Talk:World War II/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
← Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 →


Contents

To prevent future edit wars, shouldn't this be an all or nothing thing with the infobox?

People will never stop arguing over the relative importance of various countries and their contributions, so rather than endlessly discussing this, I would agree with the suggestions above to have a chronology-based list of countries (recreated below). The only other sensible alternative is simply to have Allied Powers and Axis Powers in the combatant section, with no countries explicitly named. When people follow the links, they will find the countries involved in each camp there. What are your thoughts? Brisvegas 10:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

World War II
Location
Result
Belligerents
Allies:

From 1939: Poland, United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa
From 1940: Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece
From 1941: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, United States, China, Czechoslovakia
From 1942: Brazil
From 1944: Romania, Bulgaria, Finland

 Axis:

From 1939: Germany
1940-43: Italy
1941: Iraq (co-belligerent)
1941-44: Romania, Bulgaria, Finland (co-belligerent)
From 1941: Hungary, Japan
1942-45: Thailand (co-belligerent)

No mention of the Battle of the Aleutian Islands which was the last conflict on US soil. I belive its a significant battle that is worth mention for that reason. After this point no war was fought on U.S soil though the article would lead you to believe that hawaii was only hit... IN FACT alaska was occupied. Please try to spread your user comments out to make them more legible. Lbparker40 20:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)



I like the idea : it's not based on arbitrary cut-off criteria, and it makes interesting information available in an compact manner (listing the USA and USSR in "Allies" is unlikely to teach anything to anyone, is it ?). Rama 10:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)



I would prefer that over axis and allies, but not over a 3 v 5 or a 3v2.--LtWinters 16:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Instruments of historiography are discontinuity and continuity created by emphasizing certain events as the beginning and end points of a history or more particluarly, World War II history. This is the problem we are having in this article. I think the suggestion here may serve to resolve that issue but uncertain.

Norway stayed out of world war I and declared neutrality when World War II occured in 1939. But Norway was a victim of its location. Allied efforts to stop ore shipments to Germany were intense. Norwegian seamen were put at risk. In seven months following the declaration of war, 51 Norwegian ships were sunk and many others damaged. April 8, 1940 - Great Britain and France had declared they had mined Norwegian waters in the commercial route between the Norwegian coast and the coastal islands in order to stop Norwegian trade to Germany. Consequentially, Germany invaded Norway the next day. The allies, Great Britain, and France answered the call for help from Norway but as Great Britain, France, and the Allies invaded, Germany spanked that ... \defeated Great Britain, France, and the Allies. "The World War II Desk Reference" pgs. 92 and 211. Director Douglas Brinkley and Editor Michael E. Haskew.

Dont forget to include 1945 as some nations joined late but helped in the efforts in the Pacific theater.

List of allied nations: Abyssina, Albania, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equador, Finland, France, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Luxembourg,Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uruguay, USSR, Yugoslavia. Neutral nations which some did aid the United States and need to be examined as to whether they are really neutral are: Republic of Ireland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. "Evil" axis powers- Austria, Croatia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, and the USSR.

Iraq before World War II was under British power. Granted form of independence in 1932. Iraq was in full support of the British, thus the allies through the majority of the war. The only time Iraq's interests coincided with Germany's was when a military coup occured in March 1940 that was pro-Nazi. This coup lasted until May - April of 1941 where the British reinstalled a pro-British administration. "The World War II Desk Reference" pgs. 90. Director Douglas Brinkley and Editor Michael E. Haskew.

To avoid edit wars, I suggest that we come to the "allies" and "axis" compromise once again, with links to pages, which would explain, in brief paragraphs, which allied/axis country contributed what. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
That idea doesn't sound too bad. --LtWinters 00:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Like I said in the preceding paragraph, this would suffice as a resolution to the problem.

To prevent future edit wars is not the purpose of Wikipedia. 5v3 is best. Haber 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still say that 3 v 2 is best. But its obvious that any version exept simple "allies" and "axis" will cause never ending disputes about importance of different states. Btw, im pretty sure that infobox is most discussed part of article :) .--Staberinde 10:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody wants to continue beating this horse into glue, at the same time as nobody wants to accept the "opposing" solution. The debate doesn't need to stop, but it should probably be toned down. Too many kilobytes are being given to this relatively minor detail. Instead of stifling debate by outlawing a listing of individual countries, let what happens, happen. If the infobox falls down the slippery slope into a cancerously bloated state, then I'm certain that somebody will take a scalpel to it. In fact, I'm sure somebody will pick up a scalpel before the infobox slides more than a few metaphorical inches. The current infobox has been unchanged for almost two weeks, now. That seems stable. No, it's not a perfect portrayal of the combatants to every editors' eyes, but it might be the least imperfect of all possible portrayals. I'd advise we all take a wiki-break from this topic to focus on more important issues, at least for a few days or weeks. Let's see what happens. Xaxafrad 01:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. With maximum respect to everyone (the vast majority (with the exception of one or two) of whom have conducted themselves properly and in the Wiki spirit), it's depressingly obvious from recent exchanges that even now very few correspondents actually understand what this issue is about, despite the huge volume of debate that the topic has already generated. It is pointless continuing. Let Haber have his way- he has made it very clear that he is not willing to compromise and unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on one's point of view) editing WP depends on a spirit of cooperation and good will that is not in evidence here. I don't think the current state of the infobox matches consensus, I don't think it tallies with existing policy, I think it's unnecessarily misleading, and it certainly creates a confusing mismatch between en.WP and the other language encyclopaedias. The general debate has been carried out in an unnecessarily rancorous and internecine manner. I can't see anything that can be done about it now however. Let's hope that the infobox remains stable for now and perhaps is improved at some point in the future to more closely match consensus. Badgerpatrol 02:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always been a proponent of the Allies and Axis (and their allies/co-belligerents) since it's indisputably historically accurate and NPOV.

Reading the current infobox looks like a bias for France, how can Charles de Gaulle be considered a commander when he was neither a national leader (at least not until almost the end of the war) and led a force significantly smaller then most high-ranking generals/field commanders from the "major" powers? And why is there no mention of the Vichy Regime as a co-belligerent of the Axis? They were a far more significant force then the Free French, both in numbers and territory. And exactly which "France" is the info-box referring to? The 3rd Republic, Free French (which seems likely since we're using de Gaulle as a leader) or the 4th Republic? Is it some kind of amalgamation of them which conspicuously ignores the Vichy Regime?

Additionally, we list Hirohito, whose exact role between functional-head-of-state and figurehead is disputable. Oberiko 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And how are we doing leaders? If we're going by when the nation declared war (and including France), we should have, for example; Chamberlin, Roosevelt and Édouard Daladier. If we are going by when the war ended, we should have Churchill Clement Attlee, Harry Truman and De Gaulle. Is it by who was in office the longest for the wars duration? Oberiko 13:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Churchill wasn't the Prime Minister when the Second World War ended, but apart from that I fully agree. The current situation is confusing to the point of being misleading. But I really don't think there's anything we (=the majority) can do about it. Badgerpatrol 17:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
You're right, I was basing it off of V-E day, but more correctly should have used V-J day with Attlee as PM. If the majority want it as Allies and Axis, what's the problem with changing it? Revert wars? Oberiko 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as I'm passing through, can I just chip in that Churchill also wouldn't have been thought of as the "Commander" of British troops? It's a nit-pick, but constitutionally, the King was the Colonel-in-Chief, "commander" is a genuine military rank in our army (and the US, as well), and the Prime Minister is not an officer at all. I recognise what that section of the infobox is trying to say, but isn't "Leaders" (perhaps, even "Political leaders"?) a better way of saying it? Wooster (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
That's also correct and I did think about mentioning it above. In the US, my understanding is that the President is the constitutional commander in chief of the armed forces, and I suspect the same may be true in France, modern Russia and the former USSR. In Britain, the monarch is constitutionally the "commander in chief". The PM has de facto executive powers (exercised on behalf of the crown), not de jure, and I'm not certain that he or she is even officially the highest ranking member of the cabinet (not only as a corollary of the "first among equals" convention but also because I think the Lord Chancellor may be higher in the order of precedence). Functionally of course, the Prime Minister is in real terms the most powerful politician in the country and, by convention, has de facto control over the armed forces, and this was the case during the Second World War as it is today. It's worth noting that Churchill was not the PM at the beginning of the war nor at the end of the war, if that means anything. All of this does add yet another extra layer of confusion to the issue however (a layer of confusion which could be easily removed....). Badgerpatrol 14:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that we'd have the same problems with Italy, just worse. Not only would we have the "official" vs. "functional" head-of-state problem, but we'd compound it with the three instances of Italy in the war (Axis Kingdom of Italy run by Mussolini, Allied Kingdom of Italy run by Pietro Badoglio, and Axis Italian Social Republic run by Mussolini). Oberiko 15:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the infobox is about the commanders, but when you think about it, it's not just the troops in war, there is also a homefront which includes propaganda, warbonds, making of the war materials, etc. So I think we should have the overall commander of all nations be listed. --LtWinters 23:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I give a strong support for your idea. If with flags, may be better.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 07:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that clears that one up. So we have King George VI for Britain. Or Winston Churchill. Or Neville Chamberlain. Or Viscount Alanbrooke. And President Roosevelt for America. Or Harry Truman. Or General Eisenhower. And for France it's obvious that we have Charles De Gaulle. Or Gamelin. Or Reynaud. Or Petain. And then for Italy it's obvious that we have [etc etc etc etc, for ever and ever and ever]. Badgerpatrol 11:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on the template talk page about this. Because it would likely be same problem for other large conflicts (ie. World War I, Napoleonic Wars), we should probably try to find a standard to agree on. Oberiko 13:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Eastern Front?

  • I think the head of the article (/the article as a whole) should make clear that 'World War 2' was essentially 'Germany vs Soviet Union + other minor theatres'. I don't mean to bash anyone here or downplay what people went through in other parts of the world, but if you read the most standard books on WW2 or ask a historian (or a professor like I did) they will always say WW2 was essentially the Eastern Front. I think everyone agrees that the Western and Southern European fronts were mere diversions to the real thing in Russia, but also the Pacific theatre was only a minor theatre compared to this. Plus the Japanese knew from the start they were going to lose a war against the USA or USSR as long as China was still unconquered.

