Talk:World War II/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Important Facts

If anyone feels that an article needs to be edited, PLEASE leave the important information with the article. Some of this includes:

1) The operation's name and codename

2) A link to the main article about the event

3) The date it took place on, or the start/end dates

4) Where it took place

5) Main participators

6) What happened, in a short summery

(sorry for starting a new thread for this but I want to make sure people see it) MattD April 22/06

Edit summaries

Edit summaries - Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Instead, place such comments, if required on the talk page. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself. - copied from the Wiki guide page. -- Drogo Underburrow 16:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add Weblink

Dear administrators, I have a new entry for the links

http://www.historisches-centrum.de/index.php?id=65

The Virtual Library Contemporary History is part of the History Network at the European University Institute in Florenz. The contents of the catalogue are concentrated on the history of Germany (1890-1949). The main catalog provides mostly links of WW II and the Third Reich. The Virtual Library History is the oldest catalog in the Internet, founded in March 1993 by Lynn Nelson at the University of Kansas, USA. Since September 1993 this catalog is part of the WWW Virtual Library. The VL Contemparary History is maintained by the Historisches Centrum Hagen, Germany.

I think it will be a good catalog link for WW II section in the Wikipedia and would please you to add this link.

--84.187.111.99 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

User:84.187.111.99 and User:145.254.97.88 inserted this non-specific link into about 20 articles. As far as I see it, this is no recommendation for this website. --jergen 08:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I think that the VL Zeitgeschichte is the main source for WW II in Germany. "The Virtual Library Contemporary History is part of the History Network at the European University Institute in Florenz. The contents of the catalogue are concentrated on the history of Germany (1890-1949). The Virtual Library History is the oldest catalog in the Internet, founded in March 1993 by Lynn Nelson at the University of Kansas, USA. Since September 1993 this catalog is part of the WWW Virtual Library. The VL Contemparary History is maintained by Ralf Blank at the Historisches Centrum Hagen, Germany." http://www.vl-zeitgeschichte.de

Even if the linking a little professionally took place should the VL contemporary history under Web on the left of remain. The publishers can do finally nothing for it if people her here left. --Scholl 20:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Design of the WWII page

The WWII page is a chronology of WWII, with a section of short paragraphs leading to main topics not suitable for inclusion in the chronology section due to their broad nature. The chronology should be limited to brief statements of events, with the primary purpose of linking to the main articles so that the reader can go to them for more detail. Editors should strive to be as brief as possible in the chronology, policing the text so it is as succinct as possible, not verbose and repetitive like I am being here. With all the topics to cover about WWII, that is the only way the page can be kept to a reasonable size. This article is not the place for adding details about WWII events, editors should take the links on this page to the main articles on their topic, and add the information there. Detailed information added to the article should be deleted from the article by the community, along with a note to this talk page regarding this editor's agreement.Drogo Underburrow 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This format was universally disapproved of in the review for featured article status. I'm not sure that the reviewers even understood it, by their comments they seemed to think that the article was simply poorly written in narrative style. In any event, the paragraph above is pretty much out the window now, unless editors say otherwise. Drogo Underburrow 16:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think that someone should add Canada to the list of Allies in the war. They had a signifant part in the war, specifically in the battle of the atlantic, liberation of holland, the Airforce training, and obviously much more. Grouping Canada in "and others" belittles our huge contributions.
- the previous unsigned comment was submitted by User:Antonio911
I agree with User:Antonio911. Canada played a significant role in World War II. I, as a Canadian, feel insulted that we are simply being put under “and others”. Canada played a significant part in D-Day, and we sacrificed large numbers in the Dieppe Raid. And also, there were many Canadians enlisted in the RAF, who participated before the rest of Canada joined the war, who played a large role in battles such as the Battle of Britain. I feel that Canada’s size, power, people and contributions worldwide, both past and present, are underrepresented in the world’s media, Wikipedia included. I hope that someone soon fixes this problem. ~~Ryan Winter
I didn't say that. User:Antonio911 did, inserted his text above mine, then didn't sign it, making it appear that I wrote it. I have since moved his comment. Drogo Underburrow 22:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the new design just look annoying?

1939: War breaks out in Europe

Some obsessed idiot keep changing the article back - planting all sort of Polish-Soviet arguments into it. Hey, Mister whoever you are - don't you understand - this is an encyclopedia, not a dispute club, not an anti-Russian stress-relief website? Please please show that you really belong to civilized West, not to barbaric East - and behave yourself... Use your intelligence, not your soul and feeling. Once again - this is encyclopedia, think about the very concept of this place. Kind regards oleg100 10:41, 8 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

Dear Mr oleg100,

As You already this is an encyclopedia and calling anybody who doesn,t accept your version of history an idiot is just the same civilize as changing the article without discussion. --80.55.201.194 07:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Barbaric East... Look at this well civilized, western gentleman! Oleg100 do you think that you are the member of the peak point of humanity! If you do so, let me tell you the truth... You and your culture is nothing. As a member of the noble Turkish community, I don't give you the right to talk about my region. We are Turkey, not Iran, Iraq, Armenia, Syria... If you don't know enough about us, just make a research. History would tell you who we are. Deliogul 11:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Somebody still trying to "paint" the article in certain colour..:(( I am being patient so far. Please bear in mind that I can express myslef as well - and then you will see the note on Polish attempts to join Axis, occupation of Teshin, Polish decisive role in collapse of the attempts to create anti-Nazi coalition etc etc. I am not doing it just for one reason - I do not want this place to become "hate relief" boxing ring, but only provide dry info - and reference to differences in views if they are - for the user of encyclopedia to explore the subject further. One more time I am asking you - invisible editor - please do no try to put your views into this page,or dostpr the information by implying things with a certain expressions and the overall content of the info - otherwise I will have to do do the same if woldn't find another ways. Writing the article into the encyclopedia - is a great resposnsibility, think if you are mature enough to do it. a) Besides - what do you mean - "...Polish troops continued to fight with the Allies..." ? I think what you thought is quite different to what you said :)) b)"Polish givernment never surrendered" is an emotional propaganda statement - could be in place inthe article about Poland, but certainly not - in the general WW2 text. c) Once again - pact M-R was non aggression pact and an agreement on "zones of interests" to avoid possible conflict. Stating what you are trying to say in the article means that war on Poland was dedcided and agreed in the pact M-R, hence Germany and Russia planned and started WW2 together etc etc - this is bunch if lies, or , at least , seriouos misjudgements... If I feel you are not trying to srt things out, but only want to do what YOU like then I will stop wasting my time here, but just prevernt you from doing so. oleg100 08:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

Please Read about "secret protocol" of Molotov-Robbentrop pact and discuss with the others without screaming on them. --80.55.201.194 07:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest this version - no mention of pact M-R, otherwise we would need to mention manyother things on pre-war arrangement, events etc - and who know how far we should go - historians still debating these things - thisd is a whole separate subject deserving the separate article - "how this could happen, had it happen at all, was ther any viable alternatives.."? - modified " continued to fight with Allies" :)) - with "continued to fight as part of Allied Forces and Red Army.." I understnad that you hate Red Army - but this is known dry fact that Polish formations were operating till the rest of the war as part of Allied forces and part of Red Army, and it is hard to say where Polish contribution was more significant, more important etc. Just saying "Allies" is misleading, because this term assumes and normally being used to refer to the Anglo-American forces. oleg100 08:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

