that these dictators were tyrants who moved outside any parameters of public opinion, or even (here's where they differ from many historical monarchs) any conception of international or historical morality. So I appreciate the context on this. I am not differing with all of those points, but it is definite that one cannot group Axis war aims within the same diplomatic category as that of countries which move within historical parameters of international diplomacy, law, and /or public opinion. Thanks. --Sm8900 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan cruel to occupied people and prisoners but not have any desire eliminating the ethnic groups that I know.Opiner 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were my encyclopedia, I would write "Invasion of Poland", "Attack on Pearl Harbor" and be done with it. But I can live with no casus in the infobox. Haber 22:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No more straitforward example of casus belli than attack on Pearl Harbor! Remember it not mean 'cause of war' but actual INCIDENT of war. It gets no clearer than direct attack. America oil and steel embargo was proximate cause of war and forced Japans hand but not an ACT of war.

For Germany more complicated because invasion of Poland not direct attack on western powers except in interpretation. Making Poland honorary allied participant is like joining Serbia in triple entente just to say Austria-Hungary starting the great war. Gleiwitz incident only propaganda but how about BOTH invading Poland follow by England and France declaring of war. Its not quite right to say Germany alone start the world war or to say west declare war out of the blue. Include both is short simple and hard to dispute.Opiner 00:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here's a thought. The concept of "casus belli" is not used universally for all hostile conflicts. it is used ONLY when two nations have a definable difference of opinion, but when each respects the other's nationhood, and each relate within a framework of diplomacy. Would you identify a "casus belli" for Genghis Khan, when he overran Europe? Or a casus belli for King Leopold when he sought to enslave African tribes? How about a "casus belli" for the Goths and Vandals who overran Rome? Or a casus belli for the Roman Empire, or the Hittites, or the Babylonians, when they sought to conquer the civilized world? Or the Soviets when they invaded various East European countries, to keep them under their heel?

Here's another example; I would not ascribe a casus belli to the United States of America, a great and inspiring democracy--when it comes to the wars with Native Americans. The goal there was conquest, pure and simple.

The concept of casus belli is out of place here. It does not apply. It's about time we accepted a few simple things. Hitler was a genocidal tyrant. That's it pure and simple. Placing Nazis, the Japanese, and the Fascists in that category is not some attempt to make them a unique exception to all general historical methods. it is not some attempt to place them in a category where they do not receive the same political protections accorded to other nations' military ventures. On the contrary, we are putting them squarely in a historical context.

It's just that their proper, correct category is "unabashed self- proclaimed conquerors, driven by one dictator and racial supremacist policies ," and certainly not, say, "complex industrial nations seeking an equable balance of power, as defined by internal national consensus". So refined, subtle concepts like "casus belli" just don't work here. --Sm8900 14:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think there maybe a misunderstanding here. Casus belli not so complicated: only meaning incident when the war start. Doesnt ask about the goals. 'Casus' sounding like 'cause' only the coincidence (dont worry everyone make this mistake.)

Disagreeing with you about Japan whose motives much more conventional and not revolutionary than Nazi Germany or Fascism Italy. Really two seperate wars. Mostly opportunism using Europeans at war so not have to be confronting the France and British Empire whose colonies Japan were taking. Only ONE independent country Japan invade after 1941 (can you guess who?) as in main one China war alrady going on for a while. Dont forget Russia and England also invading the China not too long before, Russia to take and England to make them buying drugs! To single Japan out for evil we can say, occupation more brutal than average EUrope occupation, mistreat the prisoners and used the sneak attack against America. In the style of marxism maybe say they had reactionary parts about empire without progressive trends (yet). Otherwise just disputes about which empire unjustly rule over the colony people with similar race attitude towards them.Opiner 03:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to War aims section

There are some recent changes to the section on 1939 German War aims which I would like to comment on. The following paragraph on German war aims, which included lebensraum and persecution of Jews, was changed.

The chief aim of the German expansionist policy at the time was the acquisition of Lebensraum, or territorial empire at the expense of the peoples of Eastern Europe. As the war developed and military victory became more and more unrealistic, the German leadership focused its attention on the elimination of European Jewry (see Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities). + The chief aim of the German policy at the time was the reacquisition of German territories taken by the Treaty of Versailles, and the addition of ethnic German regions of former Austria-Hungary to form a Greater Germany.

it was replaced with the following paragraph simply describing the aims of reacquisition of territories and redressing the inequities of the Versailles treaty.

