Talk:World War II/Archive 15

Reorganisation of To Do list

I've decided to reorganise the To-Do list in an effort to make it more useful. Essentially I've added three new sub-headings: "Redirect", "Further information required" and "Done". The explanation for these headings is:

"Redirect" - use if the suggestion is best dealt with in another article (new or existing - if existing, try to specify the article)

"Further information required" - use if the suggestion is unclear or needs clarification.

"Done" use if the suggestion has been implemented and add the date that the suggestion was moved to the done section. Remove 'done' suggestions that are 1 month + old. This might seem somewhat redundant, but I think it is useful for people to see that their suggestions have been dealt with rather than simply deleted.

To Do: Central Powers?

There is a suggestion in the To Do list:

"Axis powers like germany,Austria etc were more commonly known as the Cential Powers.Mythamrith92 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)"

I disagree-- Central Powers was a WWI term. During WWII these powers are commonly referred to as the Axis Powers. Ognolman 18:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Utter bias in this WW2 article

Please compare the overview of this article with that of the following introduction and the rest of the American Civil War article.

The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a sectional conflict in the United States between the Federal government ("Union") and 11 southern slave states that declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America, led by President Jefferson Davis. The "Union", led by President Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party which opposed expansion of slavery, rejected any right of secession. Fighting began April 12, 1861 when Confederate forces attacked a Federal fort at the Battle of Fort Sumter.

The whole Civil War article is not judgemental. It does not take sides and use inflamatory language such as invasion, aggression, defeat, nazi, militarism etc etc. To outsiders, the good vs evil in the American Civil War was more clearcut at the start of the war than in the similar phase of WW2. However, the writers have concentrated on facts, not just regurgitating what appears to be propoganda taught in the American school system. Correct me if I am wrong on the latter point. Wallie 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a suggested new overview. --Habap 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree the current form of the introduction is rather rough and overly politicized. A more neutral and objective approach should be taken, but as Habap said, if you disagree with the version that we have now, please write an alternative so we can discuss it here on the talk page. I looked at Woogam's version and it seems drastically better than what we have now. TSO1D 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted it back to the modified version of the one I wrote. If it's really that Nazi-apologetic sounding, I can't see it, I'm sorry. I wrote it to match other encyclopedic entries on the war stylistically, and I'm not being conceited but I feel it's objective and neutral without being excusive or excessively harsh either way. What are some things we can add (or remove) to make it better? --Woogums 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thank you for writing it. The text is fairer too. Wallie 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of Nazi apology (Poll)

I noticed that User:Woogums reworded the intro in such manner that it states that the reasons of the war were different and diverse, "a combination of factors" (Treaty of Versailles, need for national self-determinism, Japanese and Italian nationalism), not only Nazis and their ideology. It even equalizes Nazism (calling it "ultra-nationalism") with Japanese and Italian ideologies (whuich are also called "ultra-nationalism"). I see this inappropriate to the encyclopedia and an intention to disperse the truth.--Nixer 11:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it a well-documented fact that the factors leading to war were different and diverse? And the word 'ostensive' is in there for a reason, to clarify that a supposed sense of self-determinism evolved into policies of open conquest. We could remove the 'lebensraum' bit and could mention instead the occupation of Moravia and Bohemia as a sign that Hitler's goals weren't self-determinism but more likely the subjugation of Europe. --Woogums 17:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

It was not "self-determinism" from the beginning. And calling German ideology "ultra-nationalism" instead of Nazism is also inappropriate. The factors were numerous, but the main factor is the German aggression, not Japanese or Italian "ultra-nationalism".--Nixer 17:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The justification for the occupation of German areas in Europe was a call for German unity, an early tenet of Nazism, which is simultaneously ultra-nationalistic and militaristic. This policy dictated occupation of foreign lands for Germans to live, which is why Germans invaded Poland. The text of the intro has to go deeper than strictly overt German aggression, it has to explain what led up to the lebensraum policy. And the Nazis didn't cause Italians to invade Libya and Ethiopia, or cause the Japanese to invade China. These were ultra-nationalistic and militarist movements that appeared independently in each country. --Woogums 17:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You really believe this was the real cause of the German invasion in Poland? Heh, it is nothing more than Goebbells' propaganda. Germans invaded Poland to settle it with Germans and to exterminate Jews, not to annex German-inhabited parts of it. Also Japanese and Italian expansionisms while existed, however did not trigger the world war.--Nixer 18:24, 5 August 2006

(UTC)

Don't insinuate stupidity on my part. I wouldn't have suggested the inclusion of the occupation of Moravia and Bohemia - unquestionably Slavic regions - if I believed that the Nazis stated aims of self-determinism were legitimate. That's why I wanted to make it clear that these claims were false and that it became strictly expansionistic with their goals to acquire living space like anyone can see. But those appeals to German nationalism were what led the Nazis to get into power in the first place - we might do well to show people that this self-determinism inexplicably led to Nazi militaristic expansion. --Woogums 21:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are the two versions:

Old version

The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union, and in and around Asia and the Pacific, where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

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. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim, the elimination of European Jewry, which they believed had "biological base" in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.

Version by User:Woogums

A combination of factors, including a surge of military expansionism and ultra-nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Japan as well as the devastating effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German economy, are common overarching explanations for the war. Initial ostensive Nazi goals of German self-determinism evolved to a policy of Lebensraum (living space) acquisition for an expanded Germany. This expansionism led to the first major fighting in Europe when German troops attacked Poland in 1939, the traditional given date for the start of the war; this date is sometimes contested, as Japanese troops had been fighting in China since 1932. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim - that of the elimination of European Jewry, which they believed had a "biological base" in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.

Version by User:Redvers

The war was fought in response to the aggression of Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the ambitions of Japan in Asia. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union, and in and around Asia and the Pacific, where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

A combination of factors are held to have caused the outbreak of war. These include a surge of military expansionism and ultra-nationalism in Germany and Italy under facist governments and Japan under militarist government. The effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German economy following the Wall Street crash of 1929 are held to have pushed Germany into electing a Nazi government. The stated Nazi goals of German self-determinism evolved to a policy of Lebensraum (living space) - the acquisition for an expanded German Empire of lands to the east.

This led to the first major fighting in Europe when German troops attacked Poland in 1939 (following a less violent takeover of Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia the year before). The traditional date for the start of the war is given as September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the attack on Poland; this date is sometimes contested, as Japanese troops had been fighting in China since 1932 whilst other countries, notably the United States, did not become involved until much later.

Version by User:Str1977

The war was triggered by the military aggression of Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia. 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. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim, the elimination of European Jewry, which they believed had "biological base" in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.

Support old version

• Support per above.--Nixer 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support I like the old version. Expansionism and "ultra-nationalism" (loaded word?) are just ideas. They didn't hurt anybody, nor cause the war. Neither did the Treaty, and whether or not it ruined the German economy is debatable. (They never really paid the reparations, just borrowed money from the U.S. and then defaulted.) Rather than the nice-sounding "expansionism" what really started the war was military actions, i.e. aggression. These did happen, and they are not so subject to misinterpretation or debate. In addition, the language, while more academic-sounding, is unnecessarily wordy and bogs down the intro. I agree with Nixer. Woogums' version reeks of excuses. Haber 16:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The new version is garbled nonsense. john k 01:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As per above. Rex 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reject as too wordy and wrong: war was started by German aggression, not fought merely as a response. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  It is already corrected.--Nixer 14:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  You are not allowed to change anything. You sought this poll, and now you are cheating. Wallie 18:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  Isn't this about determining the best opening paragraphs rather than which editor wins or loses? Nixer - are you saying that the paragraph currently on the page (the one matching Str's above) is your preference? --Habap 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it's better than the old version. (in fact it is slighly corrected old version)--Nixer 19:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as it pains me, I'm going to have to agree with Wallie on this one. Things have been changed, to the point where this poll is a total mess. None of us seems to be bright enough to come up with a real consensus-drawing gem anyway. I say let's forget it and go back to anarchy. Haber 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support, except there might want to be something about Italy in the first sentence. Green caterpillar 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Support the version by User:Woogums

• Support (shifting support to Redvers version) While the aggression was the start of the war, the groundwork had been laid by Versailles, the Depression and the resulting surge of nationalism. To limit the cause to only the aggressive military actions of Germany and Japan over-simplifies the case. I think this one does need some work, but it is better than the old one. --Habap 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  It looks like intention to place the cause of the war on the other powers.--Nixer 11:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  Good. You're learning. The other powers were partly responsible. Wallie 11:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  What I "learning"? Please cease talking in such manner.--Nixer 11:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  OK, boss. Wallie 12:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support Thank you, Habap. I think we are getting somewhere now, and I agree entirely with your comments. Well done, Woogums for improving the article. Wallie 11:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support Woogums's version is broader in scope and goes deeper into the causes if the war than the previous, over-simplified introduction. Furthemore, the quality of the text is superior. TSO1D 12:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support This version isn't perfect, but what is in there now is simultaneously Eurocentric and oversimplified. Any history textbook will cite the causes of the war as ultra-nationalism and militarism. I don't see why this should be omitted in the introduction since it's basic knowledge for anyone who wants to learn about the war. --Woogums 21:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support The version by Woogums is of much higher quality and provides a solid segue into the body of the article. --Klaser 22:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reject as too wordy. Valid information but not fitting in this extent for the intro. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support; broader in time and places --Flying tiger 18:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Support the version by User:Redvers

• Support The version below by Redvers. --Habap 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In re-reading, I notice this one has nothing about the Holocaust, which was a huge part of World War II. Now, I am less certain. Woogums may be the best version. --Habap 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Support As per Redvers JPotter 23:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Reject Too wordy and containing the self-determination fallacy. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Hi folks. I'm Redvers and I'm here to mediate in this discussion, if required, as it has been heated here in the past. Nixer called me in.

It's very good that people here are discussing calmly and rationally the development of this article, and thanks to Nixer for encouraging debate. Thanks to everybody for staying calm!

Everyone in this discussion should be fully aware of the Wikipedia Manual of Style, especially the Guide to Layout. Whilst this isn't a hard and fast rule - no Wikipedia rules are - the layout of our articles has been arrived at through several years of consensus and reader feedback.