Besides - the very mentioning of the further participation of the Polish troops in the war - in this article - is a concession to your Polish pride :) - there were so many national formations involved in the war on different sides - I do not see this is being the subject of this article. So - if you do not like "Red Army" in the context - I do not mind you remove the whole statement.. oleg100 08:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

It is my edits you changed, and I am not a Pole, nor even a Polish partisan, so stop with the off-topic rhetoric. All I want is a simple, concise, factual, paragraph written in proper English, that serves to give a chronology and point to the main links on this topic. You object to mentioning the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at all unless its in depth. That is not acceptable. This pact led to the start of the war. There is nothing wrong with a brief statement, one sentence only, that such a pact was signed. I suggest you add it yourself, then we will have some idea of what you feel must be said. But keep it brief, at the most a short paragraph. Drogo Underburrow 08:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

"This pact led to the start of the war" - exactly the point of 180 degree disagreement - hence to go somewhere else - this is not just you and me, you know that this disagreement is serious and widespread. We can debate about it somewhere else :)). Thank you for your patience and will to agree on things. Regards oleg100 13:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

Actually, I would also agree with Drogo on this (as, I vaguely recollect from my undergradute studies decades ago, would many mainstream historians). The signing of the M-R Pact allowed Hitler to attack Poland without fear of intervention against his actions by the Soviets. Hence, it led to the start of the war. Many people can probably debate at length what would have happened if the Pact had not been signed, but that is not the focus of the main WWII article. Signing of the Pact made Hitler's decision to invade far simpler. (I'm not Polish either!) --Habap 14:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

1939: War breaks out in Europe

Areas with predominantly German speaking populations in 1945.
Areas with predominantly German speaking populations in 1945.

I edited the text a bit - an suggest all parties to agree with this change. As in all changes I do - I aim to get an acceptable for all sides solution. We should rememeber that this is an encyclopedia, not the palce for debating, or fight, or exploration, We should use as less adjectives as possible, but more verbs and nouns :))) If there are dofferent views - then encyclopeida must inform of all reasonably known/common views - for the reader to know what is it about or what is going on - and not to indoctrinate.. So - the changes and reasons - a reduced a bit and balanced a bit the statement of further faitht of Polish troops - this article about the beginning of a war, hence other detials should be in a separate "Polish contribution to war" - it is big subject in itself we will talk to you about - in that section discusssion :)) hence we should not distort it here by talking small part of it. Next - Molotoff-Ribbentrop got nothing to do with Russian advance to Poland, there was nothing in it about running war against Poland or occupying it. It was about securing the "zones of interest" - on the same way as everybody did and does it today. Russia did not endorsed German invasion in this treaty, nor Germans needed Russian approval for this war - they decided to go for war, they did it - and Russian secured their own interests in the given situation. This was in Russian interests and the only things they could do after the attempts to creat any anti-German coalition including Russia, Poland and Allies failed (and this is another hell of a topic to discuss :)) ). I put a comment that Russian occupieed easto fo Poland according to agreed with Germans zones - and that what M-R pact agreed upon. "Joined Russian-German forced" is also deliberately misleading statement. Do I need to explain why, or the author of thisstatement just playing games here? oleg100 07:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)oleg100

I have changed the part about the Soviet involvement in the dismemberement of Poland, making it a simple statement of facts and adding links to a much more detailed article on the subject.Chestnut ah 15:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign and Soviet Union as part of Axis Powers

Polish September Campaign lasted only about one week shorter than the Battle of France in 1940 and should not be forgotten that Poland fought again two invaders Germany and Soviet Union (As the primary part of Axis Powers) without any help (Great Britain has succoured France in 1940) i think that facts should be noted in Wikipedia. - unsigned comment

This information is all in the article, look in the section on Poland in the chronology. Drogo Underburrow 09:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I understand, but the rule of Soviet Union in WW II is improtant also in the World History not only in Poland history. You want to contest fact that Soviet Union attaced Poland at 17 September 1939 as primary part of Axis Powers and became one of Alies scarcely after Germans attac in 1941? Best Regards Tlumaczek 11:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Union was technically never an Axis Power, and never was at war with the Allies. The article already says that the USSR invaded Poland in 1939; it also says that Britain and France gave no help and dis-honored thier treaties. What more do you want? Drogo Underburrow 09:48, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
In "Dates of joining Allies" we can see:
  1. Poland: 1939, 1 September
  2. United Kingdom: 1939, 3 September
The Soviets attack take's place at 17 September 1939 when Poland was a part of Alies.
"Technicaly" the therm The Axis talks only about "Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis" and we talk about Romania, Slovakia and Finland as a parts of Axis Powers (I have no doubt You know Finland became Germany co-belligerent after being attacked by the Soviet Union (One of the Alies?) in 1939.
Let's talk about what we treat "technicaly" and what not.
About Britain and France help in September 1939 i said nothing :-).
Best Regards Tlumaczek 10:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an ecyclopedia, Mr Tlumaczek, not the place for exhibition of the anti-Russian fantasies and obsessions. Even at the top of Cold War nobody dared to call USSR to be a part of Axis. At least you should agree that this idea - no matter how dearest to you - is not cooked well enough - to be presented in encyclopedia. Besides Russian advance to Poland took place when Polish government left the country, i.e. the country collapsed and power seized to exist. Not very friendly act of Stalin anyway heh? Sure thing. If you remember how hard Poland tried to join Axis - against USSR, if you look how far Allies went in Munchen 1938 - who can blame Stalin for caring about the interests of his own country at the cost of Poland? Anyway - we can go on and on with this debate in some better place - here we should agree on cold facts - and if there is a disagreement - then just present info without any emotions and propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oleg100 (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr Anonymous. If somebody is talking about this with emotions it's not me. I don't want to talk with you about September Campaign facts because you can tell me I'm biased. Let's talk about facts we both know.

  1. You say Stalin caring about the interests of his own country. Ok but please tell me why after the war he didn't gave back this territory? And why he make half of a Europe the satelites of Soviet Union?
  2. How big signification could this territory have for big Soviet Union? In German attack it was only hal a day.
  3. What about Katyn massacre it also was a part of caring about the interests of his own country?
  4. You say Polish government left the country but what made French government? What made Stalin. I remember he went to Kuybyshev right after he heard about german attack. Lefting the country by government during the war isn't nothing extraordinary.
  5. Tell me pelease one fact which authorize to say "Poland hard tried to join Axis" only one please. When you will tell me it I will agree with You that I exhibit my the anti-Russian fantasies.