Again, the possession of China does not equate into a win or lose for Japan. Japan was not as strong as the US proclaimed it was like all the enemies it has fought and its position in war such as world war II is often exaggertaed as well to make the US seem more important than it was. Let me ask you great writer of Wikipedia and all knowledge, who won the war in China? What type of war did that winner fight and become popular for in the future? Could we come close to an assumption that as we learned in the Viet-Nam war that occupation of land when fighting a mjority supported guerrilla force has not and continues to prove to a hard headed US military, equate into a win of a battle nor control over territory. Sorry, this viewpoint though traditional has been and continued to be skewed especially when Americans as well as everyone else during this time period were brainwashed zombies when it came to chauvinism and of course the history and the mirror topoi is a perfect example of World War II history :)

In summation, although conventional warfare was the primary form of warfare in this period, it was not the only form. This is the mistake in the aforementioned reasoning of the importance of China to the winning of the war for Japan. In the tradition of FOX news supporters, let me say that "some say" that Viet-Nam was the backbone of Japanese war efforts and important to its loss (read Bernard Fall's works). So please alleviate the description of dilettante by at least being decent enought to refute or ackowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

  • Another thing is the sentence: "The dominance of Europe faded due to the rise of decolonization/independence movements in Asia and Africa, while Europe itself began traveling the road leading to unification". As far as I know decolonization and independence movements were strong long before WW2. This sentence implies decolonization resulted from WW2, which is a bit too simple and wrong. Plus, "the dominance of Europe faded" is also very vague, cause European economic dominance did not disappear, nor did American or Russian economic dominance appear as the sentence before that implies (Europe is still the biggest market in the world). Perhaps it should state only that European Imperialism (which led to dominance of the world) disappeared, because that was certainly the case.

So I suggest there comes something in the upper part that shows the Eastern Front was the most important by far, because right now it seems like all theatres were of equal importance. And the other sentence is a bit easy and short so could get some nuance.

Wiki1609 16:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to write this, but you should talk to other teachers and read other books, notably about the asian front where war raged from 1937 and not 1941... Just begin by these Wikipedia articles : Battle of Taierzhuang, Battle of Changde Battle of Changsha (1939) and Battle of Okinawa...--Flying tiger 16:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also strongly disagree. Although a large amount of German casualties was taken due to the USSR, the Western Front was definantly important because it served the purpose of not only diverting Germany's forces but of conquering a part of Germany. Take a look of the border of Poland to the Elbe River, as a pose to the coast of Normandy to the Elbe. About the same distance, huh? And let's not forget to mention Hitler wasted 1,000 planes in the Battle of Britain. The southern front in Italy is understandable to see it as disregardable, but it was instrumentle in training troops, such as the 82nd airborne, for the assault in Normandy. Also, Austria was attacked through it at the end of the war. The war in the Pacific is extremely important as well, considering millions of deaths were accounted for and Japanese agression seriously endangered the United States in 1942. --LtWinters 20:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree. The Normandy landings were politically vital. If the Western Allies hadn't landed, the Communists would have taken all of Europe, and this would be bad for the U.S. The landings were done just to assure that Western Europe would remain under Capitalist control. The Americans and Russians have a bad history of bad blood, starting in the Russian Civil war, when American and British troops tried to 'Strangle Communism in its craddle'. So you can see, the most important front was the Eastern front. Everything militarily relied on this front. By 1946, the Russians would have owned all of Europe

User:1337 AzN 22:10 24 June 2007 GMT

@ LtWinters, as I said the Western Front did divert some of military resources of Germany, but that was it and nothing more. The fact they could 'conquer' part of German territory was because the Germans were losing in the East. Normandy was even so late in the war, that it can be considered unnecessary as the Soviets held out long enough to gain the initiative. And your comparison of the border of Poland to the Elbe versus the Normandy coast to the Elbe is just wrong. For the Eastern Front you'd have to count all the way from Grozny in Chechnya to the Elbe, which is a far far longer distance than from the Atlantic coast.

@ Flying tiger, the Professor (not teacher) I talked with (actually I just asked a question in a lecture) is one of the best known historians in my country. I must admit he did not count the 1936 to 1941 conflict between China and Japan as part of WW2, but this is done quite often. As pointed out in this discussion earlier, this conflict started even before 1936 and it was in many ways seperate from the war with the US and European powers. And though the battles in China often involved large numbers, not much was decided nor did it affect countries other than China and Japan.

Wiki1609 22:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, does anyone agree with you? Anyone? Does anyone feel that the United States and Great Britain did so little towards the war effort, including against the war against Japan that the USSR only joined with what 3 days left of it, that they are considered only as diversionary-attackers?--LtWinters 22:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with Wiki1609's point here. Say the Germans had defeated the British in Egypt, taken the Middle East, and linked up with the German army in the Caucasus in 1942. All that oil (the lack of which was a serious problem for the Germans throughout the war) and the removal of the 2nd front would've greatly improved the German war effort in the East. Not to mention the crack panzer divisions that stayed in the West throughout the war, against a potential Anglo-American invasion, that could've turned the tide in the crucial years of '42-'43. And lets not forget about the Battle of the Atlantic. Without America and Britain securing the supply lines through the Atlantic and Artic oceans, the Soviets would've been crushed at Stalingrad. End of the war in the East. These are just a few examples. Again, the Pacific Theatre was incredibly crucial. Had Japan defeated the United States, England, and China in 1942, she would've most likely turned on the Soviet's poorly defended rear, which would've been catastrophic to the Soviet war effort. No more Tankograd in the east? Probably no victory at Kursk. Saying that WWII is essentially the Eastern Front and nothing more is mind-blowingly simplistic and horribly skewed. I don't know where your history professor studied World War II, but he might want to get his money back. Parsecboy 00:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
that's so full of bullicks. Mao defeated the Nationalists in classic set-piece battles, not this "countryside surrounding cities" guerrilla myth. That stuff is from the 20s and 30s when the communists altered their strategy to create revolution in the countryside rather than foment labor unrest in the cities like in Europe. Get those concepts confused and you sound really stupid. Blueshirts 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

1) The error in Parsecboy's argument is obvious. For everyone else, I bring attention to its emphasis on a methodology commonly employed in Cold War propaganda. Many people and countries like Ho Chi Minh in Viet-Nam were accused of being communists to provide domestic support for war in Viet-Nam. It has done so to many other nations like the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. China today is a perfect example of Cold War propaganda confusing Americans as to how to classify the coutnry today. Parsecboy commits a fallacy in similar proportions by assuming that when countries sign supportive contracts that they are part of a monolithic force. Experienced Cold War Researchers and non-amateurs will agree about the monlithic myth created by western propaganda in the Cold War. Asi, because their was mutual defense agreements between Germany and Japan does not equate into an agreed upon monolithic zombism or goal. Perfect example if North Korea and China today. They have mutual defense agreements but China is frustrtated with North Korea because their actions are starting to hurt is wallet.

First of all, Anon, point out where I stated that Communism is monolithic? I'm well aware that it's not. Just look at Tito vs. Stalin, or the Sino-Soviet Split, or the war fought between Vietnam and China right after the US pulled out. I never said that the Axis of Steel pact between Germany, Italy, and Japan equated to "monolithic zombie-ism". The point remains that Japan did have a history of attacking the Soviets, and it was likely to assume that, with the Soviets as weakened as they were, the Japanese would take their chance again. Since when did we start talking about Communism, anyways? Did I ever mention Minh? or the Sandanistas? Keep your red herrings to yourself, oh great wise one. I for one will not bite. As for Blueshirt's argument, he's right. The guerrilla war Mao fought was primarily in the 20's, 30's, and early 40's when he was building strength. Mao transitioned to conventional warfare when he felt he could take the Nationalists on. Does that mean he never used guerrilla tactics when it suited him in the later 40s? No. But his style of fighting transitioned from generally insurgent tactics, to force on force. Parsecboy 01:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2) Blueshirt's assertion that Mao won in classic battles is a very dangerous assertion when it comes to credibility. Please provide those battles and the sources so I may ascertain the credibility and significance of such sources. If any area in the world has been reported on falsely the most by the US, it has been China. Even today I find myself correcting so many facts asserted by books claiming this and that and finding their evidence is based upon either flimsy eyewitness testimonies or unidentifiable sources.Mao did partake in guerrilla warfare and classic conventional battles. That is the paradigm of his methodology. By stating that Mao fought classic set-piece battles not guerrila battles already shows your inadequate knowledge of Mao and China. Mao's strategy involves classic set-piece battles and guerrilla type tactics in a three stage progressive process. I reitrate, you claiming he partook in only one was a red flag for me and any other insurgency enthusisast. You dont know what you are talking about and should restrict your comments to what you know Blueshirt :)The difficulty in western historic observation of China was its conventional warfare bias in writing history. For example, if battles were fought in China, then it was evaluated under conventional terms. Guerrilla tactics were ignored. In additon, Communist strategy is of coutnryside attacks rather than city uprising is another red flag by blueshirts. Bolshevik Revolution was an uprising in the city, since I thought that you like implying all insurgencies that occur in the countryside communist even though uncountable uprisings in the past across the world have occured in the countryside (For ex: Augusto Sandino in Nicaragua)too. However, it seems you are making the same amateur mistake as Parsceboy up ahead by labeiling Communism as monolithic. Like western countries today, people can have a formalized agreement but disagree in other aspects. Sorry for the shocker. So sounding stupid is what you did blueshirts and my dream of being able to tear you apart in front of an audience extends to Wikipedia unfortunately. I would have loved to have you in my class :) You are not stupid blueshirts, you have no idea what you are talking about. Were the Tupamaros in Uruguay Communists or Carlos Marighella in Brazil a communists because those were urban insurgencies. I guess the Iraqi insurgencies are not Communist because by your argument they occur in the cities right blueshirts. Mao did partake in guerrilla warfare. As a Japanese-American born in Japan and experienced in eastern sources, I have to agree that the Chinese deserve tp be proud of Mao, he did whip our tails through gierrilla warfare. Check Frank capra's World War II films to get some western source on this same assertion. Mao was a strategic and tactical genius. I hate to admit it, but the Chinese did whip us Japanese hard because of him. At least I am not too chauvinistic to try to make Mao sound lesser than what he was because of the Viet-Nam War or other wars. If Mao wasnt that important , than banish from existence the numerous declassified CIA documents about eliminating the water from the fish to defeat Mao's startagey. Better yet, banish Regis Debray's, Che Guevara's, and many other reputable insurgents writings that mention his strategy as the influenc eon theirs. In summation blueshirts, know thy enemy before you speak because not doing so makes you appear stupid:) entiendes? wakarimasuka? dong bu dong? do you understand :) an yong ni haseo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

@ Parsecboy, your comment is only proving my point. The operations you name, Africa and the Atlantic, were aimed at diverting resources from the Germans to help the Russians, because that was what it was all about! Whoever won on the Eastern Front would win the whole thing, thats why the Western Allies struggled to get as many supplies as possible over to the Russians. There was no notable fighting in the West until June 1944, at that time the Russians were already preparing for Bagration. Stalin had been begging for an attack by the West from 1941, but it didnt come. Probably because the West didnt mind that Russia got weakened all the time but this also meant the Russians did all the fighting alone. When D-Day came fighting in the East was already getting worse for the Germans, yet another diversion weakened them even further. So it was important but only that it weakened the German position in the East and that was its worth.

