Talk:World War II/Archive 52

Archive 45

←

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Pyrrhic victory

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Some time ago I noticed through my watchlist that FilBox101 inserted 'pyrrhic' before 'victory' in the infobox. Later Alex Bakharev removed it. Can we get a consensus on this? Or has one already been reached? Green547 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would the victory be pyrrhic. The phrase pyrrhic victory is, as far as I know, generally reserved for a situation where a battle (or war) has lead to such devastating losses at the side of the victor, that another battle with the same enemy would almost certainly result in a decisive defeat of the earlier victor. By the end of WWII this is definitely not the case as the US-UK-USSR(and other allied) armies could easily crush any army fielded by either Germany or Japan (or any other Axis nation). Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well User:FilBox101's edit summary was 'due to the massive number of casualties' and definitely it was a massive number of losses. I'd like to see his POV on this before moving ahead. Green547 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably none of the parties would be able to field the same power as they had in the field in 1940. But since there were no powers in the world at that time who could, that does not make it a Pyrrhic victory - a victory with so much casualties it would lead to almost certain loss if the ongoing war would continue from the status quo after the victory. If we redefine Pyrrhic victory to fit the outcome of WWII almost all major wars would have ended in a Pyrrhic victory. E.g. the outcome of the Napoleontic war would also be Pyrrhic (Wellington would not have been able to confront the Grande Armee immediately after Waterloo -- But that was a non-issue as Napoleon already lost that army in his ill-fated Russian campaign). Similarly the French would probably not have been able to withstand the original 1914 German attack in 1918, however the Germans were not able to execute that attack anymore in 1918.

But I am interested in User:FilBox101 detailed arguments why this would be a Pyrrhic victory as well Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was going through that sort of arguments in my head, but I think the number of casualties and resources expended is relevant also. Pyrrhic victory could simply mean a victory won at a terrible cost. We need his imput on this. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In a summary like an infobox, when a qualifier such as Pyrrhic is at all debatable....then it should be left out. An editors opinion on it is not RS'd. Only if the consensus of mainstream historians employ it..should it ever be considered. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I, too, have not seen "pyrrhic victory" applied to World War II, and find it inappropriate. Perhaps it's the huge Russian losses that make that term seem suitable, but a pyrrhic victory is appropriate when the defeated has inherently greater resources and can eventually win a war of attrition. The Axis had no such reserve strength against the Allies. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I've also never seen any source describe World War II as a "Pyrrhic victory" or similar for the Allies. It's hard to see how that would be the case given that the Allies completely defeated the Axis powers and then went on to dominate the post-war world. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

WW2 was certainly a pyrrhic victory for Britain and France as the two countries were completely destroyed. (Dredernely (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)) Striking out comment from sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

But being completely destroyed after being victorious is not necessarily a Pyrrhic victory - a Pyrrhic victory means that after such a victory the next battle to the same enemy is almost certainly lost. While Britain was very much damaged, Germany could not have fielded an army with any hopes of defeating Britain in mid 1945 (as Germany was even more damaged at the time). Therefor it was not a Pyrrhic victory.

In the larger scope of things WWII did result in the folding of the European colonial empires (not only British and French but also Dutch, Italian and German). So if we consider WWII as an episode in ongoing colonial wars it may be construed as a Pyrrhic victory. However that construal would be original research; and in any case be beyond the current article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Two of the major parties emerged from the war with not only stronger armies, but with greater world power. Neither the USSR nor the USA were prepared to fight in the beginning. Both developed their militaries during the war and were stronger in 1945 than they were in 1940. The USSR took vast losses. The USSR's army was stronger at the end than at the beginning. That's not Pyrrhic in the slightest. Yes, Europe lost colonial empires but that took place for decades after the war, due the rise of the new powers that be, and only indirectly due to the war itself. Germany's motivation was to build an empire within Europe, not to simply take over colonies, so that makes it an existential war for Europe, not a colonial one. Western Europe was then rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, money provided by one of their wartime allies. A Pyrrhic victory means you win the battle but lose the war. Yes, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, etc., lost influence and colonies, but they emerged nationally intact, were rebuilt with the assistance of a wartime ally (and were able to build a beneficial international alliance that did not exist pre-war), and were not subsumed into a Thousand Year Reich, so it's a vast stretch of the imagination to say the Allies won the battle and lost the war. Poland could make the argument they won the battle but lost the war, but I'm really not sure any other country could.71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the victory was indeed quite decisive, but looking at the cost (over 500% more losses than the defeated power) it certainly is a war won at very high cost. But with that being said, it also crushed the third reich and the existence of "Axis powers" from the globe. and on the other hand it forged the path to the cold war. So yeah... A war won, but at extremely heavy costs. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody suggest the victory came cheap. But extremely heavy costs, both in human life and destruction of infrastructure does not make it a Pyrrhic victory. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I never said I though it was Pyrrick did I? I just stipulated the heavy losses suffered as direct result of the war, I don't care how you want to call it. but it may be reflected by calling it: "something.. Victory" 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If we do decide to call it a pyrrhic victory we better have reliable sources to support that position. Our opinion doesn't count. What reliable sources say does. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Britain and France ceased to be superpowers as a direct result of World War II, so for them it was definitely a pyrrhic victory. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Please read up on what Pyrrhic victory means. As used above, in the classical sense it means "winning the battle but losing the war". WWII where Germany, Italy and Japan were the enemies ended in 1945. The UK and France have not been in a war with either of those states since. So no, it was NOT a Pyrrhic victory in this sense of the word. In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor". To use this definition would imply that France and the UK should have been better off without winning the war (i.e. occupied France, besieged Britain) than with winning the war. Again a very far fetching interpretation.

So either (1) we continue this, so far unfruitful, discussion by putting in our own thoughts and definitions (which is a gross violation of the central policy on original research WP:OR); or (2) we bring in reliable, mainstream sources that explicitly use the term Pyrrhic victory (but I have seen none so far, so I doubt they exist). Or (3) we close this discussion. (I would vote for closing this) Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The UK ceased to be a world power as a direct result of World War II, and was soon surpassed economically in Europe by West Germany. France was only occupied and Britain besieged because they had declared war on Germany and immediately started bombing German cities. Many people today believe the UK should never have declared war on Germany in 1939. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

What is your point explicitly in relation to the very specific term Pyrrhic victory, and what reliable mainstream sources support this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Churchill said in 1960 that the UK made a huge mistake in destroying itself and its empire by starting World War II. He said Britain should have remained neutral and allowed Hitler a free hand against the USSR. (LoweRobinson (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Not the point. We NEED (shouting intended) a reliable, secondary, source that uses the exact wording Pyrrhic victory in this exact context, before we can continue this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there's no way that Churchill would have said what LoweRobinson is attributing to him, along with an insane claim that the UK started the war. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Arnoutf: Your second interpretation where you state "In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor"" doesn't nesecarily mean that the war must have been won for Germany. It simply states that the losses suffered by a winning party (or even a part of them) has lost more than they otherwise would have if they didn't participate. And next to that, how do you measure such thing anyway? I would say, purely looking at the total deathtoll, the victory was indeed pyrrhic, certainly for US, because even with the Pearl Harbor event, US inlands was never attacked and would likely not have happened anyway. Also, as the points made above, France and Britain were heavily degraded as a worldpower. France and Britian also suffered severe economic damage with half their countries destroyed.

In conclusion, I see your point that most likely the war would not have been gone otherwise looking at the two sides which were fighting. and for these 'factions' the war may not be pyrrhic. But looking at certain countries individually, I'm not so sure. Also, I'm thinking that finding some reliables sources about this is going to be nearly impossible, because nobody will ever admit that it may have been more pyrrhic than they'd like. even now, 70 years later. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shorter lead

I made some changes (diff) to the lead, particularly the lead paragraph. Nick-D reverted them, pointing out that they were substantial and should be discussed.

About the points raised by Nick-D:

a) "false claim that millions of people were killed by strategic bombing"

This is actually argued (with source) in the restored text

b) "greatly over simplified why Japan surrendered (it wasn't just due to the atomic bombs)"

My edit only mentioned how the situation developed up to that point, and this included that an invasion of Japan was imminent. The lead should concentrate on major factors.

Nxavar (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting this discussion Nxavar. I'm in favour of simplifying the lead as well (not to mention the body of the article, which has become a bit lengthy), but I'd suggest that per the precedents for this article substantial changes be agreed here first. Regarding the points, the article currently states that "approximately one million were killed" by bombing, not millions, and I think its better one way or the other to note that multiple factors led to the Japanese surrender than imply that it was just the atomic bombs given the considerable debate over this topic among historians. That said, there was some good stuff in your changes. A way to progress this might be for you to post your proposed text here, and other editors can comment on it and/or tweak it. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for you constructive criticism! The rewritten lead paragraph, for reference:

World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries, including all of the great powers. It was initiated by the Axis military alliance, which was opposed and eventually defeated by the Allies. It is the deadliest conflict in human history, with in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. Most of the victims were civilians, with millions dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres and the Holocaust.

I have no objection with including the apprximate numbers found in the current version instead of the vague "millions". I propose this sentence:

Most of the victims were civilians, with approximately one million dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres and over 10 million the Holocaust.

No objection with mentioning the Soviet invasion of Manchuria either. Nxavar (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't like the direct comparison of the casualties caused by bombing to the Holocaust at all: the two were very different, and it implies some kind of equivalence between (mostly) Allied actions and those of Nazi Germany. It also excludes the millions of civilian deaths Japan caused, and the deaths from the many other atrocities (for instance, mass starvation in German-occupied Eastern Europe). The current wording also isn't good at all in this respect, but I think that this is a step backwards. I'd suggest changing the last sentence proposed here to: "It was marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed), other atrocities and the effects of fighting." It's also not really accurate to say that the war "was initiated by the Axis" - it was started by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia, with both acting separately of their allies. Italy didn't join the European war until May 1940. On reflection, I think that the rest of the current first para is pretty good: my concern really is about the next three paras which are too detailed (especially the second para where lots of countries are name-dropped for no clear reason) and could be compressed into one or two paras. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

References

See also is in need of attention

The see also page is in need of attention. It misses a lot of key links. I think what we're shooting for in it is a list of links to sites that cover World War II, not just articles (except for Wikipedia articles). Fisch1234 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Which ones do you suggest? On this topic, I'd suggest deleting the (very partial) list of documentaries as there are many hundreds of them, and including a link to the List of World War II documentary films article would be much superior in this high-level article. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I like that suggestion; I'll work to implement that today. On the more general sites, should we start a list of sites on world war II article? I'm in school, so reply could take some time (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Date while adding link

I tried to add a link to this page while editing my user page. It worked, but I would like to notify users that when you add the link to the page, the bubble that says that basic info reads that WW II took place from 1939 - 2019. This is obviously a mistake, so it would be great if it could be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't see where that appears in the article (including its hidden text) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Choice of pictures

Just a query, but is there a reason why we haven't included a picture of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the article? Regardless of the importance in the Japanese surrender, it is pretty common to claim the use of atomic weapons as one of the most important geopolitical legacies of the conflict. It might also draw attention to the excellent quality articles we seem to have on the bombing and related subjects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I am in favor of this yes. While in relation to the total deathtoll the atomic bombs haven't made the greatest impact, it remains being the only use ever for a dedicated nuclear weapon to be used in any war. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Advancements section

Hello I've now come acros the bit of advancement in technology and warfare section, reading up on the article some bit. And I came acros the "Land Warfare" part. I fell that a part of the story is leut/not properly explained. It was WWO 2 that not only changed the tactical use of tanks, like the modern way to format an armed divison, but also the science on tanks in combination with their roles. May I suggest the following writing?:

Land warfare changed from the static front lines of World War I to increased mobility and combined arms. The tank, which had been used predominantly for infantry support in the First World War, had evolved into the primary weapon. In the late 1930s, tanks were considerably more advanced than it had been during World War I and tank design pushed for standadization of the parts it consisted out of. Technological advances continued throughout the war with increases in speed, armour and firepower, aswell as means to significantly increase production rates.

At the start of the war, most commanders thought enemy tanks should be met by tanks with superior specifications. This idea was challenged by the poor performance of the relatively light early tank guns against armour and Germany's use of combined arms, were among the key elements of their highly successful blitzkrieg tactics across Poland and France.

From 1941 when Russia used the T-34 and KV-1 tanks with great succes against german forces, a race erupted to build the superior tank, including the Panther, Tiger I, IS-3, T-29 and even superheavy classes such as Maus and T-28. However the war ended prematurely causing many designs to never see active service. These constant advances also resulted in many means of non-tank anti-tank weapons, including tank destroyers, indirect artillery, anti-tank guns (both towed and self-propelled), mines, short-ranged infantry antitank weapons. Even with large-scale mechanisation, infantry remained the backbone of all forces, and throughout the war, most infantry were equipped similarly to World War I.

In my view this shows a bit more clearly how tank design and landbased combat was affected because of the war. and to shed a tiny light on some madman ideas (for which Hitler was known to have). If people can agree with this please be so kind an put it in. Thank you. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

While relatively interesting, we should ask ourselves the question whether it is central to the understanding of WWII. The idea of Wikipedia (and in fact all encyclopedias) is that it provides focused concise articles on topics. The conciseness is essential to keep the matter readable. The broader such a topic (like WWII) the less space there is for relatively minor details. Narrower, subtopics, could provide detail and background for the interested reader, where a top level article cannot.

It is for this reason that the it is highly recommended that no single article will have more than about 100,000 characters (see WP:AS). The current article already is more than twice that length (about 225,000). So before suggesting to add another 2,000 characters, we should seriously ask ourself whether we need it (and which 100,000 characters should go first). In my view, the tekst above is too detailled for this article. If we want it, we should probably find another article to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand. After I wrote the piece I was also wondering for myself if side-sections like these be included at all. They may come better to their value in a separate article that deals explicitly with effects such as technological advancement in warfare tactics/designs and maybe social/cultural impacts. An article with such callout seems to not yet exist. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

References

Problems with early paragraphs

I tried recently to improve the early paragraphs but my changes were instantly reverted with the comment only that they were "unhelpful". I should like to persist:

Paragraph 2 begins "The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937,[5] but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939[6] with the invasion of Poland by Germany ...". This part of the article is primarily about when the war can be said to have started, but the style here places the emphasis on Japan rather than Germany, which I would suggest is at odds with the general perception of the War. I suggested removing "aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and", which (while perfectly true) is a distraction from the question of when the war began, and lightens the weight of the Japan material at this point, thereby going some way towards adjusting the balance.

