Talk:World War II

This article was chosen as Article Improvement Drive article of the week on Sunday, 18th December 2005. The archive of the selection process can be found at Talk:World War II/AID vote archive

An event mentioned in this article is a September 1 selected anniversary.

---

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6
Archive 7	Archive 8 (8/05-2/06)
Archive 9 (3/06)	Archive 10 (6/06

GA Collab nom

WW2 has been nominated for the Good Article collaboration. See top. 209.161.227.80 16:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Info box

How about alphabetizing the countries in the two columns in the info box? Would do away with some bickering about listing by importance. — President Lethe 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This infobox is getting out of hand. Infoboxes are not meant to list every single fact and then prioritize them. Really it should just include a few salient points. The infobox is supposed to be useful to someone who doesn't know a lot about the topic.

Are we supposed to list every single ally? Why list New Zealand and not Belgium or The Netherlands? Or Greece but not Yugoslavia? Should we include Czechoslovakia? It's endless. In my opinion we should just list the participants at Yalta and call it a day.

I don't agree. Infobox looks alright. -- tasc ^words_deeds 12:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Beijing v Beiping

I've reverted the recent change of Beijing to Beiping. Beijing seems to be the current standard English usage (see e.g. BBC and Guardian newspaper). Beiping redirects to the Beijing article, and we try to avoid linking to re-directs in articles. If and when Beiping becomes the standard transliteration it would be appropriate to change the name here, until then it's likely to cause confusion. (I initially wondered if it was another place altogether). David Underdown 10:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a transliteration problem, the city actually changed its name several times in the first half of the century as its' status changed: "Beijing" = "northern capital", "Beiping" = "northern peace". During the occupation period of course, it wasn't the Chinese capital, that was Nanjing ("southern capital"). -- Arwel (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Singpore

I'm writing this in response to the editor who remove the statement of Singpore being the "greatest defeat in British history". Mainly in response to your edit summary.

First to say you were probably right to remove the phrase, since 'the greatest' is very subjective and hard to back up. However Singpore is a good contender. Your other suggestions have real problems. Hastings was not a British defeat. Harold was English, and there's a good case for saying the William (the winner) and his people were the ancestors of the British. The Somme, for all its bloodiness, is considered a victory. Churchill himself considered Singapore to be one of the worst defeats in British history, and he was at least a decent amateur historian. At the time the loss of Singapore looked very like it might be the final loss of Britain's Far East colonies. Singapore was a centre for naval operations in the Indian Ocean, and it's loss hugely restricted what Britain could do there. It could very well have been the prelude to the loss of India, a catastrophe probably as serious to Britain in 1942 as the loss of the American colonies was in 1776. More to the point, Singapore was in theory a well-defended fortress and was expected to resist a seige for months if not years. So that's what the phrase was trying to convey. DJ Clayworth 20:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, Churchill might have been trying to distract attention away from something else... john k 12:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

When the war began

The Second World War began in 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China. To argue otherwise is entirely contradictory and logically unsustainable and the myopic eurocentrists can get over it.--Traolach 20:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted, there are some prior discussions and these should be reviewed.

• Talk:World War II/Archive 7#The start of World War II
• Talk:World War II/Archive 8#A debated starting date
• Talk:World War II/Archive 9#Delete 1937 Sino-Japanese War section?

These should provide interesting reading. I tend to agree with Traoloch that 1939 is limited to the European Theatre of Operations. --Habap 21:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

start date of world war 2

...at the risk of starting a small wiki war of my own; i made some minor revisions in the text of the opening of the article regarding the start date given for ww2; when i arrived @ this article the start date was given as 1937, which while arguably quite valid, is still not recognized by the majority of historians or the general public as the official beginning of the war (1939, usually, with national differences of opinion); i am quite open to moving the start date to include either the japanese invasion of china or even the italian invasion of ethiopia, but i am offering this text as a reasonable compromise solution, recognizing the validity of a number of possible dates (including 1941 as the year when the conflict truly became global as oposed to a loosely related series of large-scale regional conflicts). Perhaps it would be a good idea to include an article on wikipedia about the debate over the "offical" starting date of ww2? ...if one doesnt exist already; if it does would someone please include a link & revise the wording accordingly i'm not completely satisfied with the wording as it now stands & am open to suggestions for further improvements  :)

....and when stared out i was just going to make some minor corrections on a few small spelling/grammatical/factual errors... (lol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

I appreciate the effort. However, although all these dates and qualifications might sound beautiful to our sophisticated ears, I am afraid someone who is learning about WWII for the first time might be a little put off by all the numbers and might miss the forest for the trees. We should strive for simplicity as much as possible, especially in a large overview article such as this.

