Talk:World War II/Archive 7

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

WWII

What did people call the war before "World War II" became commonly used?

What?

Home front is the name given to the activities of the civilians in a state of total war (sometimes referred to by the United States as the American Theater of Operations).

What does this mean?

Casualty typo?

In total, about 23 million soldiers lost their lives in the Second World War along with about 57 million civilians.

This doesn't make sense, as earlier in the article it states there were 55-57 million casaulties total. Should that 57 million civilians be changed to 32 million? --Njk 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Specifically, Allied forces suffered approximately 14.2 million deaths, and Axis forces suffered approximately 6.8 million deaths, Germany specifically had 5 million. The Soviet Union had the largest death toll, suffering an estimated 20 million civilian casualties along with 8 million Soviet soldiers killed." This also doesn't make sense as the Soviet casualites is higher than the total Allied Casualties. Can I suggest that we remove this entire paragraph until someone comes up with some definitive figures? DJ Clayworth 14:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we make it tie up with World War II casualties. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I also suggest moving Yugoslavia and Greece to the Mediterranean Theatre. Currently Yugoslavia appears in both, which is confusing. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Because of my major reorganization into one chronology, Yugoslavia is not a problem anymore. Regards Dna-Dennis 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits POV?

Please check out this diff. It's the last version I reverted to the current version, where it looks like some vandalism took place. Does anyone care to comment? I think without sources, the comments on the quality of the respective German and Italian forces might need to be fixed. Wikibofh 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Something odd happened here. When I made this edit it was a reversion of someone adding comments about Underpant Gnomes, and if you go to the history and look at the diffs there, that is what you get. The edit you give above makes changes I didn't intend to make at all.
Looking at the paragraph you are talking about, the whole thing is inappropriate. I don't think the comments about relative qualities of the Axis forces is appropriate or necessary. If we record the facts that the Italian invasion was repulsed by the Greeks, and then the German invasion succeeded in capturing Greece, readers can draw their own conclusions. The stuff about Narvik shouldn't be there, even if it is right, which is doubtful. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I've neutralized both the sections about the Greek conflict. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work. It looks to me like in the reversions of vandalism some of this snuck in, so I wanted to bring it up so we could figure it out. It's always annoying when the vandals don't just make one large easy obvious thing for us to whack.  :) Wikibofh 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not that the changes really bother me, because all I fixed in the missing paragraphs was some minor grammatical stuff, but are you guys seriously so politically correct that you're afraid the article might offend fascist Italian forces from 60 years ago? I think we're pretty safe there. Do we really need to beat around the bush and hint at the fact that the German military was a stronger opponent than the Italians? That's just the way it was, plain and simple. If this is some kind of ethnic debate, then that's not my department - I don't have a drop of Greek, German, or Italian in me - but if this was actually eliminated due to lack of "sources" pointing to the basic inferiority of the Italian army... that's just absurd. There's no need to list a source, because any book - any book - can back that up. Kafziel 17:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons to eliminate what was said. Firstly this is a really long article; it should be shortened wherever it can be, and assessments of the Italian forces capabilities can go in specific articles about the WWII Italian military. Secondly, facts are always preferable to opinions. No matter how factual you may think your assessments are, someone will disagree. I ran into an editor who insisted that an entire section on the Italian Parachute Regiment be inserted into an article on the North Africa campaign, not because it played a large part in the campaign (it didn't) but because that regiment had been exceptionally brave, and he thought it should be in there to counter the seeming bias that the italian army did not fight well. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And that's an extremely revisionist idea. It's just rearranging facts to skew the neutrality of the article in the opposite direction. It's still wrong. It's a fact that the Italians won relatively few victories and were defeated in a far shorter amount of time, while inflicting far fewer casualties on the Allied opposition. If that doesn't mean they were deficient, then how do we define "deficient"? Kafziel 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Overall improvement

So, now I am about to stick out my neck again... I've read a lot of info on why the WW2 article failed as featured article, and why a complete rewrite was considered. It seems to me that the main concern was the lack of organization. Now, I don't know the status of the rewrite, but this original article is updated on a daily basis, that is, much more often than the rewrite; today is July 30 and the last update for the rewrite was June 2. Is the rewrite scrapped, one wonders?

