Talk:World War II/Archive 24

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 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 →

Contents

Industry war effort

Hello,

WWII industry war effort
WWII industry war effort

I have made this pic about industry war effort, maybe you would like to add it on your wiki...

There's this map too, it's SVG, you can add easily the legend

WWII in Europe (1939-1941)
WWII in Europe (1939-1941)

Have a nice day ;-) Historicair 17:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do these figures even come from?--Ilya1166 08:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
These figures are own creations for my work (I'm history teacher) and also for the french Wikipedia, and translated or blanked for all the others wiki projects. I'm a member too of the Atelier graphique where you can propose images to clean up and improve as well. Historicair 10:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
These figures need to be backed up by very reliable sources and I don't think that the USA figures should be included as their role in the war was relatively minor compared to Germany and the USSR, the argument could be made that if USA's production figures are included why not include the UK's figures or Italy's figures?--Ilya1166 13:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The datas come from a french history school book. USA have a huge role in the industrial Allied production for an historic reason : USA were never been bombed during WWII (except Pacific areas) so the production was top. Great Britain was bombed during Battle of Britain, and was the only west european country in war against Germany between 1940 and 1941. So the british industrial production was reduced, and most part of Bristish objects were manufactured in USA (which is the explanation of the importance of Atlantic Battle). So why not a UK's figure ? Because i don't have the datas and because the production wasn't as important as the 3 others countries mentioned. It's the same thing for Italy. Historicair 14:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The data needs to come from something better than a history school book, a primary or secondary source rather than a tertiary. I have reservations about including US production figures because the reality is that they did a very small amount of the fighting and didn't use most of tanks/guns/planes they produced. Take a look at the Military production during World War II article and it would be better to make a table with those figures - Tanks and self-propelled guns, Artillery, Mortars (over 60 mm), Military aircraft of all types.--Ilya1166 02:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ilya, are you serious? Without American supplies, the Soviets would never have defeated the Germans. Yes, the Soviets built their own tanks and weapons, but much of everything else they used was built by the US and Canada. The Soviets also used a many aircraft produced by the US, even after they started building their own designs that were superior to German aircraft. As for the US doing a very small amount of the fighting, it seems as though you're a bit biased. Don't forget WWII existed beyond the Eastern Front. There was a war in the Pacific as well. Parsecboy 12:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's debatable whether without American supplies the Soviets would have defeated the Germans. The US delivered 3 times more supplies to the UK than to the USSR, particuarly when the USSR had to supply a military that was considerably larger than the UK's, while they did provide most of the USSR's trucks and a few other non-weapons related equipment. I totally agree that US production in things other than weapons was very important, hence why I think that the production of Military trucks should be mentioned. The problem I have with that table is that it lists only tanks and planes. Sure, I could also argue that you're a bit biased seeing as you're in the US Army. Of course the US along with China did most of the fighting in the Pacific Theatre, but I think you can agree that the amount of fighting the US did was very small compared to Germany/USSR. Compare it to the sheer scale of the battles on the Eastern front, the amount of tanks/planes/artillery used and destroyed, and the size of the casualties on both sides. Compare number of wounded, the USA's 600,000 to the USSR's 15 million. Compare the USA's 420,000 deaths to Germany's 7.5 million and the USSR's 24-27 million, or even just their military deaths of almost 11 million, particuarly when the Red Army destroyed 80-93% of the German Army, which was the best trained and equiped military in the world. You can't ignore these numbers, Parsec.--Ilya1166 14:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue about the validity of the numbers themselves (not my area of expertise), but what's the problem with including them? It's not like they're taking up to much room or that the U.S. was an inconsequential player. Preferably, I'd like to have the same thing with the U.K., Japan and Italy included as well. Oberiko 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (with Oberiko) though "USA figures should be included as their role in the war was relatively minor compared to Germany and the USSR," thanks for making me laugh. Really. Please don't play the bias card on wiki member contributing like this. Looking at your contributions thats the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen it. Discounting it like that is your own form of bias. Please improve the article don't push for your pov. If you are going to argue casualties with Parsecboy, oh man wrong guy to it with. see- [[1]] First of all tactics take a big part in those numbers let alone tons of equipment (which is what this talk section is about). The charts nice, include more countries cite them fully and add them I say. --Xiahou 00:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
also, the US extended billions of loans and credits to its allies, not just production of arms. Blueshirts 03:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
True, and the loans we gave to the USSR were never paid back or given a public thanks (although I know the Soviets lost a lot more men than we did).--LtWinters 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Parsec 'played the bias card' first which you will see if you read his comment again. And we are not debating casualty figures, the figures I listed are established, go have a look at the World War II casualties article.--Ilya1166 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to get many of those casualty figures changed, but editors are not permitting it over there. And I strongly disagree with many of those casualty figures personally.--LtWinters 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is, Ilya, is that including only Germany and the USSR is incredibly Russocentric, to the point of ignoring the entire rest of World War II. Yes, the Soviets destroyed some 80% of the German army. No one is denying that. However, there was a whole Pacific Theatre. The Chinese suffered similar amounts of casualties during 8 years of war. And yes, I am in the US Army, which gives me a better understanding of how militaries work. You say they might still have won without the American trucks? I seriously doubt it would've been so quick, if it happened at all. An army marches on it's stomach, after all. Look at the Western campaign of '44-'45. The Anglo-Americans had to stop for quite a while because they didn't have sufficient logistical support. And the Soviet army was quite a great deal larger, and spread out over a much broader front. No gas/ordnance/food=no advancing. Part of the reason the Soviets won at battles like Kursk was their ability to rapidly move supplies and armaments into newly conquered territory and fortify it. Do you think the hundreds of acres of minefields that proved so troublesome to the Germans at Kursk would've been possible without those trucks?
I see this discussion rapidly turning into an argument about the Eastern front, not about industrial production. If you want to continue that aspect, I suggest we move it to our talk pages, and limit this discussion to industrial production, etc. On that point, I agree with Oberiko that more countries should be included, Japan, UK, and Italy as well. Parsecboy 12:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the arguements, and I dont have much to say except I am supportive of adding them with or without the other nations, although I think it would be better if we did add the other nations as well, especially to keep the US and to add Britain, and possibly China and Japan. --LtWinters 15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The five captions for the pictures in the infobox are in the wrong order. Could someone fix please?  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, again. What's going on here? Who keeps disarranging the captions? I'm inclined to believe two different groups of people have differing interpretations on what "clockwise from the top" means. The first caption should go to the first picture, that is, the one on the upper left. Subsequent captions should follow a clockwise pattern: upper right, center right, bottom, center left. Alternately, I could reluctantly agree with starting with the upper right image (1 o'clock) and ending with the upper left (11 o'clock), but that violates most people's reading inclination to start on the upper left of things (and yes, I'm aware of other scripts that go right-to-left and other various directions). Xaxafrad 01:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not all that familiar with how Wikimedia-tech works, any chance it might be a caching issue with some people's browsers? Oberiko 03:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No guys, I don't think these faults origin on this page and the captions; there are some people who have persistently tried to rearrange the montage itself at Wikimedia by swapping the images (they seem to be be itchy about having the D-day pic on top). I have told them to lay it off without consulting me first, so let's hope it works... Regards, (orig.creator of the image) --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 05:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet casualties number - 27 million, not 23.6 million - table needs to be changed