Now my 2 cents. The war in 1937 was an Asian war, not a "world war". I like Asian history, and I'm eager to learn more as people offer it, but it isn't really helpful to quibble over a date when so much about the conflict has yet to be described well on Wikipedia. This viewpoint is not "Eurocentric"... it is world centric. Once the war covers the majority of continents and oceans, then I think it is fair to consider it a world war. The Sino-Japanese war in 1937-38 does not meet these criteria, and for the purposes of a quick and dirty intro we should just write 1939. Haber 19:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The same reasoning applies to 1939. You forget that there was hardly even any fighting in Europe for 6 months after the fall of Poland. The war didn't involve Africa at until 1940 and Oceania, Eastern Europe and the Americas didn't become properly involved until 1941. Moreover the fighting in Europe in the 1939-41 period was far from as brutal as the fighting in Asia since 1937. It is also rather strange to see the war in Asia as being separate from the Second World War for four years, and then sudddenly transforming itself from a regional war into another front of a massive global conflagration just because the "important people", namely the Americans and Europeans become involved. In my view, of the three possible start dates (1937,1939,1941), 1939 is the least legitimate. 1937 as a start date suggests the war began with the first fighting, quite sensible. 1941 claims that it only became "World War II" when it was truly global, which also has its merits. 1939 says the world war began when it began in Europe, which is blatantly biased and eurocentric.

Additionally, fighting between 1937 and 1939 resembled all the characteristics of a World War; aerial bombardment, mass murder of civilians etc. Most obviously of all,it wouldn't make sense to claim the war began in 1939 when we already have an section of the article documenting the events of the Sino-Japanese War. So I say we make it 1937.--Traolach 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I added that section to appease you crazy 1937'ers. I guess that didn't work. Haber 01:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, you added it while the date stood as 1937-45, while us "crazy 1937'ers" would have been in no need of appeasement. You contribrution suggest that you were in fact a "crazy 1937'er".--Nwe 17:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that the "best" start date is September 1st 1939. My main point is exactly what Haber said: "The war in 1937 was an Asian war, not a "world war"", and this is what I have argued for in previous similar discussions. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Name of Britain

I realize the names that the United Kingdom and its related states call themselves are complex and vary over time. However, at the time and in most history books, it was acceptable to refer to the group let by Winston Churchill as simply "Britain". All this talk of the "British Empire" or "Commonwealth" doing this and that is misleading and anachronistic, because right or wrong places such as India and Canada were not really calling the shots and the leadership was in London. One does not talk of the "Battle of the UK" either. Britain was and is the term used by most English-speakers, except for a small community of nitpickers on Wikipedia. Please just let us use it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

How strange. I have never ever heard of the AIF being referred to as British. And if Britain was 'calling the shots' (it was to a great degree admittedly) the AIF would not have been releived in Tobruk, and would have gone to Burma in 1942 rather than returning to Australia. It is not appropriate to call Commonwealth forces British, and it simply isn't done in any history book I have read. I don't know how Indian or Canadian history books handle it. But I understand the confusion of my American friends...there are places further west than California that aren't Europe. The group led by Winston Churchill as you put it is regularly referred to as the Allies. aussietiger 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

the british empire & its commonwealth of nations

i've revised the opening of the article to include a recognition of the british war effort as a collective action by the empire & commonwealth as well as the home country; i admit the wording is less that perfect, but the british war effort was absolutely dependant on the efforts of the empire & commonwealth taken as a whole; with the major countries being canada, australia (& nz), south africa, & india; all of them except for india being effectively separate powers & independant allies, & even india having some significant degree of autonomy. without the combined war effort, britain itself could not have continued the war, & possibly might not have even entered into it. canada particularly deserves recogniton as being a separate power, entering into alliance agreements with the untied states on matters such as the defence of north america (even before the formal entry of the usa into the war), separate from its ties with britian (as did australia, where the american military effectively replaced the british as the leading allied power in the region), canada also was involved more closely in the american efforts to produce atomic weapons, among other things, and canada was included in the representation of most major allied war conferences, certainly the "all powers" ones; with the canadian prime minsiter being included in the churhcill-roosevelt photos of the quebec conference..