And you should not try to think 'if the Germans won in Africa' or 'if they won in Normandy' but 'what if they won in Russia'! If they had defeated the Soviets they could have easily taken Africa, Britain, the Middle East, maybe even India! The German Empire stood or fell in the East and nowhere else. Its a fact that the Western powers were not very important to Germany (except for France, but they were defeated), Britain was a pain in the arse but the Germans never really wanted to invade it or even go to war with them. The US were important only economically by supporting the USSR. They were destined to win their fight against the Japanese from the start, which is the only place they were a large military factor. When fighting the West before 1941 the Japanese had only been attacking weak colonial garrisons like Indonesia (except for the British one) so their conquest wasnt that hard to achieve. And please lets keep the discussion organized and clear.

Wiki1609 11:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoever won the eastern front would have won the whole thing The USSR would have lost, if there was not the United States and Great Britain to mount offensives, not at the aim of diverting resources, but at the aim driving into Germany (Well DER Germany and not anywhere else, or else they would have invaded Norway like Hitler thought, forcing him to move troops and supplies to a bad place for a battlefield). It comes down to whether people believe whether the USSR would have been able to battle Germany by itself, without Germany facing any other threat (be that as small as it may be). Well I say Russia would have lost without Great Britain and the US.--LtWinters 21:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

While the allies certainly helped the Soviet Union, and it is quite possible that without their help the USSR would fall, by the time the allies drove into Germany the war in Europe was already decided. The main reason for the opening of the Second Front in June 1944 was to prevent the Russians from reaching the Atlantic. Symbolically, the fate of the Third Reich was decided at Stalingrad, and sealed at Kursk. The Eastern Front of WWII contained more combat than all the other european fronts combined; the european axis suffered from 75% to 85% casualties there. With respect, Ko Soi IX 10:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

further discussion

Wiki1609, I presume when you write that Japan attacked colonial possessions before 1941, you wish to refer to French Indochina, not Indonesia... Anyway, your argument that no big fights occured in Asia is not founded when you consider the battles in China, Philippines, Okinawa, Iwo Jima. Yout argument that the battles in China did not affect other countries can also be use against USSR. Was the impact of Stalingrad more important on USA than Changde ? Those battles had indirect impact on countries not involved in weakening the positions of the loser. Thus by losing the eastern european front, Germany could not fight back adequatly in the west and by not being able to conquer China, Japan lost in Philipines, Burma and some big islands of the Pacific. (By the way, just considering the 30 millions deaths in Asia (10 millions at least in China) caused by the showa invasion, you can not argue that this was a minor front...) --Flying tiger 21:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I think that the Eastern Front was very important. It diverted something like 85% of Germany's forces away from the West, and if the Germans had won there, D-day would have probably never happened. Had Stalin been a better general and had he not purged his generals, the Eastern front war would have been over much sooner. Loyh 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Wiki1609 is rather correct. Remove the Allies on the Western front, and the USSR simply conquers Europe. The Western front was important in the sense that it prevented the post-war from being the unrestricted rise of stalinism ; but as for the war itself, it was no more significant than the Free French contribution was important to the Allies: a key strategic move aimed at the post-war, and a significant but non-essential help for the war itself. Rama 07:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Remove the Western Allies and the Soviets would have been defeated at Stalingrad and Stalin would've learned to speak German. Parsecboy 12:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Remove blablabla learn to speak [name of the language of the archdevil]... For Heisenberg's love, listen to yourself ! Rama 12:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've been trying to resist this East Coast-West Coast silliness, but it's just too tempting. Supposing that the Western Allies go home as late as Spring 1944, has anyone considered what would happen in the air or at sea? Hundreds of U-boats in the Baltic, anyone? A delay of the Soviet offensive by even a year would have meant that their air force would have been up against more and better German jets. Give the Germans back air parity, and are we sure they wouldn't use chemical or biological weapons on the Soviets? No matter what, the war would have taken longer, and my guess is that the Germans could have inflicted so much pain on the Soviets as to make the invasion of eastern Germany impossible. Haber 12:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me but type VII and type IX u-boats were not designed to operate easily in the shallow waters of the baltic. It would just have resulted in most of them being easy targets and consequently destroyed. About the supposed nazi WMD, why would they have used them in your fictional history when in reality they have never used them on the battlefield even when their situation was deseperate? Med 13:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
The story I heard was that Hitler had been through gas attacks in WWI and didn't like them. Nevertheless I think the principle of Massive retaliation also had something to do with it. Good point about the U-boats though. Haber 19:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
What I am saying all the time is that the real fighting was going on in the East, and fighting is what matters in a war. The US was very useful in supporting the USSR and the British, Canadians, French etc. that kept fighting in the West kept the Germans busy, but the decisive fight was simply in the East. The West was a minor theater for the Germans after 1940. And I'm not saying that the USSR would have held out without Western aid (I even doubt it), but this doesnt matter for my point. I see the use of the Western front as this: up to 1943 the Western Allies fought to relieve the Russians (but not quite enough, to keep both them and the Germans busy) and after that it was a race to halt the advance of Communism further than the German border. Actually most of Eastern Europe had been fighting Communism along with the Germans, too bad for them they lost. Wiki1609 14:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, because for sure if the allies were not in North Africa or Europe at all, Germany would have probably beat the USSR. Wiki, because of your arguement, you could even say that the USSR was a way to keep Germany busy so that the western allies were able to push against an easier force and drive into Germany. --64.205.199.7 15:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, the Russians defeated the Wehrmacht, while the most important thing the Allies did was defeating Luftwaffe. The Germans lost 42 thousand planes to the Allies, and no less than 30 thousand to the Soviet Union. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that is way too simplistic and dead wrong is to say that one nation defeated Germany. It took the whole world, and Adolf Hitler, to defeat Germany. The USSR took the vast majority of the casualties and the economic losses, the infrastructural damage, etc. Half the male population of countries like Georgia, etc died in the war. 95% of those aged 17-21 in Russia died. 9-12 million soviet soldiers died in combat. 10-20 million more Soviet civilains died. 80% of German casualties in WWII occured fight the Soviet Union. That was because there was no one left on continent to fight Germany unti she was weak enough, and the west strong enough to invade mainland Europe in the last 10 months of the war. The majority of battles happened in the East. I think 3 out of every 4 in the whole war were soviet-German engagements. Americans never faced the sort of Armor formations that the Germans had in the first few years of the war, the soviets did. Just look at Kursk, and that is all the proof you need. Again, why did we let them take Berlin? because we thought it was theres. Each theatre was important, and the west caused the Germans to lose air superiority in East, but it was HItler's insane orders and his obsessive dividing of his forces capabilites to attack new targets and open new fronts, all the while over rulling of his top Generals, along with his fanatical "fight to the last man" policy that really did the Germans in despite having taken on, essentially, the whole world with countless conquests and successes between 1939-42. Of any place the Eastern Front is definately the most vital to the WWII, however, people shouldn't get their knickers in a twist in the west by this. USA wasn't even killing people until 1942, Germany had been at war for going 3 years at that point. The western contributions to the war were also vital to helping to defeat Nazi Germany. The German military killed more enemies then they lost, and the vast majoritey of their losses came in 1945 when the war had already been strategically impossible to win for quite some time. In adidtion, Germans were much more likely to surrenders to the West Allies then the Soviets. THis made the fighting at the end often less intense in the west, and thus the speed of the invasion faster through france, then the Soviets in the East. Also, alot of the Germans were fighting to get civilians into Western zones, for fear of Soviet atrocities against the civilian population. The hatred for the Soviets was much greater then that for the Americans and even the Brits.

I think that the Western Front is important cause they won. --64.205.199.7 14:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

So you do agree that the Eastern Front was the most important of all? So this should be made clear here on wikipedia. It should educate everyone that visits this site, and (perhaps especially Americans) should learn their part in the war was minor when it came to fighting. Even the fighting they did in Europe was on an entirely different scale than in the East, basically the Western allies bombed the hell out of a place with aircraft and artillery and then let the infantry move into the ruins, not much fighting for the average infantryman there.
Anyway, the Germans also didnt fight the Russians just because there was noone left on the continent, they fought them last because they knew they were the biggest challenge. The Germans (and Hitler) knew that after the German unification, they surpassed France as the greatest European power. They also knew that while the Germans were the mightiest between 1870 and the near future, Russia was closing in qua population and industrial output. They overestimated the Russians in WW1, but their fear became reality in WW2 even though the Russians still required help. In short, the Germans knew and expected the Eastern Front to be deciding in both WW1 and WW2 (just look at the Schlieffen plan and the fact France was attacked first in WW2). And this should be made clear in this Wiki article. Wiki1609 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the fallout from WW1 and the events of the interbellum deserve to be treated a little more heavily than they currently are. Most governments were afraid of another war of attrition, while Germany and Japan were downright itching to go to war. Xaxafrad 04:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Downright itching needs to be expanded to what areas were scratched. Sounds like you are examining only European and Japanese actions. What countries in the Pacific were being occupied by puppets of western empires? How big of a scratch was that? Being that the US was scratching its arm because of its complaints of asian expansion of Japan, Japan wasnt in the western hemisphere, so Japan probably was scratching its face while the US was crying foul! Also how important was the influence of the 1929 crash of the economy on all countries because I believe Germany and Japan were involved in an economic system that was western, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

new angle

Ultimately I think it'd be OR to definitely state that one phase of the conflict was more-important. We can state factual metrics (men, % of armed forces, casualties etc.) and quote reputable historians, but not infer anything directly ourselves.