I have identified the following main criticism of the WW2 page:

  1. Lack of organization
  2. Sections missing (e.g. "Resistance Movement")
  3. More media files exist that could be referenced
  4. Each section should have a lead picture
  5. Better grammar and style

I myself agree with the above (I am currently trying to fix note 3 by adding appropriate Wikimedia images). Now, I would also like to give the organization issue a try, but this will be a little bit tricky:

Currently the article with its corresponding table of contents have two dimensions:

  1. Theaters (Europe, Pacific, Mediterranean)
  2. A chronological within the theaters (1939, 1940 etc..)

After some consideration I believe it should be the other way around, i.e.

  1. Chronology (1937 - 1945)
  2. and the theaters within the chronology

Otherwise, for instance, the war will end on two very different places in the article (Berlin and Japan).

I would really like to hear opinions on this.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson, Dna-Dennis 08:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Let's work together to make this article a FA. DS.

Another suggestion: shouldn't all main articles be listed under "See also"? Dna-Dennis 10:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I have now seen to that all main topics have corresponding pictures. Dna-Dennis 12:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am currently working towards achieving "chronology" as the first dimension, but don't worry, I will be careful and make this in small steps. I will first try to rename the very long titles like "3.6 1944: France invaded, Soviet-Finland armistice, surrender of minor Axis, Ardennes offensive".

If you have opinions on this work, please post them here on the talk page.

Regards, Dna-Dennis 16:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I have now managed to shorten all subtitles under "Europe", "Pacific and East Asia" and "Mediterranean". I would appreciate opinions on this. Regards, Dna-Dennis 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now merged "Europe" and "Mediterranean" in order to try to implement an overall easy-to-read chronology. Now I will have a go at the "Pacific and East Asia". Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I have now completed the new chronology as to my suggestion above - now I believe it is more easy to follow the flow of the war from 1939 to 1945. As before, I'd appreciate any opinions.Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
I like this new article. It could still use some fleshing out, like the Causes of War section is way too short and, in general, some missing information in some sections. However, I do like the new article more than the old one (which I read about a month ago). bob rulz 00:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Bob rulz! I've worked hard the last couple of days. Dna-Dennis 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Excellent rewrite of this article. I totally approve of the straight-line chronology. It gives a much better overall picture. Good work Dennis. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a summary table (like on the World War I page) because I think:

  1. It's good with a summary for the average reader
  2. It's nice if the layout of the WWII & WWI pages are somewhat similar

Furthermore, I don't think it clogs up the page, since it appears directly right of the table of contents (which was completely empty before).

It is a template I created called Template:MultiWarbox so it is very easy to edit. I do not know what others will think of it, but, as before, I appreciate any opinions.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

With regards to overall improvement of this very important article, I believe that the story has a beginning (the causes), and an after-math (the Cold War), but lacks any center (except for the many related topics about the theatres of war, etc. at the bottom of the page. But there is no middle, or story of the War itself, such as Hitler's fighting on two fronts, the turning point of the War, invasion of Belgium, Fall of France, Blitz of Britain, Stalingrad counter-offensive, the Russian winter and lack of German preparation for it, U.S. entry into the War, and the preponderance of superior Allied industrial and military strength, supplied by Russia and the United States, after American entry into the War. There is no story of the War itself! It's like reading a magazine about an upcoming baseball game, then showing up to the baseball diamond itself, only to find that the game is already over. -Ned (Sept.)

Are you refering to the whole article, or just the intro (above the table of content)? The intro should be kept short, maybe made even shorter, and the rest of the article is very long as well. It's easy to just keep adding, harder to keep the article at a reasonable size and decide what to leave out and put in more specific articles. Shanes 22:07, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Many historians...

Weasel words. Does anyone have WP:CITE for:

By this time the Soviet steamroller had become so powerful that many historians argue that the U.S. and British landing at Normandy was more to prevent a coast-to-coast Soviet block than to fight Germany. In all, 90% of all German casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, and Europe became divided along Germany- had the U.S. not invaded the sparsely defended Western Front, Stalin would have controlled all of Europe. This view-point is seldom heard in U.S. books, movies, and classrooms; an attempt is made to give as much credit as possible to the 1944 "D-Day" landing. (emphasis added)

Wikibofh 21:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the addition since I believe (1) It is very close to a POV, and (2) It does not belong here, but rather on the D-Day/Battle of Normandy page. In any case, to let this addition be the intro to the "Beginning of the end" is a POV in itself! Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Couple changes

This article looks pretty good, but I made a few edits, and wanted to explain them. First, I rewrote some of the atrocities section - it had a lot of editorializing before, mostly about the Soviet Union's war crimes, and lacked some chronology, which I attempted to add. I also brought out the Holocaust in its own sub-heading, and tried to summarize the events of the Holocaust there. Also, I added statistics on the civilian casualties for bombing. To make it explicit from Matthew White's page:

