Talk:World War II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article World War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Why is Chiang Kai-Shek listed as a 'Main Allied Leader' yet Mackenzie King of Canada or Menzies & Curtin of Australia are not?[edit]

Seriously, maybe not Australia but at least Canada should be up there. Not saying Chiang Kai-Shek shouldn't be, but it seems ridiculous that he is OVER some others.

Please read something, anything, on the Pacific War. China was one of the "big four" who dominated the Allied war effort. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
China massed a large army on paper, but for the most part their war "effort" was negligible. Except for a few units that were able to get supplies from the USA and Britain their army was static and paralysed. Many Chinese soldiers never fired a shot, if they even had a gun to fire. Canada was a major player in the European War, especially in the Battle of the Atlantic and the air war. Australia was a major contributer to the Western Desert and the Pacific Islands campaigns. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest you read the Second Sino-Japanese War article, which may lay to rest some of your more extravagant assertions. Irondome (talk) 21:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I didn't start this discussion to argue about China's contribution but rather to state that Canada had a significant contribution, arguably more than China, and should have their leader listed as a Main Allied Leader Cairo9o9 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I would agree with Cairo9o9 that Canada made a significant contribution to the Allied effort and this needs to be recognized. Green547 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I think it's good enough as it is. Was Canada ever referred to as part of the 'Big 4' during the war? Canada was largely subservient to Britain. 1982vdven (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
China was not one of the "Big Four" either, so that point is irrelevant. And Canada was not "subservient to Britain" in World War II, they were a close Ally, but they mad either own war effort, with many war goals not in keeping with the interests of either London or Washington DC. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
See Declaration by United Nations and note which four countries are listed first in the declaration. 1982vdven (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the Document itself, there is no mention in the Declaration of a "Big Four", much less China being one of them. So with all due respect your position is baseless on that point. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Secondary sources refer to the "Big Four" who called themselves the "Four Sponsoring Governments" - France declined to participate. The Big Four wrote the UN Charter, later accepting some changes, and each one was given veto power. TFD (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Fascinating, but still irrelevant. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
It certainly is relevant that the four major allied powers are referred to as the Big Four. Also relevant that only their leaders participated in the conferences directing the war. TFD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I also think its fine and reflects the consensus of many writers on the subject. To advance an alternative position, one needs to find some reliable sources that describe Canada/Australia etc this way and bring them here. Otherwise, such discussions end up going round in circles. Nickm57 (talk) 22:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In addition to what Nick-D has said, the idea of the "big four" (the United States, Soviet Union, Great Britain, and China) is related to Roosevelt's notion of the Four Policemen. In pages 24-25 of The United States and the Origins of the Cold War, 1941-1947, John Lewis Gaddis writes: After Pearl Harbor Roosevelt toughened his position, arguing that in the immediate postwar period the United States, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, and China would have to act not as "trustees" but as "sheriffs" or "policemen" for the rest of the world. The Big Four would remove from the hands of other nations, friendly as well as hostile, all weapons more dangerous than rifles.--Khanate General talk project mongol conquests 17:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Canada played little role in planning and directing the war, which was done primarily by the UK, U.S. and U.S.S.R. Canada had no field marshals for example. Technically the main allied nations included China and France, and all five would therefore become permanent members of the U.N. Security Council. I would prefer all five listed. TFD (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
We had this discussion a few months ago, and the consensus was for the current listing. I reckon that the article's content is a much better topic for discussion than the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Although Canada's role did not happen to be as significant as that of the UK, US, and U.S.S.R., they did contribute quite a lot...for example at Dieppe they lost 3,000+ men in an operation devised to lessen the brunt on other allies. They participated in D-Day invasion and in numerous battles such as Ortona, Caen (important role), Monte Cassino, Scheldt Estuary, Reichswald Forest. They also helped to free the Dutch. The RCN escorted merchant vessels across the Atlantic Ocean and hunted for dangerous U-boats. The RCAF fought in the Battle of Britain and in North Africa. By the end 42,000+ Canadians had lost their lives, many more had been separated from their families. Canada spent enourmous sums ranging in the billions as part of its war effort and also participated in mass production of arms. It is hard to see why the Chinese leader is in the listing while Canadian is not, especially since China's role was limited to their own theater. For a source see [1] and [2] Green547 (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. The Canadians also constructed 815,729 military vehicles. For a comparison we have the T-34 mass production which was 84,070 and ~42,459 M4 Shermans fielded during WWII. Green547 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • "The Canadians also designed..the Lancaster heavy bomber.." I hope someone has informed Roy Chadwicks descendants about this..Irondome (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly Canada contributed a lot relative to its population, as did dozens of other countries. It was a "world war" after all. But Canada did not plan Dieppe or the D-Day or VE Day or VJ Day, or participate in Tehran or Yalta. It left the leadership of the war effort to the UK and the other major allies. TFD (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
While it is true that Canada left the leadership of the war effort to other allies, China did as well. Out of 150,000 troops landing in Normandy, 14,000 were Canadians.[3] Obviously, they did have a part in the planning of D-Day. Green547 (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact Canadians participated in D-Day did not mean they planned it. TFD (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The fact is that Canada was the third largest force participating in the Normandy landing. They fought along with the British and American toward VE day. They put up an enormous war effort (especially in production) and fought in Europe and North Africa. While it is true that Canada left the leadership of the war effort to other allies, China did as well. Hard to see WHY the Chinese leader is in the listing while Canadian is not, especially since China's role was limited to their own theater. Green547 (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Please provide reliable sources which state that Canada's contribution to the war is commonly considered as significant as that of the "big four". Your personal views are not relevant. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
China was considered part of the Big 4. Incidentally, Russia was not part of the planning of D-Day and sent no troops, but was also part of the Big 4. All 4 either participated in the various summits or received reports about them. King was not even invited to participate in the Quebec summit, but was allowed to be photographed with Churchill and Roosevelt, which is in Canadian history books. TFD (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
For your information, I am not implying that Canada's contribution to the war is commonly considered as significant as that of the "big four". I am questioning the 'main allied leaders' listing in the infobox of this article. I have used several sources to back up my arguments on the matter and according to this source China was not one of the big four [4], yet its leader is in the listing, and Canada's is not. (Or Australia's, for that matter.)