In the casualties table in the casualties section of this article, the Soviet Union's casualties are incorrectly listed as 23.6 million, a figure based on its 1939 borders, when in fact it should list its casualties based on its 1941 borders (26.6 million), when it was invaded by Germany - - monuments to the war in Soviet Union and the post-Soviet republics today always list the date 1941-1945, not 1939-1945 (also, "1941-1945", not "1939-1945" is written on large banners during the May 9 Victory Day Parade). Publications and leaders cite the Soviet Union's casualties as 27 million [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], they do not give its losses based on its 1939 borders, but for some reason editors have decided to list its losses based on its 1939 borders, and reduce its losses to 23.6 million, and separate the losses of the Polish and Baltic republics. The USSR was invaded in 1941, by which time it had annexed the various republics, therefore losses presented should be within the 1941- borders, not for the 1939 borders. Of the 13.5 million civilians living in the newly annexed Polish territories, Poles were the largest single ethnic group; but Belarusians and Ukrainians together made up something like over 50% of the population. Separate Baltic casualties should be deleted, it is ridiculous that they are listed separately here. They were republics of the USSR when the USSR was invaded by Germany in 1941 until its dissolution and if you list their losses separately, why not list Ukraine's casualties separately, Kazakhstan's casualties separately, Russia's casualties separately, etc. Poland's casualties figure should be reduced to 3 million and the separate casualties of the Baltic republics should be removed. The key point here is that the USSR entered the war in 1941 - monuments to the war always list the date 1941-1945, not 1939-1945 - which is why the casualties of the USSR should be based on its 1941 borders, not 1939. The USSR was not at war against either Allies or the Axis between 1939-1941. All of the casualties the USSR incurred was from the period it was invaded by Germany and formally joined the war on the side of the Allies, from 1941-1945. It is ridiculous that its losses should be based on its 1939 borders.--Ilya1166 03:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Was not Poland a member of the Allies in 1939? Parsecboy 15:46, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes it was, it even signed a pact with Great Britain. --LtWinters 16:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it was, I was being a tad bit facetious ;) Parsecboy 16:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that numbers for the 1941 borders should be used as that's the starting date of WWII for the Soviet Union.--Ilya1166 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So the casualties of the fighting in Poland in '39 are irrelevant? The fact also remains that the Baltics (among other countries) were forcibly annexed by the Soviet Union, and many Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians would disagree with you. Parsecboy 02:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The casualties of the fighting in Poland are not included in the figure of the Soviet Union's WWII casualties, that is treated as a separate conflict, just like the Winter War. The 'occupation' of the Baltic is still a highly controversial issue. Russian government and officials continue to maintain that the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states was legitimate[1] and that the Soviet Union liberated the countries from the Nazis.[2][3] They state that the Soviet troops had entered the Baltics in 1940 following the agreements and with the consent of the then governments of the Baltic republics. They maintain that the USSR was not in a state of war and was not waging any combat activities on the territory of the three Baltic states, therefore, the argument goes, the word 'occupation' can not be used.[4][5] "The assertions about [the] 'occupation' by the Soviet Union and the related claims ignore all legal, historical and political realities, and are therefore utterly groundless." (Russian Foreign Ministry)[6] However I don't want to get into an argument over this issue so let's stick to the issue of borders the period of WWII.
Having the Baltic states casualties separately as it is currently is at best confusing if not an attempt to serve nationalistic ambitions. The Baltic states were annexed peacefully, there was no military conflict! - Whether they were compelled or not to accept the agreement is irrelevant. All the losses the Baltic states incurred was when they were already part of the USSR. It is sheer inaccuracy to present their losses separately when they were not 'separate' states--Ilya1166 03:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you seriously treat the Soviet invasion of Poland in '39 as a separate conflict from WWII? Is the Japanese invasion and annexation of French Indochina not a part of WWII as well? Of course the Russian government says the occupation of the Baltics was legal. We might as well ask the US government if the eviction of Native Americans in the 19th Century was legal. They signed treaties, after all. You say they were annexed peacefully; surely you jest. If I were to hold a gun to your head and tell you to give me all of your money, would that be "peaceful"? I don't know anyone who would classify what amounts to armed robbery as "peaceful" (so long as no shots were fired). You're one to talk about "serving nationalist ambitions". Everything you say here has a Russo-centric bias. Parsecboy 13:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You are just repeating the same rhetoric again. I'll repeat what I said as it doesn't seem like you paid attention. Your argument is that Soviets forced the annexation of the Baltics, (albeit with no military conflict) so therefore their casualties should be listed separately, right? But whether they were compelled or not to accept the agreement is irrelevant. All the losses the Baltic states incurred was when they were already part of the USSR. By 1941, the Baltics were republics of the USSR, and its not like they regained their independance after the war, they remained part of the USSR right up until its dissolution, and would no doubt still be part of the USSR if it didn't collapse.--Ilya1166 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Based on your logic, we need to be using this map to calculate German casualties during the war, not it's 1937 borders. Parsecboy 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and actually, in the Soviet Constitution it was listed that any republic which wishes to withdraw from the USSR may do so. So the Baltic States could have withdrawn. The USSR fell for a reason, because of corruption in the government and it failed economically. Notice how the Baltic States were the first republics to leave, I believe? And they decided not to join the Commonwealth of Independent States?--LtWinters 11:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, just like Hungary in '56, and Czechoslovakia in '68? Oh wait, they weren't even SSRs, they were merely Warsaw Pact members. So much for being able to leave any time you want. Parsecboy 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