There is no indication in the article as it stands when the United States entered the war. I proposed to add after the description of the attack on Pearl Harbor "This drew the United States into the war.". If this is regarded as inaccurate, then I would say that some other means should be found of making the events clear, or the innocent reader may think that the US had been part of the war from September 1939, which is of course not the case.

Deipnosophista (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Deipnosophista revision did add an important missing piece to the lede, and it didn't warrant a reversion. Instead of abusing the use of this tool and adding, in addition, ridiculous reasons, User:Miracle dream, if he considered important to retain "aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific", should have add his own revision. Even more distasteful is Deipnosophista's use of part of the reverted text for his own editorial effort, without citing its origin. Carlotm (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

At first, the first sentence of paragraph 2 just stated the beginning of the war which is no intent to emphasis any countries (Japan or Germany). Even you think it emphasis Japan, I don't see any problem with this because it just talked about the start time not the whole war and it indeed said "is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939" which is clearly enough. Actually the paragraph 2 uses its most of contents to describe the War of Germany while there are only one and a half sentences about Japan. Hence, it is really hard to say "emphasis Japan." Actually Germany is not the only major Axis power even though it is the most important. Japan is the second important Axis power which is also a major Axis.

Then the lede indeed indicated that "In December 1941, Japan attacked the United States" which means the US involved the War.The link of this sentence is Attack on Pearl Harbor which is the beginning the US involved the war. If you think we need to add "the US joined the war", I guess we also need to add the Soviet Union joined the war after the "European Axis powers launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theatre of war in history" or Poland joined the war after "the invasion of Poland by Germany " or even China joined the war after the first sentence"The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937"Miracle dream (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016‎

Japan was in the right

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article should mention that Japan was 100% in the right. The attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the illegal US oil embargo. Everybody wanted the European colonial powers expelled from the Far East, and Japan was best able to do it. (79.67.121.111 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)) For the article to state that any involved party was "100% in the right" would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:SOAPBOX.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC) In any case, you should give reliable sources that according to mainstream legal opinion of the day, an all out attack in response to economic sanction is 100% right. Also, to make the claim "Everybody wanted" you need to show that this was indeed the case. In extremis "everybody" includes the European colonial powers themselves, but at least everybody includes each and every single non-European nation (e.g. US, Argentina etc) and each and every European nation without far east colonies (e.g. Belgium, Denmark, Italy etc). Without indisputable evidence of both, your suggestion is not going anywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2016 (UTC) The majority of people today say that the Japanese were in the right according to opinion polls. They were correct to want to bring an end to the European occupation of countries in the Pacific and Southeast Asia. (81.132.48.95 (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)) And replace it with a Japanese occupation of these countries? Considering what the Japanese were doing to China (250,000 civilians murdered), and what they would do later in WW II to the countries they occupied, that cure is worse than the disease. Cite your opinion polls. Please be sure to include countries occupied by Japan. BTW, there was nothing illegal about the US refusing to sell Japan oil (from which it got about 80% of its supply). No international law requires you sell somebody anything if you don't want to. The "embargo" didn't prevent Japan from buying anywhere else. It wasn't a blockade. In any case, you know the reason for it. In late July, 1941, the Japanese, in collusion with the Vichy French (in turn under pressure from the Germans, who had illegally occupied France a year before), occupied Indochina. Japan thought it could get away with this because Vichy had capitulated, and Germany had just a month before invaded the USSR, meaning that the Soviets would be tied up, and wouldn't be responding to further Japanese aggression in southeast Asia. SBHarris 23:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC) The Germans didn't "illegally" occupy France. They invaded to knock France out of the war, after France had declared war and started bombing Germany. The Soviets were neutral with Japan anyway. The US oil embargo was practically a declaration of war, and illegal under international law. (81.159.7.39 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) You would do well to actually read the article on embargo. An embargo is merely a total trade sanction, and is never illegal. As for the rest of WW II, you might start with the article this is the TALK page for. Hitler was the aggressor. SBHarris 01:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Hitler was not the aggressor, he was trying to get back parts of Germany that had been taken away in 1919. It's strange how Britain and France never said anything about Stalin invading countries in 1939-41. (31.50.130.83 (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) Off topic this is about Japan. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC) The fact is that India got full independence soon after World War II ended because the Japanese liberated Singapore in 1942, destroying the prestige of the European colonialists. (86.133.85.128 (talk) 14:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)) Off topic this is not about India. Arnoutf (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Attacked the United States?

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Japan did not attack the United States. Hawaii was not part of the US until 1959. (31.50.130.83 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) Hawaii had been a US territory since the 1890s or so. It became a State in 1959. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) The Americans had no right to be occupying Hawaii. The lede should say Japan attacked a naval base in territory that was being occupied by the United States. (217.42.104.109 (talk) 22:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) This isn't a place to push fringe theories or personal beliefs. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) Hawaii was no more part of the United States than the Philippines were. (217.42.104.109 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) They had different status. The Philippines had once been a territory, but since 1935 had been a US commonwealth, formally scheduled for full independence in 1945 (in the event, due to war, this was delayed a year). By contrast, Hawaii was a US territory like Puerto Rico, and never scheduled for independence any more than New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, or Utah. When the Philippines were attacked by Japan, they Filipinos certainly didn't say "Give us our independence three years early!" What good would that have done them? They were overridden with vicious Japanese. They were a US commonwealth entitled to US protection, and they said "help!" Alas, it was several years in coming. Meanwhile I think it's safe to say that the Philippines were less happy with the Japanese than they had been with the Americans. Bad as the US had been (the Philippines is arguably the worst colonialist black spot on the US character), the Japanese were far worse. SBHarris 03:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC) You can't justify US colonialism/imperialism by saying another country was worse. The British used that as an excuse to remain in India. Many Filipinos supported the Japanese invaders as they did not believe the US government was going to allow real independence. (86.133.85.128 (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)) This talk section strays very far indeed from its actual purpose, which is to improve the article. It is not to debate the issue of colonialism. Hawaii was US territory in Dec 1941; that's a well-established fact; the rest is just not relevant to this article. Regards DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC) It was territory occupied by the US in 1941 but not officially part of the US. (86.133.85.128 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)) It does not really matter, in my view, as it was an attack on the US navy Pacific fleet (which happened to be stationed at Hawaii). As far as I know an attack on a military unit / base of a country would qualify as an attack on that country; regardless where it is. E.g. if Japan would have targeted the Pacific Fleet in international waters, it would also be counted as an attack on the US. Arnoutf (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Western Europe section

Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This section reads as though the Germans began bombing British cities first. In reality it was the other way round - the British began bombing German cities in May 1940, and the London Blitz did not begin until September (possibly in direct response). (86.133.85.128 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)) Rotterdam. Arnoutf (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Poland

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why did the UK and France declare war on Germany, when the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at the same time? (217.42.28.200 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

(Simplistic answer) - perhaps better mention of this should be noted in the article. The allies had a pact that they would defend Poland if GERMANY attacked....no pact for any other country if they attacked....but that said the Allies did attempt to fight Russia in the winter of 1939 by forming a task force but Finland surrendered before any action was taken. -- Moxy (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

It is also incorrect to say Poland was invaded 'at the same time' by Germany and USSR. Poland was invaded Sep 1; Britain declared war on Sep 3; USSR did not attack until Sep 17 or so IIRC.

USSR had been seeking an anti-German pact with UK & France for years and had gotten its overtures rejected. France in particular sought allies who would help defend France without making any commitment to take offensive action on behalf of those potential allies. Tough position to bargain with. It was very late in the day before Stalin decided he was better off dealing with Hitler instead. Books have been written about the folly of British and French diplomacy in the pre-war era.

Moxy is of course correct that the western allies nevertheless came very close to fighting the USSR.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Everyone knew Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to invade Poland at the same time in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on 23 August. The original text made no mention of Germany. The UK and France had to refuse Stalin's demands because he insisted on taking all of Poland, the rest of eastern Europe, and the Baltic States. (217.42.104.109 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC))

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

USSR had been seeking an anti-German pact with UK & France for years over the bodies of millions of Soviet and Mongolian citizens with Soviet networks in the UK and France. Uncle Joe always alive.Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Map of Axis advance in Europe

I am pretty sure there was once a map showing the Axis advance in Europe and/or the height of the Axis and Axis aligned states advance in Europe in 1942. It was similar to the current Pacific War map in the article. Why has it been removed? Those maps are very helpful for the reader to get a grasp for the territorial extend of the conflict. Dead Mary (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'd like to replace the Casablance Conference image under "Axis advance stalls (1942–43)" with File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png. Reason: There are already 3 "Churchill chilling with friends" pictures in the article and I think this article badly needs a map. Afaik this picture was there in earlier article versions too. Any objections? Dead Mary (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The happy Red Army soldier

The coming years - hunger in the SU, persecutions of people who saw the outside world. No reason to be happy.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this page is to improve the article. It's not a forum. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not Soviet propaganda tool.

The purpose of this page is to improve the article, not to attack me.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The new caption

The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR.

The RAS could be confronted with another sources.

Even if there were 13.7 million dead, they wasn't all killed by Germans. The partisan war was instigated from Moscow and local collaborators participated.

The Soviet leaders didn't prepare the nation to fight in 1941.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Which other figures for Soviet casualties are commonly used in reliable sources? And keep the commentary on the war to other websites: no-one is really interested here as it isn't a discussion website. As you know. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

World War II casualties is listed as Main.

If you present the Soviet POV it's O.K., when I oppose your propaganda, I'm not welcome. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Take your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere please. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Take your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere please. Neither Nazi nor Soviet propaganda is welcome here.

The Soviet POV is that Polish citizens "liberated" in 1939 were Soviet, so the numbers include both the total number of "annected" people and the number of their deaths. If you approve the Soviet POV you have to mention also the other POV - the Polish one. According to the international law Communist Poland accepted the Polish-Soviet border in 1946 only so occupied Poland was occupied Poland like occupied Russia was occupied Russia. I understand that simple answers are preferred, but the reality is more complicated than computer games. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

SMERSH

The SMERSH isn't even mentioned in the article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/holly-cara-price/smersh-stalin_b_1200086.htmlXx236 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Background - Europe

The text is mostly about Germany. At the same time the Soviet Union created the biggest army of the world, committed a series of crimes against humanity, invided Mongolia, tested Sovietization there. Xx236 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOAPArnoutf (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's summarize the state of armies in 1939, raw numbers. Is it still WP:SOAP? The Soviet Union had the biggest army, the terrorist network and the ideology. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197440/Soviet-Union-guilty-Nazis-World-War-II.html

Let's summarize the numbers of victims of the Nazis and the Soviets 1933 -1939, 1939-June 1941,June 1941-1945, 1945-1956.

The war in Europe wasn't finished in May 1945, the pacifications and partisan war continued till 1950, even 1960.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it is. And if you cannot see that yourself you should seriously doubt whether you should be on Wikipedia at all (per WP:COMPETENT). Arnoutf (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Arnoutf the war ended with the German surrender… any armed skirmish after that is considered post-war. --E-960 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Why reverting?

Nick-D lately reverted an image added by Kiwi228 as being a "staged propaganda image". How can you affirm that? Anyway, if so, just change the caption, citing a source for your assertion. Carlotm (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

All of the link-ups photographed by journalists were staged events. The actual link ups were, for obvious military reasons, highly cautious and not very photographic affairs. Liaisons between Soviet and US troops were kept to a minimum. We don't need more images in the article, and especially staged images of limited value. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D, I am unable to agree to your last sentence's assumptions. Whether staged or not the image is a valuable testimony of soldiers' relief and joy for the end of the war, and as such, even more so because of its transient nature, it's a meaningful remembrance. I don't agree also to your other premise, that "we don't need more images" not only because of my specific and opposite thinking but also because of your unethical introduction of a new reason for your reversion, which was not part of your original argumentation. Carlotm (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

? I've been saying for months here that the article has too many images. You're welcome to disagree, but calling me "unethical" when you lob images into one of Wikipedia's highest profile articles and can't be bothered considering prior talk page discussions isn't a good practice. If you want to propose a photo showing happy Allied troops, there are loads of unstaged or at least less staged images to pick from. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not that I want to waste your and my time endlessly. Here I was considering you reversion and your reasons for it, among which never was the "don't need more images" reason. That you afterward brought up this "new" motive is simply unethical. Prior talk page discussions have nothing to do with it. Please, don't replay if only to add gratuitous considerations. Carlotm (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I apologize that has sent a photo without discussion. One more try, you agree or not to publish in article photo from here http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1172309 PS: Previous photo which I sent, it was from this website too. --Kiwi228 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I think three things are playing here at the same time. Let's try to disentangle them and discuss content here

First - can the article (or the axis collapse section) capacitate more pictures. My inclination would be to say "No" - four pictures in a relatively short section seems like overdoing it.

Second - Should we focus on the monumental events - i.e. main government buildings and state leaders; or should we also give some place to common soldiers and civilian response (i.e. human interest). My inclination would be to say "Yes" the end of the world was not only a matter for leaders.

Third - What are the best pictures available, and should we avoid staged photos. My inclination would be to say that this is unavoidable, shutter times were long, camera's unwieldy during WWII (and by the way the Yalta photo is obviously staged too).

