Talk:World War II/Archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Britain plotted war between Germany and USSR? 2 Allies bias? 3 Allies and Axis 4 what happened to the old picture? 5 TOO LONG??? 6 Midway 7 How many Theatres in the Second World War? 8 Russia and Japan, in two weeks a million men had been destroyed 9 Animated map 10 Only casualties shown? 11 Chile wasn't an allied country 12 Soviet Union: Not Axis 13 Too long? 14 Section 8: Axis collapse, Allied victory (16 December 1944 - 15 August 1945) 15 Temp article review 16 Article replacement 17 Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg 18 This is not a featured article? 19 Where was the Holocaust? 20 Technicality of end date 21 Switching last photograph 22 New infobox montage 23 Typos 24 Collage 25 Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere 26 Portal:World War II 27 Need help at Allied war crimes during World War II 28 Additional picture for Axis advances 29 The War Becomes Global 30 Aftermath 31 Missing perspective: Human Smoke 32 Civilian dead of Axis 33 Wow and Congratulations! 34 Fixes clearly needed 35 Superpowers 36 YO

[edit] Britain plotted war between Germany and USSR?

The article says that Britain appeased Hitler in hopes that they would go to war against the USSR and exhaust themselves. But Poland stood between Germany and the USSR prior to the war. Are we supposed to believe that Britain wanted Germany to invade Poland to get at the USSR? A clarification may be in order. CJK (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Every once in a while this Nazi spin creeps back into the article. Duck of Luke (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allies bias?

The map displays red and blue colours to display each side of the war. This is very biased for a number of reasons, and it's unfair to colour one RED which implies they were in the wrong. I would suggest updating using more neutral colours to convey the message; and to cease referring to allies of the USSR as "Axis" as opposed to "allies". --61.69.3.202 (talk) 12:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a problem because when discussing the second world war neutrality is unnecessary. There is world wide consensus by all governments that the axis had to be defeated. In fact the united nations is an offshoot of the Allies of the second world war.Zebulin (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "the consensus" - it was simply forced by victorious states: the Soviet Union and the United States. E.g. Poles partitioned between Nazis and Soviets had different point of view here... And quite a lot of countries were in fact neutral in WWII - and it had sometimes serious effects, like capturing damaged ships/arresting army units or for example denying refuge for Jews running away from the Nazis. --EAJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Who says red is a bad colour? The British army fought in Red for much of it's life, and until relatively recently the 'red team' was the friendly side in their wargames. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact in the communist states red was generally used for depicting friendly side as well - for obvious reasons :) --EAJoe (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, red and blue are often used to describe opposing factions. For example, in the United State, the Democratic Party is almost universally represented by the color blue while the Republican Party is represented by red. So far, no one has complained about this color coding. Even if you feel that blue implies that the Allies were the "Good Guys," while the Allies were not without flaws, the Axis was far more imperfect. While the Allied powers were democratic with the exception of Russia, the Axis powers were a colition of imperialistic dictatorships that saw their own people as superior. World War 2 was the closest thing in the history of man to a "Good vs. Evil" conflict. So, even if the colour coding is biased, by modern understandings of morality, the Allies were the "Good guys" If you had to be black and white.Fusion7 (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we must be politically correct and not cast Imperial Japan or the Third Riech in an unfavourable light. 67.101.212.109 (talk) 05:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a group that engaged in the wholesale slaughter of some 12 million civilians deserves political correctness. Parsecboy (talk) 05:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second that. Regardless of dispassionate historical analysis expected of good historians no editor can be expected to remain ethical in the approach to the subject without condemning the policies of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and their war aims. I dare say this is the entire purpose of history, to record human events with some morally binding values for humanity to learn from.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allies and Axis

I think the terms are biased. Calling one side the 'Allies' indicated that they are our allies and the heroes of the conflict. Calling the opposing side the 'axis', indicates that they are the villains which is a biased viewpoint. I think a different name should be used for them. -- Morthrokon (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. Both sides have always been known as Axis and Allies. Just like there were the Allied/Entente powers and the Central powers/Triple Alliance in World War I. The term "Axis" refers to the Pact of Steel treaty signed by Germany and Italy, it's only earned a negative connotation because it was associated with Nazi Germany. Mussolini himself used the term "Rome-Berlin axis" to describe the German-Italian alliance. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate with this "always"... Maybe it was "always" written this way in your schoolbook, but it's not any "divine truth" given from Heavens. And the situation in WWII differed from WWI e.g. in a number of countries which switched sides, and that among them were two powerful - victorious at the end - "Alliants" (France and USSR). --EAJoe (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me an instance in a reliable source that doesn't use the term "Axis" to label the German/Italo/Japanese/Etc. alliance, and doesn't use the term "Allies" to describe the British/French/US/USSR alliance. That countries changed sides during the war is of no relevance to the names commonly used to refer to the two adversaries. It's also illogical to argue that France ever "changed sides"; they were defeated, forced into neutrality by the Germans and collaborators, and then after French colonies were liberated, etc., once again rejoined the Allied cause. Yes, there was conflict between British and French forces, but in almost all of those cases, it was a British attack on colonial French holdings, who were attempting to preserve their neutrality, given the situation in France. As for the USSR, we've been through this far too many times already; the best you could argue is co-belligerence, not alliance, and that's all I'll say on that particlar manner. Parsecboy (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You should also remember that Axis has bad connotations only because it was the name used by that group of countries - before that it would be considered a neutral term. Besides, 'Axis' and 'Allies' are by far the most common names. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] what happened to the old picture?

Why is Image:WWII.png being used instead of Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg, now? Was there ever any discussion about changing the picture? I, personally, prefer the old picture and, if there was no discussion, will probably revert it. Or else it can be discussed now or something TerraFrost (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, there is a discussion, with opposition, please see Template Talk:WW2InfoBox and contribute to the discussion. -- penubag  01:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've decided to put the matter to a voteTemplate talk:WW2InfoBox#collages vs. maps: which do you prefer? TerraFrost (talk) 04:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll vote, even though this is so elementary, a vote is not needed, it should be a collage no matter what, per the true purpose of an infobox. -- penubag  05:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

At any rate, any map is better than a collage that has D-Day as the pivotal event (biggest image, on top)... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol... a pivotal event... not the pivotal event for sure. Jmlk17 10:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pivotal event for World War II was the German defeat at Stalingrad. The pictures that should be in that collage should be 6 pictures, 1-->German defeat at Stalingrad, 2-->Allied invasion of Normandy, 3-->US Marines raising flag on Iwo Jima, 4-->Atomic bomb over Hiroshima, 5-->Holocaust, 6-->Soviets raising flag in BerlinMercenary2k (talk) 10:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

We're finalizing and working on an image similar to this. It would be appreciated if you took part in helping to decide which pictures to use. -- penubag  10:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I miss the old picture, which took a lot of negotiation to arrive at. DJ Clayworth (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TOO LONG???