Best Regards "Mr" Tlumaczek

Mr Tlumaczek,
If the argument is about whether the Soviet Union was part of the Axis powers, I don't think you'll find any historians or Wikipedians who would agree with you that the Soviets were part of the Axis. On the other hand, everyone would agree that Stalin was an opportunist, seizing portions of Poland in 1939 and post-war, executing Polish officers who would most certainly have been willing to fight him again (execution of prisoners of war) and doing anything he could to secure Soviet hegemony over as much territory possible. Few would argue against a statement that Stalin ruled a violent and evil empire, but the Soviet Union, for all it's faults, was not part of the Axis at any time. (Their agreement with Hitler was a Non-Aggression Pact, which is not the same as an alliance.) --Habap 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear Mr Habap,
I'm not a screamer who intend to capsize whole Wikipedia. I'm only trying to start constructive discussion. I can show you Many east european and other sources which say that Soviet Union was primary part of the Axis. But this is not my purpose. Manny people in West Europe and USA think about East European people like screamers which want to make away western thinking about the war. On the other side people in East Europe thinking that West Europe with it's version of history want to legitimize "betrayal" or it's interests wit Russia. I think we both don't have right. War is a war and it has it's own rules. Let's talk about the history and don't scream on each other. Tlumaczek 06:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I didn't claim you were a screamer. The Soviet Union acted in concert with the Axis but was not a member of the alliance. I really have no idea what your point in the above statement is, but I do concur that Western Europe failed to ensure the safety or freedom of Eastern Europeans from the 1930s onward. Of course, when you look at how effectively France and Britain were able to oppose the German blitzkrieg, it seems that they wouldn't have been very effective in keeping any part of Eastern Europe secure. --Habap 14:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

i have many books with the USSR on the axis side until germany attacked them. even my mom says so. Willgfass

Finland

I suggest changes in the caption concerning the war in Finland 1944. It is now in contradiction with several other articles in Wikipedia. - Wehrmacht troops did not leave the southern coast of Gulf of Finland before late autumn 1944, when armistice had alreadhy been made. Therefore the mention of the Finnish army's unteable situation is plain wrong. See "Tali-Ihantala" in Wikipedia.

jukka.kemppinen@kolumbus.fi

Why isn't Winter war listed in 1939 battle theatres? I would add it myself, but since being a beginner, I didn't figure out how to do it. Latre

The retreat cut the ground link with the Finns. This indeed is correct, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica. Drogo Underburrow 09:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

According to books written specifically on Siege of Leningrad, German operations in Batlic states and Finnish operations in the Continuation War, Finns and Germans never established ground link. (F.ex. Platonov:"Bitva za Leningrad", Maanpuolustuskorkeakoulu:"Jatkosodan historia 1-6", Glantz:"The Battle for Leningrad") --Whiskey 10:53, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I only read English. However, I won't argue, since the WWII article is only a pointer to main articles on the Finnish war, so if you don't want the link mentioned, I won't insist. Drogo Underburrow 11:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, (and I do believe I'm correct here, but don't have any source at hand), the sieged Leningrad always had access to Lake Ladoga (that's how they got some supplies in), and that would exclude any contact on land between German and Finnish troops. Where exactly are they supposed to have had contact, or a "ground link"? Shanes 12:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Was Finland an ally of Germany? Talous 20:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Technologies

On a related note does anyone else think that the Technologies section has gotten way too large. I would recommend reducing this to a single paragraph and spinning the rest off into a separate article. DJ Clayworth 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I second that motion....I've been thinking the same thing, but have not acted for fear that it would be objected to. Drogo Underburrow 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well Ithink it is to small and focus way to much on western and nazi developments. Also one could asume from reading it that the panther tank was the same as the IS-3 tank when i reality the IS-3 was extremly many times better and not to mention the T-44 was also many times better in everything, speed, fire power, protection, cost, endurance and so on and so forth. (Deng 21:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC))
Not wanting to get involvolved in this discussion, I nevertheless could not resist the temptation to point to this article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4443934.stm Stor stark7 21:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki on Horten Ho 229

and also: EMW C2 Wasserfall, BV 246 "Hagelkorn, Ruhrstahl/Kramer X-4, Horten HO 229, Amerika Bomber, Stor stark7 09:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you deleted to much Drogo in the technologies section, because now there is no mention of Soviet develpoment and in the linking article Technology during World War II very little, almost nothing is mentioned about Soviet technologies. (Deng 19:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC))

Date of Entry of USSR

It is not disputed that the USSR invaded Poland in 1939. However, the Allies did not declare war on the USSR. Therefore, it is wrong to say that "The war began with Germany and then the Soviet Union invading Poland in September, 1939" as the Soviet Union was not at war. Please stop changing the introduction on this point. Include whatever you want to say on this issue in the 1939 Chronology section that deals with the invasion of Poland. Drogo Underburrow 08:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The Finland did not declare war on the United Kingdom and other Alies nevertheless we call it one of the Axis Powers. The Soviet Union invaded Poland, one of The Alies but did not declare war on the others. Therefore I think we must aslo call it one of The Axis. Regardless it is consistent with your opinion or not. --80.55.201.194 12:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Union never did declare war to Finland at November 30, 1939. In fact, Soviet diplomats and Molotov went to great lengths to explain how there is no war between Soviet Union and Finland and pictures in papers how Soviet leadership and 'Government of Finland' signed several treaties and agreements. --Whiskey 13:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Finland is never called an Axis power in this article. Technically, the Soviet Union never went to war against Poland. Polish troops fought on the Soviet side later in the war, and the area of Poland invaded by the Soviet Union was no longer Polish after the war. No sources I know of say that the USSR was ever an Axis power, so we cannot say it in the article. Drogo Underburrow 12:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The Soviet Union never went to war against Poland because the area of Poland invaded by the Soviet Union was no longer Polish after the war. So if the whole area of Europe where now german we will say that there was no war in Europe? Only a part of polish troops fought on Soviet side. The communist government was never accepted by Poles. The Soviets were allies of necessity (Churchil said "If Hitler attacked hell, I would gladly make a deal with the devil"). Many polish and other sources I know say that the USSR was primary an Axis power. It was convenient for the wes european goverments and historian to not call Soviet Union one of the Axis but we can discuss about it without any particular business. The Wikipedia is so goog source because people discuss about that what they think. About the Finland: It's not called an Axis power in this article but in "The Axis" it is. 80.55.201.194 13:03, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
The war did, in fact, begin with both Germany and the Soviet Union attacking Poland. That the Soviets didn't fight again in Europe until the Germans attacked them is immaterial to whether they invaded Poland. The average person reading the introduction would either wonder why we left the Soviets out or get the impression that the Soviets didn't invade (even if we include that as one of the "minor details" in the body of the article). --Habap 14:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
You can't skip the massive murders of Polish troops and civilians in 1939-41 that followed the invasion. Even worse, during the following five decades of Russian occupation, anyone who even dared to mention this was prosecuted or more often, disappeared without a trace. In all of the propaganda of the time this was said to be a "time of peace"; the soviets claimed that they didn't enter the war until 1941. "We're not at war with Eurasia"? KiloByte 20:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Axis or German?