The Guide to Layout says Normally, the first paragraph summarizes the most important points of the article. It should clearly explain the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail and the qualifications and nuances that follow. If further introductory material is needed before the first section, this can be covered in subsequent paragraphs. Introductions to biographical articles commonly double as summaries, listing the best-known achievements of the subject. Keep in mind that for many users this is all they will read, so the most important information should be included. Avoid links in the summary--users should be encouraged to read the summary, and the article, before jumping elsewhere. In addition the colored highlighting of the links may mislead some users into thinking these are especially important points.

I translate this as meaning that an article needs to start easy-to-read and get more detailed as it progresses. Others may disagree!

So, what does this mean in practice? As far as I can tell, the second version (from Woogums) contains many more useful extra facts, but it also has language that is pedestrian (no offense!) and doesn't allow for the Guide to Layout's request that articles start simply. The first version (again, no offense intended!) gives the conventional view of the causes of war, but it does so in better language than the second.

To me this suggests we could use a married version of the two. Now, we're never going to get a version that pleases everybody. But we might get a version that doesn't offend anybody. Or at least annoys everybody equally. We must bear in mind that we don't need to explain the concepts behind each word - the wikilinked articles should do that - but we should also be using language that an ignorant teenager who has just learned that his great-grandfather died/fought in the war would grasp with ease.

Therefore I propose the following text. It is not perfect, but this is a wiki and we can all work on it! Plus, Wikipedia has quite a number of years left, so we should allow for those who follow us to work on it as well.

Proposed combined wording

The war was fought in response to the aggression of Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the ambitions of Japan in Asia. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union, and in and around Asia and the Pacific, where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

A combination of factors are held to have caused the outbreak of war. These include a surge of military expansionism and ultra-nationalism in Germany and Italy under facist governments and Japan under militarist government. The effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German economy following the Wall Street crash of 1929 are held to have pushed Germany into electing a Nazi government. The stated Nazi goals of German self-determinism evolved to a policy of Lebensraum (living space) - the acquisition for an expanded German Empire of lands to the east.

This led to the first major fighting in Europe when German troops attacked Poland in 1939 (following a less violent takeover of Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia the year before). The traditional date for the start of the war is given as September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the attack on Poland; this date is sometimes contested, as Japanese troops had been fighting in China since 1932 whilst other countries, notably the United States, did not become involved until much later.

Now, there are some weasel words in there; certainly I haven't wikilinked (I can't be bothered) or sourced (but I can, to reliable and accepted (albeit British) text books, later this week). But this proposal contains the facts from Woogums and the punch from Nixer. As I say, it offends nobody but probably pleases nobody either.

I'd like people here - all of you have useful knowledge of the subject - to consider my version. Rewrite it, wikilink it, source it. Discuss it here in neutral language (you've all got good knowledge and information that Wikipedia wants and needs and can't afford to lose) or come to me on my talk page or by email.

The important thing is that people re-read what they say to each other before saving a page. If in doubt, don't say it. Send what you want to say to me and I'll say it to the person you want to say it to!

Remember, everyone, that Wikipedia is what's important here. We're just the ants that serve this particular hive. Thanks for listening and happy editing! ➨ ЯEDVERS 18:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

For me, this contains the best of each of the suggestions. It first provides an overview of the kind of actions that were the trigger for the war (German and Japanese invasions), then outlines in general the trends (causes) that made the war possible and finally provides initial details of the first acts of war. It's broad and general, but still intimates that there are more things to learn to understand what actually happened and why. --Habap 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this version because it does not state the aims of the German aggression (which are clear in fact).--Nixer 19:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this version because it is biased against the Japanese and German people, who have surely suffered enough. Wallie 00:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the war was started by Germany - is a bias against German people?--Nixer 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

As you are commenting on what I am saying, I believe you have a strong bias, or worse, against German people. Wallie 08:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can omit the entire part about the causes of the conflict in the introduction. For instance look at how the introduction to the Encarta entry for the article sounds: "World War II, global military conflict that, in terms of lives lost and material destruction, was the most devastating war in human history. It began in 1939 as a European conflict between Germany and an Anglo-French coalition but eventually widened to include most of the nations of the world. It ended in 1945, leaving a new world order dominated by the United States and the USSR.

More than any previous war, World War II involved the commitment of nations’ entire human and economic resources, the blurring of the distinction between combatant and noncombatant, and the expansion of the battlefield to include all of the enemy’s territory. The most important determinants of its outcome were industrial capacity and personnel. In the last stages of the war, two radically new weapons were introduced: the long-range rocket and the atomic bomb. In the main, however, the war was fought with the same or improved weapons of the types used in World War I (1914-1918). The greatest advances were in aircraft and tanks." We can follow a similar approach by simply describing the principal factors of the war in broad terms. The goal is to be informative rather than inflamatory or apologetic, in fact one's views on the subject should not even be reflected in the writing. TSO1D 00:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Good work, TSO1D. Wallie 00:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't write that text, I just gave a sample from Encarta to show in which direction we might go in order to resolve some of the conflicts revolving around the introduction. TSO1D 01:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How about this:

The onset of the war followed the German invasion of Poland, and the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, and British and French colonies. In Germany, the fascist Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler took control of the government amidst turbulent conditions in the early 1930's, and demanded Lebensraum (living space) acquisition for an expanded Germany. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim - that of the elimination of European Jewry, which they believed had a "biological base" in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.

I'd like to keep it simple, even if we offend one person. No one else seems to have a problem with historical facts. Haber 20:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Acceptable, but I'd prefer the old version.--Nixer 11:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't like that version. Firstly, in December 1941 Japan attacked many countries (including Thailand and the Dutch East Indies) and Japan did not "attack French colonies"; the Japanese actually used Vichy French-controlled French Indochina to attack Thailand and Malaya. Secondly, it doesn't convey that Japan and China were at war in 1937, a conflict which later "dovetailed" with the European war. Grant65 | Talk 12:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Very well. Haber 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Closing debate

When does this poll end? Green caterpillar 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

This poll has been pretty untouched for a long time. I'll give it until September 4, 2006, 00:00 UTC, and then I'll change to whatever has the most votes.

Never mind, it's a tie. Green caterpillar 00:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the war was started by Germany

We face here the opposition by Wallie to saying the was was started by Germany because he consideres this faact as "bias against German people". Your comments.--Nixer 07:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not a fact. It is your opinion. Who started the war? You could have a protracted debate over that one. Question. What did German people ever do to you that you harbor such deep seated feelings against them? Wallie 08:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no bias against German people. That Germany started the war is a fact and saying otherwise is pure revisionism.--Nixer 08:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with the word revisionism. History should be revised, and needs to be as more data becomes available, and people put things in perspecitive. As far is bias is concerned, can you not see that continual blaming of one group of people for a war that happened nearly 70 years ago, is really out and out racism. I realize that it not the intention of people, but it is the result. Wars are rarely a contest between good and evil. One side wins and the others lose. This does not mean the winners were right, just that they were better at it. Wallie 08:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not "opinion" that the German invasion of Poland started World War II in Europe or that the Japanese attack on American, French and British possessions in Asia expanded the war. Similarly, the Holocaust surely taints the perpetrators as genocidal monsters. The German people were duped into carrying out the orders of a madman and his cabal, but there can be no doubt that Germany committed actions that actually started the war. We can talk about causes all we want, but the actions are there for everyone to see.

I am ethnically German and not a racist against Germans. When you brand everyone who argues against you as a racist, it rather dilutes the impact of the term and makes you sound like the boy who cried wolf. --Habap 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am German and want to state that anything else but stating that Germany started the war is just plain silly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I maintain that the way some of the text in the article is written is racist. I did not say that anyone who argues against me is a racist, and do not consider them so. I did however question some people's motives, are am again unsure as some keep changing their position. I do know for a fact that many Germans get very upset at having to defend themselves and their country. As far as who started the war, this is irrelevent, as there are many opinions on this. Even if you are German, it is just your opinion. As far as the Holocaust is concerned, does this taint all German people? This is as erroneous as blaming all Americans for dropping the bomb on the Japanese, or for the slavery as avocated and defended staunchly by Jefferson Davis. Wallie 13:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with blaming us for dropping the bomb or having had slaves? They are things that actually happened. I personally was not involved in either act, but to deny them is the worst kind of revisionism possible. Don't you think it would insulting to African-Americans to deny that slavery occurred? Wouldn't it offend all Jews to deny the Holocaust? --Habap 17:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it is not helpful. What happened in the past is the past. I believe we should say what happened, but blame is another matter. The facts should speak for themselves. Using language intended to make people look bad is not good either. Wallie 19:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

To ignore how and why an event happened because it might be hurtful to someone is the pre-cursor to doublethink. If we fail to remember history, we are doomed to repeat it. It is, in fact, helpful to understand these things. --Habap 21:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment Revisionism due to new facts coming to light is one thing, revisionism when the facts are uncomfortable/inconvienent/make a segment of a population upset/etc. is another. For the sake of argument—who then, if not the Germans, started the war? The generally accepted starting point of the war (in Europe anyway) is when the Germans invaded Poland on Sep. 1, 1939. This is not opinion but documented fact. With all due respect—is there another event that historians have missed?