Is that a bad joke? These six years of war was without doubt the most important period in modern history. It had multiple fronts and every country in the war had a different political story for it. Everything was complex and this article has to incorporate the combat and the politics, no way in hell is this article too long. I wouldn't say it's too short but definitely not too long.--The Dominator (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I say it's fine as it is. It's not really Too long. Editors, Don't make the mistake far to many have done by trying to simplify History as it's not a simple thing. 65.24.55.197 (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Too long" implies a file size that's too large. The fact that this article as it stands is 156 kilobytes, that's definitely too long. Recommend split article into the two theatres - Europe and Asia. KyuuA4 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, leave it as is (in this respect at least). thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Split? No, there definitely needs to be an umbrella article.--The Dominator (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there needs to be an umbrella article. As far as length goes this has to be an exception it has to be to cover it correctly.Asiaticus (talk) 07:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree too, umbrella article. In it's current form it's not digestible at all. 'Importance' should not override comprehension. If anything, importance should mandate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.222.23 (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It is to long though. I was working on a much more concise version (World War II/temp) but I've been caught up in work recently. Think anyone could give me a hand finishing it off? Oberiko (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia always bounces back and forth about this. Either the article is too long, or there's too much sub-article soup (witness the 20 proposed different theatres of war below), which in turn clogs up the search engine. The article is long because, as said, this is the most important event of modern history, the most important 15 years of the last 150. If Wikipedia intends to be an encyclopedic source for human knowledge, it has to acknowledge the breadth and depth of that knowledge. The article will only continue to grow as we include more perspectives, and make the article more global in scope and more useful in content. Perhaps this article could be divided up usefully into sub-articles, but this is generally not considered a best practice for shorter ones; we would need to have a good justification for doing it here, which I do not believe "It's too long" provides. In short, if this article fails on the horns of too-many-articles/too-long-an-article, then Wikipedia itself will fail similarly. JSoules (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Midway

It was not a major victory, MIDWAY was a trap on the japanses set by the americans breaking the japanese purple code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.113.12.6 (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was a trap for the Americans set by the Japanese, the Americans just managed to turn it back around on them, hence the classification of the battle as a major victory (not to mention the upset in balance of power caused by the sinking of 4 Japanese carriers and the loss of hundreds of their best pilots). Also, the Japanese code was JN-25, Purple was the codename for the actual cipher machine. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How many Theatres in the Second World War?

Second world war restructure It seems to me that article is too unwieldy because it tries to cover way too much for an introductory piece. Firstly, exactly how many Theatres were there? I am fairly confused by the list below
is it European Theatre
or Western Europe
and Eastern Front (World War II)

Battle of the Atlantic (North, Mid, South?)

is it Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East
or Mediterranean Theatre of World War II, Middle East Theatre of World War II, and African campaigns of World War II

Asia-Pacific Theatre
Main article: Pacific War
so what is the Asia-Pacific Theatre? Main articles: Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and South West Pacific theatre of World War II South-East Asia

If I may suggest, since the article deals with a global war, only the really large areas need to be covered, not individual campaigns and certainly not battles, which can be mentioned in the content.
The guide is:
World - war
Theatre - major World geographic regions
Campaign - subsets of the major gepgraphic regions
Operations - minor geographic regions
battles - subsets of minor geographic regions

I'd suggest the following Theatres (from the Atlantic which conveniently runs from the Arctic to Antarctic):

• North Atlantic Theatre [1]
  
• Mid-Atlantic Theatre[2]
  
• South-Atlantic Theatre
  
• Northern European Theatre
  
• Western European Theatre
  
• West Mediterranean Theatre
  
• North-West African Theatre
  
• Central African Theatre
  
• South African Theatre[3]
  
• Southern European Theatre
  
• Mediterranean Theatre
  
• North African Theatre
  
• The Arctic (from Finland to Alaska)
  
• East European Theatre
  
• East Mediterranean Theatre
  
• West Asian Theatre
  
• East African Theatre
  
• North Indian Ocean
  
• South-West Asian Theatre
  
• The Indian subcontinent
  
• Central Asian Theatre
  
• South-East Asian Theatre
  
• South Indian Ocean
  
• East Asian Theatre
  
• North Asian Theatre
  
• North Pacific Theatre
  
• North-West American Theatre
  
• Central Pacific Theatre
  
• Central American Theatre (inc. the Caribbean sea)
  
• West Pacific Theatre
  
• South Pacific Theatre
  
• East Pacific Theatre
  
• South-West American Theatre
  
• South-West Pacific Theatre
  
• North Australian Theatre
  
• North-East American Theatre
  
• South-East American Theatre
  

Once there is a paragraph about each of these written, the World at was will be much better described,a nd each campaign can then be linked into the paragraphs. The coverage will be much more thorough, but at the same time general enough for the reader not to get lost in details they will find in campaigns (but no battles).--mrg3105mrg3105 14:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with this proposal is that all of the 'theatres' you propose are in fact linked. It's not practical to write about what you call the "North Australian Theatre" without explaining about the rest of the Pacific. It's much more normal to consider WWII divided into two theatres - European and Pacific. These two were largely unconnected and can be explained with little reference to each other. Nobody calls things "theatres" down at the fine grain you are talking about. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The theatres are linked because I linked them. However if you go to edit, you will see that the links are not exactly perfect. The North Australian Theatre is not part of the Pacific since North Australian and PNG are distinctly connected to the Southwest Pacific via the Dutch West Indies Archipelago (as it was then). The European and the Pacific were not theatres properly speaking because a theatre is defined as a distinct operational region, and each of the two had several such regions, both maritime and land. It seems to me that "fine grain" just doesn't apply when one of these is the North Atlantic! I am just suggesting that this is a much better way to describe events of various campaigns in terms of global geography.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 06:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Russia and Japan, in two weeks a million men had been destroyed

Three Soviet army groups made the attack. In less than two weeks, the Japanese army in Manchuria, consisting of over a million men, had been destroyed by the battle-hardened Soviets.

Is there an article on Wikipedia that describes this battle? Would be good if this (in)credible statement had a reference. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Operation August Storm is probably your best bet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I created a wiki link in the text of the article so others won't have this issue. :-) Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Animated map

In the animated map Finland is shown first as neutral, then as an Axis Power, then as one of Western Allies. I understand Finland being depicted as an Axis Power since there was an unofficial "alliance" between Finland and Germany and some German troops were stationed in Finland, but as far as I know Finland was never part of the Western Alliance. Finland signed an armistice with Soviet Union in 1944, which included Finland forcing the remaining German forces out of the country. So, in a way, Finland could be considered an allie of the USSR from that moment on, but definitely not a part of the Western Alliance. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one.

All this confusion is just a result of strange colouring for the USSR (and "its allies"). Sure, used colours can be a nice introduction to depicting the genesis of Cold War, but it has not much to do with the factual situation before 1945. As I said before, there were only 2 sides in WWII: "the Allies" and aggressors who opposed them. And you shouldn't call the aggressors "the Axis", simply because there was no Axis when the war begun. --EAJoe (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Only casualties shown?

I've been looking at various pages dedicated to wars and battles in history and in many, the secotions relating to the strength of the opposing sides have been removed and only losses shown, any ideas why this is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.235.28 (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to this article only, or others in general? For this article, it is very difficult to establish strengths, given the lengths and varying fortunes of the war. Stating one number (be it peak strength, overall number of soldiers, etc.) isn't nearly nuanced enough to give readers an accurate picture of the size of armies during the war. For example, if the infobox were to include individual countries, and France were included, should we use their peak strength in 1939-40 of about 5 million men? How about the number of men under arms at the end of the war, closer to 1 and a quarter million? The infobox simply isn't big enough to contain that much detail. It's better left to the text of the article to explain. Hope that answers your question. Parsecboy (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

some idea is better than none. this article needs to have some info on the militaries involved in the war and their sizes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.175.197 (talk) 10:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chile wasn't an allied country

In the maps, we can see Chile as an allied country, but Chile were never in war against Germany or the axe. It must be corrected89.246.174.170 (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you read Allies of World War II, you'll see that Chile did in fact sign the Declaration by United Nations, in early 1945. So, no, for the majority of the war, Chile was neutral, but technically, it did side with the Allies, even if it was at the 11th hour.