I additionally point out two things:

  1. The Canadians could have just sat back and said, "you know, I'm not lifting a finger until Jerry comes all the way to America." That did not happen. They willingly volunteered to participate overseas in dangerous airborne drops and brutal battles, far away from their homeland. They were up front with the British and the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., and made a significant contribution, some of which I have described earlier and more information can be found here. In contrast, (and this is something which I have hinted more politely, but was not taken into account) mostly all of what the Chinese did was defend their own country.
  2. Re:leadership of the war effort-China did not take part in planning of major world-wide operations either.

These points can be taken into consideration OR ignored. My suggestion is for the appropiate Canadian leader to be included in the infobox. Respectfully, Green547 (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

None of your points seem relevant. Maybe Canada should have been invited to join the Big 4, but it was not. And at the time Canada saw itself as part of the British Empire, so its participation was virtually automatic. TFD (talk) 00:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Conroy claims nearly 400,000 Japanese fatalities during the Sino-Japanese war. That seems conservative, allowing for wounded, sick, and the fact that the majority of Japanese divisions were stationed on the Asian mainland, including Manchuria from 1937 the 1945. China performed a similar role to the Red Army to the Wehrmacht. The grinding down by attrition of the second most powerful Axis military force seems self evident from multiple sources. I find this line of argumentation tenuous and increasingly irrelevant. I deeply respect the Canadian contribution to final victory. But the facts point to China being vastly more effective in killing Axis forces. This is the reality. I suggest we end this thread. We have been here before. Irondome (talk) 01:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The argument that China and not Canada should be in seems to hinge largely on the assumption that China was among the "big four" in WWII.

I never heard that term in WWII context before. I tried googling. I found many references to a big 4 in WWI context, almost none in WWII context, and even those few I found more often seem to list France and not China as the fourth big one.