Too bad we can't invoke Godwin's law though. :) --Easter Monkey 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes I know. That is the American viewpoint. I was bought up on the notion (British) that the war started on the 3rd September, 1939. The British and French had issued an ultimatum prior, and this was not replied to by the Germans. The British, French and a number of other countries then declared war on Germany, and that is when the war started. Others (Soviet) maintain that WW2 was still not a global war at this stage, and actually started on the 22nd June 1941. Some (Japanese) even say that it started on the 8th December, 1941, when Germany declared war on the United States. and a number of countries declared war on Japan. Wallie 14:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Soviets did not say the war started 22 June 1941. Please do not spead lies. They said only that they entered the war 22 June 1941.-- Nixer 17:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... 200 million Soviets must have got it wrong too. Refer to Great Patriotic War. By the way. What school did you go to? Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the American viewpoint is that the war started on 7 Dec 1941 (in the interest of full disclosure I'm a product of U.S. public schools) as that marked the beginning of U.S. involvement, not when war was declared. What I hear you saying though is that in order to start a war a country must formally declare war, yes? I would disagree with that statement though—a declaration of war, although interesting in a political analysis, doesn't address when hostilities began, i.e. the true start of a war. --Easter Monkey 15:10, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that at least the Polish think it started on the 1st. Depending on the age of the students, I think the US school presentation varies between December 7th and going back to 1939. --Habap 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The WWII for russians started on 22 June 1941 with German invasion into the USSR. Regardless of any speculations on "soviet preparations for preventing strike", it's the fact: Germany invaded into the USSR. But Poland was the first victim of that war. --jno 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Good one, Easter! This is the one case in which Godwin's Law can't apply! Hehe. --Habap 15:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

This is what I have being trying to say all along. It is difficult to get people to agree on when exactly it started. You are right that from one country's perspective, it is easy to say when the war started. For example, in France's case, the war started on Sep 3rd, as that is when their ultimatum ran out. For the US, the war started on Dec 7, as that is when they were attacked. As for the true start of the war, who can say? However, on Sep 1, 1939, Americans believed it to be a relatively minor Earopean situation, and as America considered itself a peace loving nation, it decided not to get involved. Many other countries got involved on the Sep 3, not out of any noble cause, but simply due to alliance obligations, and Commonwealth backing "mother". Wallie 15:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, no actually, the difficultly, apparently, is getting people to agree on a definition of start not the actual date per se. Here's the point, and this will sound familiar to a wikipedian—viewpoint, perspective, POV, etc. doesn't matter and shouldn't be used to determine what actually happened. The fact is Germany invaded Poland on 1 Sep 39. Taken objectively, this was the start of hostilities, thus the start of the war. That a political ultimatum ran out on 3 Sep is beside the point. Germany's invasion of Poland on 1 Sep is the event that started what would eventually become WWII, various countries' dates of entry followed that event. Wars don't begin when politicians say they do, rather they begin when soldiers start shooting at each other. France and Britain gave their ultimatum as a result of the actions of the Germans on that day, thus Germany began the war. What do you think the state of the world would be today if the France and Britain hadn't declared war on 3 Sep? Can you imagine? That's really horrific to think about. Besides, what source (since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia) has ever said someone other than the Germans started the war? Yes, WWII was terrible, as are all wars, and Germans today would be insensitive jerks if they didn't get upset about it when the topic comes up. But whether it's racist to suggest that the Germans started the war? Come on now, let's be real.

Anyway, I'm sorry that this has turned into what must read like a rant, that was not my intention, I assume good faith with all, I know that you have the best interest of this project at heart. But the point is that what my history teacher taught me and what yours taught you aren't necessarily what actually happened. The fact of the matter is that the Germans, through their invasion of Poland on the 1st of September, 1939, began what would come to be known as World War II. If you've got other dates, then it's time to pony up some sources. Facts are facts and can never be racist. --Easter Monkey 18:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember folks, we seek what is verifiable, not what is true. We should put what a majority of relevant historians say about the start and causes of the conflict and reserve minority opinions for small sections not exceeding undue weight provisions of Wikipedia. That being said, we should not only use Anglo historians but also German, Japanese, Russian and Italian and see what they say regarding the start and causes of the war. Most importantly, assume good faith and be civil! JPotter 19:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this one of these, “The moon landing never took place” discussions? German tanks rolled into Poland Sep. 1st 1939. This is a fact, not an opinion. Trying to argue against it is an exercise in futility. Jimmy1988 15:11, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it really is up to personal opinion. It was Germany who attacked Poland first, but it was Britain that declared war first (I don't think Germany's attack of Poland counts as a formal declaration of war against Britain). But I don't think it really matters - what happened, happened, and anyway, it's really trivial; in regardless of who started the War, Nazi Germany invaded Poland, then the rest of Allied Europe, and then set his sights on Britain and the Soviet Union.

Digression on the American Civil War

This particular thread started as a misrepresentation of what I said, and I feel right into the trap as I was just too lazy about responding. Easter Monkey, I agree with what you say. It is also best to say what you honestly think. When I mention the word racist, I am referring to the way in which repetitive negative wording is used. You should have seen this article previously! Continual use of the word "Nazi" for example is borderline racism, and definitely meant to be insulting, as is bulding up the achievements of one side, saying they and their leaders are great etc., and denigration of the other. Actually, facts can be racist, when used selectively.

What about the comments I made, when comparing the American Civil War with this one? If authors treated the South in the same way as the Germans are treated here, there would be an uproar. There is no suggestion that the North was invaded or that the South started the war. There is even sympathy shown for the South, unlike the German. Southen people are not called some insulting term like Nazis. I believe Secesh or Grayback is the equivalent sort of term used to describe them. Also, the Vietnam war is not depicted as a defeat for America, neither is Suez for the English and Israelis. I think the war should be reported in a similar fashion, giving facts and not judgements and propaganda.

Naturally also I agree with the sentiments of Mr. Potter. Wallie 20:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, this is your favorite article?

Fighting began April 12, 1861 when Confederate forces attacked a Federal fort at the Battle of Fort Sumter.

In 1865 the Confederacy collapsed as Lee surrendered and all the slaves were freed.

Surely the words "attacked a Federal fort" must seem POV to you, as the people in South Carolina considered it to be their own fort, occupied by foreign troops, and fighting began when the Union resupplied it. The word "collapsed" is biased and demonstrates a jingoistic "we won" mentality, and the glaring omission of discussion about slaves in the border states is too simplistic. Haber 21:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like that article needs help too. But not from me at this stage, as this one is fairly exhausting. ... "and all the slaves were freed." ... does sound a bit like Heidiland. They should have added ... "and they all lived happily ever after." Wallie 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

For whom the word Nazi is insulting?--Nixer 21:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Me for starters. Possibly George Bush too. Wallie 22:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, when applied to you. But if applied to the German Nazi Party?--Nixer 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wally, there are many Southerners who do talk about the invasion of the South by the "Damn Yankees". If you go onto forums which discuss the American Civil War you will find similar rancor. When slavery is identified as the cause of the war (as it often is), there is an uproar about it. All southerners were rebels, though that is now held up as a badge of courage amongst some crowds.

Exactly. It is inflamatory, as it was only one of the causes of the war. The same applies to WW2. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect about the ACW, but that discussion shouldn't be carried out here. My point was that you used that war as example of one in which no one gets blamed for anything when the exact opposite is true. --Habap 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Many people also say that the US did lose Vietnam. While there is discussion about this, some do feel that it was not just lost in the public eye.

Again. The US doesn't really need its nose rubbed in it. And neither do Japan or Germany in this article. I note that Italy is not mentioned to much, as they have slightly more clout in the modern world than the others, especially in the US. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

History is not about making people happy. History is intended to be a record of past events, regardless of whether they are painful to hear about. --Habap 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Italy does not have as much clout as either Germany or Japan in the modern era. I don't know where you get the idea that they do. Italy didn't committ extensive atrocities or pursue genocide, while Germany and Japan did. --Habap 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about Suez. When I learned about it, it sounded like the English and French did lose.

Yep. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

So, even you say they lost? Then what was your point when you said that Suez is not depicted as a defeat for them? --Habap 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Why say this? I am agreeing with the other person. What he learnt is correct. Wallie 23:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The other person was me. You had written Also, the Vietnam war is not depicted as a defeat for America, neither is Suez for the English and Israelis. and my comment pointed out that you were wrong - that Suez is depicated as a defeat for them, because, as you also states, it was. --Habap 14:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to improve this article, not trying to trap people. You know full well I am refering to. I agreed with what you said and what you were taught. Nothing else. Wallie 18:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While there are those who romanticize the Confederacy, there are also those who romanticize the Nazi party and the SS. We use the term Nazi to separate that regime from the German people.

Unfortunately, there are others who use the word Nazi to cane the German people. 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No one here is. We are using it to separate discussion of the German people from the Nazi German cabal that was bent on world domination and genocide. --Habap 21:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You have continually stated that you do not trust the motives of other edits, that you suspect we are biased against certain races, that we use racist terms and in all ways implied that you think we are racists. Let me go down as offending by being told I have racial biases (i.e., that I am a racist). --Habap 23:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never questioned anyones' motives here. I have also said that I did not consider anyone to be a racist either. However, I was trying to point out that we can use racist language unintentionally, ie, it offends others. However, if the intention was not to be racist, then the person is not a racist. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, not true. I've placed comments on your multiple questioning of other motives here on your talk page. --Habap 21:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, you brought the ACW article in as an example of what you consider to be NPOV. Now you're abandoning it and suggesting the editors live in Heidiland. How are we supposed to take you seriously? Haber 23:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I never read that bit. I am always willing to learn new things. I hope you do too. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Back to the word use discussion

"Continual use of the word "Nazi" for example is borderline racism, and definitely meant to be insulting..." ? The National Socialist German Worker Party, NSDAP—Nazi for short = Germany between 1933 and 1945. Just because the word has negative connotations for most of the world in 2006 doesn't mean that it isn't correct to use it. Wallie, you're right that I didn't see the article "before" but no matter, is the blow softened if we use "Germans" instead of "Nazis"? My point is that no one should get offended by its use in this historical context though because it is the correct term. It's not a pejorative word in the sense of a racist epithet made up by an oppressor or eventual victor (like Grayback, Johnny Reb, or such), but rather what they called themselves. I could go on forever about Vietnam, but when you try to make comparisons (and this is still the WWII talk page) you get into a lot of trouble because the context, subtext, causes, everything is usually completely different and doesn't stand up in a detailed analysis. And I maintain that facts cannot by their nature be racist. There are racist people who use selective facts to advance their agendas, fine, I agree with that, but what is true is true. Of course JPotter is right though, and what I was ultimately trying to point out. He said it much more succinctly; we here on this wiki aren't interested in "truth" but rather what is verifiable. In any case, like I said before, I do assume good faith, I get passionate about these things and apologize if I come across as a jerk or a pedant. Well, my day job beckons. --Easter Monkey 00:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi" is a loaded word. I seem to remember the similar was "Gooks in Sanpans" in the other war. These expressions might have been considered appropriate then, but not now. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm deeply confused about how on earth it can be considered "racist" to point out that the Germans started World War II? Is it likewise racist to note that Prussia started the War of the Austrian Succession, that France started the Franco-Dutch War and the War of the Grand Alliance, that the United States started the Spanish-American War, that North Korea started the Korean War? A lot of wars are somewhat ambiguous as to who started them - each country escalates, one sends an ultimatum, it is rejected, a war starts. But on occasion it is not difficult to see who starts a war. This is normally true in wars that are not declared and begin with unheralded invasions of foreign countries with which one was previously at peace, a definition which fits both the German invasion of Poland in September 1939 and the Japanese attacks on American, British and Dutch forces in December 1941 (as well as, I think, Japanese aggressions in China, although I'm less familiar with the exact course of events.) It would be wrong to begin our World War I article by saying Germany started it, even though the dominant historical view at this point is probably that Germany and Austria-Hungary were much more responsible for the outbreak of war than the entente powers. But with World War II it simply isn't equivocal - everyone agrees that Germany started. Wallie needs to find some evidence that some serious historians actually believe that Germany did not start the war. This will be hard to do. Also, as Easter Monkey says, "Nazi" is not a racial slur. It's the nickname of the political party which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945, including throughout the Second World War. If anything, use of "Nazis" actually elides German responsibility - it implies that war crimes and so forth were committed only by "Nazis," who of course no longer exist, rather than by "Germans," who do. Wallie seems to have come to the conclusion that German people believe they were fighting for a good cause in World War II, and that it is racist to present the war as being an example of aggression led by the Nazi Party. In fact, German people, like everyone else, are perfectly willing to admit that the war was aggression led by the Nazi Party. Actual German apologetics have generally relied upon the distinction that not all Germans were Nazis (true, but somewhat beside the point), and that it was the Nazi Waffen SS who committed all the atrocities, not the Wehrmacht (which is not true, but had considerable support for a long time.) But such apologetics, in fact, rely upon the idea of saying that "Nazis" do things, rather than that Germans do. The idea that using the term "Nazi" to refer to actions of the Germans during World War II is "racist" against Germans is patently absurd - Germany's strongest apologists do exactly the opposite, emphasizing that all the bad stuff was done by Nazis rather than Germans. john k 02:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