While we're on the subject, I was thinking of a change to the map we could make to help solve this issue. Perhaps the "Johnny-come-latelies" of the war should be colored gray with a green dot, similar to those that were Axis early on, and then switched sides once they had been defeated. This would help to make clear that, for example, Chile and the USA did not join the war at approximately the same time. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm in agreement. If the map was able to illustrate the passage of time, alliances, and years, I personally think it would be a bit more informative (and correct). Jmlk17 21:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, we have this one, but it has some inaccuracies that were pointed out on the infobox talk page some time ago. Unfortunately, we don't seem to have anyone with the necessary programs to edit and correct the animated map. Parsecboy (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Very true. I believe if we could edit that one carefully, it would be a great asset, but I am not sure who has the capabilities at this moment. Perhaps WP:MILITARY could help find someone. Jmlk17 22:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I repeat, Chile wasn't on the side of the allies. Chile signed the declaration of the UNO and declared the war against Japan, but not agaisnt Germany. It was certainly clarified by the government. Chile wasn't an allie country89.246.174.170 (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Based on your logic, the Soviet Union wasn't a member of the Allies either, because they didn't declare war on Japan until the last few days of the war. Chile signed the Declaration of United Nations, essentially the document that bound the Allied countries together and stated their goals. Chile also declared war on Japan. Therefore, based on those two factors, Chile was a member of the Allies. It's irrelevant that Chile did not declare war on Germany. Parsecboy (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The government clarified, Chile wasn't on war against Germany, despite the signature of the goals declarion of the uno (it wasn't a war declaration). Chile was only on war against Japan, instead of the axe. The SU was on war against all the axe but Japan89.246.174.170 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your point ignores the fact that the only Axis members still fighting in April 1945 were Germany and Japan. That Chile did not declare war on Germany a few weeks before its defeat is irrelevant. I don't know why I have to keep stating this.Parsecboy (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the Chile's public opinion didn't want a war against Germany or its directed allies, because the importance of the german inmigrants. So the government had to declare that. After the war Chile had problems, because Chile was the only american state, that had never declare war on Germany89.246.190.203 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Public opinion is also irrelevant. Chile signed the Declaration of the United Nations, and declared war on Japan. Those two facts alone are enough to include Chile as an Allied country. Let's put an end to this discussion; provide reliable sources stating explicitly that Chile was not an Allied country, and you can have your change. Until then, it will remain as it is. Parsecboy (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's quite funny to observe, how relative (although very authoritative...) are your judgements. Here, it's perfectly enough for you for Chile just to declare war (on paper) on a single "anti-Ally" to be included as 100% Allies member here, and not so long ago you strongly objected that launching full-scale war with millions of soldiers involved against one of Allies, in close cooperation with Nazis (Soviet attack on Poland in Sep'1939) - is absolutely not enough to enlist the Soviets as "anti-Ally" between 1939 and 1941. So maybe make up your mind, huh? --EAJoe (talk) 16:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) My mind is made up, thank you. The difference here, is that reliable sources describe Chile as an Allied country at the end of the war. You (or anyone else) have yet to provide a single reliable, secondary source that describes the USSR as an Axis power from 1939-1941. Again, it's not up to me or you to decide anything, we just report what reliable sources state. I personally do believe that the USSR was a Nazi co-belligerent during the invasion of Poland, but thus far, no one has been able to come up with a reliable source that described the USSR as such. Therefore, it cannot be included. Policy is policy. That's just how Wikipedia works; if you don't like it, then perhaps this isn't the best place for you. This is the only comment I will make on the matter; I have absolutely no interest in participating in this argument with you again. Parsecboy (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't we been over this? The Soviet Union was not anti-Ally; they were anti-Poland. Read the Polish-British Common Defence Pact and Franco-Polish Military Alliance. In both cases, France and the United Kingdom promise support only against Germany, as ever since the days of Stresa Front, the pacts made by France and the United Kingdom were always specifically anti-Nazi Germany. Hence, the Soviet's did not attack the "Allies" as, by the nature of the various pacts, only Germany was capable of doing so; the United Kingdom and France had no obligation what-so-ever to intervene in the case of the Soviet attack on Poland.

Regarding Chile (and pretty much all other smaller powers and Johnny-come-latelies), because they signed the right documents and declared war on the right nations, it is definitely a de jure Ally. That doesn't necessarily mean that actually did anything of worth (or at all) mind you, but that's not the topic of this discussion or a valid means for exclusion. For better or worse, history judges the Allies ultimately as nations which signed the Declaration by United Nations; likewise, the Axis are determined by the signing of the Tripartite Pact. Oberiko (talk) 23:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy: you just said "Those two facts alone are enough". You didn't specify a single "reliable source", while continuously requiring detailed citing from your opponents.

How about the Declaration by United Nations? Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What has declaration devised by US president in December 1941 to do with telling who was an Ally two years earlier? The WWII really didn't start in Pearl Harbor and wasn't fought between some "Axis" and "United Nations" but between Nazis/Japanese & their supporters and those who opposed them... --EAJoe (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko: nope, we're definitely not over, I'm afraid. You are citing me paper treaties, and you point to some specific wording in them which was simply required by political reasons at the time. Using this definition Poland was German and Soviet ally, because it all the time had signed non-aggression pacts with both (meant to last till 1944 and 1946, respectively), and there was no formal declarations of war. There is no such thing as "de jure Ally" - either a country is fighting Nazis, staying neutral, or fighting against them - simple as that. Even neutrality, taking account of the global nature of the conflict can be counted as taking a particular side in the war. Also, your definition of WWII sides based on some arbitrary treaties signed in late 1940-1941 and 1942-1945 is completely US/SU-centric (hence non-NPOV) and ignoring the fact that WWII begun in 1939 - whole years earlier, in quite a different political and military situation. regards, --EAJoe (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are vastly simplifying a complicated situation; this isn't some black and white "with-us" or "against-us" scenario. These treaties are worded so specifically for a reason. If you want to argue that the Soviet Union violated its treaty with Poland, that's fine, but has nothing to do with the U.K., France or the Allies.

You don't like the Declaration of the United Nations or Tripartite Pact as a means to gauge who's an Ally and Axis? Sorry, but most of history states otherwise. Anything else is either going to be against the grain or original research. Think about it this way, how else would you state it? Would you call Vichy France an Axis because they fought the Allies in Madagascar, Syria, Gabon, Dakar and North Africa? Or would you call them an Ally because they fought the Japanese in Indochina? If you're only going by countries that sent men to fight, would Spain's Blue Division make them an Axis? How many soldiers do you require to make your "cut"? One? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? What about financing and political support?

Any measuring on such factors is bound to start nothing but inconsistencies and opinions. With the DUN & TP, at least you have, in official writing, the nation declaring what its intentions are and where it plans on standing during the war.

BTW, I see that you state the war started in 1939, and not 1937 with the Second Sino-Japanese War. IMO, your saying that I'm being U.S./S.U. centric, while you are clearly Europe-centric yourself, is a pot-and-kettle situation. Oberiko (talk) 05:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No no, I'm not simplifying, things simply are simple and easy to check :). Any significant military involvement during WWII is quite reasonably documented. Regarding treaties I just notice that they are completely irrelevant, as most of fighting countries had some pacts signed with their enemies. The SU aggression in '39 is not just "violation of the treaty", but massive military cooperation & alliance with Nazis. Hitler also didn't specificly intend to attack UK or France, he chose to take the risk when he invaded Poland. So did Russians. Their risk although was minimal, because he knew that France/UK were already at war with Germany. Not much difference though between what Hitler actually did, and what did Stalin.

