Talk:World War II/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Battle of the Scheldt noted

The Battle of the Scheldt, is without a doubt one of the most significant battles on the Western front, but for some reason has been overlooked countless times by many historians. I just finished the article and some supporting documents on it. I think it is absolutely worth including in the main ww2 article, as without the supply lines, the allied defense during the Battle of the Bulge would have been sketchy at best.

All discussion and debate is welcomed here in terms of it's noteworthiness in this article, and on the talk page for the Battle of the Scheldt.

cheers. --Oldsoul 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

Bold text

Headline text

Headline text

date for the ending of the war (V-J day)

Right now it says in the second paragraph that the war:

... continued in Asia and the Pacific until (...) the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 (V-J Day).

but September 2 was only the day for the formal signing of the terms of surrender. The war is much more frequently said to have ended on August 15, when Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and laid down her arms. And this day, August 15, is indeed the V-J day as it says in the V-J Day article. I was about to change the date, but thought I'd ask about it here first.

Shanes 02:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Make note of both, indicating which is which and why. --User:naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)


i really dont like the munic war project it is really dumb

Treaty ending WWII

Is there any information anywhere about the treaties Germany, Japan, and Italy signed ending the war? There is lots of stuff on the internet about the Treaty of Versailles, but not on the end of WWII. There needs to be something about this.

As far as I understand it, World War II was not ended by treaty, it was ended by surrender - of the Germans and Japanese separately. There were no 'terms' worth mentioning, so the exact nature of the documents is not important. DJ Clayworth 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I know that there were only surrender documents signed, but the article on the Gulf War mentions something about Germany and Japan paying without sending soldiers, because of the agreement after WWII. I never heard of that, and just want confirmation on that. Also, if memory servers, the 1974(?) edition of the New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia mentions something about the war officialy ending in 1950 or something. But I read that about 5 years ago, and it was only a small little thing.
The Allies wrote restriction on the use of military force into the constitutions of Japan and Germany that were adopted after the war. West Germany gained full sovereignty in 1955 and Japan in 1952 except for Okinawa (held until 1972). Rmhermen 19:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)
On could even say that they war never ended because Japan never signed a surrender document with the USSR.

Article Re-write

The current World War II article is very burdened. The war is a HUGE topic, and there are billions of details. Unfortunately I think too many of these details have been presented in the main article, and not enough is presented in orderly sub-articles. I have made a re-write of the article, aiming to present a concise and orderly picture of the war to a researcher, especially a novice to the war (because that's the point isn't it?). I have posted the current incarnation of it on my user page user page and would appreciate some commentary on whether it represents an improvement over the current article or not. I have not completed adding all of the links, and undoubtably am missing some chunk somewhere that should be there. However, it is missing many details that I have intentionally dropped as material that would be better presented in a sub-article. I don't want to lose information, but the main article shouldn't be bogged with minutae, especially on a topic as big as WWII. Thank you ahead of time for any commentary, you can post it here or on my user talk page. Thanks!!! Joshbaumgartner 07:42, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

In general, it looks good. A few notes:
  1. I believe some if not all of the most common names for WWII are redirects here, but so many things do that Special:Whatlinkshere is overloaded and I can't verify. Should the names be mentioned in the first paragraph?
  2. How much of the information that has been removed from the main article is suitable for adding to sub-articles?
  3. In the "Civil impacts" section, are there articles that each of the subsections can link to?
  4. A good deal of wikification is needed, but that can be done later.
--Carnildo 08:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. As for common names, you are probably right that at least the most common should be there in the lead paragraph, such as Great Patriotic War. As for sub-articles, ideally, yes, each heading should contain a paragraph or so about the item, and should have a Main article listed for more information. I think I will create the links and at least provide a stub as a starting point for the sub-article if a relevant one does not already exist. As for wikification, naturally that will take time and is probably best done by the community once at least the highlights are done. Joshbaumgartner 18:02, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will post the re-write at the end of the week so all can edit (or sooner if requested). Joshbaumgartner 00:46, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to do this, but I would advice you to try to get in touch with other experienced Wikipedians, whose input surely would be valuable. Until then, I hope you have analyzed how the focus of your proposal is different than the focus of the article as it stands today — at least in order to prepare yourself on (from where to expect) the most intense criticism. /Tuomas 07:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, I will assume that there will be such reaction. I was hoping to be able to get some of that from posting on the talk page here. Joshbaumgartner 02:57, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
I object to your rewrite as it is now, at 04:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC).
  • Questionable neutrality from words such as "tragedy", "carnage", "Unfortunately".
  • Poor writing, such as "Another friend of Hitler's, Japan...", "War had been going in East Asia for...".
  • Introduction is less useful. The article in general also omits too much in my opinion.
119 04:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
119, in response, I admit that it is impossible to be entirely neutral. I have edited the sections you noted to make them more objective. Same for your second point. As for the last, it is a difficult matter. The subject is obviously impossible to cover fully in a single article, thus it is necessary to omit items from the top-level article, and address them in sub-article. Please clarify if you are merely referring to such things, or if there are omissions that actually are lost information.
Additionally, it is much more helpful to providing good criticism if you not only identify what you don't like (easy for anyone to do about any submission), but suggest what might be an improvement you would make. For example, instead of merely saying a particular phrase is poorly written, suggest a possible re-write that you would find positive. This not only will help the recipient of your criticism better address your concerns, but will also help demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in helping improve their work, and are not just being negative and counter-productive about the matter.
Thanks, Joshbaumgartner 10:21, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedian, I suggest you write it on a temp page first, have others help you polish it up, and then move it here. →Raul654 04:35, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, Raul, I will certainly do that! Joshbaumgartner 10:21, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

The article re-write has been posted to a temp page: World War II/temp for further improvement and comment. Joshbaumgartner 10:43, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

A rewrite of this article would be a good thing! Take this sentence for example. "Multiple efforts [1] to bring to a peace agreement, and officially end the war." What multiple efforts? It needs a either a cleanup or a rewrite. --Lukeisham 7 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Generally this rewrite is very nice. It's well-balenced and about the right length. I'd have no issue is this was made the main article. It obviously owes quite a bit to the old article, so maybe we should replace the text rather than move it, so as to preserve the old author history.