  • Allied bombings:
    • Germany: 305,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 400,000 (Hammond); 410,000 (Rummel, 100% democidal); 499,750 (Clodfelter); 593,000 (Keegan; also Grenville citing "official Germany")
    • Japan: Total: 330,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 363,000 (Keegan, not including post-war radiation sickness); 374,000 (Rummel, incl. 337,000 democidal); 435,000 (P. Johnson); 500,000 (Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War)
  • Axis bombings:
    • Russia: Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
    • England: Portcities London: >20,000 k. (7/40-5/41) [also London Transport Museum and Virtual London
    • Belgrade, Yugoslavia: German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000, Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k. (also Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad)
    • I don't have figures for Poland and France

Finally, I added a couple of maps from the US Military Academy's site. They are large, but it was odd not to have any. Incidentally, the site is a great resource for anyone needing public domain maps of conflicts. Let me know if you have comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your changes were good - not too brief and not to detailed. I also liked the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Captions

I would like to restore the versions of the captions that I added:

  • First, I would suggest that we change the map captions back, since otherwise the maps are difficult to parse at their current size. The original captions: "Axis powers are in pink, the maximum extent of their conquest in yellow. The Allies are in green," and "The maximum extent of Japanese territory in July, 1942 is in yellow," allow readers to at least tell at a glance the basic participants and geographical extent of the war, without needing to click on the full size picture. Since we have no other maps to illustrate the participants, this is important.
  • Second, the caption for the first picture is a little too glib: "World War II was a truly global conflict with many facets: immense human sacrifice, fierce indoctrinations, and the use of new, extremely devastating weapons—the atom bomb being the ultimate." Of the 50+ million dead, few would be classified as a sacrifice, which implies some sort of semi-heroic choice. Additionally, I don't know what "fierce indoctrinations" means, and why that was a unique feature of World War II. Finally, "the atomic bomb being the ultimate" reads oddly. Better to use no caption (since this is just a title picture) or use the summary sentence of the first paragraph: "The most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind."
  • Perhaps we should replace the title picture with something that is more informative? Maybe a world map showing the participants in the war, which would give a better summary sense of scale.

--Goodoldpolonius2 12:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinions:

  • a) I agree with this point. I will immediately restore the map captions.
  • b) I agree to an extent. I believe a caption should be here, since otherwise one might think it is a cover of a book. On 'sacrifice': I agree with you, but seriously I can't think of a better word. Any suggestion? On 'fierce indoctrinations': It clearly is a very important facet of WWII (i.e. Nazi master race theory and Japanese militarism), since without the indoctrinations of the people, WWII might never have occured. On 'atomic bomb': The bomb was the ultimate weapon of WWII. Why is that odd?
  • c) I do not agree. I do not think a map is a good intro to the article, since I believe the average reader would be discouraged, believing it is an "elite" article written for WWII enthusiasts. Furthermore, please see the numerous opinions on the talk page ("The Picture" and "The Montage").

Please note that I really appreciate your opinions, and think your map additions are VERY nice. Thanks! If you know of more WWII maps like this, I would appreciate a personal message on my talk page. I also liked your contributions to the "Atrocities" section!

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I understand why you want to keep the picture and caption, that makes sense. Since the caption serves a summary of the war, perhaps taking a line from the article: "The Second World War was the most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind," which sums it up. If you really want to keep the current version, instead of intense sacrifice, what about "large-scale deaths" or "extensive military and civilian casualties." I would drop the indoctrination point entirely, the problem otherwise is that the indoctrination article isn't specific to World War II, so the point you are making about Japanese and German militarism doesn't come through -- besides, every has had intense indoctrination, see the Crusades, for example. As for the atom bomb, I don't object to its mention, the sentence was a bit awkward. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I just think they would be too long, but thanks to your answer, I came to think of the following substitutions: 'suffering' instead of 'sacrifice', unlink of 'indoctrinations', and 'like the atom bomb' instead of 'the atom bomb being the ultimate'. I will do this immediately. Thanks again and thanks for your link to the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 14:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Temp merge - Intro

I would like to replace the main article's intro with the temp article's intro. It is superior IMO. --JPotter 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. The current intro is rather on the long side but it embraces the entirety of a very complicated and expansive topic. I think the short one in the temp article is bland, too short, and has an oddly written second paragraph. I don't think we should do this. However, feel free to edit the current one, and Be bold--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with naryathegreat, it is a bad idea. The quality of the temp intro is not even close to the quality of the intro of the current article. Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The start of World War II

The opening lines of the current article was

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe."