DUN: it was "declaration of intentions", yes, but only after Soviets had been attacked by Hitler, and started to fight Nazis. It has nothing to do with what those "intentions" were between 1939 and 1941, and this period is also part of the WWII.

Vichy: it should rather be called properly: France. And yes, after surrendering it was an active pro-Nazi (not some "Axis") state. It's strong fleet made constant threat and absorbed Allied forces during the hardest period of war, France formed SS-division, French supported Nazi ethnic cleansings and actively fought Allies in Africa. Defending their collonies in Indochina has little to do with changing that, beeing very limited and without much positive effect on any Allied operations in the area. What is for you so complicated here?

WWII started in 1937? Who says so? AFAIK there is a consensus regarding the starting date. Although I noticed that Russian wikipedia somewhat includes Khalchyn-Gol conflict into WWII :) But definition of the beginning of the war is really not very important - more important is definition of conflict sides.

You mentioned Spain. Sure, oficially it was "neutral" state, but that's exactly why I talked that the neutrality can be doubful when it comes to a global conflict. Franco in fact helped much the Nazis, and there can be quite a lot of arguments that he was a Nazi supporter. Britons having problems with maintaining Gibraltar base could say something about it. Generally speaking about any "neutral state": nazism was a threat to the whole modern civilization, and one has to say that not opposing it was in fact supporting it. But I agree that one can difference between active supporters, and passive "observers".

You're asking, "how many exactly" soldiers is enough to be counted as significant. In some cases there can be doubt, of course - such as in case of the Spanish division. But in some cases things are obvious, like hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers closely cooperating with Wehrmacht in 1939 or French divisions & battleships threatening and fighting Allied forces around Africa. Also, not only "dry" numbers of soldiers are important, but one also has to remember when those numbers appeared. Telling that "Free French" had 400.000 soldiers in fight after invasion in Normandy is much less important that it would be, say, even 50.000 in 1941-42, when the final outcome was a little harder to predict...

On the other side (for comparison) after beeing defeated in 1939 this small poor Poland continuously had since 1940-42 ~100-250 thousands soldiers (2 Polish corpses, few thousands well-trained pilots) fighting in the West, and approx. another 100-200 thousands on the Eastern Front (2 Polish armies). So, the answer to your question is relatively straightforward - you just need to compare possibilities with facts, and potential with real war effort. --EAJoe (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Union: Not Axis

The Soviet Union were not part of the Axis at any time. They did however co-operate with Germany in their invasion of Poland. They were doing it for their own interests but not for Germany's. I think that is generally an established fact. The point is that these two countries had different policies and different interests. An Alliance was never made between these two powers. I am just making this point made because i see there is constent bickering between users over this subject Lingwingfred (talk) 05:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello again.

"not part of the Axis" - sure, they were Nazi Germany alliants. All this "Axis vs Allies" naming reflects only POV of countries for which the WWII begun in 1941 and not 2 years earlier. "not for Germany's interests" - not true, they had mutual interests in this aggression. "established fact" - did you actually read what I wrote above? "An Alliance was never made between these" - did you hear of the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact and it's secret addendum or know anything about what happened in Poland between 1939 and 1941? --EAJoe (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr, leaving the Soviets out of the Axis is in accordance with almost every historian in the last fifty years. See Pact of Steel, Axis Powers, Tripartite Pact, etc etc. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets were not part of the Axis but they were certainly allied to Germany up to June 41. The long discussion in the previous section seems remarkably lacking in sources. Here's thousands. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is a lot of sources about Soviet-Nazi collaboration. But people presenting US- or Soviet-centric POV always will point that they are irrelevant/nationalistic/not-widely-supported/false/whatever. Also this POV includes presenting WWII as fought between some abstract "Axis" and "Allies", which is OK only if you assume (as they do) that the war started in 1940-1941. The term "Axis" is particularly not good for depicting WWII sides, because actually the "Axis" had it's roots in an anti-USSR agreement, and therefore it's quite hard for many to acknowledge Soviet participation in such an alliance. Additionally, the real Axis pact (Tripartite + supplements) was signed over a year after the WWII started, when Nazi-Soviet relations already deteriorated significantly (in fact, the Soviet Union considered parts of some signing countries as its "sphere of influence", so it was just another step in breaking down the Nazi-Soviet alliance and it's easy to understand, why the SU didn't join). Quite a good sources on that are on the Avalon Project site. --EAJoe (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me this debate? Because from my point of view, if a country invades/fights/destroys/institutes a scorched earth policy against another country, then I consider that country to be against it. Yes, we all know that the Soviet Union was against the United States politically, and they feared us as much as we (in the USA) feared them. Yes, they may have been allied with Germany until a certain point, but because Germany attacked them and the Soviets counterattacked, they would be considered at war in my book. Whether or not they signed an alliance with the other two major powers, Britain and the USA (France had been ruined by the German blitzkrieg in the beginning of the war, and correct me if I am wrong, but they did not contribute much to the war other than stalling somewhat in the early years pre-Pearl Harbor), I still would consider them "allied" with the other two powers (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). --Scouto2 (talk) 14:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The debate was in relation to this map, which if you look closely, the countries that were Axis and switched sides are denoted in blue, with a green dot in the middle, and vice versa for countries that were Allied and then switched sides. EAJoe wanted to color the USSR as blue with a green dot. The majority of editors opposed this proposal, as it contradicts nearly every historian in the past 50 years. The idea was, that since the Soviets had collaborated with Germany to invade Poland, they were allies, and thus the USSR was a member of the Axis. The main discussion can be found here. Parsecboy (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

How can an article on the greatest military conflict in HIStory be too long? --Paaerduag (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

By that argument, the articles on the Universe and History of the world should be thousands, if not millions, of pages long. Each article is supposed to be written in a summary format; larger topics simply merit more (or just higher-level) daughter articles. Oberiko (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

He didn't say "it should be infinite." he merely meant (or at least i feel) that if the article is coherent and well-written, length is less of an issue than covering this topic correctly. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think any topic can be covered in summary style. This is an overview article, details belong in daughter articles which can afford them more focus. Oberiko (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It could probably be easily divided into smaller articles. It's a lot of information to load on someone's computer, especially if someone is using a dial-up connection. Jmlk17 08:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SIZE. There seems to be too much operational detail which should be pruned where there are links to other articles on the subject. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Section 8: Axis collapse, Allied victory (16 December 1944 - 15 August 1945)

On the 16th of December, the Germans launched a large offensive in the Ardennes. In mid-January, the Soviets launched a major offensive themselves. By the start of February, the Western Allies had defeated the German offensive and the Soviets had progressed up to the Oder river in Germany. On February 4th, the leaders of the United States, United Kingdom and Soviet Union met in Yalta and came to agreement regarding Soviet assistance against Japan and the partitioning of post-war Germany. In February, soon after the Yalta Conference, Western Allied forces crossed the Rur river. In early March, German forces initiated their last major offensive against Soviet forces, but it was defeated within ten days. In late March, the Western Allies then crossed the Rhine river and quickly encircled a large number of German divisions. By mid-April Soviet forces were able to attack Berlin itself and near the end of the month, Mussolini's remnant fascist government in Italy was overthrown.