Two comments though: the summary section is really not necessary. If anyone has read down that far then they already have the information there. The 'participation' section is also a bit redundant. Again, anyone reading that far has already found out most of the things there. There is room for a section describing the effects on some countries (such as Britain's effective loss of Empire and the US rise to economic prominence) but they could go in an 'aftereffects' section. DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

  • Temp version

I've made a few edits to the temp article on the subject of the Italian campaign, which was rather garbled before. However, I'm concerned that this version of the article is simply too short. It outlines the course of military campaigns, but doesn't explain why. The political background is hardly mentioned. There is no mention of Yalta, Tehran, Lend-Lease, the Atlantic Charter, Stalingrad, and so on and so on and so on. Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt seem only to be mentioned in that picture from Yalta (or Tehran). There is the usual bias against the Eastern Front - why does Operation Torch get mentioned, but none of the individual Soviet offensives? And China is also barely discussed. I realize that any article has to pick and choose, but it feels like this article simply leaves too much out. The main article on World War II ought to be a solid article, and not just a portal for links to other, more detailed articles. I think this is especially true in terms of the high politics stuff, which simply isn't going to get covered elsewhere. john k 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent input re: World War II/temp. I agree that more should be said about the Eastern Front in the main article, and I have added a new paragraph giving greater information about the events of that front and giving the reader a better idea of the sheer size of the conflict. Naturally, it is impossible to do true justice to such a front that was such a critical part of the war.
As for the political aspects, this is also, I agree, a must-have for the main article. I do think a section covering the politics of World War II would be great, and it sounds like you may have the knowledge to really make a concise entry on the matter.
China is tough, especially since while it is an integral part of the war, the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) is considered by many to be an ancillary and contributory conflict (not unlike the Winter War). It bears some discussion though. I have created an Events preceding World War II in Asia page--there was one for Europe, but none for Asia--to start gathering some of that information. How much to move to the main article? I'm not really sure.
I look forward to more input, Joshbaumgartner 01:38, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

In terms of the politics, I feel like the current organization makes it a bit difficult - A more chronological framework, where we talk about the war in each theatre in each year, would make it easier. For instance, Tehran makes sense in the context of being in late 1943, as the western allies prepare their second front, and so forth, and the context gets lost if you just have one big section on high politics. As to China - I agree about the early part of the Chinese conflict. But after December 1941 it becomes pretty closely related to the Pacific War, particular the China-Burma-India Theatre, which was one of the main fronts of the war against Japan. By the way, I agree with you that the current version is pretty awful. john k 02:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia procedures, I am sorry to see that the rewrite at /temp can't be transparently substituted with the current version. Having read both versions, I see advantages with Josh's approach and particularly with his language, but the appearent coherence of the narrative, that is one of the chief advantages of the /temp-version, will most probably not last for very long once the article is put in place. As a result, many of its disadvantages, including the UK/US-POV, may remain for a longer time than its advantages. That's why, if given the choice, I would support the old version staying.

However, I propose that we either agree to change the structure of the article according to Josh's proposal, but keep the old text and in particular the existing links until the new structure has stood the test of time for some months, or that Josh replace the text of the current article paragraph by paragraph or section by section in a moderate pace, which makes it easier to spot, discuss, and correct errors, introduced bias, and omission of links to other Wikipedia-articles. --Johan Magnus 16:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Deadline for temp

I was wondering if we could have a deadline (obviously in a reasonable timeframe) for the temp page (which is quite excellent at the moment, even if it still needs improving!) to be shifted to the normal page? I say this because I'd hate to have editors edit the current page and discover all their hard work wiped out! Also, maybe a note on the temp version could be added to the page so that editors know of the work being done? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • Merging in the temp page

What's the status of World War II/temp? Should it be merged back into this article? OR what? →Raul654 00:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to replace it as soon as I'm done copyediting it. It'll just take a few days or so.
Peter Isotalo 06:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)


     ζ HELP ME!

my life is ending all so fast i cant even get a grasp on lif its self or the things around so help me learn and keep my feet on the ground!

            by.  jasmine erickson

Date of beginning

World War II started in Europe, namely in Poland, in Danzig (Gdańsk), at dawn of 1 Sept. 1939. The German warship "Schlezwig Holstein" shot at the Polish coast-guard station. This is the fact that all educated children know as the beginning of WW2, which then spread nearly all over the world. No debate over this date, please!

There are multiple views on this throughout the world. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 119 00:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, then no. 119, the most neutral point is when you remain silent and percept nothing. If anyone wishing to learn something about WW2 finds this article on the web, they will find also a piece of information that there is "a debate", which is perhaps some niche conflict between historians, not a commonly accepted fact. Namely, later in the article we can read, when exactly the war started, i.e. on 1st Sept. 1939. Two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany. These fact are most remarkable. We should highlight the most imortant facts if we are to treat Wikipedia as a real encyclopaedia, shouldn't we?

