Talk:World War II/Archive 16

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

Ouch

A big revert from Ironplay.

Ironplay:

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

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

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

The graph from 1988 it is from 1988 and I hate the fact that it only shows Items made it dosent show that the Axis had 5 times yes 5 times yes that is right 5 times as many raw materials then the Soviets and it dosent show that the Axis had 2 times sometimes 3 times larger labour force then the Soviets yes that is right 3 times as large. All it shows is items built. Look at the graphs on the eastern front article. And above all lets try and keep this article slim and trim make sub-catagories where all information can be gathered because such bits pieces with scraps of information is bad bad bad. Ironplay 23:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Ironplay does not seem to have any facts or sources of his own. He better start doing some reading--rather than delete the results of sophisticated economic history published by leading scholars in leading journals. His numbers ("3 times as large") are very interesting but he invented them himself. Rjensen 23:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Look here Eastern Front (World War II) under industrial production it is all sourced just look Ironplay 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem was that a vandal changed the numbers -- adding an extra zero to multiply German output by 10. I think it's fixed as of this afternoon but let's keep a lookout for vandals there. Rjensen 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Battle of the Atlantic

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

Mediation request re Munitions data

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

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

Mussolini's fate

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

Mussolini was ousted from power in 1943; the story of his death and the death of his mistress two years later has no bearing on the war. This is the sort of trivia that does not belong in summary article. Haber keeps demanding that cuts be made--here's an easy one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rjensen (talk • contribs) .
Actually sorry to disagree with you. But I think it does. Mussolini is a significant figure. Hitler's death is covered also. Wallie 22:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Mussolini was a key player in WWII and his ultimate fate is of interest to anyone who reads the article. This is not trivia. Jimmy1988 13:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Rex and the Poles

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

Wallie, first of all I never claimed the Poles liberated the Netherlands during market garden. I know the Netherlands are small but they're not that small. I trust this was your memory mixing up certain things I wrote in my edit summaries rather than an intentional attempt to make me look stupid.
I ask you wallie, who are you decide which country was a major force in the second world war? Who are you to decide which country or nation decided the war? For all we know, the Low countries could have been captured within the time the Germans expected them to be then maybe the British and French wouldn't have gotten to dunkirk. Maybe if during the battle of brittain there hadn't been any foreign pilots Britain might have been invaded and then what? Point is we'll never ever know. If a human life is priceless then its all the same from a moral view. Nobody will the deny the war contributions of the countries listed now, but that's no reason to leave others out.
If you ask me, all actively participating countries should be mentioned. If only to be accurate. Nevertheless I'll drop the issue, I'm not so good at maybes.
Rex 23:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Replies

Wallie, first of all I never claimed the Poles liberated the Netherlands during market garden. I know the Netherlands are small but they're not that small. I trust this was your memory mixing up certain things I wrote in my edit summaries rather than an intentional attempt to make me look stupid.
I thought you had. I do not consider the Netheralds "small". In fact it is a very important country, which started the European influence in Australia (New Holland), Indonesia (Dutch East Indies), South Africa and New Zealand (a Dutch name). I certainly don't think you are stupid, and did not want to portary you as such.
I ask you wallie, who are you decide which country was a major force in the second world war? Who are you to decide which country or nation decided the war? For all we know, the Low countries could have been captured within the time the Germans expected them to be then maybe the British and French wouldn't have gotten to dunkirk. Maybe if during the battle of brittain there hadn't been any foreign pilots Britain might have been invaded and then what? Point is we'll never ever know. If a human life is priceless then its all the same from a moral view. Nobody will the deny the war contributions of the countries listed now, but that's no reason to leave others out.
I have no more rights than you or anyone else. I just want consistency and clarity, without too much detail (covered elsewhere). The countries are all listed at the bottom of the article. If Britain had been invaded, the war would have just carried on. There was still the USSR, Canada, India, South Africa, Australia and of course the US to conquer. Japan would have been overjoyed and attacked the United States. But the outcome would have been the same, with the war carrying on longer, and Tokyo and Berlin devasted by Hydrogen bombs.
If you ask me, all actively participating countries should be mentioned. If only to be accurate. Nevertheless I'll drop the issue, I'm not so good at maybes.
Exactly. You have to decide a level. But not just Poland and Canada.
Wallie 07:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Rex 09:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Awkward sentence - typo?