Personally, I've always held to the feeling that the military combat portion of WWII can be divided up into four roughly-equal areas.

  • Germany & allies v.s. Western Allies
    • Initial assault on Europe (Poland, Norway, France, Britain)
    • Battle of the Atlantic
    • Mediterranean, Middle East and Africa
    • Western European Campaign (1944-1945)
  • Germany & allies v.s. Soviet Union
  • Japan & allies in South-East Asia (China, Burma etc.)
  • Japan & allies in the Pacific

The reason why I expanded out the first one is to emphasis that, while none of the campaigns of Germany vs the West individually come close to the scale of the Eastern Front, all of them put together are significant enough to stand in the same tier.

In my opinion, this is also how we should structure the article, it would prevent hopping around, as each of the four areas are relatively self-contained (whereas something like the Battle of Greece had a direct impact on the campaign in Africa) and it would give the Soviet-German War more emphasis then it currently has (and deserves); putting in the same heading level as "Germany's Atlantic Wall" is, IMHO, not very representative. Oberiko 13:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think that even together the Western and Southern campaigns did not come close to the Eastern conflict qua importance. I dont think you can count Poland in '39 and Norway, France etc. in 1940 as Western front along with the campaign after June 1944. After 1940 and the failure of Seelöwe, Hitler turned his attention to the East and the West saw fighting only at sea. And you should also add 'Balkans campaign' to your section of 'Germany & allies v.s. Soviet Union' as this was done in support of Barbarossa. Anyway I'm glad a busy Wikipedian like you agrees to my point.Wiki1609 11:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Why would the Balkans campain be listed as the german-soviet war? ALthough it was done in support of Operation Barbossa, no Soveits fought in the war, only the British and those nations living in the Balkans. As a matter of fact, its believed that in the Balkans the USSR was saved because they had to divert panzers to the Balkans for 5 weeks, delaying the attack on the USSR. --LtWinters 11:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
@Wiki1609 - Importance is hard to gauge. There were certainly more German casualties against the Soviets then in Hitler's war with the Anglo-American-centric (AAc) forces. But other factors, such as the duration of the conflicts (The west starting roughly a year and a half earlier), the type of forces (the entirety of the German navy was used solely against the AAc) etc. make it a bit more blurry. That said, I respect your opinion that the war in the East was the largest of (what I define as) the four main areas of WWII; it's just not something which can be explicitly said in the article. As per the norm, the reader has to make up their own mind on it. I would heartily endorse you to remove the Soviet-German War from it's current place though, and to follow something like:
  • Course of World War II
    • European Theatre
      • Germany's war with the West
        • Poland, France, Atlantic, Mediterranean & Middle East etc.
      • German-Soviet War
    • Asia-Pacific Theatre
It really couldn't be put much higher then that. Oberiko 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the East being the largest of the four main areas is not opinion, but fact (or at least the opinion of most historians on WW2, making it closest to fact) and therefore deserves explicit mentioning. If you ask the question; 'Who defeated the Germans?', the only short answer is 'the Soviet Union'. The West was nothing more than half-finished business for the Germans after 1940, they never really wanted to invade Great Britain (there were no real plans or equipment to do this, only the thought Britain would accept a deal). Hitler gambled wrong when he attacked Poland, the Western Allies rejected his peace offerings and he went on to attack Western Europe. There he defeated the French and British so fast the Germans literally had no idea what to do next (they even paused the attack for 1 day because it was going too fast, enabling the Allies to escape at Dunkirk). After this the battle of the Atlantic and the air war continued to force Britain down without invasion, because Hitler started the biggest adventure of all (even though Hitler thought it would be a piece of cake after the Winter War). After Barbarossa started, the West was simply very minor in comparison. Like I said even when the West was still the 'hot' theatre it lasted only 4 weeks before all German objectives were reached (the defeat of France). I dont think readers have to make up their own minds, I think we must represent what the commonly held beliefs on the subject are, and (AFAIK) those are that the Eastern Front was vital and most important and should be known as such.

To cite some (introductional) passages:

  • 'Both in scale and temper and therefore in its consequenses [!] the war in the USSR was altogether different from any of the other campaigns embraced by the Second World War.' The Penguin History of the Second World War, p. 479
  • 'The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the German onslaught and broke the back of German Power.' R. Overy, Why the Allies won, p. 1
  • [About Stalingrad:] 'These Soviet victories marked the turning-point of the whole war, as victory in 1919 had turned the tide of the civil war.' Ibid. p. 64

Wiki1609 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem, quotes by reputable sources are acceptable within the article itself. When you have the section on the Soviet-German War established, you can put a few of the more prominent ones as the lead in. You can also do the same on the article on the Eastern Front. So long as it's not us as editors saying "It's the most important", but a cited comment from Respected Historian X, there's no qualm with original research. Oberiko 16:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of OR, I would describe the Eastern War as mostly attritional, while the Allies employed more strategy (with the debatably (un)intended benefit of causing fewer casualties). Also, which citation method does this article use? Xaxafrad 17:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you saying that in the East the hordes just walked into each other, while in the West talented generals executed majestic manuevers of military art? With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that's what you said; I said "mostly attritional" and "more strategy", but I'll thank you for trying to read between my lines despite the misunderstanding. Oberiko has made recent comments comparing the scale and scope of certain battles of the Eastern Front with the entirety of certain Western Front campaigns. The Allies were somewhat less than willing to declare war in the first place, and they certainly didn't want any unnecessary casualties (at least, on their side); Hitler and Stalin thought little of sending tens/hundreds of thousands of people to their deaths. Hitler lost because Stalin allowed his field commanders more decision making powers. When a soldier dies, it hits his comrades the hardest, and his commander second hardest, while the commander in chief only notices the bottom line. Without some emotional investment, Hitler insanely sent his armies on suicide missions. Stalin had the same amount of emotional investment as Hitler, but he allowed those commanders who actually valued the lives of their troops to make some/most military decisions--Stalin allowed people to argue with him and he even sometimes trusted their judgment. The Soviet war machine was simply more efficient. I wouldn't exactly call the island hopping campaign a majestic maneuver, but it was better than wasting unnecessary resources.
And I'm not saying Stalin wasted resources. Hitler wasted resources, Stalin was forced to match....Like some kind of morbidly perverted poker game. Xaxafrad 03:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I find your simplified conception lacking. Hitler didn't waste resources in a sense that you are implying. The Soviet Union was a very strong country; because it was highly centralized it could achieve levels of mobilization not possible in other states, and focus it's strength on a single goal. To defeat the Soviet Union Hitler needed all those resources and more. And as for what they thought, how do you know? I find it absolutely possible for Hitler having sad thoughts about the German soldiers killed under his command, same with Stalin and Russian soldiers. It's war, and mercy to the enemy is treason to your own people.
Eastern Front, in terms of soldiers killed+missing+dead of other causes = 14 million, at least 2/3 of soldiers killed in the entire WW2, from Atlantic to Pacific. 5 million axis and up to 9 million soviets (1/3 in german captivity) in uniform lost their lives.
Oops, forgot to sign. With respect Ko Soi IX 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Troops were probably like pawns on a chessboard to those two dictators. Whatever happened to the good old days where the king lead the charge into battle? But seriously, I am aware that people are more multifaceted than they appear. Xaxafrad 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I think that comparing troops to pawns on a chessboard could be done regarding any country that fought in that war. I mean, the Chinese, or the Poles, or the British etc could elso be "evil". With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, you guys are goign through the same endless crap again, it's like trying to argue if the israelis or the palestinians really deserve current-day Israel. SO if you are saying we should make it clear ww2 was a war between the soviets and the germans with a few other minor theaters, i disagree, i mean how can a theater be friggen unimportant if it contains more than 2 armygroups? --LtWinters 17:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this is an argument which doesn't need to exist. Wiki1609 feels that the Eastern Front is the most important, that's fine; as long as he doesn't, in the article, belittle the other areas or write any OR, there's no problem. It seems like this is turning into a debate, between ourselves, as to which theatre / area was the most important: we can't decide that and have no authority to do so. Posting arguments (even referenced ones) as to why a particular area is the most important is wasted here. If an area is more important, it will likely be reflected in the facts within the article.
Wiki1609's contention seems to boil down to a belief that the Soviet-German War is understated, I have expressed that I'm fine with moving it to a heading level just under the European Theatre and grouping all German (& allies) combat action against the Western Allies under a different section also just under the European Theatre. I don't think anyone has a problem with that as the two are reasonably segregated. Oberiko 18:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Ladies and gentlemen, what is this argument about? The axis lost over 8 000 000 soldiers (according to this article). Out of this eight million over five million (5 000 000) were killed on the Eastern Front. This should be mentioned, alongside with the Western effort in defeating the Luftwaffe (the single most importan allied contribution to european WW2 - without it the USSR could fail, or, most certainly, suffer far more horrific losses.), the American (and allied) effort in defeating the Japanese Navy and Airforce and the Chinese effort in holding against IJA; it should be in this order. This should be in the introduction, but I don't want to change it now before hearing what you think. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out this is like argueing the infobox. It is very good we are discussing this and maybe we will have a possible outcome, but let's all remember this is simply an opinion sub-topic, and we are all going to disagree. --LtWinters 16:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I dont think this is a matter of opinions, its a critique on the article because it downplays the importance of one theater of operations. There should be no arguing about whether the Eastern Front was the most important of the war, because this is an established FACT in mainstream historiography, but just about how to improve the article. There should be at least mention of this importance and thats why I made my first comment. I also really dislike the main picture which has D-Day as the biggest picture, so even there the Western Front gets disproportional attention. If the picture was to be proportional to theaters importance, the D-Day pic and the Reichstag pic should swap in size, and thats also how the article should be balanced. Wiki1609 12:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one would like to point out that all world history is merely the story of who has the most horses; the current modern era is a mere afterthought. Similarly, the entire cosmos is a struggle between hydrogen and entropy. Furthermore, reality itself is a struggle between sub-atomic particles.
Do you see my point? I really don;t think we need to increase the importance of one section at the expense of others. Of course the Eastern Front was of prime importance. However, saying that makes the Western Front negligible is like saying a ten-alarm fire in one town erases all importance of an 8-alarm fire somewhere else. the two things are both important.
the reason the Western Front is also important is that the war there was an existential battle for survivial between several of the world's most prominent nations. So I have more problem with calling that "minor" then if you had labeled, say, the Australian theatre as minor. So i feel we should not create false dichotomies here. --Sm8900 20:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The struggle for survival is actually one of the things that made the Eastern Front unique, this is the only place where there was a real 'Weltanschauungskrieg' as Hitler called it. Fasciscm and Communism were each others antipoles. Parliamentary democracy and capitalism werent the opposite of Fascism thats why they are not regarded as part of the Weltanschauungskrieg. Both Germany and the Soviet Union were facing annihilation by the other side (and not just as a state, but also ethnic annihilation), you did not find these kind of things in the battle against France or Britain. Thats why the article should at least say this was a special part of the war. I understand the last comparison, but what if the smaller fire could only be stopped if the big one was extinguished first? It does make the big fire more important. Wiki1609 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Come to think of it, if the Eastern Front is a ten-alarm fire, than the Western front is a two-alarm fire. That's quite a difference. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Confused unsigned comments

