Talk:World War II: Difference between revisions
Line 261: | Line 261: | ||
:German plans were not limited with expansion of its own territory. It preferred to annex just small part of its territorial acquisitions: it annexed a part of Poland, but it preferred to convert other part to General-Governorship. Czhechoslovakia had been split onto puppet Slovakia and Protectorate of Moravia and Bohemia. North-Western part of the USSR was converted to Reichskomissariat Ostland. France had been split onto semi-independent Vichy state and German occupied North. Definitely, to say that German geopolitical goal was just to expand its territory would be simply wrong.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
:German plans were not limited with expansion of its own territory. It preferred to annex just small part of its territorial acquisitions: it annexed a part of Poland, but it preferred to convert other part to General-Governorship. Czhechoslovakia had been split onto puppet Slovakia and Protectorate of Moravia and Bohemia. North-Western part of the USSR was converted to Reichskomissariat Ostland. France had been split onto semi-independent Vichy state and German occupied North. Definitely, to say that German geopolitical goal was just to expand its territory would be simply wrong.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC) |
||
I found ww2 interesting because hitler could have won. he made three fatal mistakes as a general. 1.)left 20k of the british army escape via the france invasion. After this event britain was superior in the air unlike ww1 which was unexpected. 2.)Barbarossa was set back because of the Italian invasion of greece. Italy made many dumb mistakes. 3.)got greedy and tried to take another greek province (the greeks are heavy fighters when outnumbered but never invade due to lack of organization) stalingrad because of the oil reserve upon the caucus straits and ural steppe. The supplies is what destroyed the advance. From what i gather, lack of resources ran out, therefore the oil reserves in the ukraine, ignoring stalingrad, and weapon cache shipments could have kept the luftewaffe in the air, mostly in warmer weather. If he went straight for moscow, stalingrad could be a north-south american independence type issue (eg same with the american civil war, yet the confederates capital was taken instead because of one or two false moves by an even worst general, lee). Even if he didnt invade russia, he may have won later. I don't condone killing and believe the war machine must be broken, but maybe the bad people, like 2% of the world were just being weeded out to make room for things to come, afterall its a matter of acting with the soul or not, who knows. Either that, or the civilian population def deserve to suffer or be controlled eg punished somehow because of its lack of compassion. ---[[Special:Contributions/69.255.42.105|69.255.42.105]] ([[User talk:69.255.42.105|talk]]) 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
I found ww2 interesting because hitler could have won. he made three fatal mistakes as a general. 1.)left 20k of the british army escape via the france invasion. After this event britain was superior in the air unlike ww1 which was unexpected. 2.)Barbarossa was set back because of the Italian invasion of greece. Italy made many dumb mistakes. 3.)got greedy and tried to take another greek province (the greeks are heavy fighters when outnumbered but never invade due to lack of organization) stalingrad because of the oil reserve upon the caucus straits and ural steppe. The supplies is what destroyed the advance. From what i gather, lack of resources ran out, therefore the oil reserves in the ukraine, ignoring stalingrad, and weapon cache shipments could have kept the luftewaffe in the air, mostly in warmer weather. If he went straight for moscow, stalingrad could be a north-south american independence type issue (eg same with the american civil war, yet the confederates capital was taken instead because of one or two false moves by an even worst general, lee). Even if he didnt invade russia, he may have won later. I don't condone killing and believe the war machine must be broken, but maybe the bad people, like 2% of the world were just being weeded out to make room for things to come, afterall its a matter of acting with the soul or not, who knows. Either that, or the civilian population def deserve to suffer or be controlled eg punished somehow because of its lack of compassion. |
||
PS: I would site (copy paste) most information here under the battle for moscow user talk page. ---[[Special:Contributions/69.255.42.105|69.255.42.105]] ([[User talk:69.255.42.105|talk]]) 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Putting the Start Date and End Date at Beginning == |
== Putting the Start Date and End Date at Beginning == |
Revision as of 22:08, 25 December 2011
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
![]() | This article, World War II, was previously the subject of informal mediation by the Mediation Cabal. The mediation discussion is located here. |
![]() | Infobox talk is at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 14, 2004, August 15, 2004, and September 1, 2004. |
![]() | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
2004/5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Poland was invaded by both Germany and Soviet Union
Poland was invaded by both Germany and Soviet Union just 16 days later, and therefore Soviet Unios holds responsibility for starting WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.117.0.237 (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Do you have any reliable sources which state this?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)- A lot of things happened in World War II. This is indisputably one of them. We have an entire article on it. However, I don't think this is something that necessarily needs to be in the lead. NW (Talk) 00:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Wiki way doesn't work
Guys, it's been years now you've had Wilhelm Keitel sitting at a desk at the top of your WWII article. Really. Wilhelm frikkin' Keitel. It says something about the ability of publicly edited wikis to organize thoughts and present them in a coherent, prioritized fashion. Is this the best you can do? Haber (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
- What are you suggesting to improve this article?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
Konstantin Suslov's photographic project made in the light of the 65th Anniversary of the end of World War II was created in honour of the survived veterans. This work serves as a documental historical record that will endure the memory of those great individuals for our generation and many generations to come.