SuperDeng likes to replace Germany to Axis at numerous places. I do't think it is a good idea. F.ex. at 1944 Eastern front: There was no units from other countries in Baltic during retreat to Narwa-line. Army Group Center was German formation, not some co-operative of different countries. As Germans provided the bulk of the armies at Ukraine and Bug river, I'd prefer to use Germans instead of axis. Of course, if Romanians did something themselves, then they should addressed so.--Whiskey 09:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

There were always elemts of axis allies in every army untill ofcurse each specific axis member was forced to surrender, also the invasion of the Soviet Union was by the axis not only germany some 1 million axis allies were included in the invasion in june 1941 (Deng 11:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC))
Deng, please tell me for example how many units of other axis nations belong to the German 16. and 18. Armies of Army Group North? (Correct answer: None) So: Your claim is false. --Whiskey 13:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Compromise...lets leave "Axis" in describing the main invasion, but not in the other two cases. It was Germans who assaulted Moscow, and Germans who badly underestimated Soviet forces. Drogo Underburrow 12:02, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Well ok but it was ofcurse axis who assulted moscow but I wont touch it (Deng 15:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC))

Mention of Countries other than the Major Powers

Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September, with Canada declaring war a week later on 10 September, but otherwise dishonored their treaties with Poland by failing to provide Poland with military assistance. - from the article.

I am going to delete the addition of the part in boldface, for two reasons. First, it doesn't fit the sentence and I don't feel like fixing it. I think that if an editor is going to add material to the article, he or she should take the time to make sure it fits into the sentence he or she is adding it to. That is not the case here. Secondly, is the date of entry of Canada to the war important enough to rate inclusion in the article? If so, where does the inclusion of countries stop? Are we going to list the date of entry of ALL countries that fought in the war? That would be a long list. One could argue that Canada made a large contribution to the war effort and rates mention. Ok, fine; but then the next country that made close to Canada's contribution deserves a mention, and so on until we end up having to mention them all again. So I'm going to delete it on the grounds that we only mention entry of the major powers in the article, and leave it to someone else to define a new rule for inclusion if they don't like mine. Drogo Underburrow 03:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Justly. I usually disagree with You but now I calcine your decision. Important in this sentence is that Britain and France declared war on Germany right after german attack on Poland. When another countries did it this is the next thing. Tlumaczek 07:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree. Mentioning Canada would mean mentioning all the other countries and then the sentence becomes unwieldy. We have to realise that in an article of limited length we can't mention every participating country in everything. DJ Clayworth 17:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

War Crimes and Attacks on Civilians

This section has grown as editors keep adding things here instead of on the pages devoted to this topic. I propose a drastic cut as the only way to get things under control. All material here will be moved to other pages, and a single paragraph will be put in its place mentioning the War crime trials, and a few brief sentences to talk about the links to other major WWII atrocity pages. Sound good? After this change, the article will go from 77k to 73k. Drogo Underburrow 07:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


If the only reason is the growing length, we should concentrate on numbers, not on full sentences. Furthermore we should mention omly high number crimes (e.g. 40000 min.) To simply cut it would be wrong as most of these war crimes directly belong to WW2. So I suggest to summarize like e.g. Eastern Front.--Number 17 18:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Its more than that. Editors are using this page to start material, not putting it on the main pages. I suggest we keep it to links only, so that the other pages will develop, and then we can summarise them. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Droge, could you please help me on the article Red Army atrocities. I have the feeling it is grammatically poor.--Number 17 11:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll take a look and fix any grammar errors. In the future, you can message me directly by using my talk page. Drogo Underburrow 11:39, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Aftermath; European Union

I suggest to lift out the references to the EU found in the UN subsection and making it into a subsection of itself. My proposal is below. I really do not understand why the EU is mentioned in the United Nations subsection, the EU article mentions no involvement of the UN in its creation.

P.S. 1:

The UN subsection probably would need a disambiguition between The Allies and The United Nations. It really confused me a while back when I was reading some WW2 letters. The Allies called themselves the UN during the war. The term Allies seems to be a mothern invention?!?. Se this paragraph from the history of the UN section:
The term "United Nations" was coined by Winston Churchill during World War II, to refer to the Allies (see History of the United Nations). Its first formal use was in the January 1, 1942 Declaration by the United Nations, which committed the Allies to the principles of the Atlantic Charter and pledged them not to seek a separate peace with the Axis powers. Thereafter, the Allies used the term "United Nations Fighting Forces" to refer to their alliance.

P.S. 2:

This paper made a lot of sence as to the importance of the iron and coal fields of western germany for the war(s)

France, Germany and the Struggle for the War-making Natural Resources of the Rhineland

A New Europe

Main article: History of the European Union

The European Union grew out of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), which was founded in 1951, by the six founding members: Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg (the Benelux countries) and West Germany, France and Italy. Its purpose was to pool the steel and coal resources of the member states, thus preventing another European war.

The EU has evolved from a trade body into an economic and political partnership. Stor stark7 16:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what the connection is to WWII. Rather than create a new section, delete the material entirely. In fact, I almost did that a few days ago, but didn't simply cause it would have made the UN section almost empty. Not a good reason to keep something, I know. Drogo Underburrow 17:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I guess the coal and steel union might have at least a tennous connection to WW2. The connection between it and the EU is not straightforward however. Anyway I won't complain if that section is removed. Maybe if someone later comes along with some expertice in the area it can be reinstaded. Stor stark7 18:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Removal of mention of Dieppe, and Lidice

Someone put in a long section on Stalingrad, while deleting entirely the entries on the Dieppe Raid and the assasination of Reinhard Heydrich. I think that deleting very short, pithy entries that are in appropriate places and most importantly link to substantial main articles is wrong. The one on Dieppe could have been condensed a bit, but I don't see entirely eliminating it. The one on Heydrich was barely one or two sentences which linked to two major articles, including the one on the Lidice Massacre. Any thoughts? Drogo Underburrow 17:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalingrad

Someone recently expanded this into four substantial paragraphs. This is exactly the type of material I feel the WWII page does not need. The material is not a summary intended to link to a main article, its an exposition on a topic in itself. Furthermore, its not even directly about Stalingrad, but like a book starts with the strategic origins of the battle and discusses the entry of the US to the war. This is going way off topic. This is fine for a main article, but completely out of place here. I think this entry should be reverted entirely. While the original material on Stalingrad was inadequate, this is worse. Drogo Underburrow 17:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. This section is at least twice as long as it should be, and even in that reduced length it should be covering all of the Eastern Front action for that period and not just Stalingrad. DJ Clayworth 17:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question about Main Article Sub-headings

Where should the Main article listing be posted?

Under the Year headings

like this

1939: War breaks out in Europe

Main articles: Munich Agreement, Polish September Campaign, Russo-Finnish War, Second Battle of the Atlantic, and Phony War


or

for example you look here

Europe

The invasion of Denmark and Norway
Main article: Norwegian Campaign


In the 1939 Section, the main articles are posted under the 1939 Heading, where as in the 1940 Section, the main articles are posted not under the 1940 Section but under the various sub-headings.