If we follow this line of reasoning the discussion would become more along the lines of - The new image should replace an existing image, and can we agree that there is a new image that is more relevant than one of the current 3? (To be honest, to me the Yalta picture seems less illustrative of the big message of this particular section than the happy soldier picture) Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The "happy solders" picture should inform about WWII results - economic success of the USA and starving of Soviet people, accompanied by terror. The Red Army participated later in mass crimes in Poland (Augustów roundup). Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I recommend that we update images VERY selectively. I'm puzzled why the animated map of the war in Europe was removed? This was a long standing items for months if not years, and was quite useful. --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/http://www.navy.mil:80/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218221016/http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm to http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430165110/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT30/011/2006/en/11079910-d422-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/act300112006en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT30/011/2006/en/11079910-d422-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/act300112006en.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
• http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp [non-working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080306082607/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp [working, archive]
• http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp [non-working]
• https://web.archive.org/web/20080302130751/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp [working, archive]

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Checked and have added working, archival links to non-working, for last two links. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Killed in action?!

That's new: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler and Mussolini killed in action (see Infobox). If we want to rewrite the meaning of words to suite anyone's inclination, an immense amount of changes has to be expected and accepted. Carlotm (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the templates. Only Mussolini could qualify as being killed by enemy combatants, and I think that should be discussed. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Mussolini was not killed in action but, after a short imprisonment, executed without due process as per an order signed by the CLNAI - Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale Alta Italia (National Liberation Committee- North Italy Section). Carlotm (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maps

Reverted an edit that included maps of Colonies after WWII and Division of Czechoslovakia. The colonies map is a bit out of place, the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires, this occurred in the 1960s, so the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics, to include the map in the Aftermath section is a bit premature for the events it tries to address. As for the Divisions of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate fit, but since we have an image of the Munich conference the item is highlighted in the section already. Lets avoid excessive mapping, we can add a map for everything — annexations of Austria, partition of Poland, invasion of Finland, annexation of the Baltic states and so on… --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding to this edit [1]... Czechoslovakia was actually the first real victim of Nazi German aggression (the vast majority of Austrians welcomed the Anschluss). Its territory was divided among Germany, Hungary, Poland and the puppet Slovak state. The map shows two waves of annexations (1938–1939).

The Japanese victories over the Western powers in Asia between 1941 and 1943 (and German victories in Europe and North Africa) showed Indians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Burmese, Arabs and other colonized nations that the colonial powers were not invincible. War had done terrible damage to their prestige. World War II left colonial powers like Britain, France and Netherlands weakened, unable to sustain their empires. ... Vietnam declared independence under Ho Chi Minh in 1945, but France continued to rule until its 1954 defeat. Indonesia under Sukarno fought a war of independence from the Netherlands from 1945 to 1949. There was a rapid wave of decolonization in the two decades following World War II.

Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946), Syria (1946), Jordan (1946), India (1947), Pakistan (1947), Burma (1948), Ceylon (1948), Laos (1949), Indonesia (1949), Eritrea (1951), Libya (1951), Cambodia (1953), Vietnam (1954), Sudan (1956), Morocco (1956), Tunisia (1956), Ghana (1957), Malaysia (1957), Guinea (1958) ... -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, after WWII European powers did began to lose grip on their colonies, but the bulk of the breakaways happened in the 1960s. Generally, it is the Suez Crisis which marks the fall of the British and French colonial power. "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." [2]. As for the Division of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate item, but do we really need that map in a crowded section, If anything you could add a map of the partition of Poland this is when the "shooting" war started in Europe. My recommendation is not to over do it with the maps. --E-960 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, one more thing, I think that the one map that should be added to the page is for the North Africa Campaign, we have maps for the war in Europe and Asia, but nothing that shows the fighting in North Africa. --E-960 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

While after WWII the European began to lose their grip power, the two great power nation United States and Soviet Union appeared to engage an gobal Cold War until the year 1990-1991 the Soviet Union have finally disintegration and became now the country of Russia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The Suez Crisis did not contribute at all to the decline of Britain and France. That had already happened during World War II. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

Actually the decline had already started much earlier. Clear examples of the decline of Britain are Irish independence (1922), unrest in India under Ghandi (from 1915 onwards). In other words, the European power began to lose their grip way before WWII. The process was probably sped up by WWII but it began well before and ended well after that war; so no need to include that story here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Ireland wasn't fully independent until 1949. Gandhi's non-violent campaign had little effect until the 1930s and probably delayed Indian independence. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

"the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires". Depends on which empires you are counting. The Japanese colonial empire was completely gone by 1945. The Italian Empire lost most of its territories due to the War, with only what became the Trust Territory of Somaliland continuing to have Italian colonial presence until 1960.

"the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics". I hope you are joking. French Indochina, at least, was destabilized due to the War. The First Indochina War (1946-1954) is largely a continuation of World War II divisions. That is certainly impact. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946)". I would not count the Philippines as an example of a country gaining independence due to World War II. Decolonization of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (an American colonial administration) started with the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934, the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established in 1935, and the Americans promised full independence of the Philippines by 1945 or 1946. The War is actually considered to have delayed independence. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Summing this all up. There seem to be opinions that the war sped up, delayed, or hardly impacted allied decolonization. We can come up with many repetitions of above ideas, examples and similar but in my view, this is the time where we should either let it rest as something outside the main topic of this article, or bring in modern mainstream historians who explicitly discuss these positions. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

World War II destroyed the UK and France as world powers, and massively sped up/caused the end of their colonial empires. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

Did you even read my comment above before making this remark? Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The US doesn't count here - it only had one overseas colony, which had already been promised full independence before the war. Britain and France were both destroyed economically and militarily as a direct result of WW2. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

Are you trying to make any relevant point that adds something new (in which case, clearly state your new insight in a relevant (to improving the article), comprehensive and comprehensible way and backed by mainstream modern historians, instead of putting in unconnected unsupported sentences that do not follow the thread), or are you just not listening to any of the other editors? Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If we as Wikians want to be precise, then maybe line up the story with an article about exactly this point?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization , and another one

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire , I haven't read through all yet, but it should provide some handling in the issue at hand. At the very least it should provide some insight in wether the world war(s) caused the loss (not the decline, but definitive loss) or if they had already lost the grip and the loss was inevitable.

Decolonization of the British Empire only really began in 1947, as a direct result of the financial and industrial cost of World War II. (79.67.123.180 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC))

E-960. Regarding to this edit [3]. Due to the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, Italy lost all its overseas colonial possessions. Map showing prewar Italian Empire (in 1936) is useful. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Tobby72, I understand that this is a legitimate fact of post war changes. I just support keeping that section as is… I think we had two recent edits where a very similar map was added to the Aftermath section. Both times they were reverted by other editors who opted to keep the content unchanged in this case. --E-960 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

That world map doesn't really show anything, and is too small to have much of an impact. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps I can suggest the map of the Italian Empire in 1940. Do you agree now? -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Date of war's beginning

More trolling by HarveyCarter

The Second World War is usually said to have began on 3 September 1939. And the entire British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany, it wasn't only the UK. (81.132.48.60 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)) "Usually" by whom? That's a very anglocentric view. In fact the date of outbreak has been debated quite a bit. I concede that there is more support for a September 1939 date than any other, but there is a set of dates from 1937 to 1941 that have support from historians and are not to be disregarded lightly. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC) Most historians agree a world war began when Britain and its empire declared war on Germany on 3rd September. The invasion of Poland was not a global conflict. (213.122.144.32 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)) Britain and France had previously warned Germany that aggression against Poland would mean war with them as well. The declarations were a formality that only confirmed this earlier resolve. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC) France and the British Empire only declared war on Germany, even though the Soviet Union also invaded Poland. And Britain and France could hardly object to Poland being invaded when they had invaded half the world. (81.159.6.53 (talk) 18:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)) Agreed that a German-Polish war hardly constitutes a 'world' war. Nor does one involving Germany and the British empire. I'm not trying to soapbox here, (I admit I'm skirting along that line ;) just saying this is neither universally agreed nor is it necessarily a neutral POV. AJP Taylor has some interesting things to say on this subject. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2016 (UTC) The British Empire was in every continent/ocean in the world in 1939. (213.122.144.32 (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)) So what? What does it mean to have a "world" war? If, for example, the two greatest powers are not involved, in what sense is it a world war? On the other hand, does the non-involvement of every South American nation (except Brazil too late to make a difference) matter? DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC) The Soviet Union was not the greatest power in the world in 1939, and it was already involved in World War II in 1939-41 because it invaded Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Bessarabia, Bukovina, Romania etc. While officially neutral, the United States sided with the British Empire from the very beginning. British Guiana (in South America) was at war with Germany from 3rd September 1939, as every country in the British Empire was automatically committed by the King's declaration of war. (81.159.6.53 (talk) 17:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)) Australia, Canada, The Union of South Africa and New Zealand most certainly were not. They made their own independent declarations. I do not see the point you are trying to make here. Irondome (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC) The white dominions, including South Africa, had been given independence in foreign policy in the 1931 Statute of Westminster. The countries of the British Commonwealth made their own declarations of war, but the countries of the British Empire like India and British Guiana did not have this freedom and were therefore committed when the UK declared war on Germany. (81.159.6.53 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)) Yes, I am aware of that, as are almost all editors who edit this topic. Can you please cut to the chase, if you are proposing a concrete edit, then make your proposal clear Otherwise WP:NOTFORUM is applicable. Irondome (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2016 (UTC) It would be more accurate to say World War II began with the declarations of war by France and its colonies, and the British Commonwealth and Empire, two days after the German invasion of Poland began. (81.159.6.53 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)) The inevitable consequence of the aggression on Poland was the declaration of war by the powers who had offered guarantees to Poland in the spring. Therefore the critical event was the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. This was the trigger for the onset of war. I am sure you would agree. Irondome (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC) We keep having this argument every few months, there are always alternative POVs on the start of WW2... no need to change anything. --E-960 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2016 (UTC) But France and the British Empire only declared war on Germany, even though the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at the same time. Hitler could only invade Poland if Stalin did as well, otherwise he risked a two-front war in 1939. (217.42.28.100 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2016 (UTC)) Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September, 1939… that's way past the time when Brtain and France declared war on Germany. Not sure what is the argument here? --E-960 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC) Everyone knew the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland had been agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939. It did not matter whether Germany or the Soviet Union launched its invasion first. (81.132.49.112 (talk) 13:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)) Who is "everyone"? The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact had a secret annex which divided Poland and created spheres of influence, Britain and France only realized that Germany and the Soviets agreed to something, when USSR moved in on the 17th. In any case, Soviet involvement is much later if you are arguing that WWII started with British and French declarations of war on Germany. Brtain and France warned Hitler that his actions against Poland will trigger a wider war… when Germany ignored the warning and invaded Poland they initiated the conflict. --E-960 (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC) The collusion was 100% obvious in 1939. The Soviet Union initiated the conflict as Hitler could not invade Poland unless Stalin agreed to invade as well. (81.132.49.112 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)) Nonsense. --E-960 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter

As a note to everyone watching this talk page, please keep in mind that posts made by IP accounts here arguing about the facts of the war and/or trolling are, based on recent history, quite likely to be the banned editor User:HarveyCarter. Please ignore or remove them. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

WWII Europe Map

European theatre of World War II animation map, 1939-1945 — Red: Western Allies and Soviet Union after 1941; Green: Soviet Union before 1941; Blue: Axis Powers

User:Staberinde, if you have an issue with this map, perhaps you should elaborate on it a bit more. The animated map was on this page for a very long time. But, you simply removed the image and stated that "please fix at least the most blatant inaccuracies before re-adding". What inaccuracies are you referring to? Can you elaborate first before edit warring, I'm not convinced that this is a sound argument... I myself find the map's accuracy quite reasonable, without it being overly detailed. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I also agree that it should be removed as it's inaccurate. While it's somewhat tricky to closely fact check the map as it can't be paused, it contains some clear problems:

• The Soviet Union's major gains in territory over the winter of 1941/42 appear to be under-stated (especially in the Ukraine). This was one of the most important Allied offensives of the war.
• For no sensible reason, Belgium is depicted as neutral from late 1944 onwards: it was actually a core part of the Allies
• Similarly, for no good reason all of Eastern Europe is shown as neutral at the end of the war, when it was actually under Soviet occupation, with many of the countries already having pro-Soviet puppet governments in place. A few enjoyed a period of semi-independence for a few years after the war, but this wasn't the case in June 1945.
• Finland's declaration of war against Germany (following a fair amount of fighting) in 1944 is missing
• The map's treatment of occupied vs aligned vs contested territory is inconsistent, and seems random at times. Showing Vichy territory in northern Africa as forming part of the Axis powers prior to Operation Torch in 1942 is clearly inaccurate, and there are lots of smaller errors.

As such, I don't think that we're really doing our readers a service by keeping this map in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note, looking back at article history it appears that this animated map was on the page since 2012. Anyway, I believe that the arguments in this case are over minutiae... you can endlessly argue about how accurately the front line was depicted. I don't think this should disqualify the map... as it helps the reader to get a good general understanding of how the war progressed. Also, I don't agree with your assessments listed above, again upon closer inspection they are somewhat inaccurate:

• Winter Campaign of 1941–42 was primarily centered around the Battle of Moscow, no way the Red Army pushed into the Ukraine as you suggest. The Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943, and the city is well east of Ukraine.
• French colonies in North Africa were Vichy, and since the Vichy government was collaborationist they are also depicted as Axis. Pls see Attack on Mers-el-Kébir when the British attacked the French Vichy fleet in Algeria in 1940.
• Eastern Europe (and Belgium) was under de jure "neutrality" immediately after the war. However, in the case of Eastern Europe the Soviets between 1946 and 1948 used coercion and Red Army's presence to ensure Communist maintained and/or gained power. Again, the map is not inaccurate to depict those countries as "neutral/independent" immediately after the war.

In the end, the map is quite accurate, and the arguments against it simply result from a not having a full understading of all the details involved (and there are a lot of them). --E-960 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Italy is marked as Axis member from beginning, it joined war in June 1940.
• Vichy France is colored same as Axis members/occupied territory. This is not really an accurate representation of actual situation. There was no Nazi occupation of Algeria.
• Defeated Axis members Romania, Bulgaria and Finland joined Allied side and participated actively in combat, so they should not be marked as neutrals.
• Liberated Allied members Belgium and Yugoslavia should not be marked as neutrals.
• Finland joined war on Axis side in June 1941, not in May.
• Iceland was occupied by British in 1940 May, not April.
• Poland somehow becomes neutral at war's end.