Don't you consider Japan to be a participant in the war? And if you do, is there any principled method for deciding which parts of Japan's expansionism are part of the war and which aren't? Arguably WWII was two separate wars that merged, giving various options for defining "the starting date". You can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or you can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately. But there's absolutely no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war. — B.Bryant 12:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, mostly catering to the U.S. and British Commonwealth. Being that the case, the generally accepted start date for the war in these nations is the invasion of Poland, leading the British and the French (the Allies) to declare war on Germany (principle member of the Axis). Wikipedia's in other locales, such as East Asia, will probably state otherwise. Oberiko 12:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The article is about WWII, not the West's involvement in WWII. — B.Bryant 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps not, but our audience is Western. Considering how many different interpretations there could be for a "start" date (The Winter War, The Norwegian Campaign, The Second Sino-Japanese War, The Attack on Pearl Harbour, The invasion of Poland, Annexation of Austria and Czechoslavakia... etc.) depending on whom you're speaking to, and then compound that with the belief some people have that it's the same conflict as World War I (which has it's own starting time debates) and there's not going to be any clear or 100% technically right answer. Instead, we'll go by what is commonly accepted by professionals within our target audience (English speaking countries: ie. The United States and British Commonwealth) and use the Invasion of Poland which brought France, the United Kingdom, Poland and Germany into direct and declared war. Oberiko 15:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would rather like to say that Wikipedia's audience is predominantly Western, or at least an audience that is used to Western sources. We have reason to have this in mind, pragmatically, when writing prominent passages of the text, as for instance the introductory sentence. But, and this is one thing I like about this project, Wikipedia strives to be an international encyclopedia, not geared towards common myths in specific nations such as the UK, the US, or Australia. We actively strive to get rid of biases, including pro-Western and pro-Anglosaxon bias. Hence I would be happier with some weaseling at places where the issue can't be carefully investigated. ...often held to have begun at September 1, 1939, when... could be one suitable wording. --Johan Magnus 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Though I myself am from the west and believe 1939 to be the year World War II started, I disagree with Oberiko. Just saying that wikipedia's main audience is one particular group doesn't mean we should sacrifice our integrity by omitting other views simply to appeal to that group. The day wikipedia does that I'd blow my brains out... Anyway, I think that the way the start of the war is shown on the article is perfect. --DA Roc 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

60 million or 57 million?

Both figures are given for the total number of deaths - one in the first paragraph, the second in the third paragraph. Which is correct? It looks not very good right now to have both figures there. Moncrief 20:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

57 million is given at World War II casualties, 60 million was added by User:Bluemoose. 119 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As if there can be given a correct figure!
Without any doubt, the uncertainity is far greater than the difference between 57 and 60, and I would suggest that we hang on to about 60 million as a hint of this. --Johan Magnus 16:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why does the link behind the figure show even more deaths? 103 mil to be exact. We should at least try to keep both pages the same. Or at least figure out which page is wrong. --Soyweiser 09:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Most estimates I've heard say there were between 50 million and 60 million casualties, although I've seen some as low as 40 million and as high as 70 million before. bob rulz July 3, 2005 06:35 (UTC)
  • My suggestion is as the article now states: "Almost 60 million people died...". It is a fairly accurate estimate of the non-exact figure which it is, and always will be. I dont think we want to go scientific and say 58.55 +- 12.86 million? :) Regards, Dna-Dennis 18:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The current figure of deaths is nearly 70 million which is preposterous. Most conservative historians put the number at 50 million while some rate it as 55 million. John Keegan says in The Second World War that " Some 50 million people are estimated to have died as a result of the Second World War, it is in the nature of war making that an exact figure can never be established". Encarta lists the figure of about 55 million dead. The WW2 Casualty page also needs a major edit.IndieJones 21:46, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

24.214.192.86 and 1932

24.214.192.86 has revised the intro to state as fact that the war's starting date is 1932. Please note that this violates NPOV. If you are familiar with a reference which states the war's opening date as 1932, that would be very useful in attribution. However, Wikipedia does not assume one view is fact. 119 01:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Also's - Strategic Bombing

The link points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_During_World_War_II but this turns up as a untouched page. The link maybe should lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#World_War_II ? --macaddct1984 4:55, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

radar vs RADAR

I thought I changed "radar" to RADAR since it is an acronym; however, it doesn't look like the change is taking effect.--P Todd 03:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Well now it seems to have been commited.--P Todd 03:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


And jeep is an acronym too, but there's no need to capitalize the letters. --Madchester 04:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?