Mr. IP address: please consider registering a username and signing your talk page comments. Doing so would make it a little easier to give your long winded comments the consideration they deserve. As it is, you compact so many ideas into such a small space, and you have a habit of thinly disguising your personal attacks that I fear few people will take you seriously. Xaxafrad 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First, don't take the professor's advice as gospel. I, myself, have proven proffesor's have been wrong. Never get into a type of mentality where the professor knows everything and you accept everything he or she may say and regurgitate to an audience as if you were a zombie. Not intentionally implying you do but professors should not be looked upon as speakers of axioms in history. Consider what they say and most importantly recognize they are humans with bias as well and at times because of their position as a professor allow their overconfidence to relax into a false sense of "knowing it all". On the contrary, just when you decide you know everything, you really know nothing :) Nevertheless, I agree with you that WW II was predominantly European and the Pacific theater was minor. However, I disagree with the Japan and China assertion. Japan was seriously mistaken if it believed that pacifying China would allow it to win against the Unted Sttaes. Japan was trying to get a compromise with a United States but didn't bank on the fact that the Allies were not going to compromise :( Preceding WW II, many western and a good number of eastern journalists printed in their papers that Japan could never defeat Russia and China. japan did both. Japan tried the third time at beating a giant like the United States but what was different was that Japan was facing too m any nations that supported the United States and their unconditional surrender. Japan gambled and lost dearly. In my personal opinion, I think that that little island country the size of California lost the war the day of Pearl Harbor. I still look back at that event and wonder which idiot decided to gamble. Therefor, China or no China, it doesn't make a difference. Anyone familiar with how governments are st up should also be familiar that the appearance and actual control of a coutnry are twoo different things and Japan would have created more difficulties for itself in the long run with the appearance of control over China. Finally, I strongly disagree with your assertion about decolonization. Yes you are right, decolonization attempts ot attempts at independence did occur pre-WW II. However, the proliferation of these movements and the extents to which these movements went were significant enough to label the events of decolonization a historical period or reaction. Is tudy insurgencues and independence movements and know personally that pre-WWII movements of independence did not exist as the period we know as decolonization. Independence movements were not stron befor WW II. They were weak. Post-World War II Bretton Woods Conference may have been an indication of a new arisal of economic dominance but let's be realistic here. Low-Intensity Conflicts during the Cold War cannot and should not be ignored. They occured at such a scale to disinguish the decolonization term you revoke and also challenges western dominance in the geographic areas where these movements occurred. We cannot ignore history here based on esoteric semantics because 9 times out of ten, those semantics are used in place of a weak argument. So, decolonization is a term and deserves to be distinguished as a historical term and event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

Uggggh, those books are not the gosepl, sorry to burst your bubble and mentioning those books don't shake anyone's legs. State what you use form these books, don't just mention the books. How would people feel if I suggested to you to read the Bible or something :) In addition, what geographical region are these books referring to and was that the minor aspect of WW II? Moreover, post-WW II Low- intensity Conflicts occurred more in Latin America than asia. Are you aware of that? How many of those battles were by Mao which you have mentioned? Nothing you have stated makes sense, please make sens out of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

Your professor sounds like he is very skilled. When you get into post-graduate studeis you will be taught how an emphasis on single events can continue a sense of continuity and discontinuity. These instruments are very effective in creating a chronology that an individual may decide to add or discount certain events in order to make a target or country appear as the good guy or bad guy. Be careful when people do this, because it could make the difference between being wrong or embarrasingly wrong. Japanese imperialism is a part of World War II. The United States became involved in the war officially after Pearl Harbor and as a result of actions partaken by Japan. We must remember that these actions such as Pearl Harbor were taken when Japan was in its process of Japanese imperialism. Thus to seperate 1936 from the rest of WW II history is a very good propaganda tool and I would say your professor is very talented and I admire him for that :) Nevertheless, Pearl Harbor was a result of Japanese imperialism and it could be looked upon as wrong to seperate the period of Japanese imperialism form WW II history when the single most influential event that led to US involvement in this war was a result of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

Probably the same place I am :) It is unconscionable and humorous to even consider that the U.S. did more fighting that the Soviets. The United States' importance in this war was very high and in all wars reserves that arrive to join the battle are like little angels to soldiers whom desperately need that morale and resources. However, the united States came into the war when the majority of the heavy fighting was already done and sacrifices of various countries on both sides were already done. Japan winning the war:) That is the biggest joke I have heard in my entire life. Where did or do you get your education? The Unisverisyt of Cold War propaganda? It is convenient for purpose of American hubris to make an enemy appear stronger or "evil" in order to make one's own actions appear larger than what they are. The Soviet Union did more and in my opinion, had it not been for the Soviet Union, we would all be speaking German today :) Japan, yeah ok , they were a real threat like the perpetrtaors of 9/11 hugh. One more reiteration of a point here for the baka guyjins that think they know Japanese history. Japan gave the appearance of control in China. The Japanese and Chinese writers on both sides of the issue whom were involved with the war or have studied the war all state that Japan never came close to controlling China nor did they really have control in the areas Japan claimed they did. Let's get out of the conventional war type of thinking that led us into the quagmire of Viet-Nam, "gaining control of a city when an enemy moves out of the area, neither means defeat of the enemy or actual control the geographic area surrounding that city. Hmmmm. Mao Tse Tsung once said surround the cities within the countryside and swim amongst the people as a fish swims in a sea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

How many deaths were there when comparing the European and Pacific theater of the war? Japan never threatend the United States. Japan was no more a threat than African-Americans were on drugs when souther white men claimed that cocaine caused the "evil" african americans to rape white women and that the chinese were purposely using opium to make white people into slaves in San Franciso. STOP! We are tired of the lies and the propaganda that continues to plague western culture. The constant, they are dangerous communists, they are dangerous terrosists, etc. The games are up and everyone including Americans can see through all the lies and Operation Northwoods. Enough is enough and there is no more wolf in the world. Japan's biggest act of threatening aggression was a surprise attack against the U.S. which the U.S. easily recovered from. 9/11 was by a group of psycho terrorists supporting a man with a lot of money and one man's terorist is another mna's freedom fighter. We are suppsoedly against terrorism but what about the likes of Luis Carriles and the COntras or government s we supported guilty of genocide as suring the India-Pakistani War of 1971 and Guatemala etc.etc.etc. Nevetheless, the Japanese were never a real threat and it is the perpetuation of this myth which has continued to uphold western propaganda during the Cold War against countries that event western journalists from this country acknowledged as a farce to the war on terrorism. Let's be realistic here, the war on terrorism is a war against anyone who doesnt support our status quo in the world. Many U.S. government documents petaining to regimes we supported in the past that committed genocide all show the same pattern of reaction from US officials, "we still can count on them to support our policies". Anyone familiar with this area finds this familiar as well. Or anytime Israel steps out of line in doing something the international community feels is horrendous , watch to see if the statement by our officials is "it doesnt help" because its becoming cliche:) Anyways, Japan wasnt a threat and anyone that beleives in this myth is not so short from becoming a machine uncapable for thinking for themselves. Sorry, the truth does hurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

Pardon my point of view, but you yourself sound like a propaganda machine. Who's a baka guyjin? The Japanese military was a threat to a lot of people before August 1945. The fact is, it was easier for the Allies to starve the Japanese islands than it was for Hitler to starve Britain. Were the atomic bombs necessary? No: the Soviets could've continued their land grab for another few months, the Allies and Japanese could've gone to hand to hand combat should an invasion have been authorized, while the Chinese and Burmese people could've continued living in subservience to the Japanese Empire. Xaxafrad 07:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on the unecessariness of the atomic bombs. Nevertheless, you accused me of sounding like a propaganda machine with negligence toward HOW? Stating somehting doesnt make it a dictum, sorry. The Japanese were not a threat to anyone but Asians. There is no eveidence of extension of an Asian empire to include land where whites lived. You have made a grave error in your thinking. In fact, if you look at history, the most aggressive of any culture when considering west versus east is an undeniable west. The European countries were the only ones involved in the land grabs of north and south American continents, massive genocide on native indegenous, massive migrations of Europeans to both continents, forced assimilation and mixing of races. No eastern country partook of actions of such a massive scale. Western culture has always been the leaders in the choseness propaganda and in the superiority complex. How many colored people in the world support western versions or "versions" of history. Worse, western history including this country's can always consistently be accused and rightfully so of not considering the victim's viewpoint. Even in its criminal courts, the victim is emphasized as an important aspect of the incident, but when it comes to history of western culture, what a direct opposite. As I have always maintained, western history has turned into a repetitive and boring cycle of we got all the power and money and did it by being good people doing good things. Vomit doesnt describe the adequate response to such PROPAGANDA :) More and more the rest of the international community is starting to see that the US and the west in general love to demonize a weak enemy and make it seem larger to justify its consistent use of excessive force and expansion of influence. We are starting to get tired of the US hollering and shouting and disrespecting other cultures in the world, contradicting its own self-proclaimed beliefs, and basically bullying other countries because it can. Here is the shcoker, there is no wolf in the world. The only sheep in the world that should be afraid are the sheep that oppose US interests abroad. Has been like this especially post-Spanish American War and now. Even American cronies in continents across the world will support the US but always claim they are restricted in what they can or cant do because of US threat of force or other economic pressures. Anyone whom has traveled and spoke with others on other countries are starting to see more and more of this:) Nothing is permanent and the US will inevitably lose its hegemony, the question is HOW it will lose it and through lokking at its history of the accumultation of lies and masssacres, its far from a positive one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.73.253 (talk • contribs)

When you said I made a "grave error" in my thinking, what did you mean? Adding the adjective "grave" is unnecessary considering the remainder of your statement. Is "grave" synonymous with "fatal"? Am I going to die because my thoughts were erroneous? Are you threatening me? Please see that adding "grave" to your statement is an example of propaganda. As an aside, which error were you referring to? Was it my accusing you of spouting propaganda, or was it when I allegedly asserted that the burgeoning "Asian empire" of the 1930's and 40's was encroaching on "land where whites lived"?