During this period there were several changes in leadership. On April 12th, American President Roosevelt died, succeeded by Harry Truman. On the 28th, Mussolini, having been captured by Allied Italian partisans, was executed. Two days later, with the Soviets fast approaching, Hitler committed suicide, designating naval commander Karl Dönitz as the new head of state.

On May 8th, the Allies accepted Germany's surrender, essentially ending the war in Europe. Sporadic fighting continued for a few days though, notably in Prague.

In mainland Asia, Commonwealth and Chinese forces continued to press back the Japanese in Burma, steadily retaking the country. In early March the Japanese overthrew the Vichy government in Indochina, creating the short lived Empire of Vietnam.

In the Pacific, American forces captured Leyte by the end of the year and invaded Luzon and Iwo Jima in January and February of 1945. In March, American forces continued their campaign in the Philippines, invading Mindanao. By the beginning of April, American forces had captured Iwo Jima and moved on to invade Okinawa, which they captured by late June.

In late July, Allied leaders met in Potsdam, Germany, and concluded agreements of Germany occupation and reconstruction as well as the terms of Japanese surrender; it was specifically stated in the latter that the alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction. During the conference, the United Kingdom held its general election and Churchill was replaced by Clement Attlee.

In early August, after Japan's refusal to the terms of Potsdam, the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the short period between the bombings, the Soviets fulfilled their part of the agreements at Yalta and invaded Japanese-held Manchuria. On August 15th, Japan surrendered, thus bringing the war to an end.

Comments

• Last section of the main article done. Any comments? Oberiko (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Full dates for the two atomic bombings should be included. It's probably also worth mentioning that Dönitz succeeded Hitler. Fornadan (t) 01:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I added Donitz. I'm hesitant to add the exact dates of the atomic bombs, as there would be a lot of dates in a very short blurb (Hiroshima, August Storm, Nagasaki, Japanese surrender). I don't think they are really needed for the reader to understand the sequence of events; "early August" should, IMO, suffice. Oberiko (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's missing the rather important Vistula-Oder Offensive as well as East Prussian Offensive, East Pomeranian Offensive and Silesian Offensives, each of which IMHO was more important in their success (especially Vistula-Oder) than the German Ardennes offensive in it's failure. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I have the V-O Offensive (top paragraph), but I'm not sure how to best incorporate the others. Any suggestions? Oberiko (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Temp article review

The bulk of the temporary article is done, so I wouldn't mind feedback here. Oberiko (talk) 17:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article replacement

I would like to replace the current course of the war section on this article with the background and course of the war sections on the temp article. Any objections? Oberiko (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Go right ahead. Parsecboy (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. And brings us down from 158 kb --> 64. Oberiko (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I approve of the contraction. The animated map was removed though and, as this was much better than the static green map, I have replaced it in the sidebar. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not a featured article?

I'm surprised to see that this article has never been a Featured Article before. Could someone tell me why? Gary King (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you check in the Article Milestones section above at the very top, you can see the history of the failure(s) to promote the article. Jmlk17 22:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Article topic importance does not equate to the quality of the article. It was just substantially revised a couple days ago, now might be a good time for a peer review over at WP:MILHIST, if just for the input from a broader audience as to improvements that should be made, etc. Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea! Jmlk17 22:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After much struggling, I've requested a peer review for the article (my first time doing so) here. Let's see what people have to say. Parsecboy (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where was the Holocaust?

There's been a little cross-editing of the intro about the Holocaust. I agree that to say "...which was carried out by Nazi Germany.. is too restrictive (though I'm not sure to what extent other Axis cooperated). I also think that if we say it "took place in ...the Soviet Union" then we run the risk of implying the the Soviet Union was involved. I think it's better to say nothing about the location in the intro paragraph. There can be more detail later in the article.

I also think we shouldn't use the term Holocaust, even in the intro, assuming that people know what it was. "11 million civilians were victims of the Holocaust" doesn't tell us what happened to them, which is much more important than where it happened. How about:

11 million civilians, including six million Jews, were systematically killed in the Holocaust.

with no mention of where in the intro. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, seems considerably more clear on your version. Oberiko (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

On a related matter, is it correct to speak of the Holocaust as including the slaughter of the non-Jews? I always understood Holocaust to refer strictly to the killing of Jews. Not that I am in any way denying the significance of the non-Jews killed, just to say that the word Holocaust has a Jewish origin and usually refers to them. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Quick glance at the article shows that its quite contestable, so it's probably better for us to avoid it, at least in the intro. Unless we have such an article, we'll probably need something along the lines of genocides committed during World War II. Oberiko (talk) 17:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In general the term Holocaust is applied to the extermination of Jews because there was a formulated policy to do so, and because they were the vast majority of the group against whom this policy was directed. The Roma (gypsies) were also included. The mentally handicapped were a part of a separate policy. A great many other people died in the same way, but for different reasons: Polish/Czech/Yugoslav resistance, POWs, slave workers who failed to obey, etc. Many Poles died having never seen the inside of a concentration camp. Many French and some British and other POWs died trying to escape from work camps. So, in general Holocaust is applied to what we today call "ethnic cleansing".--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 22:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

the intro to the section about the holocaust should be deleted as it is just flat out false. in 1989 the auschwizt museum reduced the claim of 4.1 million deaths to 1.5 million and even that number is open to be revised. there is no physical evidence of gas chambers used to kill human beings. in winston churchills six volume work entitled "Second World War", a work consisting of over 4400 pages of text there is not one mention of a single nazi gas chamber, german genocide or six million jewish victims of the war. this myth needs to stop and needs to stop now. there was no evidence then and none now that people were ever put into gas chambers and killed. so this part needs to be taken out. Spoilermdc (talk) 08:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Holocaust denial‎ website. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

i am not a denier nick, i am a revisionist. there is a difference. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with Nick; the vast majority of reliable historians support the Holocaust as historical fact, only a tiny minority believe otherwise, and letting their opinions dominate would be a violation of undue weight. It's interesting that Holocaust deniers always have these complex calculations that "prove" 6 million Jews couldn't have all been gassed and incinerated. No one ever said they were. The Einsatzgruppen were responsible for murdering around 1.3 Jews alone, in open air shootings, such as inthis photo. As for Churchill, he's not a historian; his book isn't a reliable history of the war in general, it's more of a memoirs, and focuses more on his and Britain's role in the war. He focuses on the British contribution in the Pacific more so than on the American, even though the British actions were of largely marginal importance. That he doesn't mention the Holocaust isn't surprising, because Britain, and he specificly, didn't have anything to do with it. Parsecboy (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

that photo has been discredited. what uniform is that person wearing? is it german? there were millions gassed and there is no mention of it??????? what??? Spoilermdc (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Provide a source that shows the image is false; the soldier holding the gun is very clearly wearing the Waffen-SS field uniform; compare with this illustration. As for Churchill, he never mentioned the Rape of Nanking. Does that mean it didn't happen either? I'm sure Churchill omitted quite a few things, and yet that doesn't mean they never happened. I'm afraid you've got to come up with a better argument than "Churchill didn't talk about it" for it to have any weight here. Parsecboy (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=4652

here is a source, but i suppose you will say this is not a reliable source? many groups were targeted by the nazi's. why are the jews the only ones still complaining about it? stalin killed 10 times as many people. where is the memorial to them? Spoilermdc (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop splicing your comments into the middle of mine; it's confusing to others and messes with the flow of discussion. And no, the forum to which you have linked is not a reliable source. And also no, you're wrong; Stalin didn't kill 10 times as many people; at very most, and this is including the numbers who died during the forced collectivation, IIRC, the total figure is around 9.4 million. Yes, there are estimates as high as 20 and even 60 million deaths during Stalin's time in power, but any rational person will tell you that those numbers are totally impossible. First, the population of the USSR was around 160 million in the 30's and 40's. There were also over 23 million wartime deaths, military and civilian. You can't take losses of about 25% and still achieve the level of industrialization the USSR reached during Stalin's regime. Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