Some of that stuff has been pointed out at image's talk page long ago, although obviously nobody ever bothers reading that. And some of those definitely are not "minor"..--Staberinde (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Staberinde, well what is your suggestion to fix the issue? You are simply asking to remove of the map, so that the European Theatre is without a helpful illustration. Perhaps, could you fix the animation scheme? I would think that this is a much more constructive solution then to remove the map all together. Pls take a look at the map's history there are several "fixes" that corrected minor inaccuracies in the past. --E-960 (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Given that you're arguing for the map's retention despite the problems noted above, it would be good if you could try to fix it. We wouldn't permit text with such obvious and fundamental inaccuracies in the article, and the map should be removed until it's corrected. It's certainly not GA worthy content. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Staberinde and Nick-D, it would be greatly appreciated if you could help improve the map and file improvements in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. You are the folks that see the problems, why not take the initiative and fix them, instead of delegating them to other edits? I simply argue that this map is needed, if you see issues please fix them, don't just "throw the baby out with the bathwater." --E-960 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that my graphics editing skills don't extend that far. Per WP:BURDEN you also should be looking to improve what you seem to acknowledge is sub-standard content given that you re-added it to the article. Anyway, given that there seems to be consensus that the map currently isn't up to standard, would there be any objections with me removing it until it's corrected? Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, I did not see any major problems with the map, see my comments above. If Staberinde feels that there are inaccuracies, then he should correct them, not simply delete the map. This map went through several updates in the past to improve accuracy, that process should be continued. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

• Also, as suggested I'm not comfortable with removing the map and waiting until it is fixed. If user Staberinde sees issues (I don't) then the best option would have been to adjust the details and in a proactive manner upload the new map for use. These would not be glaring issues, WP has tag so you don't delete everything if you see a problem with. --E-960 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what other editors think then. I personally contend that given the large number of significant inaccuracies in the map which have been identified above, it should be removed for now. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. I think that the animated map even with the inaccuracies that I see as minor is useful and should stay. More importantly, before anyone starts improving it I think it would be useful if the (Commons) description of the map would include a sourced description of its initial state and every change the animation undergoes. This would prevent discussions as the above, where editors may argue over what the map actually reflects. Then, before anyone updates the map or requests that it should be updated, there could first be an informed discussion (i.e. based on cited sources) about the current state of the map and the proposed change. Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Nanking Massacre

There's been a bit of too and fro about the figure in the article for the death toll for the Nanking Massacre. I also agree with TitaniumCarbide (talk · contribs) that the current reference, Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking is an undesirable source. The coverage of this issue in the Death toll of the Nanking Massacre notes that estimates vary considerably, with the most common range being between 40,000 to 200,000 Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Fifty thousand is the lowest estimation. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East put the estimation over 200,000 (See page 496 of source: [4]). The Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal put the estimation at 300,000. Not only Iris Chang. Then wiki article cannot be used as the source for another wiki page. The Death toll of the Nanking Massacre is a wiki article largely edited by a single user. Check this statistic page [5], user CurtisNaito made 94.4% edition for this page. Then Banzaibilitz who was blocked indefinitely made about 4% edition. This means other users made less than 2% edition. If we use the data from this article, why not use the data from main article Nanking Massacre which put the range from fifty thousand to three hundred thousand? Then based on the wiki rule, we should not use any wiki article as the source. I just use a range not a single data in this article which is a more NPOV choice. Miracle dream (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2016‎

I am not suggesting that the mentioned article be used as a source, rather I directed reviewers in my edit summary to consult that article for a fuller description of why stating "hundreds of thosuands" as fact is not credible.

User:Miracle dream, do you have any familiarity with the historiography of Nanjing? It is widely agreed in non-Chinese sources that the IMT and Nanjing tribunal findings lack fundamental credibility. The "traditional" figure of 300,000 is discussed in responsible historical accounts of Nanjing, but mainly to dismiss it as politicized and unsupportable, even if it cannot be disproven. This is why I chose to mention only the lower bound of credible estimates with "at least." TiC ^(talk) 22:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016

When searching "World War II from the main page (https://www.wikipedia.org) or from the mobile app, the short little description under the article title states that the war lasted from 2003-2016. This is a case of blatant vandalism.

Thanks,
    SB49Champs 

SB49Champs (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Done There was vandalism at the Wikidata item for this article which I have reverted. clpo13_(talk) 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

The block "Participants"

It should be divided into different periods of the war. The coalition was so different at different stages that it can not be ignored. The existing text creates a false understanding for a reader like Germany and USSR were not in the same coalition during the whole war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.110.18 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The catastrophic USSR-Nazi warfare greatly overshadows their minimal cooperation. It's noted in the body, like all details. But, if you have sources that treat the war as having very distinct stages, we're interested. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting category removal.

The removal by User:Nick-D might be defens(c)ible on the details were it not for the categories he left standing. Comments before I revert? Juan Riley (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Which categories did he leave standing? Lucasjohansson (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Juan, what's your concern here? I removed the generic history of the USA and USSR categories as a) they're part of the same category tree as the more-relevant Wars involving the United States and Wars involving the Wars involving the Soviet Union categories and b) this article isn't about the history of the USA or USSR specifically - the Military history of the United States during World War II and Soviet Union in World War II articles cover those topics. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016

Nataguerra1e2 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. No specific edit request given. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Material on books concerning India added to the article today

copy ex talk:Rjensen: Hi, Could you please start a discussion on the talk page regarding the content you're seeking to add to the World War II article? The article currently doesn't have summaries of the contributions of the various countries involved, and I personally don't think that this would be useful - others might have a different view though, of course. I note that you have added identical links to the books concerned to multiple articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

The CBI theater includes India and it had major theater status. I was moved by a major book review by Tooze in today's Wall Street Journal of the two books and he makes the importance clear. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yet the material you're edit warring in only has a single sentence on that topic, with most of it being about different things... I'm familiar with those books and have also seen lots of positive reviews of them, but you seem to be intent on shoehorning material concerning them into the article regardless of content, complete with little advertisements for the books. I know from previous contacts with you that you make a habit of stuff like this, and it's really annoying - it sure isn't collaborative editing. I'll start a talk page discussion. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I make a habit of thousands of edits in military history articles. This article does talk about soldiers a dozen times (1) "Italian soldiers recruited in 1935" (2) "Japanese Imperial Army soldiers" 3) "Soldiers of the German Wehrmacht" 4) "About 100,000 Polish military personnel were evacuated to Romania and the Baltic countries; many of these soldiers later fought against the Germans in other theatres of the war." etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

My main concern with the material being edit warred in is that it doesn't fit into the tone and content of the article as it's basically a little mini-essay on India's role in the war - it covers India's entire war effort from 1939 to 1945 in a paragraph on events in North Africa and the Middle East during 1941 (bit odd to find material on the Chinese-Burma-India theatre in 1945 there!). I'm certain that there's scope to improve the relevant parts of the narrative, but this should be done by improving the existing material - which notes the various campaigns - rather than shoehorning material into the article. The article also doesn't have comparable summaries of the war efforts of other countries, nor a need for them as this is what the various articles on the history of national contributions to the war do. The referencing is also problematic as while the books cited are of a high standard, no page numbers are provided, and the full references include Rjensen's personal views on the books and unnecessary links to their entries on Amazon.com. From a post on their talk page, it appears that Rjensen might be motivated by a desire to highlight these books [6], and this began with them adding references to these books without any content to this article [7] and they've made similar edits to two other articles: [8], [9] Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

We need to take a broad view of the war and include material on a major theater CBI that provided millions of combat soldiers and was a key base of supply. Soldiers are indeed included in the article ["About 100,000 Polish military personnel were evacuated to Romania and the Baltic countries; many of these soldiers later fought against the Germans in other theatres of the war."] I was motivated to mention the two new major books because they cover seriously neglected topic and there was a major book review in today's WSJ newspaper. (I also have read the Khan book). The way for you to to ask for page numbers is to ask for them not delete the cite. annotations are ok by wiki policy so don't erase them. The amazon link is necessary for readers to access the texts. You have an ownership attitude that is unfortunate--especially since i have written far more text on this article than you have. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

The material doesn't belong in a section on the Mediterranean, and in a paragraph on successes in Syria and Lebanon. In any case, it should be removed pending a resolution here. Although somewhat irrelevant to what's under discussion here, I don't understand a need for links to Amazon in references, as such links can be seen as promotional. Because Amazon listings often rank high on Google searches, I'll get bibliographical data from them; but my links in references are not to their site, unless there's no other way. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the text in question does not belong in that section. Let's set secondary issues aside. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, User:Nick-D should stop saying "edit war". Then we can review and discuss.Juan Riley (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As there's been no support from other editors for including this material at present, I've removed it. It's posted below. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The British Army raised over 2 million volunteer soldiers from India during the war. They played a large role in the Middle East, against Italy and Germany. They also played a major role in defeating the Japanese in Burma in 1944-45. India served as a major base for American supply lines into China.

References

borked up refs

1. Per WP:CITEVAR, there must be a discussion if one is to change styles. I see no discussion. I could care less what one is used, but when changing styles on a huge article, mistakes will happen.
2. In the zeal to convert everything, info is being removed or completely messed up. For example, ref #239 (Rees 2008, pp. 406–7) has this quote: Stalin always believed that Britain and America were delaying the second front so that the Soviet Union would bear the brunt of the war. With redoing the styles, the quote was left out of the ref and just dangling in the paragraph with a </ref> left behind. Another quote left out, It was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II. This ref was left borked up in the article text, Michel Thomas (20 October 1999). "Results of the German and American Submarine Campaigns of World War II". U.S. Navy. Archived from the original on 9 April 2008. Retrieved April 2008.</ref> Those are three I could spot quickly.
3. I reverted to the version without errors.

Bgwhite (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Instead of reverting you should have given me a call; errors happen but they can be resolved. Why should I start a discussion? for what? I didn't change any style; I was simply recouping some space and solving somne errors and broken links, and adding some "page needed". But it seems you don't care much about that. Carlotm (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Carlotm Egads. If you are going talk down to me, there is nothing for me to say to you. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that's useful Bgwhite. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Nick-D Ending one's comments with, But it seems you don't care much about that was talking down, uncivil and I don't deal with people like that. There's no place for that comment. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm in favour of moving to the {{sfn}} references: this is rapidly becoming the standard, and requires less coding than the current version. As Carlotm notes, the end product is pretty much exactly the same so it's not really a change to the referencing style. I'd also prefer to delete all the comments and quotes which have been included as part of the references as hiding material away like this isn't helpful to readers, and none of the comments or quotes seems necessary. If any of this material is considered useful, it should be presented more clearly as "notes" rather than being placed with the references. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't care if the quotes are left in or out. The details are up to you. The quotes were being left in the article with no context. Borked refs were being left in the article. If these were being borked, what else was? If one doesn't discuss about changing style of refs, and going to different templates is part of style, then things can go down hill quickly. I've seen alot of work lost because it wasn't discussed and changes were reverted. Changing ref styles is one of the most contentious things around here. It's best to do it right. Nick-D wanting quotes out while Carlotm was keeping them in is another reason to discuss. Decide what you guys want to do before hand is easier and a time savings in the long run. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

How are we doing here?

Just wondering what you guys are thinking. Are there any ways this article could be much better? I'm not talking things you think we can get consensus for. Just assume we let you control the article for a week. What changes would you make? Sole Flounder (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

I was wondering why there was no mention of Italian surrender 108.249.208.46 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No specific requested change here. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

socking

Be advised, LelouchEdward was a sock of Miracle dream. Both have edited this article before so interested parties should be aware. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Date of war's beginning

Please don't respond to trolling from User:HarveyCarter sockpuppet accounts Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

The war began on 23 August 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to invade Poland. (JebDilbert (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)) It is true that the Nazi-Soviet Pact took place on August 23, 1939, however the invasion of Poland on September 1st, 1939 marks the beginning of hostilities in the war.--SimN (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC) See the section above, titled "When did it become a World War?" Britmax (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Without the pact Hitler could not have invaded Poland at all. He invaded Poland before Stalin to show his commitment to the pact. (JebDilbert (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)) By that logic, the signing of the Anglo-Russian Entente was in 1907, so the start of WWI should be 1907 instead of 1914. TimothyJosephWood 19:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC) The Anglo-Russian Entente was not an agreement to invade a country. (JebDilbert (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)) Triple Alliance (1882) was. TimothyJosephWood 19:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) The Triple Alliance was an agreement by several countries to defend themselves in the event of an attack. (JebDilbert (talk) 19:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)) You are correct in the sense that Italy opted out by pulling the "not defensive war" card, but in the case of Austria-Hungary and Germany, it did end up being an agreement to wage an offensive war. Point remains, an agreement to make war isn't a war. TimothyJosephWood 19:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Dunno why you bother even feeding 'em.. Irondome (talk) 19:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC) Russia actually invaded Germany first in 1914. Germany was fighting a defensive war. (JebDilbert (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC))

WWII

1. The article is great in description, but it needs some grammar check overall 2. Some of the links do not lead anywhere, but most of them do lead to specific points in the article. 3. It would be best if there were specific statistics in the amount of economic investment that went into the war. 4. the aftermath only described how japan grew after the war, but excluded the many other countries that also quickly developed to become powers post WWII.Jgallaga (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please be specific about points 1 and 2? It's not really possible to follow up on general comments on topics like that (alternatively, feel free to fix the grammar and links yourself). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest that postwar recovery is farmed out to a daughter article, as then we will be able to treat each aspect fairly without expanding this article beyond readable (and loadable) size. Britmax (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Did Japan surrender unconditionally?