I know what the writer implied, but I have changed this to

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 1 September 1939."

because of the following reasons

  • The conflict in Asia was not a global conflict - thus the line is misleading and a "slight" POV
  • World War II turned global when the Asian and European conflicts converged - thus September 1939
  • There are a number of other contending dates: Rhineland occupation, Anschluss, Prague etc.
  • But maybe most importantly: it is the common view that the world war started in September 1939

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know this might be squirrelly, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that by most accounts began on 1 September 1939." Now I know this may not sound definite enough, but I think it would help deflect any criticism of a Eurocentric POV. Tmrobertson 06:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

- Squirrelly it might be, but then I am a squirrel aswell...:) I think your change is good, and I also believe that it probably deflects eurocentroview (may be we can call it EUROPOV?) . Regards! Dna-Dennis 15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC).


Somebody is insisting on changing the start date to "late 1930s". I do not understand the reason for this, and I think it is way too inexact. I have now changed it back to the previous edit, and I think most people would agree with this, so please do not change it back until you have motivated it here on the talk page, and after we have reached a consensus. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 16:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the re-wording, especially as the start of the war in Asia is noted in the second paragraph. Lisiate 22:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


There was another discussion of this in which B.Bryant noted:

"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."

I do not see what is incorrect about this position, and what is wrong with the original quotation "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe," since the former date was obviously far more significant than the latter in the Asian theatre. I agree with B.Bryant in that the wars "merged" in 1941, not 1939 since the United States's entry into the war was highly significant for both theatres in a way that Germany's invasion of Poland simply was not.

While I think providing an objective description of history rather than 'refuting charges' whether or eurocentrism or anything else should be our goal, someone has removed even the "most accounts" qualification from the original paragraph, which I have inserted back in. But I think it would still be better to go back to the original wording.Cicero83 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere

First of all, I have no personal opinion on when the war started. The problem is, when we are writing the introduction we simply must draw the line somewhere. For instance, if we are discussing the start date, we could also discuss the end date; not every conflict was resolved in 1945. Now, we all know that World War II is a general western term for the world-wide conflicts at the time, and a common view is that two (unspecified) conflicts - West and East - converged on some point in history. Again, where do we draw the line? It is all about perspective and which physical resolution of the world we use. Consider the following examples:

  • WEST/EAST : In this case I believe the merge occurs on 1 September 1939, because Europe is the Western world and Asia the Eastern. Not 1941 because: (1) this is later, (2) USA is part of the West and (3) The armed conflict between USA and Japan is an addition to the West/East conflict which was already present due to alliances, supplies, lend/lease etc.
  • WEST/ASIA : It could be argued that the merge occurs 22 June 1941 as Germany invades Russia, since Russia is part of Asia. It could also be argued that it occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA, but again, this is later.
  • USA/WORLD : The merge occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA and Germany declares war on USA. The problem is, this would be USA POV.

My opinions are:

  1. It would be wrong to imply a start date of one conflict, like Japan/China 1931 or 1937, because this is a local conflict and World War II, as the name implies, is a term for the global conflict. Therefore my opinion is that we have to consider when the merge occurs.
  1. We have to draw the line. I believe our perspective and physical resolution should be WEST/EAST as mentioned above. Therefore: 1 September 1939 or simply 1939.
  1. We can't omit the dates altogether - they are too important to the average reader in the intro

Last, I agree with Cicero83 that it is quite important to use "by most accounts" when referring to the start of the war.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


Thanks Dennis, I agree we have to draw the line somewhere, but I'm afraid that bias drawn from tradition is coloring our discussion of where to draw that line.

Your stated opinion above regarding the 1939 date seems to imply two disputable points: (1) The date when the two theatres converge as opposed to when sustained fighting first broke out is the important date. (2) Two localized wars, one in the West and one in the East adds up to a single merged war. The argument relies on the presence of 'alliance, supplies, lend-lease,' etc. but then again, lend-lease by itself did not mean the United States was in the war, nor was the degree of cooperation great enough such that Japan can have said to have really assisted the invasion of Poland.

The argument that the war merged on 7 December 1941 can be made independent of USA POV. It lies in that: (1) World War II's claim to be a truly global conflict rests on it having involved all the major powers in the world in the actual fighting, and did not achieve this status until 7 December 1941 (2) World War II's claim to be a single war encompassing both the European and Asian theatres rests on the existence of at least one power engaged in both theatres, and this did not substantively occur until 7 December 1941.