The series contains of photographs of veterans from England, Germany and former USSR.
The project has gained a lot of interest and has been widely exhibited in UK. To name a few: the Association of Photographers Gallery, Saatchi Gallery, HOST Gallery, Richard Kalman Gallery etc.
‘These photographs of surviving World War II heroes are masterfully crafted testaments to their subjects.’
- Mark Jenkinson
‘The dignity, courage and pride of the World War II veterans, has been so wonderfully preserved by Konstantin and his camera’
- Photo PRO Magazine
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Konsus9 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Confusing introduction
An article shouldn't link to sub-articles to establish the absolute basic fundamentals of the material. Anyone who knows nothing about World War II looking it up online will want to know the basics in the first few sentences, or at least paragraphs. I.e. when it was, who was involved, who won/lost, etc. As is, to find out what countries were involved with the war, you have to either read the entire article, or click on both "Allies" and "Axis" in the introductory paragraph, to get the clearest picture. As someone who knows little about history, it was difficult to find this information quickly. I didn't think to click a sub-article because the basic facts of who was involved in the war should have been here. I think this article should include early on a summary of these basics. Squish7 (talk) 01:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Squish7, what changes to the wording do you suggest? An issue with this kind of thing has always been that once you start listing countries it gets difficult to decide who should be left in and excluded (see the various discussions over the countries included in the article's infobox for examples of this). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Fairly minor changes
In the section "War breaks out in Europe", I think the following changes would be useful.
In the text:
On 3 September 1939 France and Britain, followed by the countries of the Commonwealth, declared war on Germany but provided little support to Poland other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[41] Britain and France also began a naval blockade of Germany on 3 September which aimed to damage the country's economy and war effort.[42][43] On 17 September 1939, after signing a cease-fire with Japan, the Soviets also invaded Poland.[44]
I am going to add a wikilink to Phoney war in the "provided little support" wording.
Perhaps a bit more substantially, the sentence
Though Poland was divided by Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia; the Poles did not surrender and established a Polish Underground State and the insurgent Home Army, and continued to fight on Allied fronts outside Poland.
is very awkward. A second issue is that the role of Lithuania and Slovakia here was very minor. In that regard I would
- remove ", Lithuania and Slovakia" from that statement (though perhaps we could add in a footnote with an explanation) and change it to "divided by Germany and the Soviet Union" (this is just replacing a comma by the word "and")
- get rid of this weird semi-colon (after "Slovakia"). Change "insurgent" to "underground" - the "insurgent" part did not occur until 1944 or so as it took a lot of effort to prepare an actual insurrection under conditions of an occupation. Also, "Polish Underground State" should be wiki linked. Furthermore "Allied fronts outside Poland" is ungrammatical (for starters, since "fronts" usually involve two sides they are neither "Allied" nor "Axis"). What it should say is something like "continued to fight as part of the Allied forces in theaters of conflict outside of Poland".