john k, I think that there has been a misunderstanding, Wallie isn't saying that it is racist to say that the Germans started the war, rather that is disputed who started it at all. And that repeated use of the word "Nazi" is racist. As you can see from my comments I happen to disagree with both of those points, but your initial assumptions are incorrect, as were mine. Sorry for any confusion that I might have perpetuated. Respectfully, Easter Monkey 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Easter - Wallie says above: As far is bias is concerned, can you not see that continual blaming of one group of people for a war that happened nearly 70 years ago, is really out and out racism. As far as I can tell, he is saying that indicating that Germany started the war is "out and out racism." He may be back-tracking now, but it was certainly not you who promoted a misunderstanding. My assumption was based on Wallie's own words. john k 17:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Not backtracking yet. You will have to convince me further. By the way, you are deliberately trying to mislead others and misinterpreting what I am sayinhg. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, it's a matter of reading: the WWII was started by Germany as a state and not by Germans as a nation. (Well, lots of germans were supporting that drang, but not all). --jno 11:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact the war was started by Germans, but this is unencyclopedic language.--Nixer 11:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I hate so called "political correctness" as well. I just believe that contemporary nations cannot be beaten for their former governors. Hence, I'd prefer "Germany" over "Germans" here. --jno 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie's position, though he is too much of a coward to say it openly, is that Germany and Germans have nothing to be sorry for except losing. He and other revisionists would like to see this become the dominant point of view on Wikipedia, and failing that, at least muddy the waters enough so that a neophyte reader will be confused. Haber 12:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit it. I am a coward. Don't like wars. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bravery and cowardice have nothing to do with liking wars. Only an idiot or a madman likes war. Ask anyone who has seen war, including all the soldiers out there, even the ones who won medals for it, and they'll tell you that war is terrible. Unfortunately, there are things that are worse and the Axis in World War II are the embodiment of that. A brave man stands up for what he believes in, even if it is not going to war. --Habap 21:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't change the fact I was called a coward. Guess I will have to live with that. I do know where Haber is coming from though. Loud and clear. Wallie 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I see and I'll never agree on such "revisions". --jno 15:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a look at the German language Wikipedia for this article. Here is their intro paragraph:

The Second World War was the largest and bloodiest conflict in mankind history. It began in Europe on 1 September 1939 with the German attack on Poland without previous declaration of war of the German Reich and in the Pacific and/or in Asia with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941, whereby sometimes one accepts also the outbreak of the second Japanese-Chinese war on 7 July 1937 as beginning in Asia. It was terminated in Europe on 8 May 1945 and in Asia with the signing of the surrender of Japan on 2 September 1945. The Axis powers in such a way specified, German Reich, Italy and Japan, led conquest campaigns against adjacent states, which wanted to subordinate them to their interests. Their military main opponents were at the beginning of France, Great Britain and the republic China. The Soviet Union took part in the initial phase of the war due to the Hitler valley in pact on the one hand in the German war against Poland and still attacked on the other hand in November 1939 Finland. With the end as winter war in March 1940 separated the Soviet Union admits of become campaign temporarily from the fighting. After the break of the Hitler valley in pact in form of an invasion were also the Soviet Union, committed from the German side, again and complicated after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the USA for the first time into the fighting. The Second World War demanded approx.. 55 to 60 million human lives. It was coined/shaped by a strong racistic Ideologisierung, which to numerous war crimes and encroachment by force and mostly systematic led on the civilian population. The fact that the civilian population was directly affected in the comparison to the First World War still more strongly by the fighting lay in addition at the intensified development of the armaments industry. It made not least the wide bombardment possible of whole populated areas in Europe and Asia. After the war the alliance of winner powers broke apart. Under the guidance of the establishing superpowers Soviet Union and the USA the world-descriptive contrasts of the forming state blocks flowed into the cold war. JPotter 03:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this one is much less biased than the American (this) version. Wallie 22:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought that the "en" in the URL meant it was the English-language Wikipedia. --Habap 16:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hallo guys, I changed the outbreak of the war passage to "The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union, and in and around Asia and the Pacific, where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.", as the preceding version were not acceptable:

• "The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Germany ..." is bad, as the aggression already was an act of war. So the war started with the invasion of Poland and not with some reponse to that. (Str1977)

  But before the response the war was not world war, yes?--Nixer 15:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  This is irrelevant. The Thirty Years' War was not a thirty years' war until it ended in 1648, which doesn't change the fact that it is generally considered to have begun in 1618 with the Defenestration of Prague. The fact that the war has a name which would not have been true at wars' beginning is meaningless to when the war itself began. john k 20:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• "The onset of the war followed the ... invasion of Poland, and the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, and British, French and Dutch colonies." is just plain akward.

• "the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland" contains truth but is misworded IMHO

• "In Germany, the fascist Nazi Party under Adolf Hitler" uses the problematic term fascist. (Str1977)
  • True. I thought the National Socialists were in power, not the Facist Party. Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• "... and demanded Lebensraum (living space) acquisition for an expanded Germany." sounds like Germany made a declaration about that. Yes, that was the aim of the war but it wasn't made public.

I also merged the two passages about the extent of the war. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The second world war began when nazi germany invaded poland. What is there to discuss?

Rex 15:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what we have been discussing... Wallie 19:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This time I agree with Germanus, though I am open to discuss this.

Nixer, the war we call World War II started on the 1 September, 1939 with the German attack on Poland. It wasn't a global war yet at the time but it soon became one. The name however denotes the whole war, from the moment the very first bullet was shot. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I was told it was the September 3 at school. However, this is not so important. I was unsure whether Germanus's statement referred to the date, or the reason. I assumed he was addressing the reason. I am not really fussed about the date. Wallie 20:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wally, The German attack was 1 September, 4.45 a.m. (Hitler's speech "Seit Fünf Uhr Fünfundvierzig wird jetzt zurückgeschossen!" is erring by one hour) - the declaration of war by the UK and France followed on 3 September.

So you see the difference in dates is exactly the difference in outlook: is what matters the German invasion or is the diplomatic formality by the Western Allies.

And I think you are righ about Germanus, as he didn't say anything about the date.

20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nazi as racial slur

Wallie, you seem to be insisting that use of "Nazi" is a racial slur. Can you provide any evidence to support the idea that the term is widely considered offensive by Germans when used to refer to the regime ruling Germany between 1933 and 1945. I am aware that Germans today are offended if they are referred to as Nazis (obviously). But that's not the same thing at all. If you can't provide any evidence, then you are just advancing your personal bugbears, which have no relevance to how we should construct an encyclopedia article about World War II. john k 20:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I think that overuse of the word could be racist. I think that when building an encyclopedia, we should refrain from using loaded terms. When referring to a country, the country's name should be used, not some abbreviated form of some party in power at the time. The word Nazi was not even used by the Germans. It was probably an American invention, similar to Commie or "the Hun". The Americans are not referred to as the Democrats, or a some shorthand name even though they were in power at the time. Wallie 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, three points. Firstly, what I wanted was citations to demonstrate that usage of the word "Nazi" in proper context is offensive, not your opinion that it is so, which you have already given. Secondly, the word "Nazi" is most certainly not an American invention. If you knew anything about the subject, you would know that it is a German abbreviation of National Sozialistische, a parallel term to Sozi, an abbreviation of Sozialdemokratische (i.e. Social Democrat). Thirdly, the nature of the Nazi regime in Germany in 1939 is not in any way comparable to the nature of the Democratic Party's governance of the United States in 1999. The National Socialists were the official party of the state, and notably, was both the only legal party and also had close connections to the state in a way that parties in parliamentary democracies do not. The party's militia, the SS, for instance, was in a symbiotic relationship with the state, and membership in Nazi Party organs like the Hitler Youth was mandatory. The Nazi Party's flag was made co-national flag with the old Imperial flag, and was the much more used of the two. And so forth. If you're going to comment on this subject, it would be nice if you had some idea what you were talking about. And "Nazi" is not now considered to be a derogatory or even a slang shortening of "National Socialist" in the way that "Commie" is considered to be such of "Communist." john k 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The pedant in me is compelled to point out that "Nazi" is the first two syllables of the German pronounciation of the word, "National". In German it sounds like "Nah-tzi-oh-nal" vice the English "Na-shun-al". Sorry to interrupt. --Easter Monkey 00:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And the book keeper in me is bound to elaborate: yes, Nazi is short for Nationalsozialist, but it was coined in parallel to Sozi, which is short for Sozialdemokrat. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If I may chime in: if used as John proposes (re the regime or the party) it is not a slur or offensive. If used against today's Germans collectively, or against persons that are not (Neo-)Nazis, or against all Germans living under the regime collectively it is offensive. What is maybe not offensive but inaccurate is the labelling of any institution member during the regime as a Nazi (unfortunately very much present in Wiki categories and articles), or the labelling of any institution (e.g. lawes predating the Nazis as Nazi Laws, military judges as Nazi judges) Also annoying is the use of Nazi replacing German, as in "the Nazis invaded Poland" or "Nazi occupation", instead of "the Germans invaded Poland" or "German occupation". (Sometimes it is fitting to say "Nazi German" but never just "Nazi") That smacks a bit of the DDR real Germany is a victor of the war mindset that has trickled in a bit into the West too. All these remarks in general, as I have no clue what that particular dispute is about. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this was my thought as well. Use of "Nazi" instead of "German" in the contexts you mention is a way of minimizing German responsibility, in the way the DDR did, and not a sort of racism against Germans. I think we should be clear to say that "Nazi Germany" invaded Poland, not that "the Nazis" did. But use of "Nazis" is not a racial slur. john k 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