I reverted a significant but debatable edit by Boeing720. [10]. Is this strictly correct, or was it an unconditional surrender? Any thoughts by colleagues on this and how, if consensus is with the edit, it should shape the section? Irondome (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

A quick check of general sources suggests that it was an unconditional surrender. From Hirohito's broadcast: "...we have ordered our Government to communicate...that our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration...", ie the Potsdam Declaration. Viewed narrowly the Potsdam Declaration could be said to not be unconditional surrender, but reading the terms that seems to me to be hair splitting; it does state "the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces". Importantly for Boeing720's point the Declaration and Hirohito's acceptance of it make no mention of retaining the monarchy.

The formal instrument of surrender - drawn up by the Allies and imposed on the Japanese - includes "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers". My understanding, over simplified, and to quote from another Wikipedia article, is that the head of the occupation administration Douglas "MacArthur found that ruling via the Emperor made his job in running Japan much easier than it otherwise would have been" and so never got round to abolishing the institution. This is covered in much detail elsewhere, but the point is that when the Japanese surrendered there was no pre-condition that the monarchy would be retained; that the occupying Allies found it expeditious was fortuitous. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The Japanese themselves wrote somewhat on this point, according to our article on the their surrender:

On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."

In this sense then I suppose it could be said that the Japanese were able to squeeze out a condition, however the generally accepted version is that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally by submitted to the terms of the Potsdam declaration. Honestly, it could go either way, but I'd prefer not rock the boat such as it were and leave it as it is in the article, all the more so since their are better places on Wikipedia to address the matter - if it is judged by the community to need addressing. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

In the sense that "unconditional" is a juxtaposition to a negotiated peace on any sort of mutually beneficial terms, it works well enough. Signing a paper that says "your general > our emperor", as has been pointed out, pretty much makes moot any nominal token "concessions" that may have been traded. Having said that, as I sit on my porch in the Appalachian countryside, I would be interested to know how the Japanese WP treats the issue. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Problem is of course that unconditional surrender is more of a colloquial than a legal term. The condition that the Japanese emperor would not be prosecuted for war crimes and could remain to be head of state of Japan (albeit severely diminished in stature) could be construed to be conditions (hence the surrender was not unconditional). The fact that signed over all authority to the US could be construed as being unconditional. I would lean towards the latter, as Japan would have collapsed soon anyway and the only reason to accept surrender over defeat would be some conditions (if only the survival of troops otherwise being sarcificed in last post defenses). Let's go with the mainstream sources here. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I want to point out that there was no condition that the Showa emperor would be retained. Rather, the understanding was that the imperial system would be retained. The emperor fully expected that he would have to abdicate; he was acting to preserve his house. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The Allies specifically accepted wording of the terms of surrender so that they would not be seen as a surrender by the Japanese Emperor, who was the personification of the Japanese state, but by the army. As a result, the Emperor remained on the throne and his subjects did not challenge the post-war occupation. TFD (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Here's some confusion - like comparission with Potsdam. The German troops surrendered unconditionally (at all fronts) at 7.May 1945 signed by Alfred Jodl, head of OKW's staff, at Eisenhower's headquaters. The day after, at Karlhorst, a bit east of central Berlin, did the Germans surrender again, and again unconditionally at all fronts - but this time to the Soviet Union by Wilhelm Keitel, head of OKW. Potsdam was when the victorious nations drew up Europe's new borders. But the word "unconditional surrender" implies no objections. And regarding Japan after Nagasaki, did United States indeed demand an unconditional surrender. But the reply was very close to this "we accept, on the conditions that the Emperor's position isn't affected". This was apparently acceptable for Truman and the United States. But I strongly mean that the Japanese surrender wasn't "unconditional" - in contrast to the German surrender(s). Prove me wrong by any known author (some of you may know that I just have moved and my library of books are still packed in cartons). It might appear to be a minor matter, but Japan is still a Monarchy due to this little condition or term. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure. How about we read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which they signed, which you can find here. Which is exactly as TFD describes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, but the last paragraph is written like the Emperor's position (and him alone) already has been delt with. I.o.w. the Emperor remains as such together with the Monarchy. In any case is this surrender quite different, compared to Germany's. Isn't it ? The Emperor was to my knowledge indeed very involved in the Japanese war, espcially 1937-42 including for instance the attack on Pearl Harbour. I further assume the document is the one that was signed onboard the American battleship in early September -45. Though the document points in TDK's and your direction, am I still not entirelly convinced that the surrender can be regarded as 100% "unconditional". Especially if there was any form of negociations between Nagasaki and onboard the battleship. Boeing720 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

For the negotiations, see Hasegawa, Chapter 6, "Japan Accepts Unconditional Surrender". The Allies were not willing to allow the Emperor's status to remain unchanged ie a god with absolute authority. The option of removing the emperor was left open. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I have moved (in the physical sence) and I have thus been without internet connection for more than two weeks, as I had stated at my personal page. To the matter - give me a decent source that states the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki didn't include the term "provided the Emperor's posistion must remain intact". And this was also the case. An unconditional surrender doesn't contain any terms at all. And Hirohito continued to "rule" as Emperor of Japan until 1989, I think. Quite a difference towards Hitler - if Germany had agreed to an unconditional surrender around 15.April -45, providded "the Führer's position did not change. I see it as our duty to be historically correct. Boeing720 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The German instrument of surrender contained nothing specifying that Führer or the Nazi Party would be removed. In fact, consideration was given to allowing the Führer (Dönitz) to remain on. As with Japan, the document itself says "unconditional surrender". And I've given you the whole Japanese surrender document. It doesn't include "provided the Emperor's posistion must remain intact". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Nazi

Hi, just read the lead, and thought it a bit strange that Nazi is never mentioned. Then looking down, its not actually in prose until way into the article, not even mentioned in "Background" and "Europe" ("National Socialist" is in a picture caption). Is there a reason ? Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you please clarify why you think this is a problem? The lead also doesn't mention the nature of the governing parties in the other key countries. The 5th para of the background section is all about the Nazis entering power, and the term "Nazi" appears 35 times in the article (including as part of references) Nick-D (talk) 07:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure this is really that big of a deal. Comparing use of something like "soviet" is a bit different, since they actually changed the name of the country. Comparing mentions of the US Democratic Party, which isn't mentioned at all, is probably a bit too far on the other side, but similar in the sense that the Nazis weren't a nation, they were a political party. TimothyJosephWood 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it was the expansive Nazi policy in the 1930s for the pan-German territory, 'breathing room', and a militarized state, revenge, and racial purity that set Europe in flames and that it is quite often covered as standard introduction to WWII. It is indeed odd that that fifth paragraph, which is like what the tenth! or so paragraph in the article does not mention the NAZI either (so, what is going on?). Moreover, the infobox contains the phrase "Nazi Germany" -- so even the authors of this article think it is essentialist information, so essential it belongs in the infobox -- but nary a word in introduction. (The other countries' ideologies were obviously nothing like that) Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Alanscottwalker. The lack of any real insight into who the Nazis were and what they did is the biggest flaw in this article. The reason you will run into resistance is that this article is controlled by Nazi sympathizers, who continually seek to reframe the story as a simple clash between nation states with different but equally legitimate visions. In reality, we know that World War II was a time of extraordinary moral importance. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Sure but for the control of this article, really? Perhaps, but sometimes people just avoid what they don't know how to say, maybe? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"The lack of any real insight into who the Nazis were and what they did is the biggest flaw in this article. The reason you will run into resistance is that this article is controlled by Nazi sympathizers, who continually seek to reframe the story as a simple clash between nation states". No, the article is an overview. There are articles on the history of the countries änd political systems involved that cover this in more detail. The main danger I see is that others will want communism and imperialism covered to the same degree "for balance" and large swathes of this article will not be about World War II. Which îs the title, remember.Britmax (talk) 10:04, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The article goes into extensive detail on military events. It is very weak on the political and social aspects of the war. The topic "World War II" is about more than a series of battles. Sole Flounder (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

it's a division of labour--look at Home front during World War II Rjensen (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

To Britmax, do you really believe we have Nazi-symphathisers on Wikipedia ? And that they are so many that the entire article is reflected from their point of view ? The worst error , as I see it, is when Nazism instead is called Fascism. This had an origin whithin Communistc vocabulary during the Spanish Civil War 1936-39. And after Operation Barbarossa, did the Soviet Union label Nazigermany the same way. When American soldiers from 1942 became involved in the war in northern Africa and Europe, they learned that the enemies were Italy and Germany. But this axis or league doesn't make Italian Fascism the same as Nazism. Both were bad, but still not similar. Major differencies were for instance when Hitler talked about blood and race, talked Mussolini about Rome's magnificent history. Jews were safe in Italy until 1943. Also Italy had the Fascistical Grand Council, which dismissed Mussolini. And he accepted. There was no such council in Nazigermany. Let's focus on actual errors, whithout accusing others for being Nazis. Not without proof atleast. Boeing720 (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I will reply to this in the morning (it is now nearly midnight here) but please re - read my comments, noting that the part you question is a quote from another editor's remarks further up the page. Goodnight. Britmax (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Britmax, I can now see that you began with a quote, a long one, but still. I should have noticed it. And I fully agree that this article is an overview with many side stories to learn from. Wrongfully I thought you ment the contence of the quote. I hope you can accept my appology. Boeing720 (talk) 01:20, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

But of course there are Nazi sympathisers editing here. Consider this quote from The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin:

Reggie: So come on, Jimmy, who are you going to fight when this balloon of yours goes up?

Jimmy: Forces of anarchy: wreckers of law and order. Communists, Maoists, Trotskyists, neo-Trotskyists, crypto-Trotskyists, union leaders, Communist union leaders, atheists, agnostics, long-haired weirdos, short-haired weirdos, vandals, hooligans, football supporters, namby- pamby probation officers, rapists, papists, papist rapists, foreign surgeons - headshrinkers, who ought to be locked up, Wedgwood Benn, keg bitter, punk rock, glue- sniffers, Play For Today, squatters, Clive Jenkins, Roy Jenkins, Up Jenkins, up everybody's, Chinese restaurants - why do you think Windsor Castle is ringed with Chinese restaurants?

Reggie: You realise the sort of people you're going to attract, don't you Jimmy? Thugs, bully-boys, psychopaths, sacked policemen, security guards, sacked security guards, racialists, Paki-bashers, queer-bashers, Chink-bashers, anybody-bashers, Rear Admirals, queer Admirals, Vice-Admirals, fascists, neo-fascists, crypto-fascists, loyalists, neo- loyalists, crypto-loyalists.

Jimmy: Do you really think so? I thought support might be difficult.

and consider that all the people on each of these lists is someone, and that this is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Britmax (talk) 09:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding countries to infobox?

I've seen no other article on wars/conflicts on Wikipedia list only one participant on the infobox for each side. I think it is time to discuss adding a list of the major countries that were part of the Allies and Axis alliances so the readers can get a more informative infobox on the participants of the war. Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

We have big bold links to the huge pages with that info. No need to fill the box with 100s of countries. As per Talk:World War II/Archive 51#Request for comment: WWII infobox--Moxy (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Moxy. We discussed this in great depth in 2014, and the resultant infobox has worked well. Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Day Japan Invaded Manchuria

Under the section labeled "Chronology", it states that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria began on September 19, 1931. But in reality the invasion began on September 18, 1931. Therefore, where it says "the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on 19 September 1931.[13][14]", the site should instead state "the Japanese invasion of Manchuria on 18 September 1931.[13][14]". There is a newsreel film that was made in 1942 which was posted on youtube that proves my claim to be true. The link to the video is down below. Start watching it at 38:19 (38 minutes and 19 seconds) and you could stop at 39:53 (39 minutes and 53 seconds). I would appreciate it if this were fixed. Have a great day!

69.127.41.16 (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry. Youtube is not a relaible source. Per WP:RS You will need a reliable source to suport this claim. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- Dane2007 ^talk 06:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also note that US time zones differ from Japanese/USSR time zones (Tokyo-Washington 14 hrs). Early morning in the pacific on 19 September may thus be late evening in the US. The YouTube source may present US times, while the Wikipedia uses local times. Only a reliable source might be able to sort that out. Arnoutf (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Adding "Phoney War" reference under "Main Articles" of "War breaks out in Europe (1939–40)"

The Phoney War article is highly relevant to the section World War II#War breaks out in Europe (1939–40) and should be added there. Bulkroosh (talk) 15:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already linked, as part of the text reading "However, initially the alliance provided limited direct military support to Poland". Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

That is true, but the suggestion was to add "Phoney War" to the "Main Articles" list so that the reference is more visible, given its centrality to the section. Bulkroosh (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

You forget the France in cattegorie allies

Men who checking this damn website, you forget to write FRANCE in category ALLIES at the top right of the page.

wtf France is an important country you must write the right ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.168.99.159 (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

France is fifth in the list to which you refer. Britmax (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland

Please ignore HarveyCarter sockpuppets Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet invasion should be mentioned in the lede, as the Germans could only invade Poland if the Soviets did as well. Otherwise they faced a two-front war in 1939, before they were ready. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) that is speculation. The Soviet invasion of Poland was a relatively minor military event (Poland had already practically collapsed) and the Allies did NOT declare war on USSR. Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC) If Hitler had invaded Poland without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact the Soviet Union would have declared war on him. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) After the purges etc the Soviets might not have been ready either. See, both of us can speculate? Britmax (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Stalin would have had no choice. If he had allowed Hitler to annex all of Poland he would have been removed from office. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) the lede states Germany and the Soviet Union partitioned and annexed territories of their European neighbours, Poland.... but no RS includes the Russian invasion on a par (in terms of ww2) with the German invasion of Poland. Rjensen (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Many sources give 23 August 1939 as the beginning of the war, as it made possible the joint German-Soviet invasion. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) I've read hundreds of sources, but have never seen one that makes tha assertion. The Molotov-Ribbenntrop Pact was not a declaration of war, it was a non-agression agreement between the two powers. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC) It wasn't a non-aggression pact at all - it was an agreement to start World War II by invading Poland. If Stalin had launched his invasion of Poland first Britain and France would have declared war on the USSR. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) They agreed not to attack each other. It waas not a declaration of war. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC) It was a pact to start a world war - in other words a pact of aggression. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 21:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)) That is your own POV and not supported by the facts. See the Article on the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Mediatech492 (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Hitler needed the pact as otherwise he would not have had the resources to fight Britain and France. The Soviet Union supplied all the fuel the Germans used in 1940 and 1941. Stalin and Hitler both knew the pact would lead to war. (2A00:23C4:638C:4500:EB:CB2F:FBE4:9C82 (talk) 01:02, 22 January 2017 (UTC)) Again that your POV and it is irrelavant. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:14, 22 January 2017 (UTC) To quote: "Stalin and Hitler both knew the pact would lead to war." While that may have been true, that in itself is not a declaration of war. In addition, what ever Stalin and Hitler knew in their mind really does not matter unless a reliable sources can be provided that reports these thoughts. Arnoutf (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Polish troops taking Berlin

Yes, there were a relatively small number of Polish troops, organised by the Soviet Union and co-ordinated with the Red Army, who participated in the taking of Berlin. But putting this in the lead is undue weight, extremely undue weight.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. They are not even mentioned in the lead of the Battle of Berlin. At 6-8% of the troops involved it should not IMO be in the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Why was the infobox dramatically reduced?

