Talk:World War II/Archive 14

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

GA Collab nom

WW2 has been nominated for the Good Article collaboration. See top. 209.161.227.80 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Info box

How about alphabetizing the countries in the two columns in the info box? Would do away with some bickering about listing by importance. — President Lethe 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This infobox is getting out of hand. Infoboxes are not meant to list every single fact and then prioritize them. Really it should just include a few salient points. The infobox is supposed to be useful to someone who doesn't know a lot about the topic.
Are we supposed to list every single ally? Why list New Zealand and not Belgium or The Netherlands? Or Greece but not Yugoslavia? Should we include Czechoslovakia? It's endless. In my opinion we should just list the participants at Yalta and call it a day.

I don't agree. Infobox looks alright. -- tasc wordsdeeds 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Beijing v Beiping

I've reverted the recent change of Beijing to Beiping. Beijing seems to be the current standard English usage (see e.g. BBC and Guardian newspaper). Beiping redirects to the Beijing article, and we try to avoid linking to re-directs in articles. If and when Beiping becomes the standard transliteration it would be appropriate to change the name here, until then it's likely to cause confusion. (I initially wondered if it was another place altogether). David Underdown 10:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a transliteration problem, the city actually changed its name several times in the first half of the century as its' status changed: "Beijing" = "northern capital", "Beiping" = "northern peace". During the occupation period of course, it wasn't the Chinese capital, that was Nanjing ("southern capital"). -- Arwel (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Singpore

I'm writing this in response to the editor who remove the statement of Singpore being the "greatest defeat in British history". Mainly in response to your edit summary.

First to say you were probably right to remove the phrase, since 'the greatest' is very subjective and hard to back up. However Singpore is a good contender. Your other suggestions have real problems. Hastings was not a British defeat. Harold was English, and there's a good case for saying the William (the winner) and his people were the ancestors of the British. The Somme, for all its bloodiness, is considered a victory. Churchill himself considered Singapore to be one of the worst defeats in British history, and he was at least a decent amateur historian. At the time the loss of Singapore looked very like it might be the final loss of Britain's Far East colonies. Singapore was a centre for naval operations in the Indian Ocean, and it's loss hugely restricted what Britain could do there. It could very well have been the prelude to the loss of India, a catastrophe probably as serious to Britain in 1942 as the loss of the American colonies was in 1776. More to the point, Singapore was in theory a well-defended fortress and was expected to resist a seige for months if not years. So that's what the phrase was trying to convey. DJ Clayworth 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Churchill might have been trying to distract attention away from something else... john k 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

clean-up this discussion page?

i've just added an (i admit) rather too long section to the dialogue on this page & then found several redundant sections covering the same subject from diverse angles... i dont think that anyone's comments should be either deleted or edited (by other ppl), but as we've already got some HUGE archives going of talk on this page, maybe we should consider having some poor b*****d go through & try to group things logically & simplify the topics listing & just generaly sort this thing out, because it rly is a bloody mess atm... i'm not volunteering i'm just saying...  ;) lol, does anybody want to draw straws? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

World War 2 PORTAL or WIKI? and general clean-up & improvements for this article and section/category

What about a portal for world war 2? ww1? the world wars? war/human conflict/conflict in general? lol the possibilities are unlimited, but i do think that with the profusion of material & the importance of the subject we should get a portal going.... if there is one already i cant find a link to it on the article page & if it's there it should be MUCH more visible (or i should go have my vision tested... ) Wikipedia seems to have an overlapping structure of information groupings: portals, categories, indexes, & god knows what other diverse odd stuff on the one hand, & still some shortcomings in indexing/cross referencing & particularly searching on the other. i know this isn't really the place to enter into a full discussion on the subject, the problems & how to fix it all; but the subject & the article do offer a vry good working example, both of the problems & (hopefully) of ways to fix them... i noticed that the article was nominated for "best of wiki" & that it didnt make the cut & i can understand both...

What i'd suggest is:

1. put all the ww2 info together into categories, portals, & whatever else wiki has got for sorting info into categories

2. tidy it all up & make sure everything is cross-referenced & linked @ as many useful points as possible

3. check through related articles for accuracy & consistancy of info, following both wikipedia principles & as much inclusiveness as possible

4. just generally go through the articles & fix up errors & tidy grammar & organization & sort out what parts belong in which articles rather better than it is right now

also the links @ the bottom, both internal to wiki & external need to be better sorted; maybe there should be specific sub-pages for both? ie: a page of pages of wikipedia ww2 links & a page of pages of off-site ww2 links

for that matter, what about a world war 2 wiki? or ww1 & 2? or see above re: portals (lol)

...thats not too much to ask for i hope? i'll just go & find my magic lamp  ;)

this article does have the potential to be "best of wiki" & the subject in general is important enough to deserve some serious attention & improvements on wikipedia; but i ageee that the ww2 subject page is just getting too damn looooooong...

it needs to be cut down with the excess info moved to the relevant subject articles, and what is kept here needs to be improved in many places...