From this perspective we can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or we can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately (The ending dates are indeed listed separately). But there's still no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war.

Part of the problem is there is more here than the unmitigated search for truth. We face the fact that a convention has developed over time among Anglo-American historians that the war began on 1 September 1939. At the same time Wikipedia's policy clearly stands against taking a POV view even if it is a majority POV, either explicitly or implicitly. Currently, the bulk of the article and certain associated articles assumes the war began on 1 September 1939. Frankly I do not know what to do about this, but it seems the status quo is more a result of convention rather than of pure objectivity. Regards, Cicero83 14:17, 16 August 2005

  • Thanks for your opinions, Cicero83! You are clear and concise, and it is quite clear that neither you or me has an intended personal opinion on the matter. And what you said above made me think about it...why am I (and others) partially convinced that the war started on 1 September 1939? It can only be because we learned it in school, we read it in the books and everyone we talk to says so. As you say, it is a majority POV, and as you imply, it can be a very complicated discussion. And I repeat your words: neither I know what to do about this. I guess it was you who wrote the current text: "The conflict by most Western accounts began in 1939". And considering your words on POV, I think the line is almost completely unquestionable, since it deflects Western POV. So perhaps we should go with this status quo? In any case, I urge other users to join this discussion, and then maybe both Cicero83 and myself can get some fresh ideas on the matter. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that the causes of World War II include the ideas that started it: imperialism, fascism, Naziism, and communism. I think these important ideas are relevant and should at least be mentioned. If not, what were they fighting about? Land? You can always buy real estate. If you at least mention some of these ideas, you can always refer the readers over to a section entitled, "some of the Causes of WWII."-Ned. (Sept.)

Edits by Paranoid

Paranoid insists on removing parts of useful info and replacing it with his own POV, hardly accepted by any serious historian, not to mention common sense. In particular, the problems I have with his version are:

  1. After all Soviet attempts to oppose Germany by aiding its ally Czechoslovakia and later Poland were prevented by Poland and other countries - this needs a proof and a source. It's the first time I hear that the Soviets were trying to help Poland and that Poland made such help impossible
  2. Soviet Union had to sign the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - nobody forced the Soviets to sign a pact partitioning its neighbour states. Also, if it wasn't for the secret ammendment to it, the Soviets would have absolutely no border with Germany and no aggression would be possible between the two states.

Also, his version does not include the following statements which seem perfectly right to me:

  1. Until attacked by it in June 1941, the Soviet Union was effectively allied with Nazi Germany through the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - which is a fact. It was not only a political alliance dividing the spheres of influence, but also a strategical and military one, with military cooperation during the war against Poland in 1939. Finally, the alliance included economical cooperation which involved millions of tonnes of war materiel and resources traded between the states.
  2. leading to the USSR later invading and occupying parts or the whole of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania - which is also a fact and part of the World War II. Why should these agressions, often by means of military force, be omitted?
  3. However, the US did aid the allies and after first Japan and then Germany declared war on the US and launched attacks on US soil, the US had no choice but to fully enter the war - again, a plain fact. Why should this be deleted from the text?

--Halibutt 07:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the USSR was allied with the Nazis is also rather POV. But mostly, it suggests that they were allies in the war, which is not the case because the treaty was signed just before the war broke out. Of course, the short timespan between the treaty and the outbreak is highly suggestive, but an encyclopedia may not infer too much. So I rewrote it to exclude the uncertainties. This is not meant as a definitive version, but seems a more neutral basis to add facts, if necessary. A tricky point is whether the attacks of the USSR (your one but last point) were part of WWII. There is a similar discussion here, about the starting date of the war. Japan had already started fighting before Germany did, but that is not taken to be part of WWII. And it isn't mentioned in this section. So I'd say mention both or neither. In this section, that is. DirkvdM 09:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
At least two of the aggressions by the Soviet Union were undoubtedly a part of WWII: the backstab of Poland and attack on Finland. Both of them happened during the WWII, were connected to the world-wide politics and influenced the overall situation in the world (if it wasn't for the Soviet invasion, Romania would stand by the Allied side for a longer time and if it wasn't for the Winter War, the Allies would not land in Norway so quickly). Anyway, as to the two sides being allied during their common war against Poland - undoubtedly yes. Although the pacts they signed were not called an alliance, but such a double speech was common in both regimes. Anyway, both the secret protocol and later ammendments to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fit all the criteria of a military alliance:
  1. On August 19 the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was signed. It practically meant that, until the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets were supporting the Germans by handing them raw materials. Such an open support for a warring state is often regarded as a breach of neutrality - and this was the case
  1. On August 28 both states signed the M-R Pact, which, among other things, decided the fate of Poland, which was to be dismantled and divided between them
  1. On September 17 the USSR fulfilled the pact by invading Poland. Although no declaration of war was issued, the state of war occured as the Soviet attack fits all criteria of an aggression. Also, the aggression was in accordance with the earlier agreement with Germany.
  1. Finally, on September 28 the original M-R pact was ammended to exchange parts of Polish territory for that of Lithuania - which makes the original intentions even more clear.
All in all, the M-R pact and the Nazi-Soviet Alliance might've been a controversial issue before 1992, that is before the Russians admitted that there was such a pact. But nowadays? Halibutt 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