Why was the infobox dramatically reduced in size? It is now basically removed, with little information. I can't find a discussion about it. Wasn't there a consensus about it? In Russian Wikipedia, they have a massive list of participants and leaders, with dates. And what's about those WW2 participants who belonged neither to the Allies nor to the Axis such as the UPA or Forest Brothers? Wouldn't they belong in the third column (the Syrian Civil war article has four columns)?--Adûnâi (talk) 00:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion of the infobox a year or two ago which led to consensus for the current version. If you search through the archives of this talk page you should find it. Nick-D (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Axis attack on the USSR (1941)

The text doesn't inform that the Read Army in the West perished and doesn't explain why.Xx236 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

That's not correct at all. The relevant section includes text such as " During the summer, the Axis made significant gains into Soviet territory, inflicting immense losses in both personnel and materiel" and " The Kiev offensive was overwhelmingly successful, resulting in encirclement and elimination of four Soviet armies,". The Soviet Armies in the west did not "perish": they took immense losses, but managed to survive. Nick-D (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The armies didn't fight, and big part of the losses went into German hands.

You quote Western (German) POV only, it's one of the problems of the page.

Many Soviet divisions were reconstructed twice, so no, they didn't manage to survive. Xx236 (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Background#Europe is pro-Soviet

This discussion should be probably moved to Causes of World War II.Xx236 (talk) 08:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was highly militarized, the Red Army was the biggest army of the world in 1939. Soviet industry produced arms or new plants, almost no consumption goods. The SU wanted to "liberate" people of the world, at least the ones of Europe, and wanted to annect former Russian lands. Communist parties were controlled from Moscow. Summarizing - Soviet politics influenced Europe. The text criticizes the West, who didn't cooperate with the Soviets. The Soviets murdered millions before WWII, Nazis thousands.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

the USSR was indeed heavily militarized, but Stalin had purged most of the generals and many of the key personnel in 1938. Military analysts in all major nations decided that the result was a very weak and leaderless, albeit very large, army. Rjensen (talk) 08:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

An army is only a part of a militarized nation, the other ones being industry, police (which had an army Internal Troops), total terror. The 1941 Red Army was almost completely destroyed, but the second or even the third Red Army won the war.

I also believe that the purge of officers was wrong, but there are some authors who accept the purge of uneducated Bolsheviks.

Xx236 (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain what part of the text you are objecting to?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Background#Europe describes Western Europe, it doesn't inform about Soviet war preparations, Communist influence in Europe, including the conflict between Socialists and Communists in Germany, which opened the way to Hitler.Xx236 (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

It does mention the political conflict in Germany; it just isn't specific. It also doesn't mention the Great Depression, which is a major omission. I guess the section could be expanded, but, then again, it has to be in proportion to the article. I don't think that mainstream historians emphasise the Soviet military threat. The Soviet naval and air forces were negligible. Soviet economic policies were widely regarded as disastrous, and the country was in political turmoil, with key government figures being purged. It wasn't Soviet military strength that conditioned Hitler's war in the East, but perceived Soviet military weakness, as exemplified in the Winter War. Most people, including Hitler, underestimated Soviet potential.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

The Devils' Alliance: Hitler's Pact with Stalin, 1939-1941 by Roger Moorhouse. Moorhouse looks to be quite mainstream.

You don't need any navy to annect Europe, if you have Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

World War II aircraft production.Xx236 (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you are Western-centric (please translate into English). The WWII took place mostly in Eastern Europe, the majority of victims came from the East. The West had freedom to create biased image of WWII in Europe.Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

If you mean the phrase The interwar period saw strife between supporters of the new republic and hardline opponents on both the right and left it doesn't say about the Socialists-Communists conflict. 1925 Because of Thälmann's participation the left-wing vote was split, giving an advantage to Hindenburg. Some Berlin Communists cooperated with Nazis during a 1932 strike. Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Historians do not attribute the start of World War II to the Soviet Union, so there's no reason to emphasise its role as suggested here. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you should look on a dictionary what this adjective you're attributing really means. Bertdrunk (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

All historians or some Russian historians? The moon causes tidal effects, the same big army and arm industry and Communist parties cause effects even if some historians don't see it.Xx236 (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

It is significant that in his Testament, even as Red Army troops were entering Berlin, Hitler blamed the war on international Jewry, specifically financiers, not on the looming Soviet threat in 1939. Most international observers thought the war between Germany and the USSR would be over in a couple of months. The USSR had struggled against Finland, and its military had been decapitated by Stalin's purges. Its air force was technologically backward. Its navy was weak. It was unable to defend its Baltic Coast, so Leningrad was vulnerable. The weakness of the USSR was demonstrated as soon as the war started with Germany.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The weak USSR won the war. the war between Germany and the USSR would be over in a couple of months - probably if Germany allowed to dissolve kolkhoses. But Hitler's Germany wasn't able to win the USSR killing and robbing.

Leningrad was vulnerable but successful.

You hardly can use a real navy in the Baltic pond. Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The USSR started World War II by invading Poland when Germany did. (Ajdk21 (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

No,they didn't. Britmax (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes they did. Without the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939 Hitler could never have invaded Poland. (Ajdk21 (talk) 16:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

Because the Polish horse cavalry could easily defeat the German Armored divisions?? Arnoutf (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

No, because if Hitler had invaded Poland without the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact he would have faced war with the Soviet Union and the British Empire in 1939. Germany could only invade western Poland, while the USSR invaded eastern Poland under the terms of the pre-arranged joint invasion. (Ajdk21 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC))

Is there anything in this discussion related to improving the article? Anyone have an edit to suggest? Otherwise this is just a forum, folks. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, there have been several suggestions, mostly notably including the Soviet threat as a cause of the war. The consensus was against that.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

British attack on USSR

HarveyCarter trolling Nick-D (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of British plans to attack the USSR in 1940-41, due to the Soviet-German Commercial Agreement? Here is a detailed source: http://orientalreview.org/2010/04/22/britain-planned-to-attack-ussr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.55.165 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC) In an article this size that would be undue.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Indian Ocean?

In December 1941, Japan attacked the United States and European colonies in the Pacific and Indian Oceans...?

What Indian Ocean territories are being referred to?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Japan completley took over Burma and held it for most of the remainder of the war. Also they took the Dutch East Indies Island of Sumatra which is also on the Indian Ocean. Read the article on the Indian Ocean raid on Ceylon (Sri Lanka), for one of the major battles that was fought in the Indian Ocean. Also the article on Indian Ocean in World War II for a more extensive list of battles fought in the Indian Ocean. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

But this didn't happen in December 1941. And I wouldn't describe Burma as being "in the Indian Ocean".--Jack Upland (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

December, 1941 was just the beginning of the Pacific war. And please look at a map, the entire coastline of Burma is on the Indian Ocean. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to the sentence quoted above, which says "In December 1941..." And as you say Burma is on the Indian Ocean, not in. The issue is with the sentence in the article, not the facts of the war.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm merely answering the question that you asked. There is no reason to argue about an irrelevant semantic. If you feel you can improve the wording then do so. Peace. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant. The previous text was better.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Invading Burma overland and landing in Sumatra from the east was not an "Indian Ocean" campaign. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

That is a POV. Regardless, unless somebody moved Sri Lanka, my point still holds. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

English dialect proposal

I am proposing that the language of this article be changed to British English with Oxford spelling, given that WWII has more to do with the United Nations than the United Kingdom and could fit the criteria for MOS:TIES. World War I already uses that dialect for the same reason. TheBD2000 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

You do have a point that Oxford spelling would be a good choice since it is more international. But this article has been stable with default British spelling (with -ise, -isation) for many years, so I would not change it. Please also note that you cannot really point to MOS:TIES with regard to the United Nations because the United Nations did not exist during WW II -- the UN was established AFTER WW II. The reason that World War I is using Oxford spelling could be that at that time Oxford spelling was in fact the standard in Britain. So, this choice fits the time. Whereas in the following decades leading up to today, the spelling with -ise/-isation has become almost the default in Britain. EngvarB consistency (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

Change contents in "Impact" section and add health and educational effects on individuals who survived the war. ClarkKeNt21 (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Internment Camps

Why is there no mention of the American internment camps used against Japanese Americans included here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The usual reason is that no-one has written about it yet. It may however be better off in a daughter article, say involving the treatment of such minorities generally, as it would be hard to cover the subject in enough detail to do it justice without covering too much detail for this long and rather general WWII article. Britmax (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

They are in fact mentioned in the "Concentration camps..." section. This seems to be unbalanced because there were similar internments around the world, such as in the British Empire. (The article only briefly mentions Canada.)--Jack Upland (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115023408/http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81203576/Soviet-Repression-Statistics-Some-Comments to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/81203576/Soviet-Repression-Statistics-Some-Comments

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Leaders of World War II

World War II/Archive 52
Location {{{place}}}
Commanders and leaders
Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill Chiang Kai-shek ...and more	Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini ...and more

@Nick-D and Charles lindberg: So whats all this about? I'm not keen to see an edit war here, so spill it and lets work through it rather than wheel war in the article space. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a wheel war Tom - please be very careful when using that term in regards to someone with admin rights (I have not used the admin tools here, and Charles is not an admin, so we have not been using the admin tools to overturn one another). If Charles would like to propose altering the version of the infobox which was agreed after a lengthy RfC, he should do so here. I note from his talk page that he has been engaging in comparable edit wars in other high profile infoboxes. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying it should be like World War I infobox that links to other leaders... below the commanders. This makes more sense considering the link is to all commanders not just the main ones. Charles lindberg (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I've attached what the commanders sections should look like Charles lindberg (talk) 20:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Vast majority of countries?

The opening sentence says that the vast majority of countries were involved. Of course everyone was affected, even if indirectly. However wasn't most of South and Central America neutral? 50.242.82.67 (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

A quick check of the article World War II by country. I looked at Argentina. Not very involved. But Argentinian people who volunteered for the allies (good for them!!!) were mentioned in what seems like a somewhat dishonest (questionable?) manner. The casual reader might think their government had supported or sent them, which does not seem to be the case. 50.242.82.67 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Due to the massive size of he subject matter, this article does skim lightly over many aspects of the war. To cover every aspect of the war in full detail would involve entire libraries full of data making the article colossal and virtually unreadable. The role of Argentina in World War II is covered in much better detail in the Argentina during World War II article. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Virtually all of the south and central American countries joined the war in its closing months - as doing so on the side of the Allies was a prerequisite for membership of the new UN. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that even if you say that South and Central America weren't involved (which is largely true), it is still true that the vast majority of countries were involved. I really don't see the issue here.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Even neutral South American countries were affected and could influence events. Britmax (talk) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

When did the war end? 14/15 August or 2 September, 1945?

The infobox states that the war ended on September 2, 1945, which is the date on which the surrender of Japan was formally signed. However, the lead uses August 15, 1945, the date on which Japan announced its surrender, and does not mention what happened on September 2. In the first section, Chronology, both dates appear, but the article expressly states "It was generally accepted at the time that the war ended with the armistice of 14 August 1945 (V-J Day), rather than the formal surrender of Japan (2 September 1945)." So the article gives three different dates. Unless I'm mistaken, when the surrender was announced, 14 August was the date in the United States and 15 August was the date in Japan.

There are good reasons to use all of these dates, but the article should be internally consistent. Roches (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The might also be an acknowledgement that no treaty was ever signed between the Soviet Union and Japan. As Russia became the successor state to the Soviet Union, the war is arguably still on. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Not true. Russia was a signatory to the Surrender of Japan on September 2, 1945. The Russians refused to sign the Treaty of San Francisco signed on September 8, 1951; however, Japan and Russia later signed the Soviet–Japanese Joint Declaration of 1956 which formally ended the state of war between them. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121122071204/http://artukraine.com/old/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf to http://artukraine.com/old/famineart/SovietCrimes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cite about political scientist prediction removed

The Background / Europe section had:

It was at this time that political scientists began to predict that a second Great War might take place.{{sfn|Dawood|Mitra|2012}}{{page needed|date=July 2016}}

and in the references section:

{{Cite journal|last1=Dawood|first1=Mary<!--was small caps-->|last2=Mitra|first2=Anu|year=2012|title=Hidden agendas and hidden illness|journal=Diversity and Equality in Health and Care|volume=9|issue=4|pages=297–298|ref=harv}}

The cited source is available on-line here. As it does not seem to support that statement about political scientists at all I've replaced it with cite-needed. The item cited was not used elsewhere in the article and so I removed it from the list of references.