okay, how about the fact that there is no physical evidence of even one person being gasses? how about the fact that there is not one autopsy of a dead body to show that even one person was gasses? how about the fact that the "gas chamber" doors opend, in some cases, to the inside and locked from the inside too? how about the fact that there isnt one photo of a gassed person? how about the fact that there is no film footage of a working gas chamber. the whole thing is an elaborate and very profitable hoax. if you are going to claim millions of civillians were gasses you have to be able to provide proof. of the mllions allegedly gasses, is there one body buried somewhere that could be dug up and tests be done to show that the person was gasses? saying something doesnt make it true. and yes, i have heard the mainstream Holocaust story. it doesnt add up. i dont believe it to be true. and i am not a "denier" or an anti-semite. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the bodies that were gassed at Auschwitz were then cremated. Sort of hard to perform an autopsy on ashes, isn't it? It doesn't matter that some gas chambers opened from the inside, that doesn't preclude those on the outside from locking them with a different means. The lack of film footage of working gas chambers is also irrelevant; there isn't film footage of quite a few things no one questions. These are all incredibly weak arguments. If you are going to contradict what the majority of reputable historians state as fact, you're going to need better arguments than "some of the doors opened from the inside" and "there isn't any film footage". Parsecboy (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy I'd recommend not wasting our time with this person. If he can come up with a reliable source (which he certainly never will). Lets not feed this troll and he will either sneak off to other hunting grounds or starve. As far as I can tell he's adding absolutely nothing to wikipedia (he has two article edits, everything else talk page edits). Err. just noticed he's been indefinitely blocked today, so it's a moot point by now.--Caranorn (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct in saying that Nick, and I agree. We are here to provide information, not opinions, because of the controversy associated with many opinions (such as abortion, the Iraq War, and many other topics), which would cause the information in Wikipedia to be less reliable because of the spin on the articles. Now, maybe we could just have a couple of sentences in the article just over viewing the casualties and groups involved, without mentioning location, time, and what they actually did, and branch that off to another article.

Something like this, The Holocaust was the attempted ethnic cleansing of Jews, Gypsies, and other groups from Nazi Germany. An estimated 1.5 million to 4.5 million deaths are estimated to have occurred by the Auschwitz museum.

And we could just have that somewhere in a topic somewhat relevant to the article. Yes, it was an important subject during the war, but it was not why the war happened, it was just another project that Nazi Germany tried. Include it in the article, but not a whole paragraph on the topic. We did not fight because of that (but probably would have, considering that the United States went to war with Spain because of yellow journalism not but a few decades earlier, if we had known). We definitely should put it in a paragraph associated with it under something to do with the Nazis. --Scouto2 (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

the museum doesnt claim this. and 1.5-4.5 million? that is a 3 million differential. that is quite a large disparity. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the Holocaust shouldn't be a focus of this article as, while it was related to the war, wasn't part of the fighting. That said, I don't see how the Holocaust is considered at all controversial - only a tiny fringe of people dispute that it occured or that it led to millions of deaths. I don't know how the Auschwitz museum came up with their figure, but it seems much lower than the figures normally provided by historians and don't see why such a low estimate should be singled out. The excellent Wikipedia Holocaust article provides much higher figures. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

sure it does nick. the figures keep growing and the horror stories keep getting more outrageous. Spoilermdc (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Western historians have never taken the 4 million Auschwitz variant seriously, and gave estimates of 1 - 1.5 million as early as the 1950s. The collapse of the Iron curtain allowed historians to correct the Soviet inflated toll, and base the death toll on sources such as deportation records. See here. And Spoiler, please stop perpetuating this nonsense on talk pages as you have been doing previously. We will help you when you provide reliable sources, but until then, our volunteers are not at endless liberty to appease fringe theories. WilliamH (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to disagree with the general line here in one point. The Holocaust was essential to WWII. The reason is that without it's theory of races and in particular without the theory of Germanic superiority, the war would not have taken place. In the end it was all about Lebensraum which is directly tied to the Holocaust. Lastly, talking about ethnic cleansing in this respect is incorrect. Ethnic cleansing generally involves deportations or at least encouraging populations to migrate. The Holocaust was a genocide (or rather several parallel genocides the most notable those of the Jews and of the Roma).--Caranorn (talk) 11:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocaust wasn't a cause, it was an effect. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Technicality of end date

Technically, the War did not end until September 3rd, 1990, when Germany was unified. Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? This is also mentioned on the British program QI as the official date--Mackay64 (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of that before. I think a few more sources are required to make such a change, especially some more reliable than a British game show. Parsecboy (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I just thought it would be worth mentioning somewhere in the article Mackay64 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you mean ended? Germany and Japan surrendered, what more is needed for a war to be over? The reunification of Germany was along the lines of the Cold War ending. Oberiko (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What Mackay writes is a fringe viewpoint, just like the people who think that the First World War didn't end until 1945 because the second could be viewed as a continuation of the first. It may be an acceptable way of looking of the politics or sociology of the thing, but not really useful for an encyclopedia. QI is a comedy show, by the way. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Switching last photograph

The Soviet flag over Berlin is actually a propaganda image (see here for details). Unless there are objections, I'd like to replace it with the one on the right. Oberiko (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

No I disagree. Its an iconic image of World War II, it deserves to stay Mercenary2k (talk) 07:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Iconic, yes, but it was taken after the war was over. Same kind of reason why we're not using the flag of Iwo Jima. Oberiko (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And why shouldn't we? A considerable amount of ww2 photos were staged etc - and probably the overwhelming majority of really iconic pictures - like the pair of propagandist images of flag-raising, or the chinese baby in nanjing (was it nanjing?) sitting on the bombed railstation. Excluding them on the ground their are propaganda doesn't seem reasonable. As for "after the war was over" - the link you have provided states that the picture was taken on May 2nd, 1945. The war was over? Right, right. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Another two cents - the picture of the Red Flag over Berlin is a must for the section dealing with victory. The americans have their nuke there, even though it's importance is rather debatable in ending the war; it's symbolic though. But as for land war - we all know that the overwhelming majority of action was done not by Soviets AND Americans, just Soviets... With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I still prefer the American-Soviet image, but if general consensous is for the Victory Banner, I'll acquiesce. Oberiko (talk) 13:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New infobox montage

Hi all. Oberiko and I have been discussing the creation of a new infobox montage here. So far, we've been the only two talking about it, but we'd like some more input, from as many editors as possible. We've got 6 images chosen to illustrate different aspects of the war, but nothing's set in stone. If people can find better pictures, all the better. So again, input is sought in the creation of a new infobox montage. Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typos

This article repeatedly refers to "Soviet's" instead of "Soviets". Since it is locked, I cannot fix it. 165.124.116.193 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've fixed the prob. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Collage

Ok, so this collage is no longer included in the article. That's really a shame. It's quite visually apealing (more so than the map), but I wouldn't no any place where it could fit in the article. Suggestion? (or should we just abandon it?)--Porsche997SBS (talk) 07:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

We're in the process of choosing a new montage, if you look at the section 2 above this one, you'll find a link to the discussion. The problem with the old montage is that many users have expressed that it's unbalanced (the main issue is that the Normandy image is twice the size as the others). You're more than welcome to go to the discussion and voice your opinions there if you like. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but shouldn't Normandy be a bit larger? It is the most famous (and largest) naval invasion in history, I think it deserves that. --Scouto2 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Normandy was that important for the UK and the US, but the Soviets had already turned the war around more than a year earlier. By February, 1943 in the Battle of Stalingrad, they'd absorbed a massive hurt and yet repelled the invaders. After that, it was only a matter of when each of the Allies would reach Berlin. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere

I disagree that the GEACS can be used as the name of the Japanese military strategy on the outbreak of the Pacific War.