  1. Soviet Union was not neutral. It had a non-aggression pact and it was co-operating in various areas, but it wasn't "effectively allied". Simple as that.
  2. No. Soviet Union simply got back the West Ukraine and West Belorussia that were annexed by Poland in 1920. Please look at the map, it's that simple.
  3. The declaration of war WAS issued. Read any history book and find out how the embassador in Moscow simply was refusing (illegally) to accept the note. Also note that by 17.09 the Polish government has already fled the country.
The intent still is and will remain controversial as long as anti-Soviet forces will try to make it seem as if Soviet Union was bent on world domination. Paranoid 09:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
So it's rather complicated. Too much to mention in the 'Participants' section, I'd say. Or is there one thing that really stands out and deserves (and will fit in) a short mention? DirkvdM 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
The fact that the Soviet Union at first joined the war against the allies on the axis side surely deserves a mention. As to the points by Paranoid:
  1. Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga.
  2. Well, The Soviet Union got back the area it never owned. Bolshevist Russia occupied the area between July and August of 1920, but that was hardly an ownership. Also, show me a rule of the international law that says that all pacts can be broken as long as one state wants to get some area back...
  3. Another effect of commie propaganda. The alleged lack of Polish government at home was used as a casus belli in the declaration handed over to the Polish embassador overnight of September 16. However, the government left the state 24 hours later, after the Soviet tanks were already approaching the place where it was located, which makes such a casus belli a complete rubbish. Also, there was no declaration of war, at least neither the Polish nor Soviet government issued it. Or am I wrong? Please provide sources, such a discovery would really be interesting... Halibutt 16:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
About that first (unnumbered) remark. It should then be made clear that the allies in this sense existed before the war even started, because people will associate the term 'allies' with the war and thus could easily misinterpret that. The Allies article it links to even states that "the Allies of World War II came together as World War II unfolded and progressed". But it also states that the USSR at first wanted to join the allies and that then also deserves a mention. I now see that it is all even more complicated than I thought, so a short introduction like this needs careful handling. Especially stating that the USSR was effectively allied with the Axis (which only formed in late 1940) sounds a bit POV since it could just as well have been that they wanted to prevent Germany from conquering too much land (especially Poland). But now I am speculating. DirkvdM 20:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, indeed it's a speculation. The official Soviet propaganda stated that the invasion of Poland happened because of the need to protect the Polish citizens against the Nazi attack. Quite a bizarre explanation, especially that the alleged protection consisted of warfare and then of NKVD-led terror. To set it in proper context: the USSR captured approximately 50% of Polish territory with circa with circa 12 millions of people. Until June of 1941 between 1,5 million and 2 millions of them were sent to Soviet prisons, Gulags or simply murdered. That's not what I would call protection of civillians... Halibutt 14:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
So that was even the official reason. Whichever is the case, my point is that all this needs too much explaining, for which there is no place in this section, so maybe it had better stick to the NPOV facts. DirkvdM 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
And the NPOV fact is that the two powers were effectively allied. Halibutt 22:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, that's an interpretation. The fact is that they had a non-aggression treaty. By the same reason you could say the US were allied with all European nations (Monroe) or the Netherlands with Germany because they choose to remain neutral, which is also a sort of unilateral non-aggression statement. DirkvdM 08:32, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's bias

Halibutt, you are too biased to reason rationally about this topic. I notice that your arguments follow the following pattern:

  • You say that A is true.
  • I counter this saying that A isn't true, because B
  • You argue that B is not exactly true, because of C.

But you don't care about your original point, you simply like to be winning the debate, no matter what this debate is about. You forget A - your original assertion and no longer care whether it's true or not, as long as you can make some new claims that sound true to your ears.

For example, saying "Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga." doesn't prove that Soviet Union was allied with Germany, you simply repeat your assertion, adding some other facts, which aren't very related.