also re: nitpickers.... i would assume that you are including winston spencer churchill among the nitpickers, as he spoke of "britian and her empire", "the empire", and "the british empire and it's commonwealth of nations" as a matter of common practice, particularly in discussing the war effort & made a specific effort to do so DURING the war. I recognize that the issue of the commonwealth countries is somewhat problematic as they are simultaneously independant allies, and affiliates of britian; but they were recognized as separate powers, responsible for their own declarations of war (unlike in ww1), and had recogniton as such on the major legal documents relating to the war.

I haven't listed tham all (major empire/commonwealth countries) in the intro to the article as this would take too much space, but i do feel that the unusual nature of the "british" war effort as including more than just the "home/mother country" does deserve some kind of specific recognition. I wuold also like to point out the subtle difference between "britian" as it might have been understood to include the empire & commonweath to a reader in the ww2 era, and "britian" as it is understood to be today (ie: just the uk & close territorial possesions such as the channel islands, isle of manx, etc.; or simply "britain" as being just great britian itself, & specifically excluding northern ireland; i admit that occasionally the few remaining colonies are included, although the practice of including any outside parts of the empire in the terms 'britain" or "british" has pretty much fallen from common usage;) It is both disprespectful & inappropriate to simply lump the empire/commonwealth cuontries all together as "british" without at least adding this caveat.

It's also inaccurate.

i'm not looking to start a war here, but the matter is too important to just let it pass.

also, the british seat on the UN security council was originally meant as a "british empire" seat; the addition of a second permanent/veto seat for a commonwealth country would have been seen as unacceptablle to some of the other powers & it would have been somewhat problematic as australia (or aus/nz) & canada both had populations too small & india was too poor too troubled & too non-white to be considered; i believe there was a fair amount of discussion of these issues @ the time the UN was being formed, but there's rly not a good compromise option that offers itself... a "commonwealth seat"? an aus/nz/ca seat? As with so many things about the UN, including only one "british" seat was the "political" & somewhat unsatisfactory compromise that was reached. the subsequent falling away of the other commonwealth countries from britain has changed the preception of the british seat on the sec. coun. from empire to just home country & it certainly nvr really worked as being representative of the empire & commonwealth as a whole. currently there is good reason to argue that neither britian nor france rly deserves a permanent/veto sec. coun. seat anymore, and that the membership/structure/voting powers of the UN should be changed to better reflect current world realities & perhaps democratic prinicples, but changing it has proved to be rather difficult (yes off-topic i know, i digress... but i'm not the only one who does...).

the "big 5" representation included both a france that had been defeated in 1940 & who's subsequent (or total) contributions to the allied war effort, while not completely negligible, were rather less than those of the major commonwealth countries, and chiang-kai-chek's kuomintang "republic of china" which did not represent the entire chinese nation, or effectively govern the whole of "free" (non japanese occupied) chinese territory. while china certainlly did contribute (& suffer) greatly during the war against japan, arguably the communist chinese were the more effective "ally" in the actual fighting (as well as eventually decicively wining the chinese civil war against chiang & the kmt), & on the whole they did not receive the recognition they deserved from the western powers, particulary in subsequent & later UN politcs.

long story short: the UN seats were given out for laregely political reasons & they do not accurately reflect the relative conributions and/or significance of allied nations in WW2.

as a candian i'll quietly point out that @ the end of world war 2, if you were to make a list of the "great powers" the ranking would be something like: usa & ussr as the 2 superpowers, then it's something of a toss-up between canada & china; the chinese having a larger army, but far less advanced technologically & less well equipped, & split btwn 2 major factions already engaging in the beginning of the end-phase of the chinese civil war; canada having a more technologically advanced & far better equipped military, although somewhat unbalanced as it was geared to serve as part of a combined western allied force, rather than a stand-alone power. ...germany & japan not being counted, having of course been defeated & italy being in the somewhat awkward position of having tried to change sides in the middle of the war & having thoroughly disproved its status as a great power with its combat record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