John, it might be used either way: "only the Nazis did that" or "all Germans were Nazis" - either way is wrong. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there much instance of "all Germans were Nazis" usage found in this article? john k 22:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to request of Wallie to clearly indicate which occasions of the word Nazi in the article he thinks problematic. He can rest assured that my answer will not be tainted with anti-German racism ;-) In any case, and partly responding the section below, a dispute about the N word can be no basis (if it is thougt so) for removing an entire informative, essential and perfectly factual paragraph. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In going through the literature related to this debate I have discovered that I was a bit hasty at first, but not by much and in the end it doesn't really make that much difference. Having the luxury of being functionally literate in German I have read through the WWII, National-sozialismus, Nazi, and other, articles on the de project. With my new found knowledge I have come to realize something that I should have already known—Germans don't use the word "Nazi" and never have, not now and not during the period 1933-1945. I have come to find that the word itself is in fact as Wallie pointed out, an anglo invention. It does indeed come from the German pronounciation of the word "national" as I stated above, but what all of the en articles that deal with the subject (as far as I've been able to tell) fail to mention is that the Germans themselves did not use "Nazi" but rather it was the term used by the english speaking world, and in usually a pejorative manner. I wouldn't make the leap and start calling it a racial slur, but it would be more appropriate to use "Germany", "Germans" and "Nazi-party" (since this is convention, and far more recognizable than "National Socialist party" in English. "National Socialist party" would only serve to obscure and obfuscate the true meaning)—rather than the word "Nazi" just by itself. You would think that a self-proclaimed student of the language and country would know that. Oh well.

Anyway, I read through the de version of this article and found it to be excellent. Although it's not FA status, but rather lesenswert—worth reading, the article written by a bunch of Germans on the topic is deserving of some notice. With that in mind, I would point out though that jpotter's translation above shows that the Germans, at least those involved in editing the de wikipedia, have come to agree that 1 Sep 39 is the start date for the war in Europe. I would submit that a version of the intro that doesn't include the 1 Sep 39 invasion of Poland is disingenious. --Easter Monkey 16:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea from, but the term "Nazi" is very used in German, as a short form for Nationalsozialisten and also as in Neo-Nazi, and also as a slur against some groups, especially in left-wing polemics. Where the term was coined first I do not positively know, but the parallel to Sozi suggests a German origin. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've learned my lesson, don't drink and edit. :) --Easter Monkey 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That's very funny. (Must try it some time). :) Wallie 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is necessary to re-invent the wheel! :) ````

Wallie's reverts of article

Wallie is claiming that two other people support his repeated reverts, removing the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" from the introduction to our encyclopedia article about WWII. Please, Wallie supporters, step forward so that you may be counted. Haber 21:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not claiming anything of the sort. This is a total misrepresentation of what I have done. I have reverted the material relating to the poll. The two other supporters are listed here:

Here is the discussion

Someone didn't even wait for the result of this poll. The old version was put back anyway. The poll is still undecided at 3/3. Wallie 21:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

In a revert war the original remains until resolved on the talk page. No one has voted to just delete the whole paragraph. Haber 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, its not there now. The old (previous) version is there. Wallie 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007

The Society for Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact [email protected] Thanks Rjensen 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

There is no mention of the German invasion of Yugoslavia.--Cretanpride 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good point. I think this would deserve at least a sentence, possible as part of the Greece invasion. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be included, perhaps lumped in with other countries under a "Balkans" heading. Haber 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Combined version

Please vote yea or nay, giving your reasons if you don't like this two paragraph entry. (Keep in mind that the intro contains 3 other paragraphs that would not be affected by this.)

The war was triggered by the military aggression of Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia. A combination of factors are held to have caused the outbreak of war. These include a surge of military expansionism and ultra-nationalism in Germany and Italy under facist governments and Japan under militarist government. The effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German economy following the Wall Street crash of 1929 are held to have pushed Germany into electing a Nazi government. The stated Nazi goals of German self-determinism evolved to a policy of Lebensraum (living space) - the acquisition for an expanded German Empire of lands to the east. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim - that of the elimination of European Jewry, which they believed had a "biological base" in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.

This led to the first major fighting in Europe when German troops attacked Poland in 1939 (following a less violent takeover of Sudentenland of Czechoslovakia the year before). The traditional date for the start of the war is given as September 1939, when Britain and France declared war on Germany in response to the attack on Poland; this date is sometimes contested, as Japanese troops had been fighting in China since 1932 whilst other countries, notably the United States, did not become involved until much later. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union, and in and around Asia and the Pacific, where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

As Wallie and Haber have stated, too much changed in the original poll for it to be useful any more. Note, I am just borrowing sentences from other writers, hoping to find a consensus. --Habap 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

nay "triggered" sounds pornographic. Germany does "military aggression" while Japan has "imperial ambitions" isn't fair. "Ultra-" is a prefix that people use to show disapproval. Treaty and economy excuses are trotted out alone. Nazi policy did not evolve to Lebensraum, it was always Lebensraum. "biological base" still sounds stupid to me. The starting date controversy is pointless to introduce here when most people can't even associate WWII with the right decade. This is why kids hate historians. Late entry of U.S. is in article and too minor for intro. Fighting in Europe and Europe is redundant. USSR region where Germany fought was also in Europe.

very nay we are spending a lot of intro-space giving possible and disputed causes for the war, a subject that is incapable of reaching a final conclusion. Much more of the intro should be given over to what happened, which is easier to be factual about and which frankly most people will want to know about.

I have a radical suggestion: let's not mention the causes at all in the intro. Here's a suggested first paragraph:

The start of the war is generally counted from September 1939 when Germany invaded Poland, following several other territorial expansions, and causing Britain and France to declare war. Germany later invaded much of Western Europe in 1940 and the Soviet Union in 1941, and much fighting took place in and around Europe. Japan was already waging war in China, and in December 1941 attacked many countries and colonies around the Western Pacific, and also Pearl Harbor, bringing the United States into the war. Fighting in and around the Pacific and East Asia continued until 1945.

I'm not claiming this version is perfect, but this approach means we don't have to spend any of the intro trying desperately to satisfy everyone about what the causes of the war were. That's not only easier but right; we lave the complex discussions until we can give them the treatment they deserve. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

This still doesn't have any reference to the Soviet Union and its expansionist policies; attack on Poland in concert with Germany, attack on Finland, invasion of Baltic states, deporting people to Siberia for slave labor, etc, etc. All of this is all-out war, but conveniently ignored in the intro, because the writers represent the Western Allied point of view. The Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty, in particular, is a casus belli, against Finland, Baltic states and Poland. Writers should remember that the propaganda of the Western Allies is not the truth. Even if the Western Allies won, it doesn't justify ignoring the inconvenient truth that they allied with Stalin's Soviet Union, the most murderous tyranny of all time. Furthermore, the interests of the Western Allies themselves are not ignorable either; the empires weren't kept in control with charity exactly. Wars are, by definition, conflicts where the "common ground breaks down". Documenting these in a scientific encyclopedia format requires strict neutrality, and this hasn't been achieved at any point. --Vuo 15:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Boring. Basically says that there was a war, without introducing the two basic terms that a student should be able to associate with WWII: Hitler and Nazi. Also relegates the Holocaust to parentheses in the next paragraph.

How about:

In Germany, the fascist dictator Adolf Hitler, leading the Nazi Party, put the country on a course for war by forcing ever-increasing territorial demands on its neighbors. This led to a general war when Germany and Japan invaded Poland and China, respectively. Later, Japan brought the U.S. into the war with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, a naval base. During the war, Germany also pursued another aim, the systematic murder of European Jews, Gypsies, and other minorities.

The majority of the fighting took place in Europe, Asia, North Africa, and the Pacific....(leads into body count)

Note this says the "majority" of fighting which means if you heard a story about a german fighting a kangaroo, we don't have to include it in our intro. Haber 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I agree with you there. Hitler and Nazi should definitely get a mention. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Whatever we may think of the expansionist policies of the Soviet Union, or their slave labour policies, they were not a cause of WWII. DJ Clayworth 20:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were. If Stalin had sat at home, Hitler would've still attacked, but: if Hitler had sat at home and not attacked the east, Stalin would've attacked also. The key conflict was that both states claimed not only the same territory, but each others' territory, too. The central role of Soviet expansionism is seen in the events of the war itself: the creation of a buffer zone of satellite states around the Soviet Union were the first and last parts of the war. In 1939, this was in concert with Germany; and then, against Germany. --Vuo 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

True. Wallie 21:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think we need to mention the Japanese until 1941. I'm sorry if those sounds Western-centric, but the Sino-Japanese war was local and limited in scope. If the Japanese had not launched their 1941 attack the Sino-Japanese war would not even have been considered part of WWI, just a conflict that happened to be going on at the same time. DJ Clayworth 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What you say is definitely Western-centric. I know for a fact that people in the US thought that Poland was a side issue at the time too. There was more interest in the Civil War and the film "Gone with the Wind". Wallie 21:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You summarize quite nicely what is wrong with the article: this attitude. Plus, the tendency to shout "HITLER! NAZI!" to explain all evil. --Vuo 19:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My solution:Vichy France and the Free French forces. thats what they were called in the war67.81.110.178 00:04, 13 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

Commanders box

An odd selection - the Polish leader but not Mussolini? If Truman is in there, why not the other two British prime ministers during the war, or de Gaulle? Some are not technically commanders, but political leaders, although it's true they all had major roles in directing military operations. --Cyclopaedic 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Greece and Operation Barbarrosa

Does anyone else feel that the invasion of Greece caused the delay of the invasion of the Soviet Union? I would like to hear some thoughts?--Sac222 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Not much connection between the two, really. Wallie 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Keegan may mention a connection. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's speculation with no place in an encyclopedia article where it's impossible to include the myriad opinions on the matter. Glantz (and Glantz & House) think it caused delays, Van Creveld thinks that it didn't (and that it was a necessary precondition for Barbarossa in any case). One can add opinions indefinitely and be no nearer any conclusion as historians feel under no obligation to explain their counterfactual asides (and would deny making them in many cases). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw a whole movie saying that it was the Greeks who more or less where a huge strategic turning point since it lay the germans to the russian winter- willgfass

What was the name of the movie?66.53.98.122 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The seventh day i think, something like that.67.81.110.178 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)willgfass

Two things should be mentioned

I think these things sould be mentioned in the intro:

1. Germany invaded Poland and later the USSR because of Jewish concentration in these regions.

2. Nazis mostly successfully achieved the aim of the war - the elimination of European Jewry, though failed to achieve military victory.

