Talk:World War II/temp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Lead

Before I get into this, thanks to Oberiko for doing so much of the heavy lifting on this. It's starting to look good.

Now then, we are dealing with the article structure, but what about the lead? I've looked it over and while it is pretty good, I think it could used some tweaking. And trimming. Here's what I've got so far:

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a worldwide military conflict, amalgamating separate conflicts beginning in Asia in 1937 and Europe in 1939. It is regarded as the historical successor to World War I.
During the war a majority of the world's nations split into opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. Spanning much of the globe, as the most widespread war in history, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 70 million people, making it the deadliest conflict in human history.
The countries involved mobilized more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete activation of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort; nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians.
The conflict ended in an Allied victory. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the world's leading superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War. Co-operation between the Allies led to the creation of the United Nations. The U.N. principle of self-determination gave rise to decolonization and independence movements in Asia and Africa, leading to the final dismantling of European-based empires. Europe itself began traveling the road to integration.

Here are my outstanding issues with it:

  • I removed "Nearly 11 million of the civilian casualties were victims of the Holocaust, which was largely conducted in Eastern Europe, and the Soviet Union," because I didn't know what to do with it. It's unclear - were there 11 million Holocaust victims? Or is the Soviet Union thing separate? I think the lead needs a Holocaust reference, but I am not sure this is it.
  • The final paragraph is good on the outcomes for Europe and the west, but what about Asia? I think we need a sentence describing how the war increased China's status but also led to communist takeover, and perhaps one about how it turned Japan from the path of militarism to development as an industrial and economic power.

- Eron Talk 02:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eron, though a large portion of the credit goes to you for making the sections as concise as they are. My suggestion for the lead would be as follows:
World War II1 was a global military conflict which amalgamated mostly separate conflicts in Asia and Europe that each began in the late 1930s. During the war a majority of the world's nations were split into opposing military alliances, the Allies and the Axis, and involved the mobilization of more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete activation of a nations economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort. As the most widespread war in history, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 70 million people, nearly two-thirds of them civilians.
The conflict ended in 1945 as an Allied victory. The United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the world's leading superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War. Co-operation between the Allies led to the creation of the United Nations. The U.N. principle of self-determination gave rise to decolonization and independence movements in Asia and Africa, leading to the dismantling of European-based empires. Europe itself began the process of tighter integration.
We can have a foot note (at 1) which explains the other names for the war, personally, I don't think saying that World War II can also be called the almost identical Second World War or by its abbreviation is all that important. I'm also not really keen on calling it the "deadliest" war in history, as that doesn't seem very factual to me. Most casualties, that's undisputed, but was it really more damaging then, say, the barbarian invasions of Rome which plunged Europe into the dark ages? I think the death figures (and damage costs if we can find them) can stand by themselves without the emphasis. Oberiko 04:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like "mostly separate" - apart from the Soviet Union having a dog in each fight, in what significant way were they not separate before 1939?
I'd like to add a reference to both the Holocaust and nuclear weapons. These were the ultimate results of the application of industrial and scientific principles to to conduct of war and I think their impact on the post-War world is almost incalculable. I suggest, after the sentence ending '"...for the purposes of the war effort," adding "The application of these principles lead to the creation of massively destructive atomic weapons, and to the continent-wide genocide of the Holocaust."
I recognize there might be some POV in there, but I think we need to mention those two things above the fold.
For the last paragraph, I'd suggest closing sentences on Asia: "China ended the war with an improved international standing, but weakened internally and split by civil war. Japan abandoned its territorial and militaristic ambitions, concentrating on economic and industrial development instead."
- Eron Talk 15:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
The "mostly separate" is referring to everything prior to December 1941. A few things were interrelated, such as Japan negotiating peace with the USSR due (partly) to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Japanese invasion of French Indochina once Germany had taken mainland France, and British supplies to help support China, along with their strengthening their Asian holdings, such as the defenses of Singapore. But those might be considered to minor, how about just "...conflict which amalgamated wars in Asia and Europe"?
Atomic weapons I can agree with, the Holocaust, not so much, at least not there. Perhaps we could add a paragraph as to ideological reasons why the war was fought: the strife between fascism, communism and democracy and the German / Japanese ideas of being superior; we could mention the genocides and holocaust there.
I'm fine with adding China and Japan, but I'd like to then mention the fate of the United Kindgom, France and Germany as well. How about the falling as our intro?
World War II1 was a global military conflict which amalgamated wars in Asia and Europe that each began in the late 1930s. During the war a majority of the world's nations were split into opposing military alliances, the Allies and the Axis, and involved the mobilization of more than 100 million military personnel. Total war erased the distinction between civil and military resources and saw the complete activation of a nations economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort. Because of this commitment, many new technologies of war emerged, including nuclear weapons.
Many of the reasons why the war began were based in ideology. The strife between democracy, fascism/imperialism and communism as well as the racial superiority with which the Germans and Japanese believed of themselves. This idea of seeing other people as inferior led to many atrocities, such as the Holocaust. As the most widespread war in history, World War II resulted in the deaths of over 70 million people, nearly two-thirds of them civilians.
The conflict ended in 1945 as an Allied victory. Co-operation between the Allies led to the creation of the United Nations. Germany and Japan were occupied by Allied forces, with Germany physically divided between Western and Soviet control. The United Kingdom, France and Italy lost their overseas empires and much of their pre-war status as great powers. The United States and the Soviet Union became the world's new superpowers, setting the stage for the Cold War.
I've removed the part about the EU as I think that's better left for the post-Cold War. I also think, for this article, it's better to phrase colonial independence from major powers by how they related to the major powers. Oberiko 03:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Background