• "Japan's declared intent in proclaiming the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere was liberation of East Asia from Western colonial rule and to foster (under Japanese guardianship) regional solidarity and eventual independence." [4]
• 'The Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere was a doctrine propounded in Japan in 1940, midway through the China war and before the outbreak of the Greater East Asian war of 1941, in order to expalain and rationalize her relationship with the peoples of Asia. It became a war aim which gave heart to the support of countries occupied or about to be occupied by the Japanese armies." [5]
• "Overseen by a special ministry created in November 1942, the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere was partly political in nature, responding to a long-running Japanese foreign policy ambition to exclude European colonialism from Asia." [6]

The GEACS was a concept to justify their actions and to attempt to win over the hearts and minds of the occupied. The military strategy of a defensive perimeter to keep the U.S. out of reach while accumulating resources [7] is a separate, albeit related. Oberiko (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

it is necessary to mention that concept, in order to give some attention to understanding the historical context of motives on both sides. World War II did come from a slight historical context, in which actions had to be justified. I know in retrospect, it seems like the Axis leapt forward and simply decided to take their chance and take over the world. however, in the context of the times, it did start out as a historical effort which took place in the context of world diplomacy and politics, and did need to make some kind of argument to win some mass public support. Japan attempted to displace European colonial empires by claiming, falsely, to be a force for liberation of native peoples. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check the World War II/temp page, I've started working on the "Impact of the war" section, one of the sub-sections is on occupied nations and I have the GEACS in there. Oberiko (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. I will try to look at it at some point. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 17:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:World War II

Editors working on this article may be interested in commenting on the featured portal candidacy of the related portal, to be found here. Carom (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need help at Allied war crimes during World War II

Editor Molobo (talk · contribs) claims that Polish crimes committed by Polish occupation forces against German civilians are not applicable to the Allied war crimes during World War II, since the occupation of Germany by "default" is "after the war". please contribute your opinion.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 23:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional picture for Axis advances

With the length of this section, I think we can fit another picture in it quite easily. I would like to suggest we use one of the following:

LondonBombedWWII.png London during The Blitz	German bombers during the Battle of Britain	German paratroopers in Crete	German paratroopers landing on Crete
Australians on the front-line at Tobruk

Any thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I like the Heinkels or either of the invasion of Crete images. I think the photo of the Aussies at Tobruk is a little to similar to the image in the montage; with limited space in the article, it's important to not repeat somewhat similar images. The London image is fine too, but it wouldn't be my first choice. Parsecboy (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The title of the Heinkels image and attribution to the battle of Britain are not justified by the notes to the image in the IWM colection, reproduced in the Commons notes. The only reference to the battle of Britain is a genral indication of the role of the HE111 in the Battle - there is no indcation of when or where the photograph was taken. Cyclopaedic (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I'd like to replace our Pearl Harbor image with the one on the right. We've got PH already in the infobox and just beneath this section there's a photo of Midway, so I think the event and the aspect (naval warfare) is pretty well covered. The number of British troops who surrendered at the Battle of Singapore, and Churchill's calling it the "worst disaster" in British military history I think make it on par with PH as well.

Right now, we only have one photo of Japanese soldiers and none from Southeast Asia. I also find this image to be much easier to make out. Any objections? Oberiko (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The War Becomes Global

Where it had read "[in June 1941] Germany, along with other European Axis members and Finland, invaded the Soviet Union" I removed Finland. The Finns and Soviets had already been at war for a while there, and I don't remember the Finns doing a lot of invading. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The Finns had been (more or less) at peace with the USSR since the Moscow Peace Treaty. In the Continuation War, Finland did indeed invade the Soviet Union, albeit only up the extent of the territory that the Soviet Union essentially annexed the year prior. Oberiko (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it back. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

I've given the aftermath section a quick rewrite, any critiques?

---

In an effort to maintain international peace,^[1] the Allies formed the United Nations, which officially came into existence on 24 October, 1945.^[2]

Regardless of this though, the alliance between the Western Allies and the Soviet Union had begun to deteriorate even before the war was over,^[3] and the two powers each quickly established their own spheres of influence.^[4] In Europe, the continent was essentially divided between Western and Soviet spheres by the so-called Iron Curtain which ran through and partitioned Allied occupied Germany and occupied Austria. In Asia, the United States occupied Japan and administrated Japan's former islands in the Western Pacific while the Soviets annexed Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands; the former Japanese governed Korea was divided and occupied between the two powers. Mounting tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union soon evolved into the formation of the American-led NATO and the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact military alliances and the start of the Cold War between them.^[5]

In many parts of the world, conflict picked up again within a short time of World War II ending. In China, nationalist and communist forces quickly resumed their civil war. Communist forces were eventually victorious and established the People's Republic of China on the mainland while nationalist forces ended up retreating to the reclaimed island of Taiwan. In Greece, civil war broke out between Anglo-American supported royalist forces and communist forces, with the royalist forces victorious. Soon after these conflicts ended, war broke out in Korea between South Korea, which was backed by the western powers, and North Korea, which was backed by the Soviet Union and China; the war resulted in essentially a stalemate and ceasefire.

Following the end of the war, a rapid period of decolonization also took place within the holdings of the various European colonial powers. These primarily occurred due to shifts in ideology, the economic exhaustion from the war and increased demand by indigenous people for self-determination. For the most part, these transitions happened relatively peacefully, though notable exceptions occurred in countries such as Indochina, Madagascar, Indonesia and Algeria.^[6] In many regions, divisions, usually for ethnic or religious reasons, occurred following European withdrawal; this was seen prominently in the Mandate of Palestine, leading to the creation of Israel and Palestine, and in India, resulting in the creation of the Dominion of India and the Dominion of Pakistan.

Economic recovery following the war was varied in differing parts of the world, though in general it was quite positive. In Europe, West Germany recovered quickly and doubled production from its pre-war levels by the 1950s.^[7] Italy came out of the war in poor economic condition,^[8] but by 1950s, the Italian economy was marked by stability and high growth.^[9] The United Kindgom was in a state of ecomonic ruin after the war,^[10] and continued to experience relative economic decline for decades to follow.^[11] France rebounded quite quickly, and enjoyed rapid economic growth and modernization.^[12] The Soviet Union also experienced a rapid increase in production in the immediate post-war era.^[13] In Asia, Japan experienced incredibly rapid economic growth, and led to Japan becoming one of the most powerful economies in the world by the 1980s.^[14] China, following the conclusion of its civil war, was essentially a bankrupt nation.^[15] By 1953, economic restoration seemed fairly successful as production had resumed pre-war levels.^[16] This growth rate mostly persisted, though it was briefly interrupted by the disastrous Great Leap Forward economic experiment. For several decades following the war, the United States reigned as leader of the world economy, though this position began to strain by the 1970s.^[17]