Volunteer Marek 03:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Re 1. Lithuania and Slovakia should not be removed for obvious reasons: even if their role was minor, the fact that they obtained part of pre-war Polish territory is indisputable. Moreover, current Lithuanian capital, Vilnius (former Polish Vilno), and surrounding territories had been transferred to Lithuania as a result of this division. Another question is that Lithuania, by contrast to Germany, its puppet Slovakia, and the USSR did not participate in the invasion of Poland. However, this particular sentence does not discuss invasion, it discusses division of territory, and Slovakia and Lithuania did obtain a part of pre-war Polish land. I object against removal of these two countries, however, I think that it would be more correct to say:
- "...Poland was divided between Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia"
- to emphasize the fact that not all these countries were active participants of the invasion.
- Re 2. This new wording may be an improvement, however, since I saw no concrete wording it is hard to tell anything for sure. Can you please propose some concrete text?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Re our past discussions of radio signals, the USSR did aid the Nazi invasion of Poland, and the USSR did subsequently invade Poland. Whatever territory was divided or apportioned subsequently was done under the aegis of those two cooperating powers, i.e., Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between themselves, Lithuania, and Slovakia. The partition of Poland was not a spontaneous event or done by some third unseen hand. Or am I missing something coming late to the conversation? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 04:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)- "...Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between themselves, also apportioning Polish territory to Lithuania and Slovakia." Do we mention the USSR wound up with the majority of Polish territory? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 04:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC) - P.S. That Slovakia invaded as a puppet state of Nazi Germany does not change Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as the engineers of the partition of Poland. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 04:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- "...Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between themselves, also apportioning Polish territory to Lithuania and Slovakia." Do we mention the USSR wound up with the majority of Polish territory? PЄTЄRS
- Re our past discussions of radio signals, the USSR did aid the Nazi invasion of Poland, and the USSR did subsequently invade Poland. Whatever territory was divided or apportioned subsequently was done under the aegis of those two cooperating powers, i.e., Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland between themselves, Lithuania, and Slovakia. The partition of Poland was not a spontaneous event or done by some third unseen hand. Or am I missing something coming late to the conversation? PЄTЄRS
- Re radio signals, I got no proof that these signal were being transmitted in actuality. The only thing I know that Molotov partially fulfilled the German request, whose real reason had not been disclosed, and authorised a radio station in Minsk to transmit the word "Minsk" as frequently as possible. I am not aware of other cases, however, if you have something concrete, feel free to present these facts.
- Re your inflammatory language, I think it would be more appropriate eslewhere.
- Re passive voice, I think it is totally appropriate. The article currently says:
- "On 1 September 1939, Germany and Slovakia—a client state in 1939—attacked Poland. On 3 September 1939 France and Britain, followed by the countries of the Commonwealth, declared war on Germany but provided little support to Poland other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[1] Britain and France also began a naval blockade of Germany on 3 September which aimed to damage the country's economy and war effort.[2][3] On 17 September 1939, after signing a cease-fire with Japan, the Soviets also invaded Poland.[4] Though Poland was divided by Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia; the Poles did not surrender and established a Polish Underground State and the insurgent Home Army, and continued to fight on Allied fronts outside Poland."
- In other words, the active role of Germany, the USSR and Slovakia is clear from the context, so there is no need to stress it again. However, as I already said, it is desirable to replace "by" with "between".--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Paul, the thing is that the principal dividers of Polish territory were Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Both Slovakia and Lithuania's role was very very minor. If you want to we can clarify this in a footnote. But it is misleading to have a sentence like that which gives the impression that all four of the countries played an equal role.