True, as it did invade the Baltics when they tried to leave, but it still would be legal, although it would probably involve military conflict. --LtWinters 18:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
And the Batlic peoples did not find it legal. Look at the Dissolution of the Soviet Union. "On March 30, 1990 the Estonian Supreme Council declared Soviet power in Estonia since 1940 to have been illegal, and started a process to reestablish Estonia as an independent state. The process of restoration of independence of Latvia began on May 4, 1990, with a Latvian Supreme Council vote stipulating a transitional period to complete independence."LtWinters
Did I say anything about the SSRs being able to leave anytime they wanted? No, I didn't. Although I don't see why you brought this up, the USSR dissolved for a number of reasons, two of the major reasons being perestroika and glasnost introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev. The reason the Baltics were allowed to succede was because of glasnost. Both of you have gone totally off topic, very disappointing.--Ilya1166 13:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Word?--LtWinters 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Even look at this where you've tried changing it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II_casualties#Soviet_casualties_number_-_27_million and it didn't work. --LtWinters 13:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean, "it didn't work", that is still an ongoing conflict. The argument the editor there and you are presenting is that the casualties should be based on its 1939 borders because the USSR was allied/co belligerent to Germany (something which you, LtWinters, fought so hard to establish. Your arguments didn't work, and it was established that the USSR was neither an ally or co belligerent to Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II/Archive_22#Co-belligerents --Ilya1166 13:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
First of all Ilya, I think you need to calm down, take a breather, and take into consideration of what I'm saying. The arguement on ww2 casualties has been there for a month, and its a 3 (me, woogie, and shanes) vs. 1 (you), so that isn't working. Secondly, yes, I did fight hard to establish the ussr as a cobelligerent obviously I stopped pushing for that once we had the 3 v 5 put in. How about we wait and see what happens on the ww2 casualties page, and if it succeeds there, we'll add it here? I believes that sounds reasonable because this is a ww2 casualty related matter and must be solved there at ww2 casualties before we can solve it here. --LtWinters 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's 2 vs 2 now (Caranorn & me vs Woogie & you). I put this here because this article gets viewed much more.--Ilya1166 01:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The current(2007) Russian number of 26.6 million is for the USSR in 1946-1991 borders, not the 1941 borders. In 1945 the USSR gave territory back to Poland and annexed a sliver of Czechoslovikia. The Russian source for the 26.6 million figure Andreev makes this point clear.--Woogie10w 02:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Of the 13.5 million civilians living in the newly annexed Polish territories, Poles were the largest single ethnic group; but Belarusians and Ukrainians together made up something like over 50% of the population. Not all Polish territory was given back. The Soviet invasion led to the incorporation of millions of Poles as well as western Ukrainians and western Belarusians into the Soviet Ukrainian and Byelorussian republics. This is not to mention the Baltic states, which fully remained republics of the USSR after the war.--Ilya1166 04:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Population in 1941 of 196.7 million included 20.270 million in the annexed territories. Poland 13.0 million less 1.5 million given back in 1945 from Bialystok, net 11.5 million. The Baltics 5.5 million, Rumania 3.7 million. Less 400,000 ethnic Germans sent to Hitlers Germany. That's the math the Russians use to allocate the annexed territories. The figure to compute total losses of 26.6 million dead includes postwar transfers to and from Poland and the annexation of Transcarpathia for total net loss of 622,000 in 1946. I hope this helps--Woogie10w 05:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In the Polish territory that went to the USSR in 1945 Polish Roman Catholics were only 28%.