You also choose to completely ignore other facts that don't support your point, such as the fact that Poland itself was the first to annex part of Czechoslovakia without any permissions from other countries (Germany had such permission).

Or the fact that Soviet Union warned (23.09.1938) Poland that their 1932 non-aggression pact is void if Poland attacks Czechoslovakia (then a Soviet ally).

The fact that Soviet Union wanted to help Czechoslovakia defend itself against the Nazi Germany (and that France and Britain wanted it too), but Poland refused to let Soviet forces through, despite many pleadings from France (then also an ally of Czechoslovakia) and Britain.

Or the fact that Ribbentrop promised to Poland German support in case of a Polish-Soviet conflict (01.10.1938, letter of Polish embassador in Germany).

Or the fact that in 1939 Britain and the Soviet Union offered Poland to extend its alliance with Romania for defence against Germany as well. Or the fact that France (then an ally of Poland) asked Poland to provide a narrow corridor for the Soviet Army (Soviet Union was in 1939 an ally of France) to pass through Poland and attack Germany, assisting French forces. Poland always refused.

Halibutt, you don't know history and you are trying to present it wrongly in this article. This is not commendable at all. Paranoid 10:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't turn this discussion into a field of personal attacks. As per your specific arguments:
  1. I listed all the arguments for treatment of Nazi-Soviet cooperation as an alliance. I only forgot about the common declaration of September 18, issued simultaneously in Berlin and Moscow, and Molotov's speech of October 31st. You did not list yours to prove that the military, political and economical cooperation was not an alliance. Please do so.
  2. Polish relations with Czechoslovakia were completely unrelated to the war of 1939. There was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia for the disputed area of Cieszyn, the armed conflict ended in 1920, when the area was conquered by Czechoslovakia. In 1938 it was retaken peacefuly by Poland, after a common Polish-Czechoslovakian conference and negotiations. Though it might've influenced the public relations of Polish diplomacy, there's no connection with the Soviet-German cooperation. - and that's what we're discussing here.
  3. I don't know if Poland was warned. But anyway, there was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia and the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact was never renounced by either side. Neither was the Riga peace treaty.
  4. Poland refused to let the Soviet forces enter its territory - no wonder why. Is it already a cassus belli?
  5. As to the possible Polish-German alliance against the Soviet Union - such proposals arrived from Berlin several dozen times, since early 1930's. Even as late as 1939 Ribbentrop suggested that Poland could exchange Danzig for Odessa. However, all such proposals were dismissed.
  6. As to the extended alliance with Romania - I admit I never heard of it before. The alliance of 1922 was valid against aggression by USSR, perhaps there were some plans to extend it, but I don't see how this fact might've influence the Nazi-Soviet alliance, especially that the Polish-Romanian pact was a purely defensive alliance.
  7. As to the "narrow corridor" - please provide evidence. It seems highly unlikely, especially that it was obvious to everyone in Poland that letting the Red Army in is much easier than expelling it out. Which, BTW, was proven by its presence in Poland or the Baltics for 50 years after WWII...
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your arguments that the Nazis and Soviets were not allied in 1939. Halibutt 14:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Power vacuum in the aftermath

I just learned about a period called 'Bersiap' in Indonesia after the Japanese left, which created a power vacuum. Because it is too specific to mention here, I put that in History_of_Indonesia#Post-war. But I can imagine that similar things happened elsewhere and a general remark about that would be in place in this article. DirkvdM 11:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

template

a template for the world war 2 would be good


Poland

Dna-webmaster (talk · contribs), DirkvdM (talk · contribs) and 205.188.117.6 (talk · contribs) insist on refining the list of major participants (see the recent history). As far as I can get it from their comments, their view is that the participants are to be listed by number of casualties. However, I fail to understand why Poland was listed out.

  1. If we are to list countries by number of casualties, then Poland should be in with more than 6 millions casualties
  2. If we are to list states by their entry into WWII, then Poland should be in as it fought since September 1st, 1939 to August 15, 1945.
  3. If we are to list states by number of troops, then Poland should be in as the second most numerous ally between 1939 and 1941 and then the fourth most numerous until the ned of WWII in Europe (with roughly 800.000 in 1944, if we count Polish Armies marching from the east, the west and at home