The chief aim of the German policy at the time was the reacquisition of German territories taken by the Treaty of Versailles, and the addition of ethnic German regions of former Austria-Hungary to form a Greater Germany

It was explained with the following edit summary: "(Ridiculous to say Germany was trying to gain Lebensraum at eastern expense BEFORE the war!)"

sorry, but I must disagree with this edit. I understand your reasoning, and I respect you right to your views. However, the paragraph never claimed to be a description of Germany's stated war aims. As the paragraph overtly makes clear, it was summarizing German real war aims as they were at the beginning, and even as they were when they changed much later in the war. Therefore, there is no reason to remove the text on lebensraum. Clearly, this was part of German aims, and Hitler's plans, at the very beginning. This plan was stated in Mein Kampf. It is widely accepted that German strategy and war aims were intended to lead to these goals all along.

It is not relevant to describe their stated goals as if they were as valid as their real goals. Yes, Germany had not stated all of its war aims at that point. However, they were no less significant at that point, even if not stated. You might as well state that Hitler really wanted peace, because after all, he met with Chamberlain!

It’s important to understand the entire historical record. Hitler did not have to balance different interest groups, or to seek consensus; he did not need to worry about setting out credible claims for a world audience.

He was perfectly free to orchestrate events and the mass media, and to distort the truth as he saw fit. It's important to understand the meaning of storm troopers, fascism, Nazi terror, etc. it means that we cannot treat German statements of aims the way we would treat other nations’. Historical methods change when public statements are made by tyrannical, deceitful one-man dictatorships, which use terror as a tool, as opposed to consensus-driven democratic governments, which can only use persuasion and logic.

So these historical considerations are not driven by emotion, as one might suspect, but rather by the desire to be accurate to the historical record, in its entirety.--Sm8900 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with you as editor. To be clear I am NOT any way pro-nazi only sympathize with German NATIONAL aims that unfortunately got caught up with the NAzi ideology program because they were the only ones willing to reprresent them and then used the anti-Semitism to make the Jews scapegoat for these problem which France and England were real culprit.

SO NOW thats out of the way. Quote Mein Kampf for Hitler aim is fine BUT thats not the same as the Germany aim. Hitler had only power as head of Germany. and although was dictator could not base going to war on something not meaningful to the people. And key words AT THAT TIME. Germany said we are uniting our people and getting our land back and theres really no evidence it was not sincere except the Hitler writings BUT no one taking those seriously at that time. I am not trying to censor anything about Hitler or the war. The Mein Kampf musing have their place. Only trying to prevent anachronism of describing events by what we know or assume now. Even then its not proven. Truth is no one know what would happen if Germany allowed to regain polish corridor and reunite. We can say probably but its still a guess.

As for Hitler wanting peace or not well that is very broad. He didnt want peace with Slavs or with Jews obviously BUT is there any evidence he didnt want peace with England? This was said again and again that it not his intention to fight England. He call British Enpire 'the cornerstone of civilization' and in his race-based viewpoint where Aryans 'culture-creators' theres no reason to think he didnt mean it. He didnt want peace enough to kee his Munich deal I agree with that. Seems reasonable to think hed rather get his goals without fighting England though AND if England could be sure the plan was to attack Russia maybe they would have let him.

So I think we should take the German policy AT THAT TIME at face value because face value is credible motive too and is enough to edxplain what happen AT THAT TIME the outbreak of the war.Hitler personality distorting war aims came later and their should be section to discuss his fixed idea of attacking Russia for Lebensraum.

ps. off the topic but, Rational german leader also would have wanted land back, would have fought and probably declare victory after June 1940 (with help of and friendship for Germanys valued Jews!) Chance of England fighting on if Germany willing to leave France Belgium and Scandinavia on its own somewhere around zero!Opiner 03:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I see that you do have positive motives, and I appreciate your positive remark to me. however, one thing is quite clear. Hitler wanted war. That is obvious. German policy at that time was orchestrated to re-militarize Germany. And the overall context was to reach the point of attacking Russia.