I think we agree on a lot of things. Canada, India, Australia etc. all made significant contributions. Churchill is possibly the greatest world leader in history. On how to write a quick introduction to WWII, I guess we disagree. In my mind, the WWII term "Britain" is loose shorthand for the UK, India, Canada, NZ, Australia, mandates, parts of Africa, random islands, etc., with the understanding that most of the important decisions were made in London. Churchill had to be careful in his speeches not to underplay anyone's importance, and therefore used stilted terms that still sound unusual. He also talks about "Britons" and "Our Island". The BBC thinks "Britain" is ok. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/. Roosevelt writes about "Great Britain and Ireland" http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/WorldWar2/fdr3.htm. If people from the non-UK regions have such a problem with being called "British", then what is the problem with acknowledging Britain as the leader of this group? Do you really think that Ottawa was leading the war? If so, then how many other "leaders" do we have to count up before we can say we are being fair?

Let's compromise... I'll leave the intro alone as long as you promise not to go through the article and mangle every sentence that uses the words "Britain" or "British". Haber 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If Canada was such an influence, then why wasn't their prime minister included in "The Big Three" to become, "The Big Four?" Oyo321 23:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh. Love it. Big four. Could be big five... Poland fancies itself as some sort of a superpower like Canada too. Seriously, folks. Canada is not in the league of Britain, USA or the Soviet Union. We all have to know our pecking order... As far as the use of "British" is concerned, there is nothing special about Canada. England would have missed India more than Canada. Remember that Canada is just another country in the British Commonwealth..... OK. Canada was handy as a base/staging post for transport planes and stuff from the USA in the earlier parts of WW2. Think I saw a film about this with James Cagney once, with a whole lot of Canadian pilots in a very very smokey room. Wallie 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

clean-up this discussion page?

i've just added an (i admit) rather too long section to the dialogue on this page & then found several redundant sections covering the same subject from diverse angles... i dont think that anyone's comments should be either deleted or edited (by other ppl), but as we've already got some HUGE archives going of talk on this page, maybe we should consider having some poor b*****d go through & try to group things logically & simplify the topics listing & just generaly sort this thing out, because it rly is a bloody mess atm... i'm not volunteering i'm just saying...  ;) lol, does anybody want to draw straws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

World War 2 PORTAL or WIKI? and general clean-up & improvements for this article and section/category

What about a portal for world war 2? ww1? the world wars? war/human conflict/conflict in general? lol the possibilities are unlimited, but i do think that with the profusion of material & the importance of the subject we should get a portal going.... if there is one already i cant find a link to it on the article page & if it's there it should be MUCH more visible (or i should go have my vision tested... ) Wikipedia seems to have an overlapping structure of information groupings: portals, categories, indexes, & god knows what other diverse odd stuff on the one hand, & still some shortcomings in indexing/cross referencing & particularly searching on the other. i know this isn't really the place to enter into a full discussion on the subject, the problems & how to fix it all; but the subject & the article do offer a vry good working example, both of the problems & (hopefully) of ways to fix them... i noticed that the article was nominated for "best of wiki" & that it didnt make the cut & i can understand both...

What i'd suggest is:

1. put all the ww2 info together into categories, portals, & whatever else wiki has got for sorting info into categories

2. tidy it all up & make sure everything is cross-referenced & linked @ as many useful points as possible

3. check through related articles for accuracy & consistancy of info, following both wikipedia principles & as much inclusiveness as possible

4. just generally go through the articles & fix up errors & tidy grammar & organization & sort out what parts belong in which articles rather better than it is right now

also the links @ the bottom, both internal to wiki & external need to be better sorted; maybe there should be specific sub-pages for both? ie: a page of pages of wikipedia ww2 links & a page of pages of off-site ww2 links

for that matter, what about a world war 2 wiki? or ww1 & 2? or see above re: portals (lol)