In regard to the second issue, I already suggested some wording above. Volunteer Marek 07:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The statement "...Poland was divided between Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia" implies no roles, neither equal nor unequal. The fact that Poland was invaded by two powers (+one puppet state) is clear from the previous sentence, so I see no reason to re-iterate the same thing again. The fact that present days Lithuania acquired significant part of its territory, including its capital, as a result of division of Poland has long lasting political consequences, and I do not see why should it go to the footnote. Re your the issue, as I already said, I agree in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, actually stated that way it does suggest equal roles. The fact is 1) that the vast majority of pre war Polish territory was acquired by two states, Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. 2) Slovakia and Lithuania (which by October 1939 was almost a puppet state as well) got scraps. 3) Slovakia and Lithuania did not play a central or active role in the division of Poland. They were not signatories of Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Hence you cannot say that they "divided". If you don't the footnote, then perhaps parentheses. But it is misleading to put Nazi Germany and Soviet Union on one hand, and Slovakia and Lithuania on an equal footing in regard to the 1939 division of Poland (whether "by" or "between"). Volunteer Marek 07:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- And if we were striving for precision here then the proper wording would be something like "...Poland was divided by Germany and the Soviet Union, who then turned around and gave small portions of pre-war Polish territory to their satellites and allies, Slovakia and Lithuania, respectively" (wording could be better, but that's the gist of what happened. If I mug you, take 100$ from you, then turn around and give 5$ of that 100$ I took from you to my cousin, my cousin didn't mug you nor would it be accurate to say that me and my cousin divided your money). Volunteer Marek 07:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be correct to say that the money was divided. There's nothing to say it was divided equally, you are just inferring that. Britmax (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't say it would be "incorrect", I said it would be "inaccurate", two different things. You can be technically correct but still be very very inaccurate. The statement "the Earth is at least 5 years old" is correct but not accurate, and, as here, somewhat misleading and useless. And yes I am inferring that because the way the information is presented it does suggest that Lithuania and Slovakia, which got .01 of Polish territory, were the same as Nazi Germany and Soviet Union, which got .99 of Polish territory. See the problem? Volunteer Marek 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, it would be correct to say that the money was divided. There's nothing to say it was divided equally, you are just inferring that. Britmax (talk) 08:44, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- And if we were striving for precision here then the proper wording would be something like "...Poland was divided by Germany and the Soviet Union, who then turned around and gave small portions of pre-war Polish territory to their satellites and allies, Slovakia and Lithuania, respectively" (wording could be better, but that's the gist of what happened. If I mug you, take 100$ from you, then turn around and give 5$ of that 100$ I took from you to my cousin, my cousin didn't mug you nor would it be accurate to say that me and my cousin divided your money). Volunteer Marek 07:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The current wording on Slovakia and Lithuania also seems basically OK to me. This is a high level article, and we don't need to (and shouldn't) go into the details of the many territorial changes which took place as a result of the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, but that is an argument for omitting Slovakia and Lithuania. The % of pre war Polish territory which wound up as part of Lithuania/SSR Lithuania was less than one-half-of-one percent, .005. The & of pre war Polish territory which wound up as part of Slovakia was about the same (maybe slightly larger). Together the two countries got 1% of pre war Polish territory. Soviet Union and Nazi Germany took the other 99%. They're just not comparable in this regard and the present wording is misleading.
- Second, Slovakia and Lithuania were not "active" dividers here, unlike Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
- Finally, and perhaps more importantly, there is some WP:OR and WP:SYNTH issues here. How is this event described in reliable source? Do most reliable - and general - sources on the topic state that Poland was divided between Lithuania, Slovakia, Germany and Soviet Union? No. Most of them just mention Soviet Union and Germany, a few talk a little about subsequent adjustments to the MR Pact which put Lithuania into the Soviet sphere and almost none bother mentioning Slovakia. Of course specialized works do but, like you said, this is a general level article.