--Nixer 20:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

1) Correct, but we don't have space to put the whole story behind Germany's invasions eastward. Other reasons include getting contiguity with East Prussia, Lebensraum, Slav-bashing, Russian oil, anti-communism, etc.

2) I think we've established that it should be called a "German" war aim. Figure out a nice way to say it without taking up too much space, and it might survive out on the page.

I agree but note that Germany failed the war while Nazi partially met their goals.--Nixer 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

3) I prefer to use the word "murder" when talking about killing human beings, rather than "elimination". If I were being shot or gassed, I'd want to use the proper term rather than something that could be confused with dodgeball or an NCAA tournament. Not that it really makes a difference at this point. Haber 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What about "physical elimination"? I mean, we should underline that it were not conventional "killings" but the intention to the complete elimination.--Nixer 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Physical elimination" just sounds like another euphemism. I see how you want to get the genocidal intent in there somehow, but I don't want the individual nature of it to get obscured and all people think is that it was just some government program. Haber 21:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the term genocide? --Habap 22:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes these things should be mentioned. No, they should not necessarily be mentioned in the intro. DJ Clayworth 21:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should shortly descruibe the outcome of the war in the intro, and as such, which goals were achieved and which were failed.--Nixer 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

May be we should also mention that the blitzkreig doctrine was devgeloped to prevent the Jews to be evacuated or flee abroad.--Nixer 21:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

O. I thought the idea was to knock out command centers at the rear, advance quickly to take advantage of the confusion, encircle the enemy and force a surrender... Wallie 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wallie. I've never read anything about the Blitzkreig having anything to do with trapping Jews. My understanding is that it was not designed to pincer at that depth. If, however, Nixer can point out reputable sources that detail this, that's fine. --Habap 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You accuse me of revisionism... Germany went on a military attack just to kill Jews. I don't think so. I think that the true reason is that the German leaders ordered the attacks primarily to impress the German people. Wallie 21:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen anything that said the leaders ordered these things to impress people. I have, however, read that the Nazi Party's focus on the master race meant going out and committing genocide against all the "inferior races". If you can provide sources, I will revise my opinion. --Habap 03:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You know what I think Wallie? I think Nazi Germany started the war, in Europe, because of nazi ideology which focussed on a number of things ... including proving the Germans were an master race and exterminating people who didn't live up to that. Rex 21:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding point 2 at the top of the section, I really don't believe Hitler sat down, just before he killed himself, and said "we really achieved our main objectives in this war, because we killed all the Jews". DJ Clayworth 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, for a start they didn't kill all the Jews. The war of expansion was about much more than just eliminating Jews though. It was about territory, power, lebensraum. Hitler also invaded France, which had some Jews (deported under Vichy), but that can't have been the reason behind the invasion. Although the Holocaust was a major part of WW2 and wouldn't have been possible on the same scale without it, equating the 2 things (the war and the holocaust) and assuming that all the war was about the Holocaust is just wrong.Jameskeates 08:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Bulge

The intro is getting rather large, and needs to lose some weight. Wallie 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please no blanket reverts

If you don't like something, please don't be lazy and go back a few versions. It makes life difficult, and something good could be lost forever. Better to change, or even delete, the bit you don't like, and keep moving forwards, i.e., go with the flow. If you think of something good to say, put it in, even if it doesn't quite fit. The text can always be rearranged later by you or someone else. Wallie 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You have absolutely no right to complain. Other editors have been more than willing to engage you in a reasonable debate. In return you offered nothing but half-baked, evasive answers, personal attacks, and an even longer list of ridiculous grievances. Look forward to all of your Nazi-leaning edits being erased without further explanation. Haber 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I only want to move forward on this article. I have no idea why you think I am "Nazi leaning". I have contributed to the Holocaust article too. Wallie 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

what summary needs

Many readers only read the summary (or brush up on the topic just before a test). The summary of perhaps the biggest and most complex event in history has to cover a lot of topics. Peoplewho want minimalism are better served by the War of Jenkin's Ear (yes that was a real war). The summary should have something to say about the most important land and naval and air battles, as well as some points regarding strategic goals. I suggest: mention Blitzkrieg 1940, battle of Moscow, Kursk, Normandy; u-boats, Pearl Harbor, Midway, Leyte Gulf; battle of Britain; strategic bombing of Germany; strategic nbombing of Japan. Rjensen 22:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Too centered on the military. The kids out there might need to know for their history tests that Hitler was in charge of Germany, that he was a Nazi, that the Holocaust happened, etc. They don't need this buried in a pile of goo about armies and navies bumping into each other.

By the way, your thesis about arms and industrial production being the most important reason that the Allies won is highly contentious and doesn't belong in the intro. Haber 22:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

We already have articles on germany and Hitler. this article is about a war and actually there was a lot of fighting involved,and it involved weapons. Does some scholar disagree?? who is that? 23:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not need to give sources to disprove your aggressive claim, that "The war was decided by industrial production", but I will do so as not to appear dodgy. It's pretty evident if you talk to veterans that the fighting qualities of men from Germany, US, USSR, UK, Commonwealth, and Japan are equally respected. Most scholars (e.g. Cohen and Gooch) agree that even the French army was pretty good. Hanson makes the case that the citizen-soldiers of the UK, Commonwealth, and U.S. were superior. I forget where I read it, but at least one writer thinks that the western Allies were much better led, in that their generals were empowered to think for themselves and make snap decisions. A general like Patton would not have survived on the Axis side, and he wasn't saddled with a crank-addicted amateur calling the shots from hundreds of miles away. I'm sorry if you're feeling romantic about the Germans and Japanese and how your sense of nostalgia would like to believe that they just couldn't fight steel with flesh or some other b.s., but that's not how it went down. Wake Island, Midway, Arnhem, Dunkirk, Stalingrad, Bulge, all would not have been fought the way they were if the Allied soldiers were just mediocre weapons-delivery organisms, as you are subtly suggesting with your industrial theory that you repeated three times in the introduction. Haber 22:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Earliest use of the term "Second World War"

During a visit to the offices of the Calgary Herald newspaper I saw a copy of the front page of the 3 September 1939 issue reporting on France and the UK declaring war on Germany. The front page declares the new conflict "The Second World War". Although it's doubtful a small-city newspaper like the Herald would be the originator of the term, presumably it was applied through wire service coverage of the declaration. My question to those more well-read on the subject, is whether the use of the term by media on Sept. 3 (doesn't matter which media) constitutes the first public use of the term, or whether it might have been used even earlier. 23skidoo 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting indeed. I have always wondered when the term was first used, and as early as that! If you have this link, or can somehow get the page from the Calgary Herald up on Wikipedia, you would be doing everyone a great service. World War 2 was a really original term, when you think about it, as the previous one was called the Great War. Anyway, well done. A fascinating piece of research. Wallie 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ox Engl Dict reports that it was used in 1930 by famous novelist H G Wells in Autocracy of Mr. Parham p 257 (heading) Book the Fourth: The Second World War. Rjensen 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But that was of course a fictional war (and a very different one, too. I believe the novel described a dreamt war, someone had a nightmare about it or something it turned out, between the US and England). Never the less, it's still an interesting bit of trivia that would deserve mentioning if we wrote an article about the naming of ww2. I think maybe we should. There are lots of stuff that article could include, like who (countries/people) called it what and when and also include the start-date debate, (1937, 1939, 1941, etc). That would also give us some relief from that ever returning edit war we have here over the start date. We could maybe also include a section on the naming of WW1 as well, as it is related. Shanes 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Leslie Charteris novel from 1930, The Last Hero has the protagonist Simon Templar fighting to stop a second world war from being triggered, and the term is used as well. However obviously we're talking about official uses. To my knowledge the newspaper cover I referenced is not online anywhere -- it is hung up on display in the Calgary Herald offices -- but I did note the date, etc. and will add the citation for now, pending anyone offering an earlier use of the term. 23skidoo 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the text to the existing section on "names".Michael Dorosh 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Finland as an Axis Power?

Finland can't be considered one of the axis powers just because it happened to be fighting Russia at the same time as Germany was. Germany took over Finland and destroyed most of it when they were leaving, they definately weren't allies!

I agree with these sentiments. Finland was just protecting itself. Simply a victim, I'm afraid. Wallie 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, Finland was an "Axis power" during the brief personal agreement into which Nazi Germany pressured the Finnish President Risto Ryti. For the rest of the time, it was cobelligerence. For example, some Finnish Jews fought alongside the Germans in Lapland in the Continuation War. --Vuo 08:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

That agreement was just president Ryti's personal deal, not an agreement between Finland and Germany. RPriha 08:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Janet and John

If we've settled on this as an opening, it needs improvement in grammar at least. It also needs to be *far* less childish in tone. This is Wikipedia, not "Janet and John's Guide to World History" Well, for the moment anyway. I'm sure this opening will be completely changed in a week's time, hopefully for the better. As Haber says, "that's anarchy"... and its great! As for Janet and John, it would be best if we could keep the simplicity of style, but at the same time make it professional. This will probably happen anyway as many of us including me do not really understand the big words used by University Lecturers etc. anyway. Please keep adding to the article anyway. Someone else can always correct the grammar later... Is there an English teacher in the house? Wallie 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Have we improved in five years?

World War II was a war fought from 1939 to 1945 in Europe, and from at least 1937 to 1945 in Asia. It was the largest armed conflict the world has ever seen, spanning the entire world and involving more countries than any previous war - and fought with powerful new weapons, culminating in the first aggressive use of two atomic bombs, whose very existence had been a tightly-held secret.