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

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

Communist rise to power and foreign troops

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

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

I find this highly POV and inacurate.

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

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

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

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

This is not all the true. It was a liberation - from nazi regime. And not all the nations were suffered by stalin's commies - Norvegia and Austria are good examples. I know nothing about massive "siberization" for foreign people. Popularity of local commies was high long before liberation/occupation. The "occupants" didn't preserve their military control over "cooupied" territories. And so on. I'm not a communist. I just want to say that things are much more complex than somebody display here. --jno 13:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
commies were popular? Were? In Poland, for example, where Red Army left in 1990s? JNo, I am sorry, but what do you know exactly about the means Communists grasped the power in Poland, NKVD regiments hunting AK soldiers across the countryside, tens of thousands arrested people, falsified elections etc? Szopen 15:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
what does 1990 Poland have to do with this? In the end of WW2 communism was much more popular in the world than now, especially considering that a "communist" country did most of the work during the war. And surely, USSR helped install friendly regimes in eastern european countries. Also, as for Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria - those countries were Hitler's allies. Don't forget that the US still has troops in Japan.

Mediation Cabal: Economic Chart

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

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

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

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

There is no cabal. --NEMT 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
1) Units--ok: yes they certainly can be added.

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

Note on units. The data are "(annual expenditure in $ billion, U.S. 1944 munitions prices)". That is the economists went to each country and priced the output of large warplanes, smnall warplanes, large tanks, small tanks, etc etc using US 1944 prices, and added them up. This was a huge project of course--hundreds of economists worked on it. (from Harrison Economic History Review (1988) v.41 page 172.)
I still think the chart doesn't need to be here.
2) Italy formally left the war in 1943, but Northern Italy, where most of the industry was, stayed under German control far longer. Italy+Austria+Bulgaria+Hungary+Romania > Canada.
3) The chart is large and ugly. The article is too long and is already criticized for lacking coherent prose.
4) Redundancy: The point, that the Allies outproduced the Axis, is already expressed in the previous paragraph. The chart is also already in Home front during World War II.
5) Context: The data is highly processed and needs explanation. There is not enough space in an overview to present the methodology behind this chart properly.
6)POV: Many people think that the primary reason the Allies won the war was by economically overwhelming the Axis, but this is far from unanimous. We don't have a "Why the Allies won" section. If we did, we would have to include many competing theories, and the article would be too long. Haber 00:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Haber, for pointing out that it exists on the home front page, as I had not checked that. Rjensen, do you have an argument for why the data should exist on both pages? (Or are you wanting to delete it from that page if it is accpeted here?) LawrenceTrevallion 03:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It can be deleted from the Hone Front page. The point is that comparative munitions output was a major part of the WW2 story --it was part of winning on the battlefront. Rjensen 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright. Haber, I wish to resume addressing your points:
2.) Do you have a source that notes northern Italy as having a high industrial production?
3.) It is my understanding that Rjensen is going to work to make the chart more aesthetically pleasing and smaller; so I hope this concern is resolved.
4.) While the results of the chart are mentioned in the paragraph, I do think it is helpful to have a quantifiable demonstration of it. It certainly seems as legitimate as some of the other art used in this article.