- This seems to be exactly the kind of details that footnotes were invented for. If not then it's misleading to present that kind of statement without further information since it gives the reader the impression that all four of these countries were at least roughly on equal footing. And that's also why most reliable sources do not describe it in these terms. Volunteer Marek 17:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- We can simply state that Nazi Germany and the USSR partitioned Poland equally between them. The USSR took 51% of Polish territory, but "equally" is a more accurate statement than "USSR took the majority" at this level of summarization. PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC) - @Paul, what, exactly is "inflammatory" about the fact that Nazi Germany and the USSR as co-belligerents and per prior agreement divided Eastern Europe. Only you deny and make excuses regarding the radio signals for the Luftwaffe (including, as I recall from a prior conversation, your personal contentions that the Soviets were somehow duped). Hitler's and Stalin's partnership is not fiction. Meanwhile, your "neutral" wording would appear to paint Lithuania and Slovakia equal partners in the partition of Poland at the outset of WWII. Or am I missing something? PЄTЄRS
JV ►TALK 15:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)- Re radio signals, I do not deny that. By contrast, I explained the details of this story. These details show that alleged transmission of the word "Minsk" by Minsk radio station (during some unspecified period) is hardly an evidence of serious cooperation. If this is the only evidence of cooperation you have, then you have virtually no evidences. You should either present real evidences or to stop that nonsense.
- Re "to paint Lithuania and Slovakia equal partners" If territory was divided between four countries, that does not mean that they were equal partners. However, if you suggest to specify concrete shares, let's be consistent, and apply this approach to the article in general. The article in its current form does not specify relative scale of the events, and relative roles of different countries in them, as well as of relative military contributions of different countries in general. Theoretically, I see no problem with explaining these details, however, that would require us to modify the article's concept in general.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Paul, including the relative shares would be an improvement but, per Nick above, I do think that this is the kind of detail that is not necessary in a general level article. Hence my suggestion of a footnote. Also, I'm not seeing any kind of potential for inconsistency here with the rest of the article. If we go this route then relative shares and the like should be used when they are particularly relevant or informative - they are both here and perhaps in other places in the article. But we don't need to put them for every single piece of text. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that a footnote should be added after the sentence "...Poland was divided between Germany, the Soviet Union, Lithuania and Slovakia" to explain relative shares of Polish territory acquired by all four parties.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- When it comes not only to the quantity, but to the quality of shares, I think it is quite an important fact that Lithuania gained its present capital, Vilnius, a historically important city, from that division. This makes the Lithuanian participation in that division, whether active or passive, quite notable. GreyHood Talk 18:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- How about tweaking the wording to Poland's territory was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union, with Lithuania and Slovakia also receiving small shares. The Poles did not surrender, however, and established a Polish Underground State and the insurgent Home Army, and continued to fight on Allied fronts outside Poland. Given that the division of Poland lasted less than two years and Poland's territory ended up being changed quite considerably at the end of the war (with those borders, as far as I'm aware, remaining in place since that time) the 1939 division doesn't seem to justify all that much material in this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I like the first part. With regard to the second one, I am not sure it is totally factually correct. Maybe Marek can tell more about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- I also like the first part (whether or not we want a footnote on top of that change which gives more precise shares can still be discussed). For the second part I'd make the changes which I proposed above (fixing grammar and changing "insurgent" to "underground"), which I don't think anybody's objected to. Volunteer Marek 00:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I like the first part. With regard to the second one, I am not sure it is totally factually correct. Maybe Marek can tell more about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- How about tweaking the wording to Poland's territory was divided between Germany and the Soviet Union, with Lithuania and Slovakia also receiving small shares. The Poles did not surrender, however, and established a Polish Underground State and the insurgent Home Army, and continued to fight on Allied fronts outside Poland. Given that the division of Poland lasted less than two years and Poland's territory ended up being changed quite considerably at the end of the war (with those borders, as far as I'm aware, remaining in place since that time) the 1939 division doesn't seem to justify all that much material in this article. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Paul, including the relative shares would be an improvement but, per Nick above, I do think that this is the kind of detail that is not necessary in a general level article. Hence my suggestion of a footnote. Also, I'm not seeing any kind of potential for inconsistency here with the rest of the article. If we go this route then relative shares and the like should be used when they are particularly relevant or informative - they are both here and perhaps in other places in the article. But we don't need to put them for every single piece of text. Volunteer Marek 17:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- The current wording on Slovakia and Lithuania also seems basically OK to me. This is a high level article, and we don't need to (and shouldn't) go into the details of the many territorial changes which took place as a result of the war. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thailand as an Axis nation?
I thought Thailand was a co-belligerent much like Finland or Iraq. At least, that's how it was described on the Axis Powers page as well as other encyclopedias. Is there a way to change that in the box which lists all the belligerents? Repdetect117 (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Aftermath Section
While the European colonial powers attempted to retain some or all of their colonial empires, their losses of prestige and resources during the war rendered this unsuccessful, leading to decolonisation. 1: Britain decolonised of it's own accord, see British Empire it didn't try to retain anything. 2: Great Britain lost no prestige during the war, rather it was a victor and if anything it's prestige increased. Changing paragraph to mainland European powers. Twobells (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Britain waged at least one colonial war after WWII ended (Malayan emergency). Suez crisis can also be regarded as an attempt of former colonial powers to retain their most valuable possessions.
- Regarding "prestige", the issue is more complex. Before WWII, population of colonies saw white man as invincible, so any colonial army was seen as a force that cannot be defeated even theoretically. The course of WWII events demonstrated that that is not the case any more: Japanese troops have beaten British, Dutch and French forces, thereby demonstrating that White Man is just an ordinary man (although with white skin). That had a important psychological effect on the population of colonies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- There were growing independence movements in most British colonies before WWII and the financial impact of WII itself contributed to a position where maintaining the required resources to prevent that was unaffordable.
- Add to that both overt and covert support from the US to independence movements in British India. The outcomes indicated that an empire that was widely dispersed and largely dependent on commerce became vulnerable to the imperial ambitions of one that had ready access to mineral resource in the homeland.
- ALR (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I deleted the world "mainland" from "mainland European colonial powers," thus reverting User:Twobells previous edit. I believe previous editor's change was well intentioned, but introduced an incorrect meaning. The modifier "mainland" seems only to remove Britain from the set "European colonial powers." Yet the map while illustrates this section shows the British Empire among the other colonial empires at the time of the War. Also this sentence includes a link to an article on decolonialisation, which specifically deals with the post-War breakup of the British Empire (among others). Thus there seems no reason for this qualification. Hult041956 (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
"Germany set out to establish a large empire in Europe."
I read this sentence in the introduction and it sounds like conjecture to me. Is there are reference for this? Perhaps some German document stating. "Germany wants to establish a large empire in Europe" or am I missing something? My recommendation would be to remove the sentence as the following sentence seems to present the facts better. If there must be a sentence then perhaps the alternative could be something like "Germany set out to expand its territory in Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by DallyingLlama (talk • contribs) 22:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- German plans were not limited with expansion of its own territory. It preferred to annex just small part of its territorial acquisitions: it annexed a part of Poland, but it preferred to convert other part to General-Governorship. Czhechoslovakia had been split onto puppet Slovakia and Protectorate of Moravia and Bohemia. North-Western part of the USSR was converted to Reichskomissariat Ostland. France had been split onto semi-independent Vichy state and German occupied North. Definitely, to say that German geopolitical goal was just to expand its territory would be simply wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I found ww2 interesting because hitler could have won. he made three fatal mistakes as a general. 1.)left 20k of the british army escape via the france invasion. After this event britain was superior in the air unlike ww1 which was unexpected. 2.)Barbarossa was set back because of the Italian invasion of greece. Italy made many dumb mistakes. 3.)got greedy and tried to take another greek province (the greeks are heavy fighters when outnumbered but never invade due to lack of organization) stalingrad because of the oil reserve upon the caucus straits and ural steppe. The supplies is what destroyed the advance. From what i gather, lack of resources ran out, therefore the oil reserves in the ukraine, ignoring stalingrad, and weapon cache shipments could have kept the luftewaffe in the air, mostly in warmer weather. If he went straight for moscow, stalingrad could be a north-south american independence type issue (eg same with the american civil war, yet the confederates capital was taken instead because of one or two false moves by an even worst general, lee). Even if he didnt invade russia, he may have won later. I don't condone killing and believe the war machine must be broken, but maybe the bad people, like 2% of the world were just being weeded out to make room for things to come, afterall its a matter of acting with the soul or not, who knows. Either that, or the civilian population def deserve to suffer or be controlled eg punished somehow because of its lack of compassion.
PS: I would site (copy paste) most information here under the battle for moscow user talk page. ---69.255.42.105 (talk) 22:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Putting the Start Date and End Date at Beginning
It is very helpful to see the birth and death dates of people, and wars. For instance, you could put "World War II, (1 September 1939 – 2 September 1945), also called the Second World War..." 70.56.235.169 (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- ^ May, Ernest R (2000). Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France (Google books). I.B.Tauris. p. 93. ISBN 1850433291. Retrieved 15 November 2009.
- ^ Roskill, S.W. (1954). The War at Sea 1939–1945 Volume 1 : The Defensive. History of the Second World War. United Kingdom Military Series. London: HMSO. p. 64.
- ^ Fritz, Martin (2005). "Economic Warfare". In Dear, I.C.B and Foot, M.R.D. (ed.). The Oxford Companion to World War II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 248. ISBN 9780192806703.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - ^ Zaloga, Steven J.; Gerrard, Howard (2002). Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg (Google books). Osprey Publishing. p. 83. ISBN 1841764086. Retrieved 15 November 2009.
- Wikipedia articles that use British English
- Wikipedia good articles
- History good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- GA-Class Australia articles
- Top-importance Australia articles
- WikiProject Australia articles
- GA-Class military history articles
- GA-Class military aviation articles
- Military aviation task force articles
- GA-Class military historiography articles
- Military historiography task force articles
- GA-Class maritime warfare articles
- Maritime warfare task force articles
- GA-Class military memorials and cemeteries articles
- Military memorials and cemeteries task force articles
- GA-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- GA-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- GA-Class African military history articles
- African military history task force articles
- GA-Class Asian military history articles
- Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
- Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
- GA-Class Balkan military history articles
- Balkan military history task force articles
- GA-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- GA-Class Canadian military history articles
- Canadian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Chinese military history articles
- Chinese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Dutch military history articles
- Dutch military history task force articles
- GA-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- GA-Class French military history articles
- French military history task force articles
- GA-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- GA-Class Indian military history articles
- Indian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Italian military history articles
- Italian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Japanese military history articles
- Japanese military history task force articles
- GA-Class Korean military history articles
- Korean military history task force articles
- GA-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- GA-Class Polish military history articles
- Polish military history task force articles
- GA-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
- Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
- GA-Class South Asian military history articles
- South Asian military history task force articles
- GA-Class Spanish military history articles
- Spanish military history task force articles
- GA-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- GA-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- Failed requests for military history A-Class review
- GA-Class European history articles
- Top-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages
- GA-Class Germany articles
- High-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- GA-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- GA-Class Italy articles
- High-importance Italy articles
- All WikiProject Italy pages
- GA-Class United States articles
- Top-importance United States articles
- GA-Class United States articles of Top-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- GA-Class New Zealand articles
- Top-importance New Zealand articles
- WikiProject New Zealand articles
- GA-Class Soviet Union articles
- Top-importance Soviet Union articles
- WikiProject Soviet Union articles
- GA-Class Russia articles
- Top-importance Russia articles
- Top-importance GA-Class Russia articles
- GA-Class Russia (history) articles
- History of Russia task force articles
- WikiProject Russia articles
- GA-Class United Kingdom articles
- High-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles
- GA-Class France articles
- High-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- GA-Class Bulgaria articles
- High-importance Bulgaria articles
- WikiProject Bulgaria articles
- GA-Class Serbia articles
- High-importance Serbia articles
- WikiProject Serbia articles
- GA-Class Vietnam articles
- High-importance Vietnam articles
- All WikiProject Vietnam pages
- GA-Class Albania articles
- High-importance Albania articles
- WikiProject Albania articles
- GA-Class Greek articles
- High-importance Greek articles
- WikiProject Greece history articles
- All WikiProject Greece pages
- GA-Class Poland articles
- Top-importance Poland articles
- WikiProject Poland articles
- GA-Class former country articles
- WikiProject Former countries articles
- Wikipedia pages referenced by the press
- Selected anniversaries (August 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (September 2004)