I've done a few tweaks, most fairly minor, I think. I made two significant changes:

  • I removed the Great Purge reference; I've changed my mind on this. Everything else in that section is about international relations - things countries did with (or to!) each other, or the ways they reacted to each other. The Purge was just stuck on there. In the historical context, it did not seem to have an immediate effect beyond Soviet borders. I think we can trhow in a reference to it once we get to 1941, noting that the Soviet army had been "weakened by Stalin's Great Purge" or some such.
  • I clarified that by the end of October Poland was divided between the Soviets and the Germans, rather than just conquered.

- Eron Talk 15:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I'd like to confirm the terminology we will use for a few things - notably key players. We need to use the same word consistently to describe the countries involved, in both noun and adjectival forms. Some of these are easy (i.e. German and Germany) but what do we call that small island off the west coast of Europe? (If anyone says "Guernsey", I'm out of here.) The obvious and easy ones:

  • China, Chinese
  • Japan, Japanese
  • Germany, German
  • Italy, Italian

etc. etc.

The more complicated:

  • Britain, British - Britain is an accepted short form for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should avoid Great Britain as that means just the one island.
  • Soviet Union, Soviet - As a short form for "the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics". We could go with the USSR instead, but I think the longer form reads better. We must avoid "Russia" and "Russian" unless we are specifically referring to the Russian SFSR.
  • The Commonwealth, Commonwealth - When referring to all or some of the various members acting in concert. Does anyone think it needs the qualifier "British"?
  • United States, American - I don't think we should use "America" - it will be confusing (or irritating) for many readers. Those who call the USA "America" still know what the United States means. I think we should avoid abbreviating this to US.

Those are my thoughts. Have I missed anything? - Eron Talk 15:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The only one I can think of would be Vichy France. I think we can agree that "Vichy France" is an adequate and popular enough term, even if not the official name. Oberiko —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback

Excellent job on the article. Just a few things from my POV:

  • It seems to me that from the first sentence the reader needs to be aware that this is an introductory article to a large thematic area, so no details are to be expected. This would also presumably keep it from being over-edited in future.
  • I'd like to see Soviets, Germans, Japanese, etc. replaced with Red Army, Wehrmacht and IJN where appropriate. There is no article for Soviets, but there is a Red Army article, and a Wehrmacht one also.

How do you propose to approach the Casualties and atrocities section?--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 22:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Mrg3105. I'm trying to avoid links to specific armed branches, as most military operations of scale (barring a lot of naval activities) tended to involve multiple branches. For example, most ground campaigns were heavily supported by the nations respective air forces. I'm also trying to avoid using specific names for the branches when mentioned unless needed, or where it would lessen ambiguity; especially something like "Wehrmacht", which would require an explanation of the term right beside it.
I'm hoping to get some help with the casualties and atrocities section, but, for the most part, will handle it in the same way. Minimum information needed and lots of links; potentially even creating a new umbrella article to serve as the "Main" article of that section. Oberiko (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I was suggesting that there needs to be an article on military statistics to explain how the numbers are derived and what they mean.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have the World War II casualties, Equipment_losses_in_World_War_II and Military_production_during_World_War_II. What kind of statistics were you looking for? Oberiko (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that these are very general articles that do not educate editors how to derive statistics for battle, operation and campaign articles, or how to analyze sources for these articles. This is why I suggested it be included in the MoS for the project and not authored for the general reader.--mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 00:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
How to derive military statistics or analyse sources is out of our scope I'd think, we can only provide facts. For education of that kind, you'd have to likely take it to Wikibooks. Oberiko (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate pictures

German paratroopers landing on Crete

Chinese forces repel a Japanese attack at the Salween River

Soviet soldier fighting in Belarus

[edit] Flag over Rechstag caption

As from discussion in the Talk:Battle_of_Berlin#image_caption it became apparent that the image used was a reenactment of the original event that took place in a different place on the structure, by different people and using a different flag. I would therefore suggest that the caption "Flag of the Soviet Union being raised over the German Reichstag building" be changed to "Reenactment of the raising of the Victory Banner over the German Reichstag building". I intend to expand the VB article at a later time.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 00:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)