This format needs to be corrected before this article is ready for Featured Article.

Its the latter, just like you did in the article. Good job :-) -- Drogo Underburrow 09:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Life photo

Good job adding the Life magazine photo, and the section on Italy, and all the new stuff. The page is looking better and better, and the size is still 6 or 7k less than it used to be. :-) -- Drogo Underburrow 14:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hehe. Thanks. I was bored so I decided to spend a couple of hours fixing up this article. I added the photos and they go together with the sub-sections. I think this article is almost done. Just a few more touch-ups, little article clean up. And its done. -- Mercenary2k 11:43 AM, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1944 East Asia and the Pacific is left to be fixed

There is some info missing in regards to the Japanese offensive in India and the battle in Burma.

Also this section is very list heavy.

I am gonna change it to a paragraph style format.

I think this is the only major thing left on this article

-- Mercenary2k 11:46 AM, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This Article is done

I think this article is done.

I fixed this part 1944 East Asia and the Pacific

If anyone has a better way of conveying the info, then go ahead.

I added all the important pictures, fixed up a couple of articles, added a couple of new ones.

It could require clean up, such as grammer, spelling, etc... which require a fresh set of eyes.

But anyways, this article is done.

Ciao for now

-- Mercenary2k 11:46 AM, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

Two points: Firstly there are far too many images in this article, evry paragraph has an accompanying photo or map. It's unnecessary, all that kind of detail can be had in the relevant main article. I know this has been brought up before but it hasn't been addressed. Secondly, the images appear to be forced to 250px size, this over-rides the viewer's preferences and seems unnecessary, unless I'm missing something here. Leithp 15:19, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I was the one who re-sized all images to 250px. The reason I did that was, so that article looks better. Photos with different sizes gives a very jumbled up look to the article. Since all photos are of one size, the article looks clean and redable.

Also, just wondering, why did you remove this image,

German advances during Operation Barbarossa from June 1941 to December 1941.
German advances during Operation Barbarossa from June 1941 to December 1941.

Its a pretty important image in my opinion conveying the advance of german forces during barbarossa.

Thanks

Mercenary2k

I removed the map because that section had too many images and was overflowing into following sections. I agree that it's a good map though, so perhaps removing one of the photos might have been better. My thought was that campaign specific maps can be got from the relevant article and general maps are more appropriate here though. As far as image sizing goes, my understanding is that by using |thumb| the images always go to a size determined by the reader's preferences, so there isn't a need to size them individually. Leithp 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought giving every section a photo was nice. It does require follow up, as changing the article requires changing the photos. Drogo Underburrow 15:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

MAPS: I have to tell you that these maps (the ones where we can see military operations) are quite silly ones with country border drawings that had never been existed. For example, during the war, there was nothing called Czechoslovakia and the borderline of Hungary is quite strange there too. In such an article like this they are really big errors, I think. (84.0.147.141 12:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

Czechoslovakia was formed after the previous war in 1918. In the map above I do notice a an odd spelling of Romania though. Rmhermen 20:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I do know when Czechoslovakia was formed but I guess you know that in 1939 Bohemia was annexed to Germany and a puppet Slovakia was created. Still, the main problem is that this map-scheme -used many times in this article- simply not correct and misleading, etc. (84.2.168.57 07:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC))

Bismarck

scuttled at sea on May 24 after having been crippled by an unlucky aerial torpedo hit

This is an idiomatic expression, not a POV statement of luck. It describes that the hit was one that was of a freak nature, not normal. The Bismarck was hit in the rudder. That alone is highly improbable, for a warship to get hit in the rudder. But to make it even more a freak occurrance, the hit occured when the rudder was hard over, as the Bismarck was turning to avoid torpedos. The hit jammed the rudder in the hard over position, and that was fatal to the entire ship. Had it been hit in the rudder while the rudder was straight, the ship could still turn by using its engines alone. But with the rudder kicked hard over, the ship was doomed to sail in a circle, no amount of engine differential could compensate. Now, how do you want to communicate this briefly? By saying it suffered a lucky or (unlucky) hit. This is not about POV, or from whose point of view the luck is. Its an idiomatic expression, not a literal one. Technically, its unlucky from the Bismarck's point of view, since the sentence is describing the ship. Had the sentence been refering to the aircraft firing the torpedo, it would properly be called a "lucky" hit. Would you prefer it being called a "lucky" hit? That's fine with me. Drogo Underburrow 15:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Featured Article voting page

People are complaining about the size and detail of the table of contents. They don't seem to realise that the table makes it easy to go directly to whatever section of the war one is interested in. Once at that section, its easy to find the link to the main article....the purpose of this page. People are treating this article in isolation from the rest of Wikipedia as if its designed to stand alone. Drogo Underburrow 09:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Largest and deadliest war in history

That WWII was the largest and deadliest war in history is a fact. Therefore, we should say so in the introduction, without qualifiers like "It is widely considered". -- Drogo Underburrow 02:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the main reason that verbiage was there was for reasons of prose style. The first paragraph now feels very clunky. I am tempted to move the phrase down to the casualties paragraph, but then that would leave the first paragraph rather barren. Redquark 02:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
It is beyond me how adding a useless qualifier to a simple sentence improves prose style. - Drogo Underburrow 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

What more needs to be done

Before this article had many sub-headers, a choice which I agreed with due to the complex nature of the war and each battle and offensive getting its due.

But on the recent commnets in the FAC, other editors removed all the sub-headers. This made the article very confusing to read through. I have decided to seperate the article based on European and Pacific theatre. All battles that took place in Wester/Eastern Europe, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Africa are all now in European theatre. All battles that took place in Central Pacific, South-West Pacific, South East Asia, and Far East are now in Pacific theatre. Bascially all battles with Germany are in European, all battles with Japan are in Pacific. I think this is the best way to satisfy all parties and keeping the article in good shape.

Also, the main articles links needs to be added. There were a few missing and I tried filling those up. But more needs to be done on that part.

Mercenary2k

UK and Commonwealth

The UK was a part of the British Commonwealth during WWII. Therefore, it is redundant to list "UK and Commonwealth" in the article. It is like saying "California and the United States". Drogo Underburrow 17:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Order of countries in the infobox

The order I recommend is chronological order of entry to the war. This eliminates POV problems of trying to decide which country is "more important" than the others and to be listed first. -- Drogo Underburrow 19:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

If there is a chronological order, shouldn't the bombing of Pearl Harbor be mention before US entry into the war. Just my thought. --Jbaxi 18:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

World War II documents

Hello Everyone,

I run a large internet archive of government documents, and have just expanded the World War II section by thousands of pages. I am very concerned to link to these documents, or write about them, in fear of it considered as Spam.

I talked with one of the administrators on Wikipedia, and they suggested I use the talk page to see if others would find it a useful resource.

You can see the documents here:

http://www.bvalphaserver.com/content-10.html

I hope this may be of interest, and may be considered to be added as a link/resource on the World War II page. What do you think?