...thats not too much to ask for i hope? i'll just go & find my magic lamp  ;)

this article does have the potential to be "best of wiki" & the subject in general is important enough to deserve some serious attention & improvements on wikipedia; but i ageee that the ww2 subject page is just getting too damn looooooong...

it needs to be cut down with the excess info moved to the relevant subject articles, and what is kept here needs to be improved in many places...

i hope this discussion topic comtributes something useful

...and hope ppl can find it stuck down here on (what is for now) the bottom of this looooong talk page. o, its just me, i know & i'll get an account eventually, i didnt rly plan on getting in this deep just now, i got started on one little thing & you know how it is.... lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.100.179 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for your comments. There is a Portal:War, and there also is a Category:World War II with several sub-categories. Yes, this article is rather long. Since the topic is so huge it's hard to keep it from growing when people add what they think is so important that it should be included here. What to include and what not is a subjective thing where people from all over the world have different oppinions on what is important enough to be in this main article and what should be left out and instead included in the many sub-articles we have on the war. But overall this article isn't that bad, in my oppinion. Shanes 23:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

The edit war over the war's start date (1937 or 1939) has gone on long enough. I think some sort of compromise is necessary, even at the cost of a few extra lines in the intro.--Nwe 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a 'few extra lines' is too many. This is a big intro already, and we can't spend several lines discussing the start date. A few extra words might be OK.

Whatever we do, when we decide on it we should archive the decision under an easy to find name like Talk:World War II/Dates of the war so that we don't have the same argument every year. We also have to be very clear on something: there is no definitely right answer to this. We have to make a judgement. Let's also be very clear: almost all western sources give the dates as 1939-1945. To say anything else is to go against a huge body of reputable scholarly opinion.

Here are some reputable sources:

• Encarta:1939
• Britannica:1939
• BBC:1939

DJ Clayworth 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I definitely like the sub-topic talk idea. That would make it far easier to refer to prior discussions. --Habap 14:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Just excellent. Haber 22:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

In the intro every word counts and should be justified. Here we have: "The war was fought in response to the expansionist and racist policies of Nazi Germany". I don't think "racist" belongs here. Not that think that the Nazi policies weren't racist, but I don't think it was their racist element that prompted the war. Rather the war was fought in response to German expansionism and military agression. Any disagreements? DJ Clayworth 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I also notice that more space is given in the intro to the aftermath of the war than the war itself. I think this is wrong, and at least a couple of sentences should be given to the scope of the war and sequence of events, with just a sentence or two on the aftermath. DJ Clayworth 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well it was racism that led to the genocide of Jews, so racism is an appropriate word. The beginnnings of World War II are very important, and Hitler's attempt for world domination. Oyo321 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but my point is that the Allied powers didn't go to war over the genocide of the Jews. The genocide wasn't well-known in 1939. Genocide later turned out of have been a reason why fighting the war was a good thing, but not a reason why the Allies went to war. Hitler's agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes. DJ Clayworth 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth. The "race reasons" for the war were extremely insignificant compared to the "expansionism reasons". Of course, there were foreign worries about the "Jewish question" (sadly minor), but it is beyond any doubt that it was Hitler's methodical annexation of country after country that triggered the war in Europe - one has just to study the diplomacy that went on prior to the outbreak. The plans of genocide were not known at that point, and it is not even certain there were any firm German plans at that point, but that is an entirely different question. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I originally wrote that sentence. An intro to WWII must emphasize Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Without the racism reference, one could easily read the whole article, with the exception of the casualties section, and completely miss that the Germans had fallen for a really bad idea. Saying Hitler was a militarist and aggressive and wanted to conquer other lands just isn't enough. There is no way that he could have gotten the Germans to kill that many Slavs without racism. That this kind of thing can happen in a modern civilization is the take-home lesson of WWII. If we tell the story of the war in dry, completely inoffensive "he wanted all the land and power, and the Allies didn't want to give it to him, and now let's talk about Army Group B", then we're only giving a one-dimensional view of the war. Haber 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel that more can be written about the Nazi's racist policies then fine, there are other places in the article it can go. And nobody disagrees with pointing out that such racism existed. But the sentence as it stood was a falsehood - the Allies did not primarily go to war for reasons of racism. We are not helping at all if we start making false statements. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

True America did not go to war against racist policies in Nazi Germany. I don't agree that Hitler's "agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes" were the reasons that U.S. went to war. Pearl Harbor was one thing, and the fact that Churchill was wailing for help as the last sole fighter in Europe would have had absolutely no chance of keeping the U.S. neutral. Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

The statements above refer to why the war happened, not why the US decided to join in. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

DJ you're right. I'll work it in somewhere else. Haber 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Roots of the war

In the first paragraph: ...roots in earlier conflicts such as the Second Sino-Japanese War..."