"On December 7, 1941 Japan bombed the U.S. naval base called Pearl Harbor. Thus making the U.S. bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

It makes some sense. It is referencing the US' counterattack with the A-Bombs, which was years later anyway. If it hasn't already, it should be removed. Also, it skips everything that hapenned in between that time. On another note, the grammar doesn't flow correctly. --Zeerus 18:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zeerus. That statement can be a little misleading, and really just does not look like encyclopedia material. --DA Roc 14:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub

I have a few suggestions for the stub article under the heading Contemporary Culture. I think we should remove that entire section, and put the given link tot he main article under the See Also section. Also, I think the stub label should be removed under the genocide section of this entry. The same goes for the Home Front part of the page. If anything we can try and expand the Home Front and Genocide sections with some more information. Just enought o get the stub label removed. I'm open to suggestions on those. For now, I'm going to remove the section on contemporary culture and move the link to the see also section --Zeerus 19:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we have an entire article on World War II related topics, we can simply put that in the See also section and clear off quite a bit of this. Oberiko 19:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. The temp article is coming along pretty well. Who exactly is working on it now? I'd like to try and contribute what I can. What do you think about the other two stubs I mentioned? --Zeerus 19:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
I personally think that the Genocide and Home Front should be left relatively small and linked to from the main article. The Genocide is much more closely linked to Nazi Germany then the actual War itself. The Home Front is more of an effect of the war rather then about the war itself. Oberiko 20:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, I think the stub tags are holding back this page. Get rid of those, and this article has a better chance of being a Featured Article. We don't necessarily have to get rid of them, just expand on them a little bit more. As far as the genocide part goes, it doesn't even give statistics of the Holocaust and the war. Another thing, in this case, would you attribute the word genocide to the Holocaust, or the entire war? I think it better suits the former. --Zeerus 21:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Balkans in Europe or Mediterranean?

I see that the Balkan states are in the European theatre of WWII, can I recommend they be moved to the Mediterranean section? Oberiko 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved. Then again, most of the fighting the Balkans were involved in was in the European campaign. But, i ultimately think it should be moved. It would be less confusing for some people. --Zeerus 17:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Continents

Just reading this, but I don't think WWII involved all continents. If my suspicions are correct Antartica was exempt from WWII.

And so was South America in most respects, I think. Bgohla 10:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

1938-1939

This period should be covered in more detail: along with Soviet treaty with Hitler 1939 the similar treaty of the West with Hitler 1938 should be mentioned (I tried to introduce it). Also to be included: Soviet proposal for the treaty with the West (declined by the latter) against Nazi Germany in April 1939 should be present etc. For the timeline of events see, e.g. [1]. 213.115.184.126 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think your recent edit is an accurate and NPOV way of describing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and why it was signed.
  • First: "Soviet Union, trying to protect itself from anticommunist Nazi Germany, signed..." is POV. It could just as well be written the other way (Nazi Germany trying to protect itself from communist Soviet Union signed...). But that's also POV. Why not just keep it as it was, and leave the debate over who wanted to protect itself against who to the Molotov-Ribbentrop article where all this is discussed. Discussing it here will make this already long article way too long.
  • Second: "In this sense it was pretty similar to Munich Agreement". No, it wasn't. The Munic agreement didn't have any seecret clause sharing a country between the signers of the agrement as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had.
In short I think your edits should be reverted. But I'd like to get your (and others) comments before I do so. Shanes 16:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you Shane. Let's leave opinions and comparions (unless extremely relevant) out of this article, if for no other reason then length. Oberiko 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree totally (with Shane and Oberiko). --Johan Magnus 16:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. Reverted it now. Shanes 18:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

In the section on Pearl Harbor I found this: "The attack is widely seen as the final straw that drew the United States into the war." widely seen? I would have thought there was no need for this qualifier. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really, though I think it should be mentioned that, for the European Theatre, it was Germany that declared war on the United States. IIRC, the U.S. likely would not have become actively involved in Europe otherwise. Oberiko 15:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that the US was already actively engaged in WW2 before Pearl Harbour as they were sailing supplies and war material across the Atlantic. While the military participation in this was limited, it can be seen as an act of violence against Germany to supply war materials to Great Britain.

Minor Ally "Surrender"?

Romania and Bulgaria did not "surrender", they switched sides and fought the Nazis till the V-E Day and later. --Vladko 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are fighting against someone, and then stop and fight for them, that's usually a surrender (unless there is a negotiated peace). For example Italy surrendered, and then joined the Allied cause. Is there any evidence to show that Romania and Bulgaria behaved differently? DJ Clayworth 05:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

graffiti on page that cannot be edited

In the section regarding the Battle of Britain, the phrase "The war sucked major balls!" has been inserted at the end of the paragraph, but I don't see that line when I switched to edit mode. Not sure how this graffitit can be removed, but thought I'd pass this along.

It was probably due to a delay in updating the article. Sometimes the displayed version gets behind the version in the database by a few minutes, so you don't see a change that was just made. When you edit the article it gets the most recent version from the database. The problem should correct itself after a few minutes. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

WW I and WW II one conflict separated by a ceasefire?

The article says

Still others argue that the two world wars are one conflict separated only by a "ceasefire".

One conflict separated by a 19+ year ceasefire in which Italy and Japan change sides? Who argues this? Clearly the wars are connected, but to say that they were one conflict seems very strained. Quale 07:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, war was technically over. However, it's no doubt that parts and effect of that Treaty actually caused WWII to break out. One example of ceasefire that is still currently occuring is the Korean War. The two Korean nations are still technically at war. No peace treaty was signed so far. --Kvasir 07:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Picture