I don't have time to comb through the edit history to see if perhaps was added WP:AGF to support something else in the article and that subsequent editing moved the ref to an unrelated part of the text. --Marc Kupper|talk 21:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I had a bit of time this morning and so chased down the addition in June 2013 of the claim about prediction and also a minor revision in February 2016. As the addition cited the "Hidden agendas and hidden illness" source which does not seem to support the text at all I would have deleted the stuff about prediction from the article entirely but it seems very likely there was talk of a possible war. We just need a cite supporting the claim. Examples of why the claim is likely correct include:

• The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931.
• The 1931 exposure of the German re-armament.
• The World Disarmament Conference gained steam in the early 1930s.
• The United States Neutrality Acts of 1930s which were in 1935 to 1939 were in response to what was happening earlier in the decade.
• Italy's attack of Ethiopia in December 1935 resulting in the Second Italo-Ethiopian War.

--Marc Kupper|talk 17:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

There were certainly predictions of another world war at that time, and before. But the statement, as it stands, implies that authorities starting predicting this war at this time. I'd bet a few did, but I'd also bet many did not care to speculate about this. We need not look for reasons why they might predict it, only for sources covering their specific predictions and that there was a significant shift about this time. Without these, the statement here would have to be watered-down to the point that it's not notable. Unless we can pretty quickly find at least some sources supporting this authoritative transition, I'm for deleting. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It can return if there is a citation and more specificity. Yes, some people thought there would be a war, but others believed in peace in our time. In retrospect, the war seems inevitable, and various events are marshalled as precursors to the world war. For example, yes, Japan, invaded Manchuria in 1931, but it had annexed Korea in 1910. What was new? And Britain had Hong Kong, Portugal had Macau, and Shanghai was international. Why would the West fight for China? Well, they didn't, because the war against Japan didn't start until Japan launched simultaneous attacks on Britain and the USA. There is abundant historical evidence that world leaders did not predict the course of the war, so why would we believe "political scientists", who hardly existed in the 1930s, could predict it???--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Great change Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Jack Upland. In thinking about it more, removing that line also make sense because even if there was a WP:RS to support the thing it would still be someone's opinion. WP articles read better when they document events. --Marc Kupper|talk 06:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it's not very notable unless the predictor is a statesman or some other important person. Public intellectuals often make predictions of wars and depressions. Sometimes they are right; sometimes they're wrong. I agree it's better to concentrate on what actually happened, not what someone said might happen...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of the Holocaust death toll in the lead

I'm concerned that the following line in the lead that states the total number of Holocaust victims may be very wrong: "Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed)". There was an article a few months ago that appeared on 2 Jewish websites (Jewish Journal and the Jewish Telegraph Agency) that claimed the total number of 11 million deaths (6 million Jews + 5 million non-Jews) was not accurate and that the 5 million non-Jewish deaths was merely made up to increase sympathy for the 6 million Jews who died. I understand that this one article on this issue is probably not enough to contradict the other sources, but I think this is something to keep an eye on, in case other sources start to investigate this further and the scholarship in this area changes. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

6 million is the most common figure used, and that is what the Holocaust article says before going on to discuss a broader definition...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

That 11 million figure summarized content lower down the article with this BBC citation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/content/articles/2005/01/20/holocaust_memorial_other_victims_feature.shtml meanwhile a dictionary defines 'Holocaust' 'the killing of millions of Jews and other people by the Nazis during World War II' https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/holocaust . Still, there appears to be some scholarly and political debate about whether the term should include non-Jews. Given this lack of general consensus I propose removing any figure altogether, and provide a hyperlink to Holocaust instead. This is, after all, just the intro. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Data for civilian deaths

The article says "An estimated 11[330] to 17 million[331] civilians died either as a direct or as an indirect result of Nazi ideological policies, including the systematic genocide of around 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, along with a further 5 to 6 million ethnic Poles and other Slavs (including Ukrainians and Belarusians)[332]—Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups."

This is misleading and needs a re-write for clarification. Historians' consensus says 5 to 6 million Polish citizens were killed, not ethnic Poles, because at least half of those deaths were Jewish. In fact, Polish communist era propaganda omitted the ethnicity of the Jewish deaths of its citizens, and Wikipedia is not meant to repeat totalitarian myths. The figure now for ethnic Polish deaths tends to be 2 to 3 million, Polish Jews at ~3 million, non-Polish Jews a further ~3 million to bring the ethnic Jewish total to 6 million.

Meanwhile far more than 5 to 6 million Slavs were killed. The generally accepted figure for Soviet civilians alone is over 11 million killed. Even discounting non-Slavic Soviet citizens the figure is still far higher than we have alluded to here; and if one includes Serbian, Czechoslovakian and Polish deaths it still approaches that 11 million figure for total number of Slavs killed.

It also needs emphasis in this section that death counts alone do not tell the whole story - percentages of nations killed is important. Around 90% of European Jews were killed, and a possibly higher percentage of Roma/Sinti according to some historians. The percentage killed far lower for the Slavic nations, and for the Chinese, Soviet and Polish states.

Once we have done this correction there's a knock-on question about the intro. What is our rationale for it to include the 6 million Jewish civilian deaths but omit the 7-14 million Chinese, 11 million Soviet civilian deaths, let alone total Slavic deaths? The rationale may be that there is far more scholarship on the Holocaust of Jews than on other civilian killings, but are we satisfied in Wikipedia policy terms that the 7-14 million and 11 million are so less notable than the 6 million that they can be excluded from the intro?

Furthermore it's strange in the intro to emphasize 1 million deaths to strategic bombing including nuclear weapons out of the up to 85 million total deaths. In terms of numbers, these were a side show compared to deaths by bullets. Strategic bombing including nuclear weapons is noteworthy because it was the only time in history it was used on this scale, but not because of the numbers. Around 70,000 civilians were killed in the Hiroshima atomic attack, and 25,000 in the Dresden bombing: that compares to up 300,000 civilians executed in the Nanking Massacre, some 200,000 civilians executed in the Warsaw Uprising, and millions of Jews shot by German firing squads, probably more than were killed by gas, according to recent scholarship.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 08:26, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to section:

From:

An estimated 11[330] to 17 million[331] civilians died either as a direct or as an indirect result of Nazi ideological policies, including the systematic genocide of around 6 million Jews during the Holocaust, along with a further 5 to 6 million ethnic Poles and other Slavs (including Ukrainians and Belarusians)[332]—Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups.[331]

To:

An estimated 11[330] to 17 million[331] civilians died either as a direct or as an indirect result of Nazi racist policies, including the Holocaust of around 6 million Jews, half of whom were Polish citizens, along with a further 2 to 3 million ethnic Poles. Millions of other Slavs (including Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians), Roma, homosexuals, and other ethnic and minority groups were also killed on the same grounds, that they were 'sub-human'.

Proposed change to intro:

From:

Marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 6 million Jews were killed)[1] and the strategic bombing of industrial and population centres (in which approximately one million were killed, and which included the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki),[2] it resulted in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. These made World War II the deadliest conflict in human history.[3]

To:

World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 50 million to 85 million fatalities, most of which were civilians in Eastern Europe and China. It included the deliberate genocide of Roma, Slavs and Jews (the Holocaust), strategic bombing, starvation, disease and the first use of nuclear weapons in history.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Citation to add, for civilian deaths by bullets being more numerous than deaths by bombs and gas: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/07/16/holocaust-the-ignored-reality/

-Chumchum7 (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I am not 100% convinced that the focus on Eastern Europe is completely justified. German civilian casualties (including German jews) were huge. So were the combined civilian casualties (due to hunger and disease) in India, Indonesia and Vietnam (French Indochina) combined to about 70% of Chinese casualties (and that is not even counting Japan, Singapore, Philippines, etc). In fact proportionwise percentages casualties in French Indochine and Dutch Indonesia were substantially higher than in China.

Reconsidering your proposal, it appears to go from a well sourced, albeit somewhat outdated view, to an argument that seems to contain some original research. If you could provide an authorative source that explicitly refers to eastern Europe and China as the main civilian casualties centres in comparisons to others, I would agree. But right now, I think we should not move forward with your suggestions without such clear reference. Arnoutf (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

1) I'm not sure what you mean by the 'focus on Eastern Europe' as my proposal is to include Chinese fatalities.

2) Wikipedia style guidelines say the intro summarizes the article, which is what my proposal does: If you read down to the Casualties section you will see the line, "Of the total number of deaths in World War II, approximately 85 per cent—mostly Soviet and Chinese—were on the Allied side and 15 per cent were on the Axis side." All I'm doing is summarizing that line. Using the phrase 'Eastern Europe' instead of the 'Soviet Union' is to include Jewish and Polish deaths in German-occupied Poland; if you would prefer those not to be included, please clarify.

3) There is also a chart in that Casualties section, which shows that German civilian casualties were small compared to the Soviet, Chinese, Polish and Indonesian. I'm not sure why you raise German Jews in particular, are they any more relevant than other Jews? Most Jews had fled Germany by 1939, and the remainder (214,000) were 3.6% of the total number of the 6 million Jews killed in the Holocaust: https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005469

3) Note I did provide a reference, linked above, which is about WWII civilian fatality data. Please tell me which lines you think are original research, and I'll point you to the references which are either already in the article or available for you to see online.

4) Speaking of original research, the article's line about ethnic Poles and Slavs is currently just that. While there is academic consensus on up to 6 million Polish citizens being killed, no historian says that as many as 6 million ethnic Poles were killed, nor that as few as 6 million Slavs as a group were killed (the section is even self-contradictory as the paragraph just before it refers to 19 million Soviet civilian deaths). It's misleading, and needs to be corrected which per WP:BOLD I'm going to do right now.

-Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your proposal further emphasises China compared to the original line you claim to summarise. In addition, you go from countries (USSR / China) to (part of continents) but do that only for Europe - again, more than a straightforward summary. That is problematic as (1) the USSR is on 2 continents - Europe and Asia - for for Eastern European casualties you would have to subdivide the USSR casualties in European and Asian, and only consider the European ones. (2) If you go for continents, than China would be somewhat of an oversimplified focus for Asia (even the far east) as famine and disease related civilian casualties in India, Indonesia, French Indochina and other Asian countries combined are similar to Chinese losses (and often more percentwise). So in my view what you are doing is not merely summarising, but also (subtly) changing content. And in my view that would require a source. Arnoutf (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Steady with the word 'claim'. Yes indeed, in a summary line I didn't think incorporating Holocaust deaths in a summary of WWII regional fatalities needed additional citation. If what you are saying is that you would prefer the phrase 'most of which were civilians in the Soviet Union and China,' fine by me. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I think keeping it at soviet union and china, as you suggest above would be fine. Arnoutf (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done.[11] -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with user chumchum7.Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

No essay

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
German Reich before WW II&Hitler without poland should be at article start showing state before war and that way one reason founding of Great Poland after not existing at all until 1937 other reason reastablishing jewish control== German Reich from 1871 until end of World War I and fall of empire German Reich 1919–1937 Deletion not prooves insertibility. Pre war events are also annexion of hawaii with sacrificing of USA soldiers in pearl harbour for USA war entry after embargo war attack against japan etc. England was loosing against rome again over (anglo-)saxon slaughter Charlemagne capitulatio de partibus saxoniae stupid 2m giant emperor. There was already over 1 million german refuges called emmigrants in poland history articles because of restrictive politics and territorial demands of young new poland against Czechoslovakia until intervention of Hitler shown in TV totally surprised and outraged because WW I enemy england declared war. First Poland was about 900 and settlement in time of forced christianization of roman (enemy before) catholic church in since 200 - 300 before christ german tribes land. Also 3 million jews not coming from there. At beginning of WW II only deportation of jews planned later secret genoicide public called bad by Nazi system but SS was knowing that jews Roosevelt and Marx are behind attacks later and before in christianisation after romans lost. Nonsens Hitler attacked for any new living room in east sure also not wanting a further front with russia just preventing attacked because of planned attack from Stalin under Marx breaking pact with tanks near border said public also by russian historians. Why fight (tyr ) anic instead (mars ) ianic? Super inqusition pope Alex VI ? China government is right not allowing missionary for what is not tolerant in definition at first 10 commandments. Are you still free to add inside article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.254.158 (talk) 20:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC) rm banned sock, Kayuweboehm

No. We are not have even so far as add to article. TimothyJosephWood 20:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you are on about but if you think there is room in this article for things that did not happen during the war you obviously have not read it. Britmax (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah! But have you want in that then never done ever? TimothyJosephWood 20:30, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can some one please explain what the specific proposition for article improvement is? (and can they please do so in understandable English) Arnoutf (talk) 20:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure there isn't one. They've kindof just been posting random stuff everywhere as far as I can tell. Switched IPs at least once. But if it gets removed they just add it back, and I just can't bring myself to request protection over it. TimothyJosephWood 20:45, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Can we please change the article to a pro-Nazi sob story about how the German tribes were so wronged, guest starring wicked Joos such as Roosevelt and Marx..etc..I think that sums it up.Oh and something about Christianity (bad) and Poles (bad). And a smidgen of Barbarossa being a pre-emptive strike a la Icebreaker. It's all there folks. Irondome (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

In other news, Joos apparently redirects to Japanese occupation of Singapore. TimothyJosephWood 21:22, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

You have to search for it in upper case. That proves it's a fiendish code. Knowing that it becomes as simple as ABDA. No, sorry, ABC. Irondome (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

"}}" is missing after "*{{flagicon|Kingdom of Italy|size=22px}} [[Benito Mussolini]]" to close "plainlist" template --Plaxie (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. restored. Britmax (talk) 11:14, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017/Suggestion for text outlining creation of Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)PS

Kindly consider amending Section 4.0 Course of the war/4.2 Western Europe shown below to include additional text outlining Roosevelt's creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs

Although Roosevelt had promised to keep the United States out of the war, he nevertheless took concrete steps to prepare for war. In December 1940 he accused Hitler of planning world conquest and ruled out negotiations as useless, calling for the US to become an "arsenal of democracy" and promoted the passage of Lend-Lease aid to support the British war effort.[101] In January 1941 secret high level staff talks with the British began for the purposes of determining how to defeat Germany should the US enter the war. They decided on a number of offensive policies, including an air offensive, the "early elimination" of Italy, raids, support of resistance groups, and the capture of positions to launch an offensive against Germany.[108]

Additional text (or an additional paragraph) might be included at the end of the paragraph shown above to outline additional steps taken by Roosevelt to prepare for the war while also encouraging the peaceful resolution of conflict:

By July of 1941, Roosevelt also authorized the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, in an effort to respond to Italian/German propaganda in Latin America through the use of news, film and radio broadcast media. In the process, Roosevelt also sought to enhance his Good Neighbor policy, promote Pan-Americanism and forestall military hostility through the use of cultural diplomacy.