The Poles always try to puff up the number of Poles by including Greek Catholics who could speak Polish. The fact remains that the Polish were a hated minority in the Eastern provinces.--Woogie10w 05:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not only Russian sources which use 1941 borders to calculate the figure of 27 million. Once again, here are western sources which list the Soviet Union's casualties in WWII as 27 million - [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Clearly they didn't use the USSR's 1939 borders to calculate their losses.--Ilya1166 05:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The borders are 1946-91, not 1941. The key point to remember is that Polish losses in the Western Ukraine, Byelorussia should not be duplicated. Many sources list 6 million Polish dead and 27 million Soviet, not realizing that they duplicate 2 million dead in the annexed teritories. The root cause of this mess is the fact that the Polish insist on counting losses in the territory that was ceded to the USSR in July 1945. Yes, the USSR_Polish treaty was signed in Moscow in 1945 after the war. --Woogie10w 12:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Baltic territories should be incorporated into Soviet losses, they were part of the USSR when they it was invaded in 1941. Western sources, indeed almost all contemporary sources do not separate their losses.
A Russian source listed on the WW2 casualties page Vadim Erlikman gives the details of the Baltic states losses. Get the book Illya it is a goldmine of data that is not available in the west.--Woogie10w 00:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we list Soviet casualties, on this page, as "over 23 million" and then offer a detailed explanation on the casualties of World War II page (23 million pre-Baltic annexation Soviets + 4 million Soviets from annexed European states etc.). It sounds like an issue which can be factually argued several ways, and hence can't be put here as an absolute without inherent POV. Oberiko 12:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The new image