Image:Ww2 Stalingrad GermanSoldiers.jpg
Image:Spitfire.JPG

Does anyone else think the nuclear explosion is not the best picture to head up this article? I know it's a significant event, but it's not typical of the war. I wondered if we could maybe head the article up with a stack of three pictures of battle in progress - one land, one sea, one air. Ideally they could be from different theatres, maybe Battle of Britain, Russian front and Pacific naval. We could move the mushroom cloud down to the appropriate section. DJ Clayworth 21:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that mushroom cloud is a very good as a representation of the enormous impact the war had on 20th century history; the unpresentend scale of death and desctruction, the ushering in of the atomic age and the rise of the US as one of the superpowers. I can't really think of a better candidate myself.
Peter Isotalo 01:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with DJ Clayworth and would argue it is not the best picture. The mushroom cloud is the defining image of the Cold War, not World War II. The War was more or less won by Hiroshima/Nagasaki — the bombs were dropped as the Allies were planning post-war polcy — as Germany was beaten (though invading Japan by conventional means would of course have had horrific consequences). Surely images which sum up the war better are:
  • Signing of acts of surrender (Japan or Germany)
  • D-Day landings
  • Soviet flag over the Reichstag
Mark 22:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added one example of what it might be here. DJ Clayworth 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please try not to introduce even more militarycruft to the article. WW II was a lot more than just a long string of battles. The political and civilian impact needs to be focused on a lot more, and in this context the mushroom cloud is a lot more appropriate. If not Fat Man, at least find a pic that would appeal to more than just WW II-"fans".
Peter Isotalo 23:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with DJ Clayworth as well. Honestly, my first thinking about WWII is always about the Atlantic theatre. I wonder if there'd be a way to get a couple smaller pictures in the first part of the article, one for each theatre, perhaps, rather than the HUGE image of the mushroom cloud. (I think the stack of three photos above would be decent, btw, but I think one non-military picture would be good, something perhaps to symbolize the Holocaust, or perhaps a picture of the destroyed Hiroshima...) It's a sensitive issue, though, because there's always the risk that such an edit could be seen as a pro-America (i.e., try to ignore America's use of nuclear weapons) change. kmccoy (talk) 03:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
While I'm not actually a military 'fan', I take Peter's point. Maybe we could add some non-military scenes, such as the aftermath of an air raid, or a concentration camp. I think the mushroom cloud is even more 'militarycruft'. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I certainly agree with DJ Clayworth and particularly with Mark83, who had very good picture candidates. The "mushroom cloud" makes you think of so many other things than World War II; nuclear weapons in general, the Cold War, the arms race, the modern world, Dr.Strangelove, etc etc. Or, think of it in this way: How many percent of books on World War II have the "mushroom cloud" as cover? My suggestion is a combination of the previously mentioned suggestion:
Simply - a montage with one big picture, and a couple of more under, or around it. One suggestion would be the following:
  • Big picture: The D-Day Landings
(since the main theatre of WW2 was Europe, considering the reasons of the outbreak)
  • Small picture suggestions, with reasons:
  • The Soviet flag over the Reichstag (marking VE)
  • Marching nazis (after all, it was the igniting torch)
  • Pearl Harbor (marking the entrance of USA)
  • The gates of Auschwitz (not as offensive as the inside of the camps)
  • Japanese kamikaze-pilot (there was a pacific theatre aswell)
  • and...maybe the "mushroom cloud"! :)
What do you guys think? I'd be glad to hear your opinions. (My talk page).
PS. I could do more than just suggest. I offer to do this montage. DS.

I like the montage. It covers most of the ground. The only other suggestions I'd make are: a) I'd like to see it it bigger. I know header pictures are traditionally 300 pixels but I think this could be an exception. b) I'd still like to see a picture representing air and/or sea war, which could also represent the Pacific Theatre. Aerial attack on a naval vessel would be good, since that was a fundamental shift in the nature of sea warfare, or a strategic bomber formation, which would also be a new (and very important) development. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth! I'm very thankful you basically like the montage; naturally I was afraid that you, the starter of the subject, would promptly object (btw, hope you noticed that a discussion on the montage itself has started below). My answers on your opinions:
* a) Exactly what do you mean by a bigger image? Maybe I don't understand you, but you can click on the image to see the original file stored in Wikimedia. There you can also zoom in on it.
* b) I was, and am, considering these suggestions. When I did the montage I thought of Pearl Harbor (both air and sea), but could not find any good contender in Wikimedia. Futhermore, one problem is we can't have too many images in the montage since then they would be too small to see (see Shanes' opinions). What do you think of replacing the Blitz-picture with the flag of Iwo Jima? If you don't mind, please reply in the "Montage" section below.
Regards, Dna-Dennis 17:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The montage

I previously talked about a montage. Regarding the posts on the image subject, there seems to be a consensus that the Nagasaki image is inadequate.

After long and careful considerations I am myself convinced; rather than depicting World War II, the Nagasaki Bomb marks the transition from one era to the other (pre- to postnuclear, pre- to postworldwar etc.). If we examine the image very bluntly, it could really be any nuclear explosion - and this is a good reason why it should not title this page. Furthermore, it envokes so many other feelings which are not immediately connected to World War II, e.g. "Nuclear Testing", "The Cold War", "The Nuclear Arms Race", "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" etc. - the list goes on and on. I really think the quality of the main page is actually diminished due to the Nagasaki picture.

Conclusively, I hereby completely stick out my neck: I have realised my previous suggestions and spent the entire day on a new picture. This picture has been uploaded to Wikimedia and linked to from the World War II Main Page. I did this today because I think there is a consensus, and if no-one makes a bold move, the issue could be open for a long time...