Isn't that a little bit exclusive of the European theatre? Would anyone object to adding, say, WWI to that? -ChunkySoup 11:29pm 7/16/2006

Yes I would. The intro is too long on the causes already. However I have removed the specific reference to the Sino-Japanese war. DJ Clayworth 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. If WW1 had not happened, it is unlikely WW2 would have in that way. Many historians state that WW2 was a follow on from WW1. Wallie 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Once again i think the intro has got out of balance. I propose a new one. Essentially I've added:

The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; and also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

DJ Clayworth 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

hmmm. ...and in and around Asia (Japan, China, Burma, India, Soviet Union)... and in and around Australia (Coral Sea, New Guinea, Darwin, Midway)... and in and around Africa (Lybia, Sudan, Egypt)... Wallie 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Many of those are in/around the Pacific or Europe. And it does say majority of the fighting. We're looking for a brief summary here, not an exhaustive list. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Enigma machine

This part is heavily biased in my view. The text mentions that the Poles were somehow central in breaking the code. NO mention is made of the main country involved with the Enigma machine, i.e. the Germans. There is no mention of how the machine was invented, how it was used, whose idea it was. All it mentions is how some Pole cracked part of the code. I always think it is easier to break a system than come up with one... Wallie 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not the machine itself that is significant here, it's the breaking of it. And for that it's the Poles and the British that were signficant. The Enigma machine article itself should go into more details about its construction.

However having said that while two major incidents in the Enigma saga are mentioned there is no description at all of the the Ultra project, one of the most significant parts of WWII. I think it should get its own (short) section under Technology. DJ Clayworth 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Categorization at the bottom of this talk page

Why are Germany, the Soviet Union, China, Japan, Italy and India not mentioned here? Did you all know that they took part in World War 2? Or so you have to be 1) A victor, 2) have mainly "white" people in your country and 3) be a current "western" power to be included on this list? Another lot of bias, I fear. Wallie 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The categories are actively added by military history task forces for the country in question. I would imagine that there is no Chinese or Russian or Japanese military history task force, and thus that these kind of fall through the cracks. This is the bias of user interests happening to be concentrated in certain areas, not some kind of active bias. john k 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, the countries above are not mentioned? I agree that the existence of Germany and U.S.S.R in the war (escpecially U.S.S.R) is a bit small. But the contributions of the rest of the countries you've named and not named are too small to be said of anything (no offense). China was in total chaos-a civil war engulfed by the Japanese invasion. Techincally China was fighting Japan, but not much was done to help stop the Japanese. Italy's contribution as an ally to Germany was also very small-the brainwashing effect of Italy's people by Hitler had no effect, and Italy never was interested in war. After Mussolini's death, his military crumbled, doing no good for Germany. India didn't do the actual fighting. India provided mostly artillery support for British troops and medical care, which a lot of smaller nations have done. So, technically, there should be more information on other countries, but I don't agree that its a bias. Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Union also on the offensive