The conflict ravaged civilians more than had any previous wars of the modern era, and served as a backdrop for genocidal killings by Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan. World War II caused a greater number of deaths, about 61 million, than any previous war.

I got this intro dated 8 Dec 2001 from the Wikipedia history. Have we really improved this intro in this time... I like the word backdrop. Wallie 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is 5 years old dosent make it bad, change it back if it was better in 2001 Ironplay 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

..... I would expect it to be better now. I just put this up for a bit of fun to show what the intro was like then. Also, it is interesting to see how much we have progressed since then. Wallie 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

France and other intro issues

It says that France participated until 1940. Actually they did participate beyond that date too... throughout the whole war... and in a similar way to Holland, Poland and others. Wallie 11:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Though the issue of who represented France 1940-44, deGaulle or Petain, is a tricky one, the article shouldn't state that France ceased to be an ally in 1940. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The article now says that France was an Ally that surrendered in 1940, which is the main point. Details come later in the article. Rjensen 16:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

To explain my edits (and why your version is not acceptable):

• The issue about France (see above) is not decided.
• The term Axis Powers assumes that the Axis has a leading posistion ... which means Germany and Italy. Non-leading members are nations like Hungary, Croatia, Romania.
• The worst thing about the former version is that it made the Soviet Union a leading member of the Allies, when in fact, in 1939 it was on friendly terms with Nazi Germany, hence on the other side.
• Neither France nor Italy fit into the category of smaller powers (at least not before the war).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes USSR was ally; yes France and Italy were smaller powers compared to the major ones.. Yes, France surrendered in 1940; no Italy was not a leader; no DeGaulle did not join the allies before late 1944 (if then) (he refused to join the Normandy invasion). The job of a summary is to provide information not to tell the reader the story is so complicated we cannot tell it. People who want the details will find them in the article.

Yes, it's too complicated for the intro but we shouldn't mislead him in the other direction.

• Soviet Russia was one of the victors but not one of the original Allies that fought Germany from the beginning (the US did give some support before entering the war) - your version implies that the Soviet fought Germany all the way, when in fact their dealing enabled the war in the first place.
• deGaulle was always part of the Allies, as he declared (in 1940) that France would continue the fight. So, the issue is who really represented France.
• Smaller does not only mean smaller than the others but smaller on a general scale, on which certainly France is not a smaller power but a world power.
• Leaving out Italy makes the term Axis Powers meaningless. So if we leave out Italy we should drop that term too - and in fact she should do that anyway, because the Axis was never more than a sham, an impromptu invention by Mussolini.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Russia did in fact join the Allies before the US did; it never joined the Axis. France did in fact surrender in 1940. The DeGaulle regime can only be considered one of the smaller powers. Italy was not a leader of the Axis. The Axis treaty was Germany-Japan-Italy, of course. It was not a "sham" and not an Italian deal. When Italy dropped out in 1943 the term Axis was still in standard use, and remains so. Again, the details are in the article. The issue is what main points should be in the summary. They are: Britain, USA, USSR (and China) defeated Germany and Japan. That is the main story and we have to say that right away. Rjensen 18:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

You're evading the problems:

Soviet Russia, thoug never an ally of Germany, enabled Hitler to begin the war. It'd most unfair to now subsume it under the Allies with no distinction to the UK or France or even US (and note, I did not say who joined the Allies first, but that the US gave some (economic) support to the UK while they were still neutral, whereas the Soviets had a part in the war's start.

The Axis consists of Germany and Italy. It was the "Axis Berlin-Rome", declared by Mussolini (yes a sham impromptu declartion surprising Hitler, attempting to secure Hitler's support) quite a while before the war. The name stuck, yes, but to mention Germany and Japan give wrong implications. My latest edit removes Italy but makes clear that Japan was not part of the Axis(and no, it was not!)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The opening tells who won the war and who lost--in 1945. We have to state that in as clear a form as possible. Rjensen 18:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, where exactly is the current version unclear?

It clearly states who won in 1945 and who lost (with the exception of Poland of course, for whose freedom the war was begund who remained subjugated to one of the aggressors in 1939, but I digress).

It offers no basis for confusion - the sentence is clearly comprehensible. If it isn't why confuse readers with "together with China" instead of simply "and China". Why confuse readers with terms like Axis Powers, if it is simply about "who won, who lost"?

(And no, the opening tells us about the war in general, very briefly. It is not merely conerned with you won and who lost.)

I note that you haven't yet actually addressed the issues I raised and that you have shown no regard for finding a compromise, whereas I have repeatedly done so.

If I am not mistaken, you have reverted three times, so please now mind WP:3RR.

Discuss issues here and wait.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unlike my fellow Wikipedian Rjensen, I will not revert a fourth time and rather address the issue on the talk page again, though he did not reply to my last post.

His last edit [1] needlessly enlarged the intro by creating a second paragraph, whereas the former version was perfectly comprehensible. It also inserted old and new inaccuracies or problematic verdicts:

The old ones are:

• Again putting the Soviets in the Allied camp just as there had been no Molotow-Ribbentropp pact.
• A continued obsession with France's surrender in 1940, even though it is somewhat ambiguous as a French government continued on the side of the Allies and emerged a victor in 1945.
• The subsumation of Japan under the Axis Powers, when the Axis was Berlin and Rome.

The new ones are:

• The Soviet Union is described as having entered (actually entered what? the war or the Allies?) in 1940. Sheer nonsense. It was Germany's invasion in 1941, breaking the Molotow-Ribbentropp treaty, that made Stalin turn to the Western Allies.
• China is described as having entered in 1937. A strange thing, to be entering a war that only begun in 1939, or an alliance that didn't exist in 1937. The Chinese-Japanese war is a separate war that was linked to WW2 only through Japan's attack on the US, resulting in war first between Japan and the US and then Germany and the US. That's 1941 again - at best, if China immediately drew up a formal alliance with its enemies' enemies.

I am calling on Rjensen to rectify his errors, to self-revert his 4th revert and to finally address the issues (and I mean address not just leave a few sidetracking comments) here on the talk page. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The summary should start with who won the war in 1945, and it does so. Str1977 has a lot of original research about the war that is not supported by reliable sources. Rjensen 21:06, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

"The summary should ..." says who? You? Great! Thanks for dictating.

Thanks also for not addressing the issues raised.

Thanks also for refusing to discuss under the pretext (and your Gleiwitz edit was no improvement either) of "original research" - if you have read on the war you should at least know that Soviet Russia did not enter in 1940.

Initially, Rjensen, I thought you were no longer on-line, but as you are, I am giving you five minutes to self-revert your 4th revert and address the issues on the talk page. Otherwise I will report you, as I have now seen that you have been block for such an offense before and therefore must be aware of the rules.

Clock is ticking. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Threats threats threats--makes appeasement more understndable I guess. The problem is using original research to trump solid scholarship, which is a no-no. I recomend a close reading of Weinberg and Dear-Foot to appreciate what experts are saying. As for the summary--it should tell people what happened. Rjensen 21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

More evasion of the issue while issung blanket accusations of OR.

Nothing of what I wrote is in any way peculiar.

Most of our dispute is not really based on facts but on how to organize it in the text. At least for these your accusation of OR is pointless.

Is there anyway you can justify describing the Soviets as entering the war in 1940 when it was in fact 1941, after Stalin got surprised by Hitler's invasion?

Anyway, you have been reported. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Best to move on, now. I think most of us have a lot of ideas in common. We all have our "pet theories" and these should also be in the article, but not take over the article. For example, if someone thinks, say, that Fiji's importance to the war is paramount, it would certainly raise eyebrows if the article said... the war was fought by Fiji and the United States, the main Allies, against our enemies, the Fascists. Fiji's victory was celebrated in 1945 when a whole platoon of our wonderful fighting men marched down the main street in Suva. Wallie 07:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, this is not about "pet theories" but about how to word the intro.

Mr Jensen has argued that my changes made the text to complicated to understand, then turned around and split it into two paragraphs, making it even more complicated. All this while not answering the issues I raised, which are not anything outrageous but plain historical facts, and while decreeing that the intro must only contain winners and losers.

And I must say, Wallie, that cutting the intro down to Allies vs. Axis Powers is unacceptable too, as it is utterly uninformative. I am always leaning towards keeping the intro short, but not as short as this.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:19, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I agree with you entirely regarding the intro. It did say that it could be expanded. As soon as you try to expand it, though, it becomes complicated. The problem is that there are so many countries. And they came in and went out at different times. Whatever the intro says, it will not make everyone happy, either. Ideally, we would all like it to be very short and informative too. This is easy to say, but not so easy to do.
2. As far as rjensen is concerned, from what you say, you seemed to be discussing the clarity/style of the text, and not the content. Over that small thing, I cannot imagine why he was blocked. I was referring also to the Industrial Issues, which rjensen has raised, and others have disputed. (see below). Wallie 11:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Wallie,

• I grudgingly accept your edit to the intro, restricting the war to AlP vs. AxP, thoug I added a "(see below)" to point readers to an explanation of these alliances.
• I however had to change the wrong statement that World War II broke out in 1937 in Asia. That is simply not true. The Asian side of WW2 began in 1941. This might be eurocentric and unfair towards the Chinese, who indeed fought against and suffered bitterly at the hands of Japan, but that is the way things were then (when European powers controlled most of the Earth) and it is the way historiography must and does treat it.
• That last issue is also concerned further down - I renamed the 1937 section as it does not report the outbreak of this war (WW2) in Asia, as this happened in 1941. I would even advocate moving the entire section down, turning it into a prelude section to Asia 1941. But I didn't want to make such a drastic move without consensus.
• I also made some edit to the new participants section, incorporating the same info in a different (better IMHO) way.
• I also had to correct some things regarding the outbreak of the war in 1939 - the objectives of appeasement was stated twice and so I cut it down to one accurate explanation. I corrected the Munich agreement to its actual content: the immediate military occupation of the Sudetenland - not the partition of the CSR, and also moved the "less than a year" quote to a better place.
• You are exactly right. My dispute with Mr Jensen was about how to organize the text and not about information (with the exception of the 1940 Soviet date). Hence his shouting "OR!" was clearly mistaken, when he should have rather addressed the issues I raised. He was blocked because he broke 3RR in that dispute, which is not allowed regardless how big or small the issue is. I regret that it had to come to this (and tried to avert it, but to no avail), as he was making useful contributions to the rest of the article. But don't worry: he soon will be restored to you and anyway, you can communicated via his talk page.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Once again I agree with you. When I changed any of the intro, it was just formatting. I also think the war was from 1939 to 1945. However, I didn't want to change anything, even if I disagreed with it. The idea of starting up an overview, shorting the intro, creating participant and saying allies vs axis were all experiments. I also though the other editors would come in and save the day, and many minds are better than one or two. I hope that Mr. Jensen comes back soon so we can all contribute nicely. By the way, it is normal to have some heat generated. I have had a few squables in my time too. But nothing personal, just trying to get it right. Both sides can learn from each other in these "disputes". Wallie 22:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Format