Naturally, it still is a suggestion, and I would really appreciate all opinions. For your reviewing - here are my notes on the image I created:

General:

  • All pictures in the collage are from Wikimedia; thus there are no copyright problems.
  • The picture is about the same size as the "Nagasaki" (except width 300px instead of 295)
  • The filesize is not bigger - I optimized it for web publication

Choice of pictures:

  • Main Upper: "D-Day" - symbolizing the "beginning of the end" of World War II, and also indicating the immense human sacrifice and suffering
  • Center 1: "The 1936 Nuremberg Rally", symbolizing the psychological factors and the massive indoctrinations of the totalitarian regimes
  • Center 2: "Arbeit macht frei" - the cruel letters above the gates of Auschwitz, symbolizing the immense civilian suffering
  • Center 3: "Soviet Flag over Reichstag", symbolizing VE and much, much more (see my notes below)
  • Right 1: "Blitz-bombing in London", symbolizing the immense civilian, psychological and material suffering (if you look closely, you can see a red London bus in the crater!)
  • Right 2: Our beloved "mushroom-cloud", still being a good contender, symbolizing the start of the nuclear and cold war-era

Last, I would like to say the following; if there is any one picture I personally would choose, if I had to, it would be the Soviet flag over the Reichstag. Look at it - it is a truly amazing picture! Perfectly composed, it shows the brutality of the war and the victory - the devastated, still smoking Third Reich capital, the Soviet flag set down firmly in the heart of Europe, marking both VE and the start of the Cold War.

As I said, I appreciate your opinions; I'd be happy to edit my image if I find the suggestions are relevant and/or there is a new consensus. If you wish to contact me personally, please leave a message on My talk page.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis 21:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, is it only my browser/monitor, or is this picture so dark that it's impossible to see what it is a picture of? I can see that it says "World War II" on the top, then there's some white in the middle before it goes back to dark. At the bottom I think I can spot a Soviet flag and a helmet to the right, but it's very hard to say for sure, since the contrast is so low (or something). Shanes 22:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
You're not the only one. I left a message with Dna to see if the montage pictures can be lightened up. I think the top is fine, and the earth to the left as well, but the other photos are too dark to really make out. Wikibofh 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I can't see any earth there at all. Not even when you tell me where and what it is. The left is all black on my screen. Shanes 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not good. I designed the montage so that the images wouldn't be so blunt, but smooth. I seem to have failed and I will make immediate changes to my picture. The image looked good on my monitor, but now that you are mentioning it I remember that my friends' monitors usually are darker than mine; my monitor is thus probably brighter than normal...

I will start by editing the picture montage to the default opacity, and continue from there.

When the new picture appear (in ca. 30 minutes), please tell me how it looks. Regards. Dna-Dennis 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's already done & uploaded - the new montage with unchanged brightness of the original photos. Please, remember to "refresh" with your browser so you don't see the old image cache...and please tell me if it is better. Regards. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Now I see everything. Not sure I'm 100% convinced, though. To be specific: I think maybe many of the pictures show details that get lost since they are (and have to be) so small (and dark) and it makes it hard to tell what they are pictures of. The mushrom is good, same with the Auswhich, they are easy to recognise and see what they symbol even if they are small. But: the first picture (a landing somewhere, I guess) has still to low contrast, IMO, the soldiers are just big black dots and I don't know what that black triangle in the center of that picture is or is doing there. The Nazi-picture is too small for the amount of details, I think, and the picture to the right is also hard to make out what is (a building/ruin, or something?), and the one with the soviet flag at the bottom is also to small for me to make out more than that I see the flag and a greyish background (it's the capture of Berlin picture, right?=. The earth is good, (maybe it could even be in colour?).
All these critical things said, it is actuelly quite cool and having a montage is a nice idea. But most important: I don't know anything about pictures and how and what makes a picture/montage good. I'm actually extremely clueless. So feel free to ignore me on a professional ground ;-). And if others are fine with it, then I am, too. At least it's not all black anymore. Thanks. Shanes 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Just a sugestion: Maybe (a part of) the famous Ivo Jima picture could be used in the montage? It is, I believe, one of the most the most famous pictures from WW2. It's also quite simple and should make sense and be recognised even if it is shown in a very small version. Just an idea from me, still the amateur. Shanes 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • It looks much better! Thanks. My only other thought would be to not "optimize" the photo to get the same size. Make the image hi-res and let the wiki handle the resizing. That way when if someone clicks on it they'll get a bigger version that they can see all the details of the individual photos. Thanks again for the quick response and good work! Wikibofh 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The montage looks great and is a definite improvement over the mushroom cloud. Lisiate 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On Shanes' opinions: I agree to an extent with you on the small size of the montage pictures. First I thought about using only 3 smaller pictures, but then I would had to scrap two - which? I don't however think the Earth should be in color, since the other pictures are black & white - it would be confusing. But the suggestion of the Iwo Jima flag is good - I thought about when I planned the montage. I think I'll wait a while until I hear the opinion of others...

On Wikibofh's suggestions: I could upload a hi-res image, but would not this be a disadvantage to modem users? My original psd size is 1680 kB and max jpeg is 440 kB. How large do you think the file may be?

And, thank you very much, Lisiate.

  • The image size isn't a big deal, because the wiki resizes it when you "thumb" and put a pixel count on it. Let me provide an example. The image in the template (on the far right) of Soviet submarine B-39 is 25KB. The original is 1.2MB. I didn't create two different versions, but just let the wiki handle the sizing. Wikibofh 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Wikibofh, now I have uploaded the maximum hi-res version... now users can zoom in on the bus :).Dna-Dennis 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks great! Thanks again for taking this on. Wikibofh 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks, Wikibofh!)

Another thing which have just struck me...