In the intro, it should be mentioned that the Soviet Union had aggressive expansionist plans. Stalin had explicitly mentioned even in his public speeches that the modern army is an attacking army. He also partitioned Europe with Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. Partitioning territory of sovereign state is an act of war especially when the plans were implemented with the Baltic states and Poland. His plans were partly realized in the later stages of the war, when the Soviets invaded half of Europe. I already added Stalin's aggressive expansionist policy to the "causes of war" paragraph in the intro, but it was removed as a "minor cause". Care to explain? When the largest state in Europe mobilized five million men, that's hardly minor. --Vuo 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll gladly explain. It wasn't a major cause because war wasn't declared in response to it. If Soviet expansionism had been a major cause the Allies would have declared war on the Soviet Union. If Stalin had sat at home and not been expansionist the war would still have happened. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the naive view that Stalin was entirely passive. I wonder when people will start seeing past official Communist propaganda. Whether war was declared on which grounds, or what would have happened in a given scenario, is irrelevant. Stalin first partitioned Europe with Germany, and was planning to attack west. One of the first wars in the Second World War was Winter War, where Stalin attacked Finland. Germany wasn't involved in this war. The pattern you can see here is that both Germany and the Soviet Union planned an attack towards each other. --Vuo 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Complete Re-Design of this Page

One of the most annoying things about this World War II article is that it is split up into many sub-sections which cover all the events but don't flow together.

I suggest we do a better job in grouping the articles. Like instead of going year by year and theatre by theatre, we cover one theatre and move onto the next.

For example, we can cover the whole course of events of North African theatre in one area instead of splitting it up in per year basis.

World_war_I

Also take a look at the world war I article, which is a Featured Article. I think thats how this article needs to be build around.

Here is how I think this article should be split up. All the Information is here, so it will take very little time to get this article re-organized.

German Invasion of Poland and Western Europe (1939 - 1940)

Atlantic Campaign (1939 - 1943)

North African and Mediterranean Campaign (1940 - 1944)

German Invasion of Soviet Union (June 1941 - December 1941)

Sino-Japanese War (1937-1941)

USA and Japan enter the War (December 1941 - June 1942)

Eastern Front (December 1941 - February 1943)

Air Campaign over Germany (1942 - 1945)

South Pacific Campaign (1942 - 1944)

Central Pacific Campaign (1942 - 1944)

South East Asia (1942 - 1945)

Sino-Japanese War (1941 - 1945)

Eastern Front (February 1943 - June 1944)

Italian Campaign (1943 - 1945)

Occupied Europe (1940 - 1944)

Atlantic Campaign (1943 - 1945)

Western Europe (1944 - 1945)

Eastern Front (June 1944 - January 1945)

Occupied Asia (1942 - 1944)

Air Campaign over Japan (1942 - 1945)

Defeat of Japan (1944 - 1945)

Defeat of Germany (1944 - 1945)

Let Me Know.....

Mercenary2k 08:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

During my time at Wikipedia this page has already been completely redesigned twice. I guarantee that if we redesign it now, someone will suggest another redesign in a year or so. DJ Clayworth 15:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a rewrite like the one you suggest deserves consideration. And such a rewrite was actually well underway a year ago here (that page was prod-deleted a while back, but I restored it now since I find it useful to point people to it, not to say that someone might even want to continue that rewrite). Shanes 15:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the best way to present this article. Going year by year, and front by front is just too cumbersome. Covering one section in great detail and moving on to the next is the best way to do this. I need feedback as what is the best way to cover the events, I mean how would u categorize World War II. Feel free to tinker with the list. I want to arrive at an agreed upon list from which we can re-organize the information on this article. All the info is here, all we need is to re-organize it. Mercenary2k 10:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a good idea to me. Year by year is awkward. john k 10:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think this is a good idea. In my opinion, a historical account should give the highest priority to the chronological order - almost all history books I've read does this. Remember, this article is (and will always be) a general introduction to the reader, not a complete account. As it is now, I believe it is easy to follow the general flow of the entire war from 1939 to 1945. If we divide it into theater by theater, I sincerely believe the average (non-WW2-knowledgeable) reader will be confused, and will have a hard time to get a grip of how the war evolved. I say, let the subarticles handle the different theatres, and let this article handle the general chronology, year by year. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 12:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No history I've ever read is strictly chronological. Most are loosely chronological, but one pretty much always has to go back and forth a bit across time, or else you're a chronicle rather than a history. john k 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think chronology is better, but with some exceptions. Each of the major theatres has its own article, and so do most of the minor ones, which is where the reader can go if they want a description theatre by theater. The exceptions are things like Ultra which dont' relate clearly to the rest of the conflict. DJ Clayworth 21:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pictures appearing now on the left

What do people think of this? I am trying to get used to some pictures on the left, and some on the right. What do you others think of this new layout? Wallie 20:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