5.) You said that the chart is "processed" and "needs explanation." I am not sure as to what you mean by "processed"? Also, what "explanation" do you feel the chart needs? I did not see that any was required to go with it outside of what is already present in the article. Also, what aspects of the methodology do you think need to be addressed?
6.) I do not see this as POV. The chart does not claim the war was won solely on economics. Could you please elaborate?
I have been addressing Haber's concerns during this mediation, but if anyone else wishes to discuss the matter, please feel free to do so. LawrenceTrevallion 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Haber wants to include data on Italy or the other countries ; rather he proposes removing data on US, USSR, Britain, Germany, Japan and Canada. Rjensen 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
2) I thought it was common knowledge that northern Italy has historically been more industrialized than southern Italy. This is noted in the article, Italy, unreferenced.
3) He can work on it if he wants to. At least it will be better for the Home Front article.
4) disagree
5) processed data: What is the definition of a munition? Tanks, bullets, guns, gasoline, ships, radar stations, trucks, U-boats, aircraft, rockets, atomic bombs? How is quality factored in? Are we going by cost of materials, labor involved, R+D spending, what? Is slave labor accounted for? These economists wave a wand, convert everything to US$, and we're supposed to take it for gospel?
6) POV - we have nothing about all the boneheaded strategic decisions of Hitler, with which we could fill an article. We don't say that the Allied soldiers were better trained and led. We don't say that the Russians built sturdy, cheap, effective equipment. Or simply that the Allies owned the sea and were predisposed to win a long war on that alone. How about that the Germans alienated the Ukraine, a potential ally, by killing so many people? No, we just throw out numbers and make it look like the Axis simply ran out of stuff, when in fact they were beaten because of their totalitarian leaders, their idiotic ideology, and the better planning and execution of the Allied war effort. Again, I don't think this high-level article, or even an encyclopedia, is the best place to get into all this. So if you spend a good portion of the article harping on industrial production, and then just leave it at that, people will get an oversimplified view of the war. Where is Ironplay anyway? He likes the Russians. Haber 21:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
5.) I assumed that "munition" meant "ammunition," which is the traditional meaning of the word. Rjensen, can you confirm that in the case of the chart? Also, what about the other concerns Haber mentions here?
6.) As I understand the chart, it does not indicate economics alone won the war. Also, economics seems important to just about every war. This would explain why the Allies bombed German industrial centers. It does not seem to imply that the Axis just ran out of stuff, but that as the war progressed, the Axis did not have as much stuff, which hindered them. LawrenceTrevallion 23:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
According to source: “Munitions for the purpose of these statistics include all aircraft, naval ships, guns, small arms, armored vehicles, ammunition, electronic and communications equipment. However, merchant vessels, unarmored motor vehicles, engineers' supplies, quartermaster items and medical supplies are excluded. This definition concentrates attention on the combat items that are of prime military importance.” The table (please don't call it a chart) gives users the information they can use to gauge the relative importance of factors. Otherwise users are in ignorance, or make very vague assumption (like Haber does about the Italian munitions). Every historian mentions the munitions supply -- it's a famous quote that "amateurs talk about tactics and professionals talk about logistics" Rjensen 01:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
More appropriate quote, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Haber 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Haber, would your concerns be answered if the chart had a footnote adding some of the details you have pointed out here? Rjensen, would that work for you? LawrenceTrevallion 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This topic is currently introduced in prose in World War II, and covered nicely in Military production during World War II and in Home front during World War II. It's obvious that this table needs to be taken with a handful of salt, and Rjensen's sloppy, incomplete presentation and hostility when faced with criticism make me wonder why we should continue to babysit this project, much less consider showcasing it in the main article. Haber 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