To say he wanted peace with England sort of begs the question. That may be the one country he didn't plan to fight. But he clearly wanted a German Empire in most of Europe and Russia.

I would like an entry which reflects the most obvious aspects of Nazi goals. If we want to say what justifications they used, that's fine. But we should also reflect the overall context of the dramatic re-working of German society, toward militarism, rampant anti-Semitism, and also a clear plan of military aggression throughout 12-month period which began in Sept 1939.. --Sm8900 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in regard to the question of whether the aims of germany at that time might possibly differ or be distinct from the aims of Hitler, there are probably very few cases in all of history when the views of a single man, as dictator, played as great a role in the views, attitudes, and actions of a single nation; or also, that the machinations of one person played as great a role in the actions of the leaders of most of the major countries negotiating with germany at that time. --Sm8900 16:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

New comment: Denmark overlooked Denmark was also invaded in 1940. This should be added in the beginning of the article. Kasper T. Mortensen 14:25, 3 November 2006

[edit] Canada and China

Greetings, Kurt,

The reason for not adding Canada is that at that time in history they were not a soveraign nation. Decisions about whether or not China was a "major power" are necessarily subjective, but Canada was still officially part of the United Kingdom. Canadian soldiers fought bravely in the war, and I would be the last to argue that Canada was not influential, but since they were not a sovereign nation, adding Canada would, IMO, be a redundancy. Additionally, the ROC was a major staging ground and area of activity. While they may not have been terribly effective combatants (mainly due to a lack of equipment, certainly not to a lack of courage), that was where the Pacific Theater of WWII started.

Now, I am more than happy to hear your counter arguments ... but let us, and the community at large, please decide the question before changes are made. Justin Eiler 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

While Canada's full separation was not complete until 1982, Canada was a sovereign nation in 1939 and not part of the United Kingdom. From our Canada article:

"In 1919, Canada joined the League of Nations in its own right, and in 1931 the Statute of Westminster confirmed that no act of the British Parliament would extend to Canada without its consent. At the same time, the worldwide Great Depression of 1929 affected Canadians of every class; the rise of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Alberta and Saskatchewan presaged a welfare state as pioneered by Tommy Douglas in the 1940s and 1950s. After supporting appeasement of Germany in the late 1930s, Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King secured Parliament’s approval for entry into the Second World War in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland."

Contrast this with the situation in 1914 where Canada did not issue separate declaration of war. Lisiate 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see sufficient context defining this debate (has a portion of text been deleted?) but it is not even remotely accurate to suggest that Canada was "still officially part of the United Kingdom" or "not a sovereign nation" at the outbreak of WWII, if that is what is being suggested. Dominion status (conferred in the 19th century I believe) officially separated Canada from the UK, and as noted above the 1931 Statute of Westminster officially and specifically asserted Canadian (among others) sovereignty. Justin, you are a bit confused, I think. Badgerpatrol 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It's quite possible I am confused--to the ill credit of the American education system, my knowledge of Canadian history is less than complete. However, the context ofthe debate is visible in the edit history of the article. A user named User:Kurt Leyman has removed the China flag from the infobox and replaced it with the Canadan flag under the argument that China was not a "major power."

And if Canada was indeed a sovereign nation, then there may be a problem with the Patriation article, which states the following:

Canada, as a former British colony, was until 1982 governed by a constitution that was a British law and could be changed only by an Act of the British Parliament. Patriation thus specifically refers to making the constitution amendable by Canada only, with no role for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to play in the amending process. Hence, patriation is associated with the adoption of the Canadian amending formula, and the corresponding acquisition of sovereignty.