Since I've been working on the WW2 montage aswell as the World War I article, I am considering making a montage for the WWI page aswell. I think it would be appropriate for basically the same reasons as the WW2 montage, and, make the WWI and WW2 pages more corresponding. Therefore, I would really appreciate opinions posted on WWI discussion page "A Main Picture Montage".

Regards, Dna-Dennis 18:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what may be needed is something else from the Pacific theater, no tjus the mushroom cloud. IMO the Iwo Jima picture shouldnt be use unless the soviet flag one is removed (I don't see a need for two flag raisings) and I would like to keep th espviet flag, so they are not like usual forgotten in North America. Same with a naval landing and the one at he top. I also don't like the globe. IMO it just doesn't look right. I would suggest replacing it with possibly two/three pictures or shifting the pictures other than the mushroom cloud over and making it taller then adding one more picture. Possibilities I would suggest from other pages are: the dive at the top of the Battle of Midway (showing also the air war), the ship under air attack at the top of Battle of the Bismarck Sea (shows air and sea, but I dont know if it will correct smaller), the top picture on Battle of the Bismarck Sea (shows naval war well) thats all the time I have, but I think one of those images or similar would be good especially showing the naval war because that is a main idea when thinking about the pacific theatre and the second one also showing aircraft would work good because another important part of the war (the war in the air and before, the navalwar) is not showed (except for the aftermath). say1988 01:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The WWI page has now got itself a similar montage, making it more corresponding to WW2. I would appreciate opinions on it under "A Main Picture Montage" on the WWI talk page.) Dna-Dennis 01:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

DNA -- thanks for the new photo; it's much more comprehensive than any single photo. The only trouble is that the total effect with the giant half-globe and the title "World War II" is a bit cheesy -- it's fairly obvious what the subject of the article is; the text and globe detract from an otherwise nice collection. Thoughts? 140.247.60.206 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you appreciation, 140.247.60.206! I agree - the title and the globe can seem a bit cheesy. When I designed the picture, I wanted to (1) "break off" the war pictures with something completely different, (2) include something everybody recognizes and (3) underline the true globality of the war. To fill the picture with only small war pictures would, I believe, make it dull and uninteresting to the average reader. I think I rather go for "cheesy" than "dull". I appreciate your opinion, and if you have any suggestion, please post them here. And let's also hear what other people have to say about it. Regards, Dennis Dna-Dennis 21:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


I also appreciate the work that went into it, and the design problems you face, but I agree that the globe and title are bit distracting - I thought it looked kind of like a book cover for a university press, which is not bad, but may not be what we are looking for. Perhaps either (1) using a map as a background might help or (2) using fades, as in [2] or (3) allowing the pictures to cover each other a bit more as in [3]. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
Good suggestions Goodoldpolonius2! I will sleep on it (I'm in Sweden) and perhaps experiment tomorrow. Thanks! Reagrds, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been following this discussion, I just came to the article and noticed the picture. I like the idea of a montage. But... my opinions: (1) Yeah, the globe and title are a bit too dramatic. :p (2) I don't like the emboss effect on the individual pictures. (3) The D-Day picture looking out from the LCVP is very American POV. Nothing against America, but a distinctly POV picture shouldn't dominate the montage. Coffee 15:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your opinions, "Coffee"! (1) I have noted your view on the globe and will have a go on it today. (2) I don't particularly like the emboss myself. I did this to "break off" the pictures, since the edges otherwise were too undefined when the pics were put together. (3) If you think about it, the D-Day picture is not at all American POV: The British and the Canadians were also part of the invasion. Furthermore, actually any picture would be POV (except the globe! :) ). If you have a suggestion on a NPOV upper picture, I'd be happy to hear it. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, there are very many people who are critical to the globe, so why haven't I changed it? Am I trying to ignore it? Am I too proud of my work? No, not at all. To tell you the truth, I have had a lack of inspiration; I simply had not known what to do else. But today I will give it a try and hopefully upload a new version of the title picture. Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

  • New version of the title picture

Due to various opinions (see discussion above) I have now made a new version of the title picture. When you are viewing the WW2 article or the full size pic in Wikimedia, remember to hit "refresh" to ensure you are not viewing your browser's cache! (as I myself did and got VERY confused). The changes made are the following:

  1. The globe has vanished (because most people were critical to it)
  2. The montage pics are not embossed anymore (no need to, since I separated them some pixels apart)
  3. The pic of the Blitz bombing is gone (due to layout organization reasons). It was quite hard to see what it was anyway.

I hope the new version of the title picture is to most persons' satisfactions. I know I can't satisfy everyone, but at least, I try. As before, I am thankful of all opinions. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I like it more now. About the D-Day picture... what I meant was that its "Allied forces POV". But you're probably right that there's probably no better picture that's completely neutral and a defining shot for World War II. So it's alright as it is now. Good job. :) Coffee 18:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"Japanese, American and Australian troops"