With some work this chart could be ok for a subarticle. I am not opposed to reviewing an amended version here in this discussion area. Haber 04:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Rjensen, what are your thoughts? This article is long, so creating a subpage as a place to discuss the economics of the war is not a bad idea. If you are not satisfied with this idea, please explain why you think the table should appear on this page, which will allow us to discuss the merits of your proposal. LawrenceTrevallion 05:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I want the table in the main article. The main article is a summary of the war, and the table is a summary of the main homefront activity (producing munitions used on the battlefields.) Haber has a POV reason for hiding the table: he does not want users to think about the economics of war. This is an unacceptable attitude on Wiki (the field of economic history is very well established and it not some sort of whim.) Omission leads to serious misinterpretations--Haber himself in this discussion shows a flawed misinterpretation of the economic roles of countries like Canada, Italy, and Hungary. I imagine most readers will also have gross misconceptions about the munitions output of the major countries and this table will resolve that flaw. Keep in mind that the single main goal of strategic bombing was to cut the munitions production of Germany and Japan, and it is very controversial to this day how suuccessful that goal was. As for length, that is a red herring: I have cut at least 25 lines out of the article and will cut more if you think it necessary--so that 12 lines of table will fit.
Alright, Haber does your disagreement about the chart regard the chart itself (appearance, clarity, length, etc.) or is it that you feel the addition of more economic data is inappropriate? LawrenceTrevallion 16:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Both. See above. Haber 04:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Haber, would you please explain your disagreement with the inclusion of economic data in greater detail. You mentioned earlier that you thought two paragraphs of on the subject was coming close to POV because it indicated a theory as to why the war was won. I do not see this as POV however. All wars, to a degree, are influenced by economics. (Imagine how quickly Hitler would have failed if he had not stabilized the economy of Germany.)
  2. As for the length, perhaps the economic section itself could be shortened a bit, along with making the table a little smaller. Do you have any other concerns with the appearance that should be addressed? LawrenceTrevallion 14:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

The term "Commanders" in table

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

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

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

I agree except for Donitz. I'm not sure about Hirohito, but if you feel strongly that he should be in go ahead and add him. Haber 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, Dönitz was in charge of Germany for the last days of the war. Removing Hirohito would leave us without a Japanese figure for the last year of the war. john k 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
(On the other hand, trying to cover the whole war would force us to include Chamberlain, so never mind - I'd say just Hitler, Churchill, FDR, Tojo, Hitler, and Stalin is fine. But no Truman, either. john k 03:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC))
I agree. It is best to have one leader for each of the six countries, who was leader for the longest time. Wallie 20:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Done. Haber 23:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



SU / USSR

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

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

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

SU was used actually on the internet for the Soviet Union for a short time, and is still used as a TLD for Russia today, even though they have'.RU'. Some people might have seen this and thought it was correct to say SU, but it's only ok really as a ".su" domain name. Stick to the real acronym, the correct, "U.S.S.R.". Amlder20 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to Standardize this Article

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

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

I mean, for Example, the Soviet Union is being written as SU in some areas and Russia in others. We need to fix that.
The dates. Sometimes the year comes before the month and others the month comes before the year. That needs to be fixed.
Some German Generals are written by their German spelling Generaloberfest or others Field Marshal. This needs to be fixed.
The British are called British Empire, Commonwealth. We need to arrive at an agreed upon terminology.
The German Military is called Wehrmacht, Nazis, German Army, etc...We need to arrive at an agreed upon term.
The Soviet Military is called Red Army, Russian Red Army, Soviet Army, Soviet Red Army, etc...We need one term to describe it and stick to it for the entire article....
And Many others......

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

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

Mercenary2k 18:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess you could say no one is in a Russia to fix it. --NEMT 18:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Or no one is Russian to fix it. --NEMT 05:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Agree entirely. Wallie 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I also agree completely. However, synonyms are fine if they are well distributed. For example, one section shouldn't use the term Feldmarschall exclusively, while another section only uses the term "Field Marshal". You're quite correct about the subtle nuances of various terms that people often use interchangeably (USSR / Russia, Nazis / German military). --Dan East 02:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Western betrayal