Hello, The previous template was done in a way that the Normandy picture was so big that it "overshaded" everything else, and i turned to it's creator in request to enter the battle of Stalingrad, which was the turning point of the war, to the image, but she didnt agree. So i made a new one, so now the template looks like this. As you can see, the sizes are more fair, nothing from the previous template wasn't removed, and a new image was added. M.V.E.i. 11:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to see that image changed for a long time now. Thanks, appreciate it.
Agreed, looks definately more balanced now.--Ilya1166 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It is better, but as I've said before, to only have one pic from Asia and the Pacific is absurd, especially when the pic of German police was taken before the war started. Grant | Talk 12:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Soviet POWs and Image:775 144844401 big.jpg

Who agrees with me that the caption for this image should be trimmed and the death rate of Soviet POWs in German captivity should be discussed in the article itself, rather than than an overly extended caption? It's a good image, but Ilya1166 keeps removing figures by Grigoriy Krivosheev used in this article and World War II casualties also see [[16]] these figures are disputed. Bleh999 11:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all explained in the references - Christian Streit: Keine Kameraden: Die Wehrmacht und die Sowjetischen Kriegsgefangenen, 1941-1945, Bonn: Dietz (3. Aufl., 1. Aufl. 1978), ISBN 3801250164 - "Between 22 June 1941 and the end of the war, roughly 5.7 million members of the Red Army fell into German hands. In January 1945, 930,000 were still in German camps. A million at most had been released, most of whom were so-called "volunteers" (Hilfswillige) for (often compulsory) auxilary service in the Wehrmacht. Another 500,000, as estimated by the Army High Command, had either fled or been liberated. The remaining 3,300,000 (57.5 percent of the total) had perished." These facts are echoed in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum reference. Even Woogie said on that page that where you said the figures are disputed that Krivosheev's figure is wrong - "The true number of Soviet POW dead is not 1.3 million but about 2.5-3.0 million."--Ilya1166 13:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Grigoriy Krivosheevs figures are actually newer than those sources, his were based on declassified Soviet archives in the 1990s, the German estimates for Soviet causalities on the other hand may have been incorrect and subject to bias (although so could the Soviet estimates), the fact is that the figures are disputed and you can't claim the range from 2.5-3.0 is accurate with any degree of certainty Bleh999 14:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly known that around 3 million Soviet POWs died in German captivity. Krivosheev is critisized in Russia for being an amature and checking a minimal number of sources. During the war many cities with their archives were distoroyed, and the number Krivosheev gave is a number which is of those about who the Soviets foumd information "on the spot". Nevertheless, the Germans had a regestration of the exact number of those who came from the USSR, and the number was about 3 million. You dont chose the smaller number, you chose the correct one, and the correct is avout 3 million. M.V.E.i. 15:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually some Russians approve of Krivosheevs figures, but the ironic thing is that the same people who want to use Wehrmacht estimates for Soviet POW deaths also disapprove of German estimates for Soviet soldiers killed in action during the period of 1941-1942, you also didn't provide any sources for your criticism of his research Bleh999 15:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
I explain: The USSR has lists of its soldiers. After every-battle they write the number of soldiers killed. They are the ones who count it, they are the ones who care, they are the ones who need the number, and they are the once who have the detailed numbers. The Germans could have only a "we guess...", "it could minimum be..." number. Nevertheless, in the second case, the one we are arguing about now, who could count them? Who has regestration and all? Who wants those people as workers? Who will have a detailed counting of those numbers? The Germans. M.V.E.i. 15:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack on Pearl Harbor