i hope this discussion topic comtributes something useful

...and hope ppl can find it stuck down here on (what is for now) the bottom of this looooong talk page. o, its just me, i know & i'll get an account eventually, i didnt rly plan on getting in this deep just now, i got started on one little thing & you know how it is.... lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)


Thanks for your comments. There is a Portal:War, and there also is a Category:World War II with several sub-categories. Yes, this article is rather long. Since the topic is so huge it's hard to keep it from growing when people add what they think is so important that it should be included here. What to include and what not is a subjective thing where people from all over the world have different oppinions on what is important enough to be in this main article and what should be left out and instead included in the many sub-articles we have on the war. But overall this article isn't that bad, in my oppinion. Shanes 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Enigma machine

This part is heavily biased in my view. The text mentions that the Poles were somehow central in breaking the code. NO mention is made of the main country involved with the Enigma machine, i.e. the Germans. There is no mention of how the machine was invented, how it was used, whose idea it was. All it mentions is how some Pole cracked part of the code. I always think it is easier to break a system than come up with one... Wallie 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the machine itself that is significant here, it's the breaking of it. And for that it's the Poles and the British that were signficant. The Enigma machine article itself should go into more details about its construction.
However having said that while two major incidents in the Enigma saga are mentioned there is no description at all of the the Ultra project, one of the most significant parts of WWII. I think it should get its own (short) section under Technology. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization at the bottom of this talk page

Why are Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Japan, Italy and India not mentioned here? Did you all know that they took part in World War 2? Or so you have to be 1) A victor, 2) have mainly "white" people in your country and 3) be a current "western" power to be included on this list? Another lot of bias, I fear. Wallie 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The categories are actively added by military history task forces for the country in question. I would imagine that there is no Chinese or Russian or Japanese military history task force, and thus that these kind of fall through the cracks. This is the bias of user interests happening to be concentrated in certain areas, not some kind of active bias. john k 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean, the countries above are not mentioned? I agree that the existence of Germany and U.S.S.R in the war (escpecially U.S.S.R) is a bit small. But the contributions of the rest of the countries you've named and not named are too small to be said of anything (no offense). China was in total chaos-a civil war engulfed by the Japanese invasion. Techincally China was fighting Japan, but not much was done to help stop the Japanese. Italy's contribution as an ally to Germany was also very small-the brainwashing effect of Italy's people by Hitler had no effect, and Italy never was interested in war. After Mussolini's death, his military crumbled, doing no good for Germany. India didn't do the actual fighting. India provided mostly artillery support for British troops and medical care, which a lot of smaller nations have done. So, technically, there should be more information on other countries, but I don't agree that its a bias. Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete Re-Design of this Page

One of the most annoying things about this World War II article is that it is split up into many sub-sections which cover all the events but don't flow together.

I suggest we do a better job in grouping the articles. Like instead of going year by year and theatre by theatre, we cover one theatre and move onto the next.

For example, we can cover the whole course of events of North African theatre in one area instead of splitting it up in per year basis.

World_war_I

Also take a look at the world war I article, which is a Featured Article. I think thats how this article needs to be build around.

Here is how I think this article should be split up. All the Information is here, so it will take very little time to get this article re-organized.

German Invasion of Poland and Western Europe (1939 - 1940)

Atlantic Campaign (1939 - 1943)

North African and Mediterranean Campaign (1940 - 1944)

German Invasion of Soviet Union (June 1941 - December 1941)

Sino-Japanese War (1937-1941)

USA and Japan enter the War (December 1941 - June 1942)

Eastern Front (December 1941 - February 1943)

Air Campaign over Germany (1942 - 1945)

South Pacific Campaign (1942 - 1944)

Central Pacific Campaign (1942 - 1944)

South East Asia (1942 - 1945)

Sino-Japanese War (1941 - 1945)

Eastern Front (February 1943 - June 1944)

Italian Campaign (1943 - 1945)

Occupied Europe (1940 - 1944)

Atlantic Campaign (1943 - 1945)

Western Europe (1944 - 1945)

Eastern Front (June 1944 - January 1945)

Occupied Asia (1942 - 1944)

Air Campaign over Japan (1942 - 1945)

Defeat of Japan (1944 - 1945)

Defeat of Germany (1944 - 1945)

Let Me Know.....