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

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

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


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

Japanese offensives- Alaska

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

It's true about Alaska but not important enough to be in this article. Rjensen 01:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree. Unsigned poster: I agree with you. Auroranorth 11:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I didn't even know that fact until now. It is important for readers to know that Japan actually directly attacked two pieces of US territory-Pearl Harbor and the Aleutian Islands. If you can, put some info in,thanks. Oyo321 03:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I believe that at the very least we should add a link to a new page, to be named, Japanese attacks on US soil during WWII. This will address the need to mention these events while not adding more info to an already packed paged. I would have created it myself but don’t know enough about these “smaller” events (few people do, which is precisely why this new page could add a lot of value to Wikipedia). Jimmy1988 13:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I think this is much too insignificant to be in this article. We don't have links to auxilary Soviet and Chinese battles, thus overburdening it with something like this is unnessesary, especially considering that the scale of warfare on the Soviet front made even the most important allied battles seem like auxilaries anyways. On a side note - during the campaign one of the islands (i think it was Kiska, but i'm not sure) was properly assaulted by americans and canadians (bombardment from planes and warships, naval invasion), who, to their surprise, eventually found out that the island was undefended. My pity goes to those few unlucky soldiers who were killed by friendly fire in that shameful "battle". Also, a similar situation occured during the Winter War, this time the idiots attacking an undefended island were the Soviets. With respect, Ko Soi.

Transferral of some pages

Hello

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

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

Holocaust numbers

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

Link

This site [1] is a really good and detailed day by day account from the German side up until Crete. I don't understand why it was taken off. I'll put it back after a day if nobody can tell me why it shouldn't be on here. Richard Cane 08:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


World at War: World War II History - External Link

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



GA Re-Review and In-line citations

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

Doesn't need much citation. Around a billion people lived through this period and were directly imvolved. So there were plenty of eye-witnesses and the text written here is pretty much "common knowledge". I agree that some of the more obsure facts may warrant a quote, or if the factual data was being disputed. However, I don't think you need a citiation to show that D-Day or the dropping of the Atom Bomb on Hiroshima happened. Wallie 14:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Oyo321 03:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Every article always needs more citations. This article needs lots, lots more. VERIFIABILITY, not "truth". Badgerpatrol 03:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Zhongwen Wikipedia flags

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

Truman

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

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

Id say yeah BUT there looks like no room.Opiner 04:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Then we should also add Chamberlain for UK, maybe also Dönitz for Germany and also there are quite many potential japanese who could be added(Staberinde 16:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

Germany and "elimination of jewry"

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

Not quite. Germans as group were involved. To their credit, their behavior has been very admirable as a group in the years after 1945 and they have apologized, but all the same this example should not attempt to shift blame onto a political party. Haber
When talking about diplomacy or war we say Russia did this, England did that. doesnt mean everyone in Russia or England help or agree.Opiner 06:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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

THE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER OF ITALY

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

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


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

Japanese Flag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MARITIME WAR IN THE MEDITERANNEAN.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Nomonhon Incident

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

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


All Numbers need to be cited

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

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

Percent of world population

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

hmmm. Interesting comment. Does this mean that war is good for you? Wallie 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)



Use of WWII abbreviation

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

My interest was not in eliminating redirects. My interest was in making sure the article text reads 'World War II'. WHY: 1) World War II is the WP agreed upon name for the war so I think that name should be used in WP articles; 2) As time moves on, how many readers are going to immediately recognize that multiple names/links really are about the same war? To me, it is less confusing to all readers to use a single name for a single war. Hmains 19:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
The World War II article itself still uses the well-known abbreviation WWII. WWII isn't a different name, it's just an abbreviation of the same name. Relocating this to Talk:World War II -- JHunterJ 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-structuring of this Article

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

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

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

I like your idea but I think it can be compressed even more. For example, why does the Eastern Front have to be fragmented into five sections? Defeat of Germany and Japan can also be shifted to aftermath (with the bunker stuff and the a-bomb included under eastern front and Pacific. Also, it might be nice to just say "Pacific". That way you leave room for a blurb about the Aleutians. Haber 01:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the idea. Of course splitting article by campaing basis makes it easier to read certain campaing. But it makes harder to have overview of the whole war at the same time. Year basis makes it easier to have overview what was going on at the same time on different campaings like Eastern-Front, Pacific, Mediterranean etc..--Staberinde 07:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Japan's flag

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

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

Fall Gelb

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

Truman

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

Please add oc

oc:Segonda Guèrra Mondiala . Thank you

Revert?