Why is it not listed then? Halibutt 06:17, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't insist on anything, I just made one edit. Anyway, I agree that it seems unfair to leave Poland out. Like I said, I listed them by the number of military casualties because that seems to me to be the best indicator of the war effort, which in turn seems the best basis to list countries under a heading of 'Main Participants'. And in this respect Poland comes next in line after France. I drew a line somewhere, rather arbitrarily and Poland only just 'lucked out'. Which is unfair considering that the war started with Poland and that it was a country that suffered immensely (by total death toll second after the USSR, although that, of course, was much bigger country). So I added it to the list. Just one thing, though. If the Polish army involvement was so numerous then why did they suffer so little casualties? (relatively speaking!) Good fighters? I thought they even got the worst jobs (well, actually, that's just based on A bridge too far).
Oh, hold on, I did put Poland in there, in 7th place. It just doesn't appear. And I don't know how to fix that. Adding a 7th country to the Axis doesn't help. I'll probably need to edit 'MultiWarbox', but how do I get there? DirkvdM 07:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
What's Yugoslavia doing above France and Poland? Yugoslavians barely fought outside their own country. The only way they could qualify in here is if you include the casualities during the guerilla war, where 'military' becomes a bit doubtful. I also think its unfair and misleading to include Finland in the list of main Axis powers. Whatever the numbers sometimes we know that there are special circumstances, and Finland is one of them. The Finns fought a war against only one power, who attacked them. The fact that they ended up allied with the Axis was pure circumstance. As for the rest of the list - if the Big Three don't go first, then what we have is a joke.

The point here is that, whatever the figures, the listings here are misleading. We owe it to our readers not to give them a false impression. Sometimes you can't choose who you list based only on a number. DJ Clayworth 13:35, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

But then what can one base it on? What is the notion of the 'Big Three' based on? I suppose that's western-centric (or what do you call that?). And that is confusing, since there were in many respects two wars, in Europe and in Asia, that got mixed up. If you look at the death toll (military or civilian) then there were just a 'Big Two', namely the USSR and China. And then nothing for a long, long time. Taking China off the list is ludicrous. Taking Finland off would make sense, though, since that needs some explaining that can't be given there. DirkvdM 06:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It all depends on how you count the casualties. For instance, the number of Soviet military casualties was huge, but noone knows how many of those people in fact perished in Gulags or elsewhere, as the numbers cited by the Soviets cannot be checked in any way. Likewise, the problem with Polish military casualties is that often the historians count only the soldiers of armed forces in the east and in the west, without counting the Home Army. Also, as to the Home Army losses - are the soldiers killed not in an open battle but in slaughterhouses of the Gestapo or SS or in concentration camps to be listed or not? And so on.
Other thing is that the Polish Army that fought alongside the western allies had a really low casualty rate. This was mostly due to the fact that Polish generals tried to spare as many of their soldiers as they could as there was no manpower pool to draw new recruits from. I remember reading the memoirs of Anders who mentioned that he had two main problems during the Battle of Monte Cassino. The first was that the German lines were to be broken at all cost since all manpower reserves were laying ahead, in German POW camps and in concentration camps. The second was that he had to spare as many people in a frontal assault in order to be able to continue the war since once his corps would be withdrawn from the front, there would be no chance to reinforce it. So, most Polish units fought longer battles yet lost less men (in many cases, at least).
The situation of the Polish Army fighting alongside the Soviets was much worse as the Soviet orders completely disregarded any losses in cannon fodder and in many cases the Polish divisions were ordered to storm fortified positions with no artillery cover or even reconnaissance. This was the case of forcing the Vistula, the Battle of Lenino or battles for the Pomeranian strongholds. Halibutt 18:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt 18:52, August 20, 2005 (UTC)


  • I totally agree with Dirkvd; under a heading called 'Main Participants' I also believe the best basis is military casualties, since the word "participant" indicates "voluntarily" and civilian casualties are certainly not voluntarily.

Now, I do not think a general page like 'World War II' benefits from heated conflict on whether a particular country should be in a summary list or not. I would hate to think that Halibutt takes on a particulary Polish POV, but I can assure you that I have no intention of diminishing the importance of Poland. I just try to comply to Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

To resolve this conflict, I will alter the template 'MultiWarbox' (which I created) to include seven countries on each side. This will make Poland go in on 7th, which I hope will be to Halibutt's satisfaction. Somebody resorted the Allies to put USA and UK on top. This does not comply with our discussion, so I will resort the Allies to the correct sorting (Russia first). I urge those who object to consult the piecharts on World_War_II_casualties.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 10:33, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

What about India?

I think that India strongly deserved recogniton in this article as a force that had a hand in Germany's downfall. In total, 1 million Indians volunteered for the British Army. Please look to include India in that article.