According to patriation, Canada was not fully sovereign until 1982. If the article is in error or I have misunderstood it, I would appreciate clarification from thoe more knowledgeable. However, I do still contend that China was a "major power," in the war. Justin Eiler 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the edit to which you refer and pieced the rest together. First of all, I would suggest that the Chinese contribution to WWII was greater than that of Canada and on that basis we might contend that China was a major power. For my part, I would ditch including any countries in the infobox and simply link to separate articles/sections on "the Allies" and "the Axis". As for Canada; the 1931 Statute of West. states: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.". That is sovereignty. A glitch of the 1931 statute and those before it was that it was an Act of the UK parliament, not that if Canada; the 1982 Canada Act addressed this. It is worth noting that aspects of UK law- especially constitutional law regarding succession- cannot in fact be changed without the assent of the Canadian parliament, and others throughout the Commonwealth. I don't think anyone seriously challenges the sovereignty of the UK on this basis. Similarly, the UK's highest court is in Luxembourg. In any case, I'm not certain how legal semantics re sovereignty are actually important; the real issue is full independence, which in Canada was assured well before 1939. Your point re the infoxbox may be correct; your reasoning isn't however. We can however argue the issue of UK sovereignty if you like? ;-) Badgerpatrol 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

lol No, thank you--arguments about sovereignty are enough to make my head spin. :-)

But I do thank you for the clarification--this makes quite a bit more sense. Justin Eiler 13:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of WWII abbreviation

Relocating from our user talk pages: Why are you replacing instances of [[WWII]] with [[World War II]]? WWII is a valid redirect, so replacement isn't necessary, and sometimes using the abbreviation is preferable (and replacing with a pipelink is also not necessary). See WP:R#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. -- JHunterJ 13:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

My interest was not in eliminating redirects. My interest was in making sure the article text reads 'World War II'. WHY: 1) World War II is the WP agreed upon name for the war so I think that name should be used in WP articles; 2) As time moves on, how many readers are going to immediately recognize that multiple names/links really are about the same war? To me, it is less confusing to all readers to use a single name for a single war. Hmains 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The World War II article itself still uses the well-known abbreviation WWII. WWII isn't a different name, it's just an abbreviation of the same name. Relocating this to Talk:World War II -- JHunterJ 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-structuring of this Article

This Article is split on a year by year basis but I think it would be better to split this Article by a campaign basis. A year by year split is very choppy and interrupts the flow of the article. Here is how I propose the Article should be split up...

• The Western Front (September 1939 - May 1941)
• Sino-Japanese War (July 1937 - September 1945)
• Mediterranean & North Africa (September 1940 - May 1943)
• The Eastern Front (June 1941 - January 1942)
• South East Asia (July 1937 - December 1941)
• The Western Front (May 1941 - June 1944)
• South East Asia (December 1941 - September 1945)
• The Eastern Front (January 1942 - February 1943)
• Italian Campaign (July 1943 - May 1945)
• Central and South West Pacific (December 1941 - October 1944)
• The Eastern Front (February 1943 - December 1943)
• The Western Front (June 1944 - May 1945)
• The Eastern Front (December 1943 - January 1945)
• Atlantic (September 1939 - May 1945)
• The Eastern Front (January 1945 - May 1945)
• Central and South West Pacific (October 1944 - September 1945)
• Defeat of Germany
• Defeat of Japan

All the information to fill up these sections is already here, we just need to re-organize it. Let me know if you guys agree with this proposal. Mercenary2k 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I like your idea but I think it can be compressed even more. For example, why does the Eastern Front have to be fragmented into five sections? Defeat of Germany and Japan can also be shifted to aftermath (with the bunker stuff and the a-bomb included under eastern front and Pacific. Also, it might be nice to just say "Pacific". That way you leave room for a blurb about the Aleutians. Haber 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the idea. Of course splitting article by campaing basis makes it easier to read certain campaing. But it makes harder to have overview of the whole war at the same time. Year basis makes it easier to have overview what was going on at the same time on different campaings like Eastern-Front, Pacific, Mediterranean etc..--Staberinde 07:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Japan's flag

Hey guys I've noticed on the article's fact box the contemporary flag of japan, thus during ww2 they used the red shining sun one. --Walter Humala |wanna Talk? 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Article's infobox flag is correct and its already discussed in this same discussion page.Staberinde 16:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall Gelb

In the section about this, the term 'Fall Gelb' is noted parenthetically as CACA. I feel as though this was not an official term of any historian or government. Wally 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Truman

I removed Truman from the summary box. It's supposed to be a summary. Chamberlain made some pretty important decisions too, and commanded for longer than Truman. DJ Clayworth 02:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)