You also said that stating something doesn't make it a dictum, when it seems to me that most of your statements carry the tone of a dictum. I think it's hard for any person to make a series of reasoned arguments without making a few statements sound like dicta.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that nothing is permanent (excepting realities unbound by time). The hegemony of any given nation will fade in due course. The nation-state is a transient social concept: the historical trend is towards unity, despite the many regressive elements. The biggest question is: are those regressive elements increasing or deceasing in number and/or ability. Xaxafrad 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I've only partially read the above walls of text, but they don't seem to be about improving the article. User:130.127.73.253, can you sum up what exactly you'd like to change in the article and why? If it's something major (which it seems to be), can you provide the sources of your claims? Oberiko 21:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

splittig the article?

Since the horrors of WWII are of such magnitude and spread all over the world, perhaps we should split the article into pacific and a european war. Or even in three parts: Europe western front/conflicts, europe eastern front and pacific. On the other hand, there still should be a general article. It is arguable that the conflicts in the pacific and in europe didn't influence each other to a great extent. Central points, of course, must be the futility and waste, although it can also be argued that that is not being very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sikkema (talk • contribs)

If you look, there already are the split articles, at Pacific War, European Theatre of World War II, Eastern Front (World War II). The Pacific theatre has been split even further into Pacific Ocean theater of World War II, Second Sino-Japanese War, South-East Asian theatre of World War II, and South West Pacific theatre of World War II.
It is also arguable that the theatres did affect each other a great deal. For example, because the Soviets were comfortable with the non-aggression pact with Japan, they were able to withdraw their crack troops from Siberia, and send them to carry the day at Moscow. Without them, the Soviets might have lost the war. The British were stretched very thin between fighting the Germans in the Western theatre and trying to defend against Japan in Burma. We could imagine other what-if scenarios all day long relating to the dependence of one theatre on the other, but I don't feel like it at the moment. Parsecboy 00:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedic treatment of World War II that supercedes, but doesn't impinge upon, the scope of over a dozen well developed sub-articles...Although World War II should be able to stand on it's own, without necessarily considering any sub-articles. Xaxafrad 04:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

World War II - when so named?

I can't see it in the article, sorry if it's in the mountains of archives, but, what was 'it' called for its duration and when did the Americans call it a World War? Also why WWII, which doesn't sound like natural prose. Is it from a newspaper headline or something like that? Hakluyt bean 19:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always wondered that about both world wars, what did they call it at the time? Presumably they only get names like World War Two and so on after they have happened and people are looking back? SGGH speak! 09:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
i no the 1st world war was called the great war or mayby the war too end all wars untill this one, i dont no about this oen thogugh(Esskater11 13:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC))
Wot?c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 22:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
The Soviets called it the great patriotic war, but I'm not sure if that's what the Russians call it today.

African theater

Are the pre-war Italian maneuvers in Africa mentioned anywhere? I'm thinking the background/causes section needs some tweaking, including mention of the world depression. Xaxafrad 07:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

OK.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 07:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Done.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 11:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Parsecboy, let me talk to you. It is stated in the link that it is 72 million.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 06:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, that is just one source. In previous discussions about this issue, other sources saying 60 million, less than that, and between 60 and 72 have been presented, so there really is no set, commonly accepted figure for the number of casualties. 60 million is in the middle, and saying "more than 60 million" encompasses most of the figures. Parsecboy 10:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Parsecboy, I feel what we have now is perfect, about a month ago I had been trying to get them to change those stats on the ww2 casualties page (I disagree with the title, because a casualty is someone dead, wounded, missing, or a POW, and we only list those dead), and the editors mainly concerned with that article won't budge, but on the page it is mentioned that there are other esimates much less than that so yeah...--LtWinters 13:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
'kay then.c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 05:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia's armored fist

What Russia? If anyone has any evidence that a certain "Russia" existed as an independent entity, please let me know or else change it to "Soviet" and stop this embarassing mistake. At present I ain't bold enough to change it.Tourskin 20:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I just went and replaced most cases of "Russia" by "Soviet Union", but I'm not certain whether it's always the best choice. Generally it's not appropriate to speak about Russia or Russians in a WWII article unless it's a very specific case (the Moscow is situated in Russia, Kiew isn't kind...). I'm not sure when all these "Russias" crept into the article, they certainly weren't there in earlier versions of the earticle I recall.--Caranorn 20:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed structure

I've got a rough draft up of what I think would be a better structure for the article at User:Oberiko/World War II, any modifications or comments are welcome. Oberiko 20:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. 96T 11:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree it looks quite good, though I added a missing line to the Europe section. Brisvegas 11:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion we should not split up the western allies and the battle of russia, because I feel as an article, this is more of a timeline, and although I see it acceptable to split up the japanese and german's wars, because the same enemy is fighting both the soviets and the western powers I feel that we should war against the western allies and the Soviet-German war. But besides that I like it. --LtWinters 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons why I don't want to merge them:
  • Merged theatres are messy - By having the Soviet-German War (SGW) merged with the German-Western Allies War (GWAW) we'll have a lot of breaks to "jump" back to the other the other theatre. This leads to disruption in article continuity. The only exception I'd make is to preserve the "4th headers" rule1 and if several campaigns are part of a larger theatre and heavily connected; for example, the initial blitzkrieg assault on Europe or the actions in the Mediterranean.
  • Already segregated - There is a pretty big segregation between the SGW and GWAW, the only real connections between them are logistical. In other words, they only affected each other indirectly; something that doesn't require detailed explanation within each. Basically we can keep them linked via small, one-sentence, updates ("The ... of the Western Allies forced the Germans to then divert precious resources from ...")
  • Scope - The sheer size and complexity of the SGW is at least equal to that of the entirety of the GWAW. Kursk or Stalingrad for example, were each larger then many individual GWAW campaigns.
  • Focus of expertise - Our writers are more likely to know about some theatre in its entirety rather then "WWII in 1943", this can help editors stay within their area of knowledge
  • Mirrors articles - By merging, we run the risk of many "main articles" for a section, which diminishes the "main" part. By having it segregated, we can have (usually) one main article per section, making it easier for readers to pick up expanded information (as before, there's no "WWII in 1943" article)
  • Would have to do the same for other areas - To maintain article consistency, we'd have to do the same thing for the Asia-Pacific theatre, which, with twice as many "primary" areas, would get quite messy, quite quickly. Some might then argue we should do the same for the entire article, instead of breaking it down by Europe and Asia.
  • Availability of time-line - There's already a detailed chronology available where people can read about the war as it happened, this can serve as complementary material to the main WWII article, which is about understanding the basics of the war itself. Oberiko 15:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
1 - I don't want to go beneath fourth level headers to avoid cramming to much into the article
I have to say, I am very happy with the new strucute of the article, with 2 minor exceptions. The titles of the "Germany's underbelly" and "Regrouping" don't make too much sense for me. Germany's underbelly was referred to by Churchill in (I believe) 1942, but it was not only Italy, he said we should invade through the Balkans or Italy, but this sub-part of the article only includes Italy. Concerning Regrouping, I notice we make that a sub-unit under the Soviet Union Pushes back, I think it deserves its own section right after 'the ussr pushes back', or at least a change in the title, because they weren't regrouping, that was in the winters of 1941-1942, they were launching a counter-offensive.--LtWinters 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, I know I was immature when I first joined and I edited without concensus. I apolojize. But now, many people have been changing the structure of the article and the infobox without consulting others (I know I really shouldn't be the one saying this as I did it 2 months ago, sorry). Can we at least ask for opinions before one changes things?--LtWinters 18:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I may have been too bold in my efforts to organize this article. But, in defense of this last reorganization, several people expressed good opinions of the layout, so I applied it to the article. It's not perfect, especially the Asian war sections. But it'll improve. It's too easy for this article to be a long list of facts and events, but to be a good article, it should tell a story (you know, those things with beginnings, middles, and ends). Xaxafrad 19:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Xaxa, I'm not saying I didn't like all of it, although I'm not 100% with the war in Europe, you did improve the Pacific war.--LtWinters 01:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Length

I really feel the article's length is fine right now, even when it was at 164,000 kb like a month ago. Why is it important that we keep the article short?--LtWinters 19:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention span. When the guys from the Featured Article review committee get here, they have to go over the whole article. If the article is much over 50kb, it almost doesn't matter about the other qualities. However, in this case, I feel WW2 should be an exception. Unfortunately, I think the eastern front is disproportionately developed, probably at the expense of the Asian front, and there is a dearth of references. Once those issues have been addressed, getting FA status should be a snap. Xaxafrad 20:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree in the belief that there's to much detail in here. A lot of it can safely be trimmed back without damaging the core of the article. Oberiko 21:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with Xaxafrad, World War II is a article that just has too be long. The ASian front, I think as well, is a little short. c'mon, we've fished a good one. Me Page Talk to me 22:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed all the war FAs and compiled some numbers for the sake of comparison. For the article length number, I highlighted the entire body of the article, image captions and all, and copied it to a sandbox page, and hit preview. And after seeing this chart, I'm still a little on the fence regarding the appropriate length for this article. This isn't an article in a military encyclopedia, after all. Xaxafrad 06:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox... again

Take a look at the Infobox... any thoughts? I had been thinking about our 'discussion' last time, and I was thinking, how about for major combatants, they be the nations that if they were not involved or quickly run over, then the axis would have won? Ex. If the Free French did not participate in the allied compaign, we still would have won. --LtWinters 14:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's OR to say if the Allies would have won or not without a specific nationality. Could the Allies have won without the U.S.? Possibly. Could the Allies have won without Canada's intervention in the Battle of the Atlantic? Maybe not. No one can say for certain. There's also the other problem of applying the same standard to the Axis Powers. Oberiko 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yea, you're right because we'll just argue endlessly again about that... I added the USSR to the axis because they did invade Poland with Germany and also invaded Finland unprovoked, they were axis until 1941. --LtWinters 16:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Infobox looks a lot more confusing than the usual 5x3, to be honest. I don't know if it's a good idea to duplicate info from the huge WWII template box at the bottom of the page to the originally succinct top infobox.