There is a sentence: "During the Allied island advances in the Pacific, surrendering troops were almost routinely killed by Japanese, American and Australian troops." Should it be Chinese here instead of Japanese? I wouldn't think the Japanese were killing troops that surrendered during allied advances. I would have thought, if anything, they were the troops that surrendered during allied advances. Open4D 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that all sides killed surrendering troops. However, to my knowledge there were very few engagements in which Japanese troops actually surrendered in significant numbers. --Cavgunner 11:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Pacific War was fought with a less than perfect adherence to the Geneva Convention (to which Japan was not a signatory until the post way years) by both sides. But to say such things happened "routinely" is worse than inaccurate. It's positively defamatory. There were thousands of Japanese POWs in camps in Australia, the US and New Zealand. Without them, the Cowra breakout (for example) would not have been possible. Grant65 (Talk) 15:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I have now rewritten the whole section, which was poor, in my opinion. By the way, check this excerpt from a post in an online discussion, by T. F. Mills of the University of Denver. The last paragraph cited below suggests that the worst excesses occurred not in the Pacific but in Burma:
9 million Japanese served in the armed forces. 41,500 were captured.
This compares to:
6 million British in the armed forces, and 172,600 POW.
2.6 million Indians in the armed forces, and 79,500 POW.
1.3 million Australians in the armed forces, and 26,400 POW.
These figures demonstrate the relative shame the Japanese attached to being captured. And as Judy mentioned, it went both ways: enemy POWs were not worthy of humane treatment.
Of the Japanese POWs, 37,280 were captured in the Pacific, and only 3,100 in South East Asia, and 1,080 in China. (That makes for 100 short of the grand total estimated Japanese POWs.)
From various other sources: More than half of the Japanese POWs (23,571) seem to have been taken in the exceptionally fierce Bougainville campaign. But it is hard to ascertain how many of these prisoners were taken at the final Japanese surrender when they heard that the war was over. I am pretty sure the 41,500 total does not include any from the final surrender in August 1945. At that surrender the Japanese still held many of their 1941 conquests, and the Allies were hard pressed to send forces everywhere to accept surrenders. Particularly in Indonesia the British arrived to take the Japanese surrender on behalf of the Dutch, but were spread much too thin to manage a Military Administration and they actually used the Japanese to administer and police the region. This was just part and parcel of the incredibly massive human displacement and chaos at the end of the war. As the Australian Army demobilised and combat battalions disbanded, two whole new battalions of men whose terms of service were not completed were formed in August 1945 simply to manage surrendering Japanese.
The comparatively low number of Japanese prisoners taken in SE Asia is further illustrated by some microscopic views. In one day of the Meiktila campaign, the British counted 800 Japanese dead and 36 prisoners. In one week of the Pyawbwe campaign, the British counted 2,900 Japanese dead and 29 prisoners. Normally in warfare such numbers are reversed.[4]
And so on. Grant65 (Talk) 16:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Needs a slight fix

It seems that the article has been copied upon itself at the end, I don't have time to but someone should fix that.

Thanks. I reverted back 9 edits to fix it. Shanes 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Italian Front

Currently, the information given on the Italian Front is far from detailed. At the moment, the entire section is one paragraph:

"North Africa was used as a springboard for the invasion of Sicily on 10 July 1943. Operation control was, for the first few months, based on the island of Malta. Having captured Sicily, the Allies invaded mainland Italy on 3 September 1943. On July 25 Mussolini was fired from office by the King of Italy, allowing a new government to take power. Shortly before the main invasion of 8 September, the new Italian government surrendered. The German Army continued to fight from the Gothic Line and then Winter Line in Italy's mountains. The conflict would last until the spring of 1945."

Somehow, I think this is not up to Wikipedia standards. It should say more on the major battles, such as the Battles of Monte Cassino and Anzio. It should also include more on the situation with Mussolini and the fall of Rome, the first Axis capitol to be captured.

Feel free to add. But let's not go too far. Remember this is already a very long article, and users can always go to the more detailed articles if they wish to know more. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The French Resistance and Darlan

In the section on Operation Torch: is there a source to back up the statement that it was the French Resistance who captured Darlan and Juin? All the English language sources I've been able to find did not say this; they also said that the Algiers coup was put down by the end of 8 November, at which time as far as I can tell Darlan was still at large. DJ Clayworth 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've found some sources that pretty much discredit the 'coup' account. I'm going to erase all but the bare bones and then build up the Operation Torch article. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too many links

Does anyone agree with me that there are too many links to other articles on this page? Too much blue linked text doesn't make it easy to read. Obviously a lot of links are very relevant and have to stay - I'm thinking more of removing links to all the years and dates, and all the individual countries. Do people think doing that would be OK? Jez 12:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think unrelated events occuring on these dates are very important. Maybe keep the basic years linked, tho.
The country links can go, tho. It's a World War for crying out loud! Every major country was involved at some point in one way or another.
--Ashmodai 12:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The date/year links should be kept because they allow for the dates to automatically formatted to the user's preference. I'm sure we can cut down some other stuff though. DJ Clayworth 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I also believe there are too many links. Now, naturally, the WW2 article is a complicated matter due to the IMMENSE number of facts. I will try to have a go at the suggestions which have been mentioned. I will document the changes, and post a message here when I am done. Regards, Dna-Dennis 22:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Due to this discussion I have now unlinked all countries, except those which does not exists anymore, e.g. "Soviet Union", "Yugoslavia" etc. Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Okinawa (Pacific front)

Can anyone expand Naha, Okinawa#History section? Thanks. --Aphaea* 03:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cannonical abbreviation for World War II?

I've noticed that a number of articles will abbreviate this was as 'WWII', others will use 'WW2', and I'm sure that others are in use. I'd like to try my hand at standardizing these across Wikipedia, but I'm not sure which is more popular. Opinions? --Bletch 17:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, WWII is more appropriate, since it is commonly World War II, and that is the name of the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

Added "Casualties" to the 'Consequences' section at the bottom. Zanturaeon June 30, 2005 01:26 (UTC)