Mercenary2k 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

During my time at Wikipedia this page has already been completely redesigned twice. I guarantee that if we redesign it now, someone will suggest another redesign in a year or so. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think a rewrite like the one you suggest deserves consideration. And such a rewrite was actually well underway a year ago here (that page was prod-deleted a while back, but I restored it now since I find it useful to point people to it, not to say that someone might even want to continue that rewrite). Shanes 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this is the best way to present this article. Going year by year, and front by front is just too cumbersome. Covering one section in great detail and moving on to the next is the best way to do this. I need feedback as what is the best way to cover the events, I mean how would u categorize World War II. Feel free to tinker with the list. I want to arrive at an agreed upon list from which we can re-organize the information on this article. All the info is here, all we need is to re-organize it. Mercenary2k 10:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This seems like a good idea to me. Year by year is awkward. john k 10:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not think this is a good idea. In my opinion, a historical account should give the highest priority to the chronological order - almost all history books I've read does this. Remember, this article is (and will always be) a general introduction to the reader, not a complete account. As it is now, I believe it is easy to follow the general flow of the entire war from 1939 to 1945. If we divide it into theater by theater, I sincerely believe the average (non-WW2-knowledgeable) reader will be confused, and will have a hard time to get a grip of how the war evolved. I say, let the subarticles handle the different theatres, and let this article handle the general chronology, year by year. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No history I've ever read is strictly chronological. Most are loosely chronological, but one pretty much always has to go back and forth a bit across time, or else you're a chronicle rather than a history. john k 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think chronology is better, but with some exceptions. Each of the major theatres has its own article, and so do most of the minor ones, which is where the reader can go if they want a description theatre by theater. The exceptions are things like Ultra which dont' relate clearly to the rest of the conflict. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures appearing now on the left

What do people think of this? I am trying to get used to some pictures on the left, and some on the right. What do you others think of this new layout? Wallie 20:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand things, it's recommended that articles have pictures that aren't all on one side because it looks kind of boring, so I tried to change a couple to the left side. However, it took very long to get it to not break all the text, so I stopped midway through :/. Homestarmy 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I was just asking an honest question. I am quite open. I thought initially that everything should go on the right. But I had a look at the layout of varous books, including on WW2, with lots of pictures, and they do usually have pictures left right and center. There is never any harm in experimenting. Wallie 12:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm just saying, it was really hard to switch them around, almost every time I tried moving one to the left all the text got all squished looking :). Homestarmy 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
My only preference is to keep left-aligned pictures well separated (vertically) from right-aligned pictures. Otherwise (on certain browser widths) the images can collide and the layout becomes rather ugly. (For example the current Invasion of Soviet Union section.) — RJH (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Hess is Captured

This section seems to me to be totally out of scope of the remainder of the article. I thought this was a minor event that played no significant part in the outcome of the war, other than as a propaganda coup. Should it be removed? — RJH (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya it should be removed. Mercenary2k 10:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Concur. It was not significant in comparison to the other sections here. --Habap 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh! Like your section, I suppose. Wallie 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Corrections are needed only for images :

Atomic bombings ended the war

This is not true. By Soviet version for example, it was the Soviet offensive in the Far East that ended the war, and the defeat of the Quantun army.--Nixer 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is somewhat controversial, I believe, and subject to revisionist history by those who claim the use of nukes was unjustified. Perhaps it can be safely worded to say that it was a combination of the two that brought the war to an end.[1] Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I would be acceptable for me but in fact it is also contraversal. Factually Japan agreed with capitulation of Japanese army and government before the bombings and the offensive. But they rejected the capitulation of the Emperor. The USA insisted the Emperor should also capitulate and Japan declared republic. After the bombings and the offensive the Japanese position did not change. But the USA agreed with Japanese terms. The Japanese government and the army capitulated, but not the Emperor. It is a fact. By the way, the position that the bombings wwere unjustified is not a revisionist position. Because it was the position of the USSR all the way. Can we call Soviet position "revisionist"?--Nixer 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
If this was the Soviet position, might it have been politically motivated? Since the Soviets rapidly developed their own nuclear weapons, I don't think they were anti-nuclear. They may simply have expressed outrage as the beginnings of the Cold War. I would agree that it is at least not revisionist history to claim the bombings were unjustified as that position has been well-known for decades and subject to debate.
If the Japanese had already agreed to surrender, then the Soviet position that they influenced the decision is also wrong. --Habap 11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Tha atomic bombings ended the war in the sense (at least) that they were the final act. It's a reasonable thing to put. DJ Clayworth 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, I've just read over the Potsdam Declaration, which was the set of conditions for Japanese surrender and the abdication of the Emperor is not mentioned at all. (see Wikisource of Postdam Declaration) As such, the Allies (not just the USA, as the war involved more than just the two parties) did not deviate from those terms. The Japanese accepted them unconditionally (see Wikisource of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender ). So, based on the documents, the argument about the Emperor is simply not true. --Habap 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

British winter of 1946-1947

Unless someone can make a compelling case for keeping this link, I'm going to delete it from this article. I have two reasons: First, its current context leads the reader to believe that British winter of 1946-1947 is going to have something to do with "British Malaise." Instead, it's a meteorological history of the winter months of 1946 and 1947 in the UK. Second, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the linked-to article seems a decent candidate for deletion. Tcatts 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

"A V1 Rocket in flight"

This picture seems to be the wrong way up. Perhaps someone turned it that way, early on, to make it more dramatic.

As I have read it, the control mechanism caused it to descend by shutting off the engine. So, in normal operation, it would never be pointed downward when it had an exhaust plume. It would be flying level or slightly upward. David R. Ingham 17:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Just to nit pick the V-1 wasn't a rocket at all. It used a ram jet. They did use a rocket booster for launch but they were discarded yards after take off. The picture has been retitled by myself. --LiamE 10:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)