FDR died in the duration of the war too, why not a cross? Is it reserved for KIA only? Blueshirts 17:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to see the crosses at all; this is the first infobox I've noticed them in. What is their exact meaning? Xaxafrad 17:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The 5v3 listing lasted a while, let's see how this big listing does for a few weeks, eh? I don't think it's too confusing. Even if I didn't know anything about this war, the lead, the TOC, and the infobox all portray an incredibly widespread conflict. I would expect to follow the links to the Allies and Axis powers articles and learn the whens and the whys of all the war-declaring and side-switching. Xaxafrad 17:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

But I can already hear the Canadians and Australians: why are our countries in alphabetical order, while the big 5vs3 are in what looks like a random order, but is actually a rough ranking of military-industrial contribution. I took the preemptive liberty of alphabetizing everybody; it doesn't seem much worse. Though I wonder if Iraq and/or Iran could be considered a co-belligerent of the Allies. What do people think of adding (government-in-exile) notes? Xaxafrad 18:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, I think we should at least have the big 3 vs 3 in alphatethical order on top of each listing... 96T 18:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I feel it's stupid to have the list of all combatants if it's only supposed to be major combatants. I agree with xaxafrad to give it a bit of time and see how it does. --LtWinters 18:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, yet again must the "allies and axis" compromise be given a thought? With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible outcome

I don't know if this has been explored before, but exactly what would have happened if the allies had lost the war?.Would it mean Europe would be under controll by the nazis, or a more globall impact.Like Todat, would most of europe be a single sovern nation? 192.30.202.20 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Co-belligerents

Could editors please discuss the status of the USSR here rather than reverting each other? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Should the Soviet Union be listed under the Axis powers considering their contributions during 1939-41? Should the Soviet Union be labeled a co-belligerent of the Axis? Xaxafrad 03:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No. The USSR does not qualify as axis power, it does not even qualify as co-belligerent. The USSR simply qualifies as a controversial case, mainly because of USSR participation at the invasion of Poland. The invasion of Poland was a separate military action and was treated as such by the allies. Even though their actions were condemned by the Allies there was no aggression between the Allies and the USSR. If the USSR had been considered at the time to be members of the Axis then France and Britain would have declared war on the USSR as well as on Germany. Signing a non-aggression pact is not the same as a military alliance, the SU also signed one with Japan and this does not mean that they were allies either. A non-aggression pact is a pact where both sides agree not to attack each other during X amount of time. If the USSR was an ally of the Third Reich, why didn't Great Britain and France declare war on it? Why didn't the USSR declare war or Great Britain and France? --Ilya1166 04:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The following are definitions of co-belligerence:
  • A nation or state that carries on war in connection with another
  • Co-belligerence - Co-belligerence is waging the war in cooperation against a common enemy without the formal treaty of military alliance. Co-belligerence is a broader and less precise status of wartime partnership as a formal military alliance. Co-belligerents may support each other materially, exchange intelligence and have limited operational coordination. The aims of war of co-belligerents may differ considerably. The term co-belligerence indicates remoteness between the co-belligerent parties, cultural, religious, ideological or otherwise, whereas alliance indicates a corresponding closeness. Co-belligerence may be perceived as a euphemism, where domestically or internationally awkward alliance is explained away.
  • A country fighting with another power against a common enemy
These describe the Soviet Union, in Poland, the dividing of Europe, and the materials agreements within the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact perfectly. I'm re-adding it. Oberiko 12:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Oberiko. ALso, Britain had an alliance with Poland. So you could say the USSR declared war on an ally of Britain. --LtWinters 13:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history of the article, LtWinters, Parsecboy, Oberiko, and Kfc1864 want to have the USSR in there as cobelligerent from 1939-41. Ilya1166 wants it not to be. So I think we have a concensus here to keep. --LtWinters 13:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually you have no consensus after such a short time of debate. If it can at all be argued that the SU was co-beligerent then that would be for 1939 only, not for the 1939-1941 timeframe. Military Cooperation between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany was minimal.--Caranorn 13:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Note I misread the article's entry as being 1939-1941. Anyhow, I'm still opposed to the inclusion of the Soviet Union on the Axis side. Whoever did this demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of WWII. There were seemingly good reasons for the SU to act as they did in 1939 when it had become clear that Poland would not be cooperating with the SU against Germany and when it was deemed unlikely for the western Allies to come to the support of the Soviet Union in case of war with Germany.--Caranorn 13:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Motives are, honestly, unimportant. The question is, did, or did not, the Soviet Union fulfill "fighting with another power against a common enemy" with Germany against Poland. That is the definition of co-belligerent. Oberiko 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a lack of sources to back this claim up, see Wikipedia:No original research. It is well known that the USSR invaded Poland to have it as a buffer from Nazi Germany. That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail. (W. Churchill, 1939.)--Ilya1166 13:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the question Ilya. The question is if they engaged in "fighting with another power against a common enemy" with Germany. There's no room for manuever here, you either have to state that they didn't or that Merriam-Webster is an inaccurate source for English terminology. Oberiko 13:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
They did not fight a common enemy, each fought individually with minimal military coordination (to avoid firing on each other and starting off another war at an inoportune time).--Caranorn 13:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Poland was an enemy to the USSR, Russia has always been hostile to Polish freedom, and after Poland was freed from Imperial Russia, the USSR actually tried to conquer it again but failed , from 1919-1921. --LtWinters 14:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll write it once again, there is a lack of sources to back up this claim of the USSR being a co-belligerent Axis power, see Wikipedia:No original research. There is a clearly defined list of Axis and Axis collaborator (like Finland) countries of WWII, go look in a history book and you will find it, and you will also find that the USSR is not listed there. Just because you claim the USSR fits into the definition of "Co-belligerent" given in the dictionary is not sufficient.--Ilya1166 13:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't use internal articles as indisputable sources (I've started a contention on the Axis page). Am I right in saying that you think that I can't use the dictionary as a source? That is, honestly, nonsense. They match the definition Ilya. They weren't allies, but they certainly we co-belligerents. Oberiko 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll write it once again, there is a lack of sources to back up this claim of the USSR being a co-belligerent Axis power, see Wikipedia:No original research. The dictionary is not a source with regards to World War II alliances.--Ilya1166 13:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I'll write it again. What sources do you need? Here we have an entity following a dictionary definition of an event. Did the Soviets "carry on war in connection with" Germany? Check. Did they Soviets and Germans "Support each other materially, exchange intelligence and have limited operational coordination"? Check. Did the Soviets "fight with another power [Germany] against a common enemy [Poland]"? Check. Again, unless you discredit Merriam-Webster, or find a different definition of co-belligerent by a reputable source, this isn't a debate. Why they did it is unimportant. Oberiko 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you realise what you just wrote is a classic case of "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is not in the business of publishing original research. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research.[2] "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article."--Ilya1166 14:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
No original research (as linked by Ilya1166). Cite works of recognised WWII historians supporting your claim. Med 14:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This has been debated at length on the talk page at the Axis powers article and I think the correct outcome was achieved there; the USSR was listed a controversial case rather than a co-belligerent. As Ilya has indicated above, those who want to paint the USSR as an Axis co-belligerent on the basis of the invasion of Poland have the problem that the "arch Ally", Churchill, in 1939 endorsed Stalin's actions(!)

Churchill did that so as to stay friendly with them, to almost make an exscuse to let them go in, saying "good job protecting your flank!" is better than "why did you ally yourself with Germany and invade Poland?"--LtWinters 14:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the Axis powers talk page, I think a suitable analogy is the invasion and occupation of Portuguese Timor, by Australia and the Netherlands, in 1942, to assist in defending their own territories from Japanese attack. The main differences with the Polish situation are: (1) in this case the Allies actually beat the Axis to the punch; (2) they did not do a deal with the Axis beforehand; (3) the Portuguese were not in any position to fight off any of these powers, and (4) unlike the Poles, the Portuguese saw an advantage in being occupied by the Allies rather than the Axis. Nevertheless, the eventual outcome was arguably just as disastrous for the peoples who were the "meat in the sandwich" — the Allies succeeded in encouraging the local population to resist the subsequent Japanese occupation, and the Timorese suffered the deaths of more than 10% of their population at the hands of the Japanese military. Grant | Talk 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let us not forget the Soviets were bad. I quote Lieutenant-Colonel Keith Dickson, "World War II For Dummies," Page 81, Chapter 5 subtopic: The Soviets Take Over- "In the eastern part of Poland, the Soviets began their own campaign against the 3 million Poles who fell under their control:
  • The Soviet secret police (the NKVD) arrested and deported to Siberian concentratino camps (Gyulag, from a Russian acronym) anyone suspected of being hostile to Soviet control. More than 15,000 Polish officers who surrendered to te Soviets were moveed to camps near Smolensk in the Soviet Union
  • Because the Polish officers represented the leadership of the Polish nation and potential resistance to Future Soviet control, Stalin ordered them all killed in 1940. Each man was shot in the back of the head with a German bullet (to disguise the true criminals) and buried in a mass grave in Katyn Forest.