I would question the recent re-write that has been made to the "Causes" section. It is not very well written and repeats some content/facts from elsewhere in the article (as if it was written in isolation). The previous version is, by and large, more suitable. Adrian M. H. 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Commanders

The "Commanders" section of the infobox was attempted to be discussed above, but the discussion got sidetracked into Japanese monarchy and use of flags. :-) Can we return to the issue please? Clearly the list of "commanders" at the moment is inconsistent, does not show the real high-ups in some cases and muddles military and political command. Why for example mention Rommel in the German list when he was relatively low down the pecking order of generals and Himmler who was really the police state leader rather than a "military commander" apart from very briefly. There are many other similar inconsistencies in the table. I move we treat the phrase "commanders" as being military commanders and the list should therefore now be something like:

UK Alan Brooke (CIGS in case you haven't heard of him), Bernard Montgomery, Charles Portal

USA George Marshall, Dwight D Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, George Patton, Carl Spaatz, Ira Eaker

USSR Joseph Stalin (was actually in command of military most of the time), Georgy Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Nikita Kruschev (ultimate commander at Stalingrad)

Germany Adolf Hitler (was actually in command of military most of the time), Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, Walter Model, Hermann Goering, Karl Dönitz

Italy Benito Mussolini (was actually in command of military most of the time)

Japan Hideki Tojo, Osami Nagano, Chuichi Nagumo, Hajime Sugiyama

MarkThomas 15:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed list of commanders. We've got by with one commander per country in the infobox for a long time. We can always add more detail in the article itelf. DJ Clayworth 22:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Even so, then the summary is wrong. How about taking the top two of the lists I've just made then? MarkThomas 23:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by 'top two'. Anyway, Churchill was clearly the leader of the war for the British; Rooseveldt the legal CinC of the US forces and Stalin the leader of USSR forces. When top level conferences were held, those were the three that went, not Brooke or Marshall. DJ Clayworth 00:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong about that - Brooke went to most of the conferences and Marshall was sometimes too busy running the military to attend but went to some. If you read Churchill, whilst the political leaders discussed strategy, the military commanders got together to figure out how to win. The confusion here is between political leaders and military commanders. To a casual reader, "Commanders" means military commanders. The current list is a mix of political leaders and military commanders. MarkThomas 07:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree: the distinction between military commanders and political leaders - while sometimes a little blurred - is important. For the purposes of this article, perhaps the infobox should have a sub-section for each category. The current format (at the time of writing) is at least clear and concise, with only the political figureheads. It can be difficult to list all the CinCs and perhaps even other significant commanders - where would you draw the line? Adrian M. H. 15:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I see a new user has just rather summarily shortened it, but we may need to change it again. :-) Thanks for your comments folks - I agree with Adrian M.H. and suggest we have two panel sub-sections, one entitled Political Leaders and the other Military Commanders. Under Military Commanders I propose we list 4 for the big participants (US, USSR, Germany, UK, Japan) and 1, 2 or 3 as appropriate for Italy, China (so far not mentioned but it should be - also in the political list) and perhaps the Free French and Free Polish. Latter two I am not overly troubled about as the infobox is obviously the quick big-picture overview. MarkThomas 17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, after thinking this over some more, here's the list of Military Commanders I am now proposing (more for "bigger" powers than for others):

Military Commanders

UK Alan Brooke, Bernard Montgomery, Charles Portal, Harold Alexander

USA George Marshall, Dwight D Eisenhower, Chester Nimitz, George Patton, Carl Spaatz