In the Overview section I feel that the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor should be emphasized, as it was the trigger for the USA entering the Pacific War. Currently it reads, rather blandly as the Japanese attacking the USA and British possessions in S.E. Asia. It surely stands in equal stature to the invasion of Poland as a 'trigger'. I'm currently studying war as part of a uni degree and will be visiting the article often, so will insert something in the main article in due course if nobody else does. Cheers. --MichaelGG 03:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it warrants much more (if more) then the Japanese attack on South-East Asia, which brought the United Kingdom into the Pacific War. It could be argued that the attack in SE Asia was more important as it was a unifier between the previously separate Asian and European wars. PH by itself is, IMO, more like a scaled-down Barbarossa in terms of importance. Oberiko 13:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, this article has really gone to crap since I've been away. Michael, of course you are right. Before Pearl Harbor, victory was still up for grabs. After, well Churchill for one breathed a sigh of relief, and I'm sure a lot of other people did too. But I wouldn't recommend spending too much time on this article. People are likely to tear it all apart and put some ridiculous spin on it within a few months, whatever you do. Like now, it doesn't even have a Holocaust picture. Way to miss an important point, dumbasses. Maybe some more pictures of tanks, boats, and airplanes would make you all happy. Haber 14:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Try and keep it civil there Haber. Oberiko 15:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Haber's first point, it wouldn't be a bad idea to emphasize it a bit more. --LtWinters 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Names

I suggest adding other names for WWII by editing the first sentence, e.g. as follows:

World War II (abbreviated WWII), also referred to as the Second World War, Hitler's war or The Hitler War and subsequently as the 39-45 War, was a worldwide military conflict which lasted from 1939 to 1945.

Alterrnatively these and any other names could be put in a separate paragraph of "Other names", as for WWI. GilesW 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it would be a good idea to add another paragraph for other names, but I don't think in the first sentence we should put in that much unneccesary info. But you do have a point, at different times in the war there were different names for it. Would a new page possibly be valuable to list the names of ww2, you know, at different times what it was called, and by whom. --LtWinters 17:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree it should be a separate paragraph as you suggest, i.a.w. WP guidelines.GilesW 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The last several I can't condone. "Hitler's War" totally ignores the Pacific Theatre, as does the "39-45" war (The Asian theatre of the war was in conflict from 1937). Oberiko 17:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
These are UK terms that I am acquainted with, used by adults who lived through it. Each nation's terms can be included, with attribution to each nation or theatre of war. I certainly remember hearing "The Hitler War" from older relatives. Hitler made it happen, and that usage is supported by a quick Google check (indicative rather than authoritative, I know). I am uncertain about "Hitler's War" in this context. Citations would be needed. GilesW 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I've never heard of the "Hitler's War" usage besides a book title from David Irving. Blueshirts 23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it might be useful to include a short paragraph somewhere near the bottom about other names for the war. I don't think more than the extremely common variations (WWII, Second World War) should be listed in the initial sentence. If we were to list every country's term for it, the intro would become 90% names. Either put a section at the bottom about other names, or drop it entirely. Parsecboy 23:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hitler's war isn't even a name for World War II, just it's European Theatre; it's as accurate then calling the war the "Pacific War". If anything, that belongs in a trailing section in the European Theatre of World War II page, not here. Oberiko —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:22, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

Hirohito/Tojo

Should we list both as commanders of Japan? I personally think Tojo should only be listed, but I wouldn't mind if Hirohito was also listed. Pretty much the entire world knows Tojo gave all the orders during the war. TheGoodSon 4:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Date linking

I was reading the article and I realized a lot of the dates are not linked. I was going to fix it but the article is locked. Also, in section "Japanese offensives (1941–1942)", the fifth paragraph starts with "Disaster struck the British on December 10. 1941, when they lost(...)" which should read "December 10, 1941". There's also an issue of conflicting licensing statements in Image:AkagiDeckApril42.jpg that I'll post in its discussion page. Repolho 04:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was going to post the issue with Image:AkagiDeckApril42.jpg in its discussion page until I found out that I am not sure how to create one. Anyway, the issue is that the uploader's description says that it's a "Imperial Japanese Navy photo" and that makes it public domain, but the licensing tag says it's "a work of the United States Federal Government". I believe the uploaders version to be the correct one. Repolho 05:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You'll be able to edit the ww2 page after 4 days of being a member--LtWinters 11:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
According to MOS DATE only full dates should be linked, not partials, like, December 6 of which there are many instances in the article, so maybe add the year or remove the links. Cheers ww2censor 13:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the tips. I'll go look for unlinked full dates.--Repolho 04:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to edit, but small correction needed to one of the picture captions. P47 Thunderbomers?

Hi- reference to the picture showing a bombed German column. describes P47 Thunder-bombers. Better P47 'Thunder-bolts' or fighter-bombers

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.248.49 (talk) 09:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! Binksternet 14:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)