---

Oberiko (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So, no objection to replacing the existing aftermath section? Oberiko (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya it looks pretty good. Add something about Vietnam. The rebuilding of Europe, the Marshall Plan. Mercenary2k (talk) 07:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No objections. Put it in ASAP. It's a very spare and potent summary, very appropriate. Your focus is largely geopolitical; perhaps the section could incorporate further economic observations such as the USSR and USA riding a wave of industrial might and Great Britain settling into hard times. Binksternet (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph on economic recovery. Any thoughts before I replace the existing aftermath? Oberiko (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Stellar! How about "began to show strain" instead of "began to strain"? Very readable. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the change and then replace. Oberiko (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing perspective: Human Smoke

An alternative perspective on the forces that led to World War II is expressed in Nicholson Baker's book Human Smoke. Baker's book, which some attack as being biased by selective choice of facts, shows (though it does not explicitly claim) that western involvement in World War II was carefully plotted by people including Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt, and that their motivations had little to do with opposing fascism, which they allegedly regarded as vastly preferable to communism. Rather, Baker's book purports to demonstrate that their motivations included desires to increase arms sales, to thwart communists, and to subvert the active efforts of pacifists to defuse Nazi violence.

Is anyone up to the task of modifying this article to document this perspective? Preferably someone who has actually read Baker's book? As a beginning, maybe something like the previous paragraph could just be added at the end of the Background section. StraightSetter (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that falls under a WP:Fringe viewpoint. I agree that there were many complexities with the relationship between the Western Allies and the Soviets, and they almost did go to war during the early part of the conflict.

But, it goes against the grain of mainstream history. If you read about the actions of Roosevelt, almost all sources state that he genuinely wanted an amicable relationship with the Soviets, and had a vision of the U.S., the U.K., the U.S.S.R. and China serving as "policemen" of sorts over the remainder of the world. It's also rather difficult to believe that Churchill plotted World War II for a few reasons:

• Churchill wasn't in power when the European War started
• The war left the United Kingdom virtually bankrupt, and they had to dissolve most of their empire
• Hitler wanted to make peace with the U.K. (Hitler's eyes were always towards the east), but the U.K. refused it

So, no, I don't think that should be included. Oberiko (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that this is a WP:Fringe viewpoint, but if you actually read WP:Fringe, it explains that any notable viewpoint, fringe or otherwise, regardless of your or anyone's evaluation of its correctness, should be included, because it has been reviewed in numerous major publications, such as the New York Times. That is, whether it's believable is irrelevant to whether it should be included. StraightSetter (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

First and foremost, the article should have clarity. If there were a paucity of fringe theories about WWII then this particular one would merit inclusion by simple fact of its notability. There are, however, a host of fringe viewpoints about the conflict; adding each of them here would muddy the waters for the reader. Binksternet (talk) 02:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you cite some of these "host of fringe viewpoints" about the background/causes of WWII? Are any of the other ones notable? This is the only one I've heard of, though I haven't been monitoring the media or anything. If this is the only notable one, adding it would not muddy any waters. If there are a handful, it would make sense to include a short section describing them. If there really are lots of notable fringe viewpoints on this, they might warrant a separate article with a link from this one. Obviously the article should always be written clearly. Obviously it's possible to include whatever information is relevant in a clear manner. According to WP:Fringe, this information is relevant. It seems to me the proper way to proceed would be to add something on such an item when it's noticed (i.e., now), and then add more information on other notable fringe views, if any, whenever a wiki editor discovers one, and eventually create a separate article if it gets too unwieldy to include here. StraightSetter (talk) 05:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

One fringe viewpoint is that Zionists started both World Wars and funded the Nazi movement from the get-go.^[18] Another is that Hitler was the puppet of the Illuminati who hired him to start the conflict.^[19] A third is that Jews from USA, UK and USSR forced Hitler's hand.^[20] Naturally, Stalin (who had some Jewish blood) has been fingered as starting the whole thing.^[21] It's certainly a worthy effort to put all these fringe viewpoints (and the one you brought up) into an article about how WW2 got started. I just don't think that this already massive article is the place for it. Here, the mainstream view offers the best comprehensive summary and jumping off place for a large number of articles that go into further detail. Once the fringe theory article is written, it would be briefly mentioned here. I am not now interested in writing such an article. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, fascinating. Thanks. It's not clear how many of these are really notable, but I think I agree now that this stuff should go in a different article. StraightSetter (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civilian dead of Axis

On WW2 article the Civilian dead of axis is 4 millions, but I count on World War II casualties article and the axis losses is 2.557.000 deads. Anyone know about that? Paulomazzeirj (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow and Congratulations!

I have checked this article off an on for years. Before it was locked, I made revisions and other corrections, and after it was locked I made comments on this page.

Well, I hadn't reviewed this article for many months until today.

My hearty congratulations to the author(s). In less than 7000 words the article presents an objective and accurate summary of the entire war, and even includes some little-known but important facts.

71.128.68.202 (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)Ira

Really? I'd have to say it's alright, but not comprehensive enough. I could have just looked up all of this on any other site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustbeing12345 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, Trustbeing, please let us know on what other site you could find such a comprehensive article having less than 7000 words. 69.238.73.15 (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Ira

[edit] Fixes clearly needed

I was moved to rewrite the section /* Axis collapse, Allied victory */ when I noticed that the narrative stated

"Western Allied forces crossed the Ruhr river in Germany ... In late March, the Western Allies then crossed the Rhine river"

which is absurd - the Ruhr is east of the Rhine.

Looking closer, I found a lot of passive voice and indirect language and clumsy narrative.

Like "Japanese forces in Burma... were forced to withdraw..." By whom?

Also a bogus assertion ("Mussolini's remnant fascist government was overthrown by Allied Italian partisans"). The fall of the RSI was consequent on the defeat of German troops in Italy by the Allied armies. The partisans' military contribution was minor; their capture and execution of Mussolini was a political event.

The 1945 British election was a week before the Potsdam conference.

The sentence on Japan in Indochina in 1945 is excess detail for this article. BAGRATION doesn't get a whole sentence, Leyte Gulf and V-weapons aren't even mentioned. I had to add a sentence for the bombing and submarine blockade of Japan.

--Rich Rostrom (Talk) 23:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't Zyklon-B be included in the chemical warfare section? It was used to kill millions in concentration camps, after all.207.45.240.17 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)clairerodman

[edit] Superpowers

I just removed someone attempting to say that Britain emerged from the War a superpower. Apart from being unreferenced this is clearly not the case. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read that some consider the BE to be a super power in the immediate aftermath, but it seems to be quite a contentious claim. In any case, even those who claim it was state that it was extremely short-lived, and seemingly more a matter of perception then reality. An interesting subject to explore, but far to insignificant for this article. Oberiko (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] YO

the color image depicting the pile of dead in the holocaust para of this article may be too graphic for some readers, so it should be removed...69.231.26.24 (talk) 22:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But although there are no Wikipedia policies against graphic images, this image is disturbing enough to make reading the text next to it quite difficult. I'd say we considered removing it. 96T (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is this: the Holocaust happened. It might not be nice or pretty, or humanity's brightest moment, but it happened. Wikipedia is supposed to present the facts, and part of that are the results of those unspeakable crimes. The photograph is not there to shock readers, it's there to document one of the major events of the 20th century. I strongly oppose any act of self-censorship. Parsecboy (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I support Parsecboy's position on this matter. The quintessence of the Holocaust is represented very well by the picture of a pile of corpses. Why gloss it? History is not for the ones who faint easily. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 01:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)