USSR Georgy Zhukov, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Nikita Kruschev, Nikolai Vatutin, Ivan Konev

Poland Władysław Sikorski, Tadeusz Bór-Komorowski

France Charles de Gaulle, Maurice Gamelin

Germany Wilhelm Keitel, Alfred Jodl, Walter Model, Hermann Goering, Karl Dönitz

Italy Pietro Badoglio, Ugo Cavallero

Japan Osami Nagano, Chuichi Nagumo, Hajime Sugiyama, Iwane Matsui, Jiro Minami

China Chiang Kai-shek, Mao Zedong, Yan Xishan

MarkThomas 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be fine with you adding this information to somewhere else in the article, but the infobox is meant to be a short summary. There is room for about three commanders per side before it gets too big. DJ Clayworth 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Kruschev was a Lieutenant-General; a pretty junior rank compared with the others here).
The Military Conflict Infobox is designed to be a quick and dirty way to get some basic information about a war. I agree with DJ. All of this information is great, but it belongs in the article or in a sub-article, and not in the infobox. Haber 05:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure where to put it - I guess my concern is that the current chronological structure of the page tends to militate against having this type of background generic information. Could it be in the big information panel at the bottom of the page? Or in a separate page called "Commanders of World War Two"? Not sure which is best but I do feel kind of impelled that we need this info. :-) MarkThomas 22:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. I also made a redirect from Commanders of wwii. I picture the new article being more than a list. It can describe the military commanders, who they were, how they adapted to the challenges of new technologies, etc. much like Keegan's discussion of the generals in his First World War book. I marked it with stub and needless to say anyone interested in the Commanders please head over and help.
Regarding finding a place in this article, I see how you're concerned. There is a big enough minority who likes the chronological format that it seems to be sticking at least in the near term, more from inertia than anything else. If you can figure out a way to make your addition look nice and keep it to a reasonable length, you have my blessing. Haber 13:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your comments and help on this. I have began a more detailed workup of the page on Commanders of World War II and very much liked your ideas on it Haber, which I will try to develop, please feel free others to contribute if you get a minute. I will also think more about how a short version of it can be added to this page. Thanks a lot. MarkThomas 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


Graphical representation of casualties

I found this - http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm. I dunno if using it would go against copyrights, so perhaps a copy of it with graphical alterations should be made. I like it because 1)it is fairly accurate, although the german casualties are in their lows, not even mediums. 2)it shows pretty clearly (except in manchuria) which Front was decisive, and which fronts were auxilary.

The map contains a great many innacuracies, some of them making me wonder about the biases obvious or otherwise of it's maker. For example, it shows much-lower-than-is-generally-accepted numbers of deaths for Jews in various territories; the generally accepted figure for example for Einsatzgruppen mass-murder of Jews in the Soviet areas is 1.5 million yet the map shows "only" 1m - it reports no Jewish deaths at all in the Balkans yet there were camps in Yugoslavia alone where more than 200,000 Jews died - I could go on. The death figures for the Soviet Union are much too low generally. I suggest a new map should be made. MarkThomas 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The map is not very accurate, but the military dead for USSR are actually quite exact - 8.7 million - compare to Krivosheev's 8 668 thousand. However, the number of civilians dead is lower than it should be. Also, if you count all the jewish stars, it adds up to 5.5 million - which is pretty accurate, as the 6 million number is only possible if you count jews that became soviet citizens in 1939 and were latter slaughtered by nazis, twice - once as citizens of Poland and once as citizens of USSR. As the borders shown are pre-war, I presume that the author counted those as citizens of Poland. Of course, using 100 000 blocks does distort the picture on some auxilary fronts; for example, I think that German and Italian dead in north africa are included into the german sign in Italy and an italian sign in Albania. However, we need to make a new one, since this one might be protected by copy-rights.