--Blackvault 22:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure, its cool with me. Mercenary2k 12:04 AM april 19 2006
Me, too. kevin_b 3:11 PM April 24 2006

Add Smithsonian Education link?

Hello! I am a writer for the Smithsonian Institution's Center for Education and Museum Studies, which publishes Smithsonian in Your Classroom, a magazine for teachers. An online version of an issue titled "Letters from the Japanese American Internment" is available for free at this address:

http://www.smithsonianeducation.org/educators/lesson_plans/japanese_internment/index.html

The issue tells the story of San Diego librarian Clara Breed and her correspondence with young San Diegans sent to the internment camp at Poston, Arizona. In lesson plans, students compare letters from internees. They consider the prismatic nature of the historic record and the value of primary sources in understanding history.

If you think your audience would find this valuable, I wish to invite you to include it as an external link. We would be most grateful.

Thank you so much for your attention.

That would probably be more appropriate on the Japanese Internment page rather than this one. Thanks for the offer though. Lisiate 21:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Images

It seems like this article has an excessive number of imaes. At least 5 of them could probably go. Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions as to which ones should go? --Hetar 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The images look good. Why mess with it? Drogo Underburrow 22:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --[user:kevin_b]
There's an image in the 'Aftermath' section that says it is a map of the occupation zones but is a photo of a modern British tank. If I follow the link it goes to the map. I can't work out what's happening. Would someone else like to take a look? DJ Clayworth 13:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I see a map of the occupation zone. Maybe it's a problem at your end, have you tried clearing the cache of your browser? Leithp 13:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What more needs to be done with this article

Ok Guys,

So far things look good.

But, we still need to fix up the Pacific War theatre.

We only have a passing refernce to the Sino-Japanese War, 60% of all Japanese forces were tied up in China, so we need to expand upon that and like some of the paragraphs to the Sino-Japanese battles...

I am gonna start on it.

But I could use your help

Mercenary2k April 22, 2006, 10:06 PM

Ok, I did my self. I added info about the Sino-Japanese war and all the missing links are complete on this article. Mercenary2k April 23, 2006, 1:58 AM
60% were did you get that from and during what time frame is that? (Deng 16:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC))

Semiprotecting

The amount of IP vandalism is getting ridiculous. I have semiprotected for a breathing-space. Bishonen | talk 18:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Ah, yes, one can always vandalize the talkpage

Apparently one throwaway IP, 70.171.217.201, was so upset to find the article s-protected that s/he blanked the talkpage instead. Please help revert talkpage vandalism, folks, so we don't have to s-protect that as well. Bishonen | talk 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC).

Battle of Rostov Image too dark

I find it hard to tell the differences between the colours on my monitor. I used GIMP to darken the image, and uploaded it. Anyone who has better image editting ability than me, feel free to step in. New version is here; [1]

Shite. Just noticed there are loads of images based of the same map that are too bright. I'm gonna try and contact the author instead of changing all these pictures. This was probably a mistake. Sorry! I'll leave my altered image on this page for the time being in the hopes of gathering opinion. --CalPaterson 11:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Intro wording

Germany betrayed and invaded its partner, the Soviet Union, forcing the Soviets into the Allied camp

I think that sentance makes it seem as if the Soviets were not preparing for war with Hitler. Myciconia 09:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Who says they were? -- Drogo Underburrow 14:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Russian historians for starters! Wikipedia mentions directly Viktor Suvorov, Mikhail Meltyukhov (Stalin's Missed Chance), Edvard Radzinsky. The USSR was obviously in a massive military build up, and Mein Kampf outlines Hitlers goal to destroy bolshevism and make a slave state out of the east. I believe Stalin claimed the invasion was necessary to create a buffer zone, although that is part propoganda, it does make strategic sense. Hitler could secure the eastern boarder until western europe was conquered, and Stalin could let the capitialists fight it out while the soviets built up their forces. Myciconia 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Preparing for war? Armies are always preparing for war. The U.S. has plans for invading lots of other countries; but that doesn't mean the United States has decided to go to war. I'm sure the Soviets had plans to invade Germany; but that doesn't mean Stalin intended to carry out those plans. Plans are contingent. Plans mean nothing. Now if you say that Stalin intended to go to war, there's no proof of that. Drogo Underburrow 02:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what the above comment refers to. Myciconia 03:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
The existence of invasion plans doesnt mean that the Soviets were preparing for war with Hitler. As an example, the U.S. drew up War Plan Red against the possibility of war with Canada, at the same time maintaining a large army. You can't put those two facts together and say that the U.S. was actively preparing for war with its northern neighbor, though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 21:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I am sure Stalin had plans to invade Germany! But what does that have to do with the wording of the sentance at the top? Myciconia 19:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I erased my own post after informing myself more. --A Sunshade Lust

Broken references

The links in the references section appear to be somewhat messed up. There are two completely different "war8" notes and the notes "war", "war2", "war3", "war4", "war6" and "war7" aren't actually referenced from anywhere in the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the material they were referencing has been moved off into one of the sub-articles, I've seen that happen on other large articles, but I'm not up to the size of the sleuthing mission an article group this big and complicated would entail to find them right now. Does anyone know offhand where these references belong? Bryan 07:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Reason for Democratization of Japan

The article reads "the United States's military occupation of Japan led to Japan's democratization.". I believe this should be changed as it suggests that if the U.S. had not occupied Japan for the two years in between the surrender and the adoption of the consitution, Japan would not have a constitution as it has. I really can't say this is true in any way, as even during WWII the Japanese people were not exactly supportive of their government and would of most likely made a government as they have now, if they had the chance. With the defeat of Japan, it was to be expected that a more democratic government would take place, and it has.

If anyone knows how the sentence should be replaced, go ahead, as I'm not sure we can write in just one sentence the reason why Japan became as it is. I have to leave and will do the change myself when I get back, unless someone has a valid reason to disagree or unless it was changed properly. --A Sunshade Lust 17:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the sentence suggests that, although I think it is highly unlikely Japan would have the constitution it has now without the occupation. Japan was in a very perilous position when occupied, as one would expect, and without the occupation and the efforts of MacCarthur (a man of whom I am NOT a fan) among others, Japan would likely be a very different place today. Perhaps other factors in other circumstances could have led to a modern Japan similar to what we see today, but togo down the road of that type of speculation is endless. The fact remains, for good or bad, it was the occupation that led to Japan's modern form.
It is wrong however to say "the United States's military occupation of Japan". As the wikipedia article on Occupied Japan says, the Allied powers occupied Japan, with the United States military taking the leading role.
I guess you could say something like "Following the Allied occupation, the modern, democratic Japan emerged." Although I actually think my sentence is worse. aussietiger 15:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I edited it to "the defeat of Japan led to it's democratization" from "the United States's military occupation of Japan led to Japan's democratization". Is this ok'ay? I was going to change it to "the Allied occupation of Japan led to it's democratization" but I figured it was the defeat, more than the occupation that gave way to modern Japan. --A Sunshade Lust 04:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

First land defeat for Japan

I have just a small correction perhaps. The first defeat for the Japanese army occured at Milne Bay in PNG, not on the Kokoda track. Although it isn't clear if the article is talking about defeat in a battle or a campaign (how do you classify each anyway?). I guess that some one may well come up with an earlier, more obscure defeat possibly, but Milne Bay is regerded as the first defeat as far as I know.