References

Many thanks in advance for your kind consideration. 104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)PS 104.207.219.150 (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Appears to be WP:COPYVIO from "World War 2 In Review: A Primer". --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi A D Monroe - thanks for the prompt analysis. Kindly note that the suggested additional text is not copied or derived from the book which you quoted above. It is original text developed from Wikipedia's articles on Good Neighbor policy, Pan-Americanism and cultural diplomacy. The text is also based upon analysis contained in a different published book "Media Sound & Culture in Latin America and the Caribbean" as published by editors at the University of Pittsburg, Pa in 2012 --specifically the chapter written by Gisela Cramer - who appears to be a professor of History at the National University of Columbia in Bogota See [12] and her resume at [13].104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)PS

Not done: It is suggested that you rephrase the new text to make it look less like a WP:COPYVIO, as A D Monroe suggests. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply --Perhaps the following text would be more appropriate?

By July, 1941 Roosevelt also authorized the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs in accordance with his Good Neighbor policy and cultural diplomacy initiatives in Latin America.

P.S.--See [14] for additional information about Professor Gisela Cramer's publications. 104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)PS

104.207.219.150 (talk) 21:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)PS

Done though to keep things chronological, I've bumped the paragraph to the end of the section. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've just removed this addition, as it doesn't seem a very significant element of the war. The article aims to provide a high level summary of the war, so the inclusion criteria (informally defined!) need to be fairly high - especially as the article is probably over-length. FDR setting up a diplomatic position doesn't seem very important. The material is also rather US-centric - if things like this make the cut, why not add in other interesting international relations facts like the beginnings of the establishment of an independent Australian diplomatic network during the war or negotiations of the Empire Air Training Scheme? Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Nick- Many thanks for your thoughtful analysis. Just a few quick thoughts-- A review of the English Wikipedia article on the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs indicates that the efforts which it supported to counter Italian/German propaganda in Latin America were significant in promoting peace in the region during the War and preventing the Italian/German alliance from establishing new military fronts in Latin America--this is a rather significant accomplishment on the part of FDR. In addition, it encouraged Pan-Americanism ( as the reference source indicates) in order to emphasize the shared cultural values prevalent throughout the Americas--this is not really a US centric development and reflects Roosevelt's interest in promoting a Good Neighbor policy while also respecting the cultural traditions of the various nations in the Americas. Also it might be observed that the establishment of the office did not constitute setting up a diplomatic position and might be more properly described ( as the reference source indicates) as the active implementation of a previously established diplomatic position (Good Neighbor Policy) to protect the Latin American region. As the War became more active in Europe, FDR clearly elected to take a more aggressive diplomatic effort to counteract the propaganda efforts of the Italians/Germans by implementing hemispheric solidarity, Pan-Americanism and cultural diplomacy on a more sustained basis through the Office of the Coordinator on Inter-American affairs. As for concerns regarding the length of the articles, I doubt that a sentence or two is a matter of serious concern, but I'll leave such matters in the hands of more experienced editors--Many thanks again for your kind thoughts. Regards 104.207.219.150 (talk) 23:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)PS

I support Nick-D's removal. This specific American action itself (albeit possibly not its indirect consequences) appears not very central in the context of this global conflict. Therefore I would label this undue attention for details. Arnoutf (talk) 18:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Addition is labeled as undue weight per discussion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

From a quick search of some key words, it appears that the article doesn't cover the neutrality of most of the South American states until the final months of the war, so there may be scope to work that in somewhere (perhaps briefly noting Brazil's entry into the war in 1942 and the other countries' entry in 1945 in the relevant sections?). It would be best though to cover this in a straightforward way rather than viewing it through the prism of US Government policies and actions as proposed above. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

See also British Security Co-ordination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2017

I would like to add Battles of Khalkhin Gol to the template Template:Events leading to World War II, but I have never edited such a high traffic page before and I do not want to ruffle any feathers. I think the repercussions of Khalkin Gol on Japanese and Soviet military and foreign policy are significant enough to warrant its inclusion in this section. Do other users find this edit beneficial? Dakopo (talk) 5:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree, the Khalkhin Gol conflict has little if anything, to do with World War II. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Infobox edit proposal

World War II/Archive 52
Location {{{place}}}
Commanders and leaders
Main Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin Roosevelt ‡ Winston Churchill Chiang Kai-shek	Main Axis leaders Adolf Hitler † Hirohito  Benito Mussolini

Unlike other infoboxes on Wikipedia which include the fates of the senior figures in the conflict, World War 2's infobox does not. I propose that these be included in the infobox. An edit I had made was reverted, which did make a good point that there was no cross for FDR - perhaps there should be something clarified for use across the website for when someone dies of natural causes. The reversion also curiously stated the use of a skull was "troubling" next to Mussolini, although it is the standard image used across Wikipedia for when someone is executed. Anyways, I make the following proposal for the leaders section of the infobox:

• A double-dagger icon for Franklin D. Roosevelt to use as death by natural causes, and linked this to the sub-section of FDR's death. The only reason I shortened his name is for formatting, to fit it all on one line, but I'm not too much bothered about that.
• A single dagger icon for Adolf Hitler, and linked it to the article focused on Hitler's death.
• A surrender icon for Hirohito, as he and the whole of the Empire of Japan accepted an unconditional surrender at the end of the war.
• An execution icon for Benito Mussolini, who was executed by Italian communists.

What do people think? (Anaruna (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC))

In my opinion, this adds clutter for no benefits at all. The deaths of FDR, Hitler and Mussolini were not very relevant to the course or outcomes of the war (FDR was replaced by Truman quite smoothy, Hitler died in the last days of the war in Europe and Mussolini had been largely irrelevant for about two years before his death), and Hirohito did not personally surrender. As noted in the edit summary, these symbols will confuse a lot of readers. Nick-D (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Whether they had impact or not isn't really relevant - what's relevant is the historicity of it. The symbols hardly will confuse people, since they are widely used across Wikipedia, and they can easily find out what they are by clicking on them. I think to suggest people either will not know or won't be able to find out is quite patronising. Hirohito did not personally surrender no, but the Empire of Japan did - which meant every man, woman, child and soldier fell under that bracket. (Anaruna (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC))

What's important is whether the symbols impart necessary information clearly. Hirohito's decision to surrender and the deaths of Mussolini and Hitler are almost trivialities, since their causes were deemed lost. The one death that was thought to make a difference—FDR's in giving false hope to Hitler—you initially didn't think important enough to include in your markup. Otherwise, the symbols add visual clutter, aren't all that clear (the skull and crossbones is a common symbol to denote poison or pirate ships), and thus are a distraction because they will take time to decipher. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Italian desertion in mass after September 1943

Italian soldiers deserted in mass after the Armistice of Cassibile on all fronts and above all in mainland.That's why in the article must be added that the Germans entered in Italy easily also because of many desertions in the Italian Army.In a "normal " situation with the Vallo Alpino (that was active also in the Cold War) the Germans wouldn't have ever passed and nevertheless in few time.In the description it seems like the Germans occupied part of Italy defeating a normal Regio Esercito.Tales.Kingofwoods (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

References

From memory, the main body of the German forces who were involved in occupying Italy entered the country while Germany and Italy were still Allied. They then took the Italians by surprise, and often brutally attacked them. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, almost all the German troops were already stationed in Italy when the armistice occurred. Two new divisions, the 44th and 305th had secured the mountain passes in July. Conflict varied from place to place. The Germans disbanded most Italian units quietly. There was fighting in the north, on Sardinia and Corsica, and around Rome, but little in the south, where most Italian troops cooperated against the Allies. Some 600,000 Italian troops were disbanded in the Balkans, Greece and the Aegean with few incidents. Some units went over to the German side. Volunteers from the Italian 184 Airborne Division Nembo and 185 Airborne Division Folgore formed the German 4th Parachute Division. Thereafter the war in Italy assumed the character of a civil war. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The german divisions wouldn't have been sufficient to do it.They entered with the fascist permit when Mussolini ruled all over italian mainland since the fear of the invasion of Sicily.Numbers can't explain in clear way this.Italian Royal Army collapsed because of desertions.The first thing that Italian soldiers were looking for was a civil dressing to join home.In fact the fascist republic of the north that helped a lot Germans had few soldiers (compared to the former Royal Italian Army soldiers in that area) after the Armistice of Cassibile.Many Italian soldiers in mainland joined home or a part of them resistance.Italian armies abroad had many desertions too or passed with Allies.German soldiers weren't so fantastic as presented in this point.They just were with a part in the civil war.This part became after 8/9/1943 a puppet state.Kingofwoods (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2Dca2DWwfk

First scenes are in Veneto(north Italy).They already hear about the freedom arriving in the south (in Sicily and Calabria).They show to suffer the war condition and to be bored a lot.This famous italian movie well describes Italian situation after September and sentiments.The majority of Italians weren't sure of war before and nevertheless liked it after.El Alamein was the official statement of the end of this unliked war for the italian minding. Liberal and catholic wings (generally with many blue blood members inside and that stopped Mussolini in the Gran Consiglio in July 1943) of the fascist party were against war.These wings ( considering also red oppositions that were banned by Mussolini but still existed) were very present in the Italian Royal Air Force and in the Italian Royal Navy that were even accused to collaborate with Allies. These 2 fascist wings had strong links with Vatican ,France,UK and US(many italian people moved to US above all from southern Italy and they had all relatives in the homeland).They wanted to go home.It's common believing in Italy that W.Churchill (and not only,all over the world) ordered the execution of Mussolini.Mussolini had contacts with him since long time and he was afraid some papers could have compromised his image.Fascists joined power in 1922 also with the help of other western fearful powers of comunism spreading in the world.I'm waiting for a final opinion to add.Silemce would be considered a "yes".Best regards. Kingofwoods (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please spell out the wording that you want to add to the article and specify where you want to place it. Silence might indicate assent if you haven't been reverted, but I think you have. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It'd be correct to add that Italian Royal Army suffered many desertions that facilitated the german action ("that were in many places without superior orders and suffered many desertions"). I'm waiting for your opinion. So it should be.Thanks. Kingofwoods (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing is to be added to this article. Instead, update the Armistice of Cassibile article, providing reliable sources for all the statements it contains, including anything extra you want to add. Then nominate it for GA. I will review it for you there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:41, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I edited Armistice of Cassibile to improve it as you suggested.)Kingofwoods (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Requested edit to article

Hello editors, this edit was requested (link) at Wikipedia:RFPP by 104.207.219.150 (talk · contribs), as this talk page is semi-protected:

---

RE: World War II -Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2017/Suggestion for text outlining creation of Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs

ATTENTION EDITORS: Kindly reconsider and/or review this request for the addition of new text as outlined in the discussion shown below in light of the additional primary source material now available at the United States National Archive online reference as described in the following reply which was posted to the talk page of User:Nick-D (See the talk page for World War II). Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, 104.207.219.150 (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)PS

Hello Nick-D;

Many thanks for your comments regarding the proposed changes to the article World War II as described on the article's talk page (See Below).

While it is possible that the suggested additional content is irrelevant or largely unimportant as you suggest, I thought that you might enjoy reviewing an example of primary source material from the United States National Archive before dismissing the proposed content entirely. The original source material indicates that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt established the Office of the Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs as part of a broader strategy for preventing Germany, Italy and Spain from establishing a military presence in South and Central America. In addition, it illustrates actions taken by Nelson Rockefeller to implement this strategy during the 1940s. I hope that you enjoy reviewing the material and that you are able to share it with your fellow editors in order to ensure the highest degree of accuracy in the article. See the following link for further reading. Thanks again for your input and best wishes for your continued success on Wikipedia.. Regards 72.69.152.90 (talk) 01:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)JJ See Records of the Office of Inter-American Affairs at the U.S. National Archive Online at www.archives.gov

Kindly consider amending Section 4.0 Course of the war/4.2 Western Europe shown below to include additional text outlining Roosevelt's creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs

Although Roosevelt had promised to keep the United States out of the war, he nevertheless took concrete steps to prepare for war. In December 1940 he accused Hitler of planning world conquest and ruled out negotiations as useless, calling for the US to become an "arsenal of democracy" and promoted the passage of Lend-Lease aid to support the British war effort.[101] In January 1941 secret high level staff talks with the British began for the purposes of determining how to defeat Germany should the US enter the war. They decided on a number of offensive policies, including an air offensive, the "early elimination" of Italy and Spain, raids, support of resistance groups, and the capture of positions to launch an offensive against Germany.[108]

Additional text (or an additional paragraph) might be included at the end of the paragraph shown above to outline additional steps taken by Roosevelt to prepare for the war while also encouraging the peaceful resolution of conflict:

By July of 1941, Roosevelt also authorized the creation of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, in an effort to respond to German, Italian and Spanish propaganda in Latin America through the use of news, film and radio broadcast media. In the process, Roosevelt also sought to enhance his Good Neighbor policy, promote Pan-Americanism and forestall military hostility through the use of cultural diplomacy. [2]

References

Media Sound & Culture in Latin America. Editors: Bronfman, Alejanda & Wood, Andrew Grant. University of Pittsburg Press, Pittsburg, PA, USA, 2012, Pgs. 41-54 ISBN 978-0-8229-6187-1 books.google.com See Pgs. 41-54

---

I do not know if this is worthy of being added to the article or not; I leave that up to you. Cheers, fish&karate 14:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Participants

World War 2 was fought between the Allies and the Axis Powers. The Allied Powers is the name for the military alliance that opposed the Central Powers during World War 1. (24.205.83.199 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC))