Talk:World War II

†

Would it be accurate to put these signs † on Hitler and Mussolini? They both died during the war did they? Hitler from suicide and Mussolini from resistance? 70.118.39.222 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That mark indicates a person who died in battle, it would not be appropriate for either Hitler or Mussolini as neither died in combat with their enemies. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case there cannot be many of this Christian symbol in Wikipedia articles about famous people after 1815 (the Vienna congress, and end of the Napoleon wars). Infact I think it's a bad sign to use for "killed in battle". Reason is simply that it's a Christian symbol, and Jesus Christ didn't preach war (on the other side Jesus didn't tell us to use a cross eighter, but anyway) Boeing720 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's a dagger, so no Christian symbolism is intended. FallingGravity (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Addition of new external links

I've added links to 'Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War' (1945) and 'The German Question' (1946). Both of these are reprints of historically significant texts. Both were published as the war came to an end or just after and both were economic and cultural analysis of statism that were instrumental in forming policy after the war and "The German Miracle". Rothbardanswer (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that this article doesn't have links to any of the thousands of books which were inspired by or written about the war, why link these obscure books? I note that you've been spamming these and similar links from http://mises.org/ all over the place - this looks a lot like POV pushing (not least as the period after the war was dominated by Keynesian-type economic policies rather than the Austrian school). Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think they are appropriate external links. They are for links to websites not articles. The appropriate place to include them would be "Additional reading", including full reference to the books, e.g., author, original publisher, with an optional external link. But I doubt any of these books are significant. Usually if an historical book is significant, such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in liberalism articles, it is mentioned in the text of the article with an internal link to its own article. Then that article can have an external link but usually to the best sites available. I notice that the Mises copy of Wilhelm Roepke's book is already linked to mises.org in his article, which I believe provides adequate assistance for interested readers. TFD (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry chaps! I hadn't noticed the additional reading section. I think I'll find a link to the German edition of the General Theory as well. Keynes wrote in the introduction that his economic ideas were better suited to national socialist governments. Why do you "doubt any of these books are significant"? I've already said they were actually instrumental in policy decisions of the German miracle. I only use mises.org because it's a big online library that's easy to remember and link too. Almost everything they publish is reprints. (obviously both these books were published before the press even existed). But I'll make sure to vary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wirtschaftswunder took place after 1948 and this article is about the war that ended in 1945. Here is a link to Keynes' German intro, which you have misrepresented. In any case it has nothing to do with the war. TFD (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly :) The Wirtschaftswunder (German Miracle) happened after the war, in large part thanks to these books and their effect on policy. As I said I've included them because they were written around the end of the war. You don't think economic ideas have anything to do with war TFD? I'm glad you mentioned the Ropke page because it has a long list of links to the mises online library. I think that shows that people just use it for convenience :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with linking to liberal thinktanks that have complete copies of books. I just think that the links should be made where appropriate. Rebuilding Germany after the war is a separate subject. The Mont Pelerin Society, ordoliberalism, etc., is not even mentioned in this article. TFD (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

POV/info from "Aftermath" section

A map thumbnail on the aftermath states: "World map of colonisation in 1945. With the end of the war, the wars of national liberation ensued, leading to the creation of Israel, together with the decolonisation of Asia and Africa."

I am confused as to why the lone nation of Israel merits specific mention, in a sentence regarding the vast decolonization and independence of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Indochina?

24.43.193.2 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, you're new to Wikipedia, aren't you? Let's just say it's a little like the New York Times, but more so. SBHarris 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

? I don't understand what that means... 208.57.65.41 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you think this material should read? This is a wiki, and the content isn't set in stone. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think mention of Israel is justified because of the outstanding situation of Jews during the WWII. They were the ethnic group that suffered more then any other nation. I think no changes are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"They were the ethnic group that suffered more then any other nation."... That's a debatable opinion, no? 208.57.65.41 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The establishment of Israel should be mentioned but the wording is confusing. TFD (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought more chinese and russian civilians died during the war than jews, wouldnt that make slavic and chinese ethnic groups the ones who suffered more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.170.121 (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Vichy France?

In the "Client and puppet states" or "Belligerents", should France not be mentioned? Between 1940 and 1944, the Vichy government was the officially-recognised government of France by the Allies (not to mention the Axis). Surely they can be on both sides of the box to reflect that France was on the side of the Allies for 9 months of the war and on the side of the Axis for 4 years? Even if the distinction is made of "France (Third Republic)" vs "France (Vichy)". Currently the article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just checked, and the French language Wikipedia has both listed as above. Can we take a lead from that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a grey area, the Vichy regime was officially neutral for its entire existence, though the Free French engaged in what was effectively a civil war with active British support for the entire duration. There was never any declaration of war against Vichy or by the Vichy regime against anyone, so it would be inaccurate to describe them as an Axis belligerent. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, Vichy fought against Japan and Japanese led Thailand in Indochina, which makes the issue of belligerence even more confusing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mediatech492 and Paul; Vichy France had a unusual position, and can't be comfortably fitted into the infobox as it was never a co-belligerent of Germany (aside from some tiny German forces which supported the Vichy forces in Syria in 1941). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(Note that this is also being discussed at: Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Free French Forces?) Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, but Vichy was not just a silent partner.

The British (and most of the empire) were de facto at war with Vichy. Vichy bombed Gibraltar, the French fleet was attacked and other ships interned, there was fighting in the Middle East, Africa, and Madagascar that was not just part of the undeclared French Civil War (ala the Vichy and Free French fighting on another). In addition, Vichy provided arms and supplies to the Iraqi rebels during the Anglo-Iraqi War during 1941, as well as providing bases for German and Italian warplanes to interfere in that conflict too.

The article on Vichy Frances notes that the Vichy government "collaborated with the Axis powers during the Second World War. ... It lasted from July 1940 to August 1944. ... In November 1942, ... the southern zone was ... occupied. The Nazis now closely supervised all Vichy officials, who were little more than puppets."

The article also notes Vichy help in the rounding up of Jewish people, and that its diplomatic relations with the various world powers changed over time (i.e. the Soviets recognized the French State until Operation Barbarossa).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Denmark in WW2

Im quite tired that this site dosnt include Denmark as a part of the allied. Denmark and Norway were both occupied by the germans in 1940, they were both liberated in 1945, and they were both a part of the allied, both politically and in their civil millitary...