Geographic Bias

I'm going to put up the Limited geographic scope template in order to encourage editors to give this article a larger scope. Looking at the pictures, for example, there are 21 Axis, 5 Russian, 2 Chinese and 21 US/British. There are several images of resistance fighters, however they are all European. The text follows a US textbook interpretation. I think we should take a middle ground, taking into account the differing views of history, in China, Japan, and Russia, for example. Myciconia|Talk 02:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree in that the tag is needed. The article isn't that bad. But feel free to remove stuff and images if you think the scenarios covered in proportion are too west-centered. The article is already way too long and should be shorter, not longer. If you can shave off 10k, I'll welcome that. Shanes 21:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will begin removing images tommorow. There are many sections of commentary that can be shaved off, which I will get to work on as well. Please state your comments and suggestions! Lets make this a collaborative effort. If there are any serious objections, feel free to put the template back in place. We can always discuss how to best go about solving the issue. Myciconia 23:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Great! Deleting stuff is often harder than adding new things, especially in an article like this where people differ in opinion on what should be mentioned and with how much. Everyone has grown up learning about the war from their nation's perspective, and it tends to make people overestimate its importance compared to other nations WW2-history.
About what to cut, and with the above said, IMO the "Home Fronts" section near the end can be trimmed down abit. Though this is also a section that is lacking any mention of home fronts outside America, UK and Germany. So maybe make what is there shortened to half its size and add stuff about the missing countries from what is already in the sub-article Home front during World War II, although that article is lacking completely in information about the home front in Japan. I further think the article has too much about aftermath and stuff that isn't directly about the war. What is there in the aftermath section is of course all important events, but this being an article about the war we can cut down on a lot and leave most of it to the sub-article, Effects of World War II. I also find the lead section a bit too long for my liking, we are trying to put in too much detail there instead of just giving a very broad overview. In my opinion. Shanes 23:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely. Also perhaps the introduction should be cut down? I don't see the relevence for such a large summary of a summary. Myciconia 08:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, when I said "The lead section" I meant the introduction (everything before table of content). "Lead" and "introduction" are both names used for the start of an article I believe (at least by me ;-)). Shanes 13:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Images I think we should consider for removal from the main article (as per above) are:

Myciconia 08:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

No objections here. If I should pick one of those to keep it would be the Image:Eastern Front 1945-01 to 1945-05.png, as I think maps like that is a good complement to the text. Shanes 13:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing reference style to use Cite.php?

Due to the size of this article (and the lost references issues, mentioned above), I'm asking about changing the references in this article to the <ref> Cite.php form before going into the large amount of work it will take to do this change-over. I don't want to put in all this work only to have the established editors of the page decide they don't want to use Cite.php. I am entirly willing to do the change-over, but not without some conformation, or at least the absense of objection. Please speak up. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I like cite.php and I'm for a change (unless someone comes up with reasons for why it's not a good idea in this article). About converting, there's a script that is supposed to be able to make this conversion and save people from that boring manual task, User:Cyde/Ref converter. I've not tried it myself, so I don't know how well it works, but it could be worth trying first. Shanes 06:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

world map

I had tried to make an animated world map of world war 2 month by month after suggestions to expand my previous version at a failed FPC. However the result is 1.7MB and seems to not work as a thumbnail or on regular view, but the high resolution works --Astrokey44 00:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

nice job on the map. It looked like a lot of redundant work.

Instead of a global map, maybe you should just concentrate on regions like Europe and Pacific. You can zoom in, show more detail, and the maps will look better.

just a thought --Mercenary2k 7:15 AM May 27, 2006

thanks yes it would be good to focus on those regions, although I wanted a general world overview because battles such as Battle of Madagascar are often left out of ww2 maps. Its a shame that some of the details are too small, because I tried to get things like Saipan in there (changing color). The world at war tv series that is mentioned below is awesome, i watched almost all of it before doing this, (a couple ww2 atlases were useful too) --Astrokey44 16:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch version of World War II page

Hi Guys, check out the Dutch Wikipedia Article on World War II

Many of you have said that the article is too much sub-divided. Take a look at this article. If you have Internet Explorer, right click on the page and click translate. It will translate to English.

Maybe we can use some of the ideas on the Dutch Wikipedia Article on World War II to improve this one.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zweiter_Weltkrieg

Just a thought

--Mercenary2k 3:47 AM May 26th, 2006

Hi. This is the Dutch one. http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tweede_Wereldoorlog Wallie 11:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I personally like the English version better then either of these. However my input regarding the English version...
  • The timeline is really good. It covers major events in a very few words.
  • The aftermath section is too big. Could be moved elsewhere and summarized/summarised.
  • The holocaust should be covered in the Timelime. This is as significant as say the Pacific Naval battles and the major Soviet battles, which are covered in depth, as they should be. Wallie 11:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The holocoust was a significant event, but was it a part of world war II? I agree with you about the aftermath section being too big, though. Shanes 13:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Shane. Yes. I do think the holocaust is an integral part of WW2. Naturally, there are many other important parts too.
Here is a list of the episodes covered in the World at War docuentary by Thames Television in the UK. The topic has one episode, called "Genocide" which I seem to remember was longer than the others. The series may be slightly weighted towards Britain, but it does cover all the main points. This is the list from the Wikipedia article:
  1. A New Germany (1933–1939)
  2. Distant War (September 1939–May 1940)
  3. France Falls (May–June 1940)
  4. Alone in Britain (May 1940–May 1941)
  5. Barbarossa (June–December 1941)
  6. Banzai: Japan Strikes (1931–1942)
  7. On our Way: America Enters the War (1939–1942)
  8. Desert: The War in North Africa (1940–1943)
  9. Stalingrad (June 1942–February 1943)
  10. Wolfpack: U-Boats in the North Atlantic (1939–1943)
  11. Red Star: The Soviet Union (1941–1943)
  12. Whirlwind: Bombing Germany (September 1939–April 1944)
  13. Tough Old Gut: Italy
  14. It's a lovely day tomorrow: Burma (1942–1943)
  15. Home Fires: Britain (1940–1944)
  16. Inside the Reich: Germany (1940–1944)
  17. Morning: Normandy Invasion (June–August 1944)
  18. Occupation: Holland (1940–1944)
  19. Pincers (August 1944–March 1945)
  20. Genocide (1941–1945)
  21. Nemesis (February–May 1945)
  22. Japan (1941–1945)
  23. Pacific - The Island to Island War (February 1942–July 1945)
  24. The Atomic Bomb (February–September 1945)
  25. Reckoning (April 1945)
  26. Remember

Wallie 14:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why the Dutch and German version both use maps with Iceland in the wrong position? Our Nazi Germany article uses a similar map. This article has several maps of the Eastern front but neglects the Western Front. Rmhermen 16:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not think that Iceland is in the wrong position, I think it is because there is alot of curvature at the top of the map that it is shown further east than it might be in a flater projection, if thats what you mean --Astrokey44 11:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Canada

Canada is not a major particpant in the allied side. Reasons:

  1. It took virtually no part in most sectors, involvement mainly confined to France.
  2. If it took a major role, Canada would be on the Security Council as a victor. It is not.
  3. If you bring in Canada, what about India and Australia? They are probably more important than Canada, as they fought in Africa, Italy and in the Pacific as well as where Canada fought.

Wallie 11:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they were, they were one of the earliest to join the allies. In fact, if you were to remove Canada, you should probably remove the United States because they were less involved in the war than Canada. --Deathphoenix ʕ 12:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Australia joined before Canada. India and Australia were also both involved more in the War than Canada. But that doesn't mean they are major participants either. Wallie 15:03, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to remove reference to Canada as a main contributor. Canada had the 3rd largest navy at the time, had a successful army, and was a main training gound for the RAF. This has all been argued here before. Myciconia 18:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
This is really getting quite silly. England was the main training ground for the RAF. And quite frankly, and this is highly POV, Canada was successful as like some others, they avoided the nasty battles, like New Guinea, Singapore, Crete, Cassino and the early Desert battles, and concentrated on the easy ones, where victory was assured. Canada being selected from inclusion in the "major particpants" is more than POV. It is bias. I don't know of any serious WW2 historian who would put Canada's importance ahead of say, India. Wallie 19:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
That's hardly fair or accurate, Canada's role in the Dieppe Raid, the Battle of the Atlantic and the Normandy landings was pivotal in the Western Allies eventual success. To suggest that they "concentrated on the easy ones" is at best disengenuous at worst completely disrespectful of a country that contributed more than its fair share to the war effort. To get back to the point of this thread, then I don't see why Canada shouldn't be listed as a major participant, or Australia for that matter. A general listing for the Commonwealth would cover Britain, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, NZ etc but I think that the political separation that has happened in the intervening years would make that seem slightly odd. Leithp 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes Canada contributed to the allies success. They were lucky (or maybe have better soldiers). Unfortunately, the other countries you mention contributed to their defeats. The bottom line is that the major participants are the five members of the security council. Canada is not. If you bring in Canada, then you may have to include the 4 others you mention too. South Africa's role is definitely understated. Perhaps they show more humility than some. Wallie 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, at the very least, Australia and Canada should be included. --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
O. And what about India (includes the now Pakistan) and New Zealand? India contributed 3 times as many soliders as Canada, and was the major participant in Burma. India all took part in all of the major battles in North Africa including El Alamein, the Sudan, and Italy, including Cassino. India lost 85,000 men, far more than Canada. Indian pilots were in Bomber Command and in the Battle of Britain, and 40,000 Merchantmen bravely took part in the North Atlanic convoy system. New Zealand was the staging post for American soliders in the Pacific, with 400,000 Americans stationed and trained there, especially for Guadal Canal. This is a far larger operation than Canada's RAF training efforts. Also, NZ was the main allied partipant in Crete, and was olvolved in Cassino, plus 50 percent of the credit (HMNZS Achilles) in sinking the Graf Spee. This is all about marketing. These countries just do their jobs quietly, and do not oversell themselves. Wallie 07:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
The Main allied Combatatants were USA, UK and USSR. Canada, New Zealand, Australia, these were all part of the British Commenwealth forces and thus are lumped with UK. Mercenary2k June 5, 2006 8:15AM (UTC)
Wallie is right about one thing. We've had this discussion many times over the last few years, and overwhelmingly we've had to come to the conclusion that there are two levels of 'Allies'. One of the big five, who got UN security council seats, and everyone else. Not to say that this is the only solution, but every other attempt to find a different list of 'major participants' has fallen apart with people saying "if you include X then you ought to include Y", causing the list to grow without limit. I've gone and removed Canada from the infobox list of participants, adding a Commonwealth countries entry.
Wallie is however completely wrong to disparage Canada's contributions. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India all played vital roles, proportional to their size. In a lot of cases they worked out of the limelight. If you are in any doubt I suggest reading the appropriate article, or better yet a military history of Canada. DJ Clayworth 18:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry if I came across as disparaging Canada's efforts. That was not my intention. I was probably getting a little carried away. I was also reacting to the media hype rather than what the Canadian soldiers themselves would say. I am also well aware of Canadian military history, which included earlier contests with the old enemy south of the border. However, as you have done, it is best to keep it to the "big five". Wallie 20:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, just using the Big Five is consistent with history. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

There are a lot of pictures being removed. And it also says in the history that the explanation is on the talk page. I think some of the pictures are important, eg, the victory picture of the sailor kissing the girl from Time-Life. Also, there are too many technical maps. The pictures at the side make it easier to read. Wallie 11:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed this was discussed above. Reasons included size of the article, value of certain images, and geographic bias. Please don't revert without discussion, we left a week for editors to give their opinions. Myciconia 18:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
You are doing this the wrong way around. You are can remove things, but when you say you will discuss it on the talk page, please do so. Where are these discussions? You did mention "Geographical bias" but did not mention where. You removed a picture of the sinking of the Graf Spee, but this was about the only action in South America????? By the way, who is "we"? I am personally not too fussed, but a lot of people have added these photos carefully. Wallie 19:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the pictures should be put back. They enhance the article and gives a nice rhythm to the article. Mercenary2k 1:58AM June 5, 2006 (UTC)

Greece resistance

i am really pissed that people would put french resistance, which was pretty kruddy and not include greek resitance outright when they most likely caused more casualties in the war than the french could ever dream of. Second of all, Greece destroyed a 400 man german army with 16 people and only 11 people died (i think that's the Greek death rate)and i just found out that it doesn't include greek resistance whatsoever on this page.

Well, you know what to do... put it in, but keep it in perspective. I understand the Greeks also "annoyed" the German army in Crete too. Wallie 23:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

making sure i can do that first. thank you Willgfass

I do suggest that you don't go round referring to the French Resistance as 'kruddy' (or cruddy). I would understand if they were a little upset about that. Please also keep anything you write about the Greek Resistance very, very short in this article. It's already way too long. What I would suggest is adding something to Resistance during World War II, or creating a new article and making a link to it from there. Have you looked at Greek Civil War? DJ Clayworth 20:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Lend–Lease

Shouldn't that read "substantial assistance to the U.K., later the Soviet Union, and other countries." David R. Ingham 22:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


Typo

Youve got a typo

"Nine months later, on the June 22, 1941, Germany launched a massive invasion of the Soviet Union, which promptly joined the Allies."

Gumby701 18:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

OK. Well spotted. I always think "the 22 June" and then remember that it should be an American date, i.e. June 22, and forget to remove the "the". It's OK now. Thanks. Wallie 21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should it be in the American format? The US hadn't even entered the war then. Lisiate 22:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Should we use German date form then, as they were in the war all the time? Wallie 21:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)