Among the innumerable tragedies that occurred in Poland in 1939, the murder of the Polish officers was one of the most terrible. These officers joined the many millions of unfortunate victims of Stalin's desire for absolute unchallenged power."—Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs)

What's your point? "Let's not forget the Soviets were bad" - pathetic. The Cold War's over, let it go--Ilya1166 15:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Alright, I'm willing to leave the Soviets out until we have documented sources listing them as either co-belligerents or military allies (unless we're going to start fighting over military alliance not equaling co-belligerence). Quoting sources is a fair request. And Ilya, no personal attacks. Oberiko 15:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
So what? Med 15:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Ha ha yea sorry... sometimes I just forget how nice the Soviets were back then, you know? (And don't think I'm being biased, I'm a quarter Russian) --LtWinters 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to repeat my question, but: so what? This has nothing to do with the current debate. Med 15:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with the question. Oberiko/LtWinters couldn't find any reliable sources that supported the claim of the USSR being "co belligerent". Neither could I. I did a google search of "USSR" and "co belligerent" and I couldn't find 1 single source that supported this claim, all the results discussed Finland's co belligerence.--Ilya1166 15:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
"Axis" here is a clearly defined term, with the Tripartite Treaty as a basis. It's not your Axis of Evil in the War Against Badly Defined Abstract Concepts. Rama 15:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

You could say Finald did the same thing the USSR did, trying to please Germany so that they wouldn't be invaded or treated that badly. --LtWinters 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I could find reliable sources, I didn't even start looking, 1 look at google results is nothing. I have to go somewhere now and I won't be able to respond to whatever you say for a while, so don't think that I can't prove my claims. --LtWinters 15:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, the fact that the USSR is not listed as "co-belligerent" on the whole of the INTERNET means you won't find it in a book--Ilya1166 15:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think this whole discussion is pointless, so long infobox will never become stable so we may as well throw it out of window immediately, and with short infobox, that issue becomes irrelevant.--Staberinde 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yep, if we have a problem in the article we can usually find a way to work around, but the infobox has to be kept brief and it's impossible to explain every entry for every user. So I'm slowly also coming to the point where I'd prefer no infobox to constant edit waring over said infobox.--Caranorn 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
As I've said before, I think WWII is far to intricate and complicated to have an accurate and factual infobox which does not simply list "Allies (and allies)" and "Axis Powers (and allies)". Oberiko 16:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of articles on Yale's Avalon Project which are worth perusing. They detail the communications between the Soviets and Germans. Oberiko 19:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of soldiers

Ive never edited wikipedia before and dont intend to, but as an avid reader of the site, especially the WW2 articles, I must say that the Axis soldiers are not represented enough graphically in the article. Out of the 4 pictures showing German soldiers (Not counting politicians) 2 are dead and maimed. There are no Italians/Romanians/Finns and there was a single Japanese ship (The picture with the Battle of Changde, are those Japanese or Chinese troops? The photo is blurry and I cannot tell). I dont know if this has been discussed before, if so I apoligize. And one final thing, there seems to be dead German soldier pictures popping up in alot of articles lately, someones personal campaign? - Blake

No apologies needed. Generally, the photographs should highlight the subject of the article (dead German soldiers being very appropriate for Stalingrad, not so much for the Battle of France etc.). Can you point out which articles you think should be examined? Oberiko 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

-Well, one example, out of 13 pictures for the eastern front section, there is only one picture containing German Soldiers (The tigers and panzergrenadiers of the Totenkopf division at Kursk) I would think that at least the section on the eastern front would have a "fair" distribution of photo space as it didnt really have much to do with the Allies which understandably command top priority in the English version of the article. - Blake

Blake, I think you're absolutely right, I always thought of this when looking at the article. I just removed a totally irrelevant picture of a few Germans lying dead in a cart, I wonder why the hell that was put on the page to begin with? It really added nothing to the article. And I agree the pictures should de distributed evenly, and also in the Western front, otherwise it would give a onesided view of the situation which is against scientific and Wiki standards. And to add something else, the picture labeled 'American troops of the 28th Infantry Division march down the Champs Elysées in Paris' seems misleading. Paris was surrendered to spare the city from combat damage, so there was no real 'victory' for the allies there as in the Germans marching down the same alley in 1940. Its more propaganda than actually depicting something significant Wiki1609 23:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
What on Earth areyou talking about ? Paris was declared open city in 1940, to spare it destruction. In 1944, the city rioted against the German, who were under orders to destroy it, and the city liberated itself with the help of the French army (Leclerc's 2nd armoured division). Even De Gaulle was personally shot at when he visited the city a few days later. Rama 09:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
In 1944 the German commander of the Paris garrison disobeyed the orders to destroy the city and called for a retreat, again to spare the city. Thats why the city fell without almost a shot fired (there were some isolated fanatics that did follow Hitlers orders). The Germans held parades in Paris however because they defeated their major enemy in 1940. In 1944 there was no victory yet, just a 'liberation' of Paris. So thats what on earth I'm talking about. Wiki1609 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (1/2)
without almost a shot fired ? Have you seen the photographs of the time ? There is little doubt that the Germans were in a bad posture from the start, but saying that there was no fighting in an insult to the people who died there. If you'd read Liberation of Paris, you'd known that there were practically ten days of fighting. The city of Paris was granted the Ordre de la Libération for her fight, and this is by no means a chocolate medal. Rama 12:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

-If you removed it, its back... someone must REALLY want it there. If its to show the horrors of war, why just dead Germans? Why not dead Americans, British or Russian Soldiers? Why have it at all? It would go much better in the casualties of WW2 section. I have some great pictures of Axis troops from all different fronts, and most would be great here... but Im not going to edit the wikipedia... dont know how, and dont feel like getting in a picture war or something like that. Ive read this talk page and the Waffen SS talk page and what I see is people arguing their personal opinions... not good for an encyclopedia. Every professor I haven spoken to at my College tells me that they dont accept sources from here, and thats a sad thing as there is a wealth of good information here thats spoiled by a few people with a personal agenda. - Blake

Don't forget one thing, it might not be as easy to find free or otherwise useable images of one side's troops then of the other. When you follow this article (and other WWII ones) closely for a few months you will notice how often images end up getting deleted because their licenses were not clear.--Caranorn 11:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You're probably right, there are quite some websites that show Axis soldiers, but I dont think they have officially declared their pictures to be free-use. We should look for a website containing useable pictures and post it here when someone found one. Maybe the German government has an official historical site or something. Wiki1609 19:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC) (2/2)

Editing

Is it really necessary to fully protect this article for the next week?--LtWinters 21:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, why has it been protected? I don't see any discussion of it on the talk page (maybe I'm just blind). And I don't think there was much edit warring going on, except the USSR/co-belligerent thing, but that died down the other day. What's the deal? Parsecboy 01:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It was user:Sr13 that did it. --LtWinters 18:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll unprotect; no one is contesting. Sr13 02:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

It's kind of amazing that such a prominent article could get away without a section detailing criticism of the war, or any controversy around it. Murderbike 08:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the concept of war big controversy itself? But the topic is very wide. You can find articles about the controversies in this war from all around the wikipedia. Suva 11:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Murderbike, what controversy in particular are you talking about? What issues are missing? Parsecboy 11:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd think it's western betrayal. Blueshirts 20:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


It's hard to articulate criticisms of a war where the war aims of the combatants were so utterly different, or where several combatants felt they were fighting for their basic survival and their basic ideals (as opposed to fighting for power or resources). --Sm8900 20:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Main picture

I'm think the main picture could use some tweaking, as is:

  • 4/5 deal with the European Theatre
  • The holocaust, while very closely related, isn't really part of World War II. It's as relevant (if not less) as having a picture of the Spanish Civil War in there

The pictures I'd like to keep:

  • Nazi soldier parade
  • Soviet flag over the Reichstag
  • Atomic cloud

New pictures I think we should get:

  • A picture of the Attack on Pearl Harbor
  • If possible, a picture Allied leaders together and another of the Axis leaders together Oberiko 19:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


I suggest removal of the "Arbeit Macht Frei" picture too, as it was not really part of the actual fighting of the war. I'd replace the Nazi soldier parade with a parade of German soldiers in Paris, to show how far the Germans came by defeating their major adversary. For the Pacific I'd suggest a picture of Midway if this can be found, as this was the turning point in the Pacific war. Midway instead of the picture of the Atomic bomb. Though this was a sign of the cold war that was to come, it's actual effect on the war wasnt very big (Japan had been already been preparing for surrender when the bombs were dropped). Wiki1609 10:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly oppose removing the photo of the atomic bomb, because it was one of the defining moments of human history, and one of the symbols of the brutality of the world wars. 96T 13:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Holocaust definitely has to stay, it would not have been possible without WWII. Considering how the pictures currently are well balanced I'd say things should remain as they are even though a picture from the Asian and Pacific theatres would be nice too. Maybe add one picture from China and a second one from the Pacific (I'd agree with Midway). But that's assuming images can be found.--Caranorn 16:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Text error (grammar/orthography)

In the Battle of the Atlantic section, a second reads "... a Allied...." but should read "... an Allied...."

Thanks to any admin who wants to correct this.

151.200.44.32 19:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)CFE

Fixed. Parsecboy 20:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture of dead German soldier

Does there really need to be a picture of a dead German soldier in this article? I find this rather graphic and disturbing (call me sensitive perhaps) but this isn’t CSI folks. This is real life and this is a read young man blown to bits by a grenade. I have no sympathy for Nazi Germany (my grandfather was in the resistance movement in Holland) but I seriously wonder if this picture would be here if he was an Allied soldier. Perhaps it is good to highlight the horrors of war but... I’m not sure it’s appropriate considering the photo is clear enough to be identifiable.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.86.250 (talk • contribs) 04:22, 24 June 2007

I don't think the article would lose anything if it were removed. That sections is rather overloaded with graphics, and it doesn't really belong next to "Death camps and slave work".--Boson 08:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored and we have some photos of dead Americans from the battle of the bulge in commons, taken by US soldiers, but maybe they aren't used in any articles. Besides this photo has an interesting story behind it, the dead German soldier has a bandage on his leg showing he had already been wounded previously before being killed, it shows the fanaticism (and perhaps bravery?) of the axis soldiers. In fact, an article about WW2 without a picture of soldiers dying in combat would be a glaring ommision, Bleh999 10:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
I also think the picture is kind of pointless, just like the Germans in a cart picture I deleted. If we want to show there were a lot of casualties in the war, we should add a picture of a few soldiers KIA but not one zoomed in on someone. No-one wants a picture of himself dead on wikipedia and the person might still have family alive. And if it were to be representative, we should show Allied (Soviet) dead because they suffered the highest losses by far. I suggest removing the picture from this page as well as from Wehrmacht and Death. Wiki1609 14:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Almost every encyclopedia, and definitely most news sources since photography existed, publish photographs of war casualties as part of their coverage. Furthermore, this picture actually enriches the article: it allows a much more livelier graphic description of events around the war than staged pictures. If you have any photographs of dead allied soldiers, including soviets, please feel free to upload them. Bleh999 20:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Soldiers_killed_in_action for some examples of our collection Bleh999 21:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll look for some pictures when I have time, it seems people have been unwilling to post pictures of dead Americans or Soviets for some reason, mainly Axis casualties. It's kind of a one-sided collection as it is now. Wiki1609 14:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eugenics

I find it hard to explain world war II and the Holocaust without any mention of eugenics. I believe there should at least be some mention of it and a link to the eugenics article.


This nice image should be included

]]