So can someone provide reliable sources, that there is mainstream talk about any big 4 in the context WWII, and that China is part of the 4. Otherwise much of the arguments favouring China over Canada seem to be build on an unsupported assumption. Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Try a Google Books search for "big five" "second world war".[1] Political Science for example says, "the five permanent [members of the UN Security Council] are the Big Five who had won the Second World War..." TFD (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You need an Indian high school text book which is listed well after African animals even though you explicitly include WWII in your search; and even so you do not provide any big FOUR, but a big FIVE reference. If anything this seems to support my claim. The use of the term Big four is not at all mainstream in the context of WWII. Arnoutf (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
I was trying to help you as you said you were having trouble using the Google search engine. Another source, from an academic publisher, also explains the "Big Five."[2] The point of providing you with this tool is so you can carry on with your own research.
The "Big Four" were actually the "Big Five" minus France, which chose not to accept its seat at the various summits, but nonetheless is considered one of the five main allies. The idea that Canada was one of the "Big Four" is absurd, King was not even invited to the Quebec conference where the initial plans for D-Day were approved even though he was host. The Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force was exclusively staffed by the UK and U.S. In fact the Canadians fought as part of the UK's Second Army. If you want to argue otherwise, get a source that supports your view. Better still, read about the war, not just D-Day. You will find that the Normandy invasions were only possible because of the Soviet resistance to the Germans, the invasion of Italy and many other attacks on German strength and that the Pacific was a major theater of the war. In fact the outcome of the war had already been decided before D-Day.
TFD (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
You misinterpret me. The claim I made is that the use of big four in the context of WWII is not mainstream. So my claim is largely that there are no big four, which means that Canada, nor China can be part of this non-existing group.
Re big-four/five. So far, I have only seen it mentioned in the context of the UN documents from the late 1940's. However UN was founded only after the end of WWII and there may well have been postwar geopolitical reasons drop lines like the one in the document you provide. So we preferably need a modern, mainstream historical academic defining the term. (although in my view evidence of mainstream modern usage would do as well). Arnoutf (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
The UN was formed with the five major allies being assigned permanent positions in the Security Council with veto powers. I would prefer listing all the big 5. But no matter what you call them, only four or five countries directed the Allied war efforts, and Canada was not one of them. TFD (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
That would work if, and only if, we have evidence that the permanent positions to the security council were only assigned based on WWII involvement, and that postwar potential and future power had no role whatsoever in assigning the permanent seats. During the last year of WWII (once it was clear the allies would win) a lot of politics involved postwar organization of global power/safeguards/responsibilities. China was, like Yugoslavia, defending it's own territory. Where was it directing the allied war effort in the global theatre??? Arnoutf (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
By that logic, the U.S.S.R was also "defending it's own territory", and did not seem to have much input into "directing the global war effort", whatever that actually means. It was following it's own path, as was China. Each nation was attempting to safeguard and reinforce it's own postwar position. Realistically, by 1943 it was the U.S.A alone that was directing the Western "global war effort". The last independent decisions and successful influence on effectively U.S devised grand strategy was arguably Churchill's ideas for attacking Fortress Europe via Italy. As has been stated several times above, this has been discussed before. Basically do you want all the Allied leaders in the info box? I thought we had reached consensus that the "big four" would be listed. That consensus still seems to stand. Irondome (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Strange, since China is not part of the big 4. And several people have expressed concerns re that previous consensus. Green547 (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Chiang participated in the Cairo Conference 1943 and was kept informed of the discussions of the conferences it did not attend and of course participated as one of the Big Five in planning the UN, which would supposedly ensure peace after the Allies won the war. TFD (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

The Governments signatory hereto,...." Also note this handwritten note on the draft; (2) A handwritten marginal note on the attachment reads: "CH 0K. It is approved now by Russia and WSC but not yet by China. FDR. Let's get it out on Jan. 1. That means speed. FDR". For a facsimile of Roosevelt redraft of the declaration incorporating the Russian amendments, see Sherwood, pp. 450-452". That indicates that a discrete group of four countries were explictly identified as having specific importance. That group included China. China certainly is part of the "big four". You will also notice the remaining nations are listed alphabetically. Irondome (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. Although I think it is necessary for someone to address the things I pointed out earlier. That said, I think this is at an end. Unless someone else has something to say. Green547 (talk) 01:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Then there is the Moscow Declaration, and the UN charter specifically refers to "the parties to the Four-Nation Declaration, signed at Moscow, 30 October 1943, and France...." TFD (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

[5] This is an excellent essay on the political background to the U.S. motivations in having China as part of the "Big Four". Also note the usage of the explicit term Big Four, and FDR's usage of the term The four global policemen". For those interested, please follow the link. An excellent read, and lots of other material on U.S diplomacy in WW2 is there too. Irondome (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


What is this phrase doing in the first sentence of this article?[edit]

What is this phrase doing in the first sentence of this article? "caused by pringle tokes and Syds hookah rips" (talk) 16:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

first sentence includes rubbish text[edit]

As of now, the first sentence of the article reads as follows: "World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War caused by pringle tokes and Syds hookah rips (after the recent Great War), was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945, though related conflicts began earlier." Obviously the text in bold is nonsense and should be deleted. (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The above holds true. Someone, please fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C:1902:80C9:1D6D:3588:C516:FECA (talk) 22:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the article history, ClueBot fixed the sentence the same minute as the last disruptive edit (13:52 UTC). Did your versions somehow miss that? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Possible Mistake?[edit]

Maybe I'm wrong because I don't know British English, but why does it say the length of the war is "6 year, 1 day"? Shouldn't it say 6 years because it is more than 1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guhjkl4 (talkcontribs) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it should not say "6 years", and I don't think that it's a matter of "6 year" being British English. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
The current infobox lists "Date: 1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945 (6 year, 1 day)". This should definitely state "(6 years, 1 day)". Perhaps the coding in the YMD set up has had a bit of a freak out, due to it containing multiple years and only a single day. Either way, this should be changed. - J man708 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I've just changed the date formats for the template parameters. It now gives more correct prose readout, but the spacing is now clunkier. Can anyone do better? Dhtwiki (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War[edit]

What is with the Spanish Civil war?!?!?!? What the hell! The Nationalist forces weren't fascist or authoritarian. They were oppressed people wanting to be relieved from the Communists! This is sick and wrong and should be corrected! Francisco Franco was a good Catholic man! Please edited it thanks. Cheers! 05-20-15 Kobra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobra 75 bro (talkcontribs) 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Could you be specific about what wording in the article you find unfair? The section on the Spanish Civil War seems pretty neutral to me. I don't see the labels "fascist" or "authoritarian" applied there. Dhtwiki (talk) 06:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)