It would be best to have a very very small intro. That was the idea of creating the overview section, as the was the old intro, and the intro was getting too big. So if there is more than say two sentences in the intro, then put some of it in the overview section. Also, think of removing stuff from the overview, and putting it in the main article. Wallie 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Industrial Issues

I see there has been quite a few debates on the topic. rjensen has mentioned that industrial production, technoology, materials, etc. played a significant part in the war. His table about the allies producing three times as much as the axis, subsequently removed, I found this fascinating and educational. The more I think about it, this IS an important theme, and should be covered in this article. But at what level? There are other important themes too. You know, I once saw a whole series on TV just about the impact of oil on the war. It ended with Hitler and Eva being burnt in the stuff. Any thoughts please? Wallie 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be low on our list of priorities. Space is at a premium. This should be a one-liner, possibly in the home front or technology section, and can be expanded on in another article. Haber 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with Haber, agree with Wallie. John Ellis demonstrates in Brute Force that the war was won more by industrial superiority than tactical prowess in the field. It deserves more than "a one-liner" in this article.Michael Dorosh 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The hard dats from leading economists published in the leading economics journal is a good summary of wartime economics. There is no disagfreement among specialists about its accuracy--one editor seems to think he has better, secret data that he has not yet shared with us. People who think it is "misleading" shouldexplain what they mean with full citations rather than just vandalize the article by blanking. Rjensen 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an overview article. We should all agree that industrial production and logistics played a role, but not to the exclusion of everything else. You would turn what is supposed to be an overview into a detailed analysis of why the Allies won, and why you think this one factor is more important than all other factors. You attempt to cram your opinion down everyone's throat by including ponderous, ugly data, and then you get upset when people delete it. That chart has no business in an overview article. Your point will be included, but it can fit in far less space. Haber 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The industry section including the table is less than 5% of the length of the article--hardly excessive since it summarizes the munitions products used by all the armies, navies and air forces in battle.-- This was not a rifles and bayonet war--it was tanks, artillery, aircraft carriers, shells, bombers, fighters etc etc. If there are scholars who think munitions were not very important, please cite them. Rjensen 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Check out "What Summary Needs" above. Nobody is disputing that industry was a factor, but many people consider other factors to be more important. Believe it or not, munitions are just so much junk unless used properly. "Mr. Chard Sir! Patrol has come back, Zulus have gone, all of 'em. It's a miracle!/ If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry, point 4.5 caliber miracle./ And a bayonet Sir! With some guts behind it!" Haber 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually every major study of WW2 mentions munitions like tanks and airplanes. Let's skip the bow and arrow Zulu stage and jump into WW2, and allow the users the opportunity to see the data. Were other factors important--yes indeed--and NOTHING has been left out on account of the munitions section. The table adds 4kb to the article --less than 4%. Some people it is true are ignorant of economics and hate numbers. They can skip the section which is well below all the battles. But people who do know numbers will want data to chew on. Rjensen 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Zulus had guns, and could win battles. That's not really the issue, but space-hogging with your private agenda is. Plenty of topics in this article are being covered very superficially, if at all. Everyone is making a concerted effort to keep it short. Besides, the table is ugly, incomplete, and possibly misleading, as it includes Canada but not Italy, a more populous country. Haber 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

a dozen lines that includes the munitions production of the major powers is "hogging"? Nonsense. What wastes space is stories about the death of Mussolini (years after he was deposed as dictator.) Rjensen 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I warned Haber that deleting important information is vandalism--he's new at Wiki and does not know the ropes yet, so it was a friendly warning. He apparently dislikes economics but lots of Wiki users are able to handle economic data and should not be prevented from seeing it. As for the 12 lines it adds, I've already deleted 15 lines in other parts of the article. Rjensen 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Deleting your chart is not vandalism. The chart is too detailed for an overview article, and it is of low quality. It lacks units, it's large, it omits important information, and its sole reason for existence is for you to reinforce a point that is clearly explained in the previous paragraph. Haber 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well you're new here and not used to the Wiki policy of providing more information rather than less. (We're talking about 12 lines of text.) It is concise, covering only the major countries and it summarizes vast amount of highly relevant data. The economists and economic historians use it and many Wiki users have the business/economic education to use it. People uninterested in numbers can easily skip over. So please do not vandalize--if you have something to say about the data then please annotate the section with your evidence. Rjensen 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Real cool. You rightfully took this ridiculous discussion to my talk page, then you cut and pasted my response to the main discussion page. If this is what Wikipedia veterans do, then I don't want to become like you. Anyway, here is my response: Haber 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism warning is completely unfounded, and Wiki policy clearly is to keep articles within a manageable length. To any serious statistician this chart as it is presented is useless. It reports the nebulous variable "munitions" with no units, and omits Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary... all major Axis players at least on par with the mighty Canada. Furthermore, the WWII article does not have space to present all sides of the "Why did the Allies win?" question. It's POV to go on and on about industrial production which is only one factor among many. The article barely has space to tell what happened, and it really cannot do justice to the "why" question. I'm willing to let the two short paragraphs slide because they are mentioned in passing in most histories, but I think even that is bending NPOV a little bit. Haber 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The section nowhere claims that munitions production was the only cause of victory--that is simply a careless misreading. The table takes up 12 lines and I have already cut more than that from elsewhere by making sections more concise. Haber seems confused and uneducated about economics--that's perfectly understandable, but millions of Wiki readers have taken courses in economics, business or statistics and can handle this basic information. If Haber is uninformed about economics he should not make editorial decisions on that matter. The article is a summary of the main actions of the wars. The table is a summary of the most important non-combat activities of the major powers: which was munitions production. (Why Canada? because it was #6 in the world munitions output during the war, well ahead of Italy or Czechoslovakia or Hungary.--Look at Dear and Foot p 183) These are basic facts that Haber does not know--a good reason for having the table.Rjensen 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Settle down. You're repeating yourself. Let's see what others think. Haber 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

WW2 and the SU

I don't understand why you think the war was only in two "theatres". I cannot imagine dismissing the Great Patriotic War as a non event. Also, you describe the Soviet Union as being in Europe, which I find very strange, given that you live in Germany, and Germany has never really considered it as being part of Europe. In reality, much of it is in Asia. Also, I cannot understand why you do not consider this important, as the move into the Soviet Union involved many more participants than did Poland or Pearl. However, if you insist on this, it is OK, as many other issues I was irritated with have got smaller, and I am interested, as you probably are, in keeping the intro small. Wallie 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Str1977")

Dear Wallie,

that is not what I am saying. Yes, the war encompassed two theatres, an European and an Asian one. European is a bit of a misnomer as this theatre also included warfare in North Africa. It also included warfare on the territory of the Soviet Union but never extended beyond the European part of Russia. Also, I cannot understand your remark about Germany not considering Russia a part of Europe. It certainly has a very distinct character and whether it belongs to Europe culturally is debatable, but here what matters is the still prevalent definition of Europe's borders at the Ural mountains and river, the Caucausus and the Bosporus/Hellespont.

In fact Hitler himself said they would conquer Libensraum in Europe.--Nixer 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

We could include all kinds of details into the intro, including North Africa, or Italy's conflict with Albania and Greece. But all these events (and not "no-events") are part of the European theatre of the war - after all in 1942 all fighting on European soil was against the Soviet Union.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I try to simplify things, not do the opposite..... Wallie 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Intro/Overview

This is getting seriously out of hand. Now it's like there are two articles. It's a shame because there is some good content getting in there, but it will have to go somewhere else. Haber 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But you can't just remove it and throw it away. It is really vandalism, but that is probably not your intention. It is best to move the parts of the overview a little bit at a time to the rest of the article, so it is clear what is happening. For an article of this importance, the overview is not so big (not yet anyway). Wallie 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that the overview should include detailed casualty statistics and three paragraphs on the air war? These parts were added quickly; they should be removed quickly. Haber 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying in essence. I think this should be summarized. Probably there should not be any separate section of air war or casualties in the overview, and it can be merged into the other existing sections within the overview. The rest can be copied (the good bits) into the main article. I just think everyone has to be careful when deleting large portions that they are put somewhere else and "pitched at the correct level". When rewriting the stuff, you can always remove any "bloat", but the "history" itsslf should not be removed without a good reason. This does take a certain amount of effort. Wallie 05:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Haber, I have already started "chipping away". This can also be done for the whole overview. Wallie 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a good sumamry of the main points regarding main countries, air-land-sea campaigns, regarding munitions and weapons, and regarding casualties. Readers need that information in summary form. (Keep in mind the entire article is itself a sumamry of specialized articles) Rjensen 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That is correct. The correct balance needs to be maintained. People can always add good stuff to the overview. Others can keep summarizing it down to the main article, as Haber/I will do from time to time. However, if anyone feels that the overview has been over-summarized, then stuff can be moved back. As mentioned before, if anyone has a good idea, put it in somewhere. It can be rearranged later. Also, please please don't delete any good work outright, as it is lost forever and is most unfair on the original contributor. Wallie 06:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

War deaths/Casualties - different estimtes/numbers

I have just moved the War deaths down to the Casualteis section.

1. If anyone, e.g. rjensen, feels this is over-summarized (it probably is), feel free to build it up again to the correct level.
2. The Casualties section as it now stands has conflicting data in it as to the breakdown, military and civilian, holocaust, by country, etc. I got rid of the duplication for the 62 million total, which both versions agree on, but the rest is still there, as I have no idea which is correct. Can someone (maybe you rjensen) please find out which is correct, and remove the other. Thanks. Wallie 06:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

historians do not agree on the numbers, and Wiki reflects that. Rjensen 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Both versions are now there. We need to agree on an approach, though. For example, start removing duplicates, delete one figure, and leave the other (the referenced one probably). Also, saying "one source says this, and the other that" is also OK. I guess this will be noticed by various people, and sorted out over time. Wallie 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)