As I understand things, it's recommended that articles have pictures that aren't all on one side because it looks kind of boring, so I tried to change a couple to the left side. However, it took very long to get it to not break all the text, so I stopped midway through :/. Homestarmy 01:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just asking an honest question. I am quite open. I thought initially that everything should go on the right. But I had a look at the layout of varous books, including on WW2, with lots of pictures, and they do usually have pictures left right and center. There is never any harm in experimenting. Wallie 12:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying, it was really hard to switch them around, almost every time I tried moving one to the left all the text got all squished looking :). Homestarmy 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

My only preference is to keep left-aligned pictures well separated (vertically) from right-aligned pictures. Otherwise (on certain browser widths) the images can collide and the layout becomes rather ugly. (For example the current Invasion of Soviet Union section.) — RJH (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rudolph Hess is Captured

This section seems to me to be totally out of scope of the remainder of the article. I thought this was a minor event that played no significant part in the outcome of the war, other than as a propaganda coup. Should it be removed? — RJH (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ya it should be removed. Mercenary2k 10:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Concur. It was not significant in comparison to the other sections here. --Habap 15:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh! Like your section, I suppose. Wallie 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Habap, are you living in a 1942 dreamworld?

"The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia.". No one believes this any more, except you of course. "Imperial ambitions of Japan?". Gimme a break! It is highly offensive to German and Japanese people, as you intend it to be. Wallie 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in the sense that no side in the conflict was innocent. To think it's just some mad Austrian's idea is incredibly naive. Most Western Allies definitely had empires and imperialist ambitions. The Soviet Union certainly did have plans to conquer areas west of them. Even Finnish extremists had ideas of Greater Finland. To mention only Germany and Japan in the introduction is the so-called victors' truth. --Vuo 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? So what would Japan's "Imperial ambitions" be rather called? That is the only term that I believe tells 120% of the truth. What else would it be? "Japan's glorious unification of Asia" or "The Imeperial saviour to save the Asian world from poverty" What would Germany's "ambitions" be called? Like probably for you, "The Nazi regime to help purge Jews to free the free world." Lol

Yeah, expansionism and colonization was rising as stronger nations snuffedout weaker ones. But I don't think America's ambitions to colonize Hawaii and Cuba was to torture and kill them. Colonization was inevitable 50 years ago. And the Soviet Unions plans were obvious. What else could it be? Turn the free world into a Communist world. You can't compare such evil intentions to colonization, which is what just about everyone did.

Oh, and Wallie thats a pretty mean sentence in the second line of yours.Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

An article about WWII must mention Hitler and Nazis in the introduction. These are two critical facts for people to know about the war. If you don't like the rest of the statement, at least figure out a way to leave these important pieces of information.

No Germans I know are fans of Hitler or Nazism, and they don't object to the actions of the time being described as military aggression. We need to be able to make reasonable statements that describe what actually happened. Haber 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Wallie, I never thought anyone would argue that Hitler and Imperial Japan were responsible for World War II. If most historians now disagree with that assessment, I'd better clear all the books writen before 2001 on my bookshelves, which universally blame them.

Hitler's Lebensraum did combine with German frustrations over the way they'd been treated after World War I and the economic collapse of the late 1920s. Without the expansionism of Germany and Italy, assuaged by appeasement, we have only Russian designs on other European countries. Or are you blaming Holland and the Netherlands for being too antagonistic?

Imperial Japan's expansionism (see Second Sino-Japanese War led to the economic sanctions that thwarted their goal of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It would be hard for me to fault the nations that imposed sanctions for the war, as these sanctions came after Japan started shooting. Or were the Chinese to blame for the Rape of Nanking? It's hard to see Japan as innocent when they hoped to replace the European colonial powers with Japanese colonial power. This leaves off the attack of 1941-12-07, which was certainly an act of war, even if you might claim it was provoked by US economic policy in the Pacific.

You are correct in stating that I do not care if I offend Germans or Japanese with my assertion of the blame for the start of the war. I assuredly don't blame the current German or Japanese people as a negligible portion were alive during the war and none of those were the decision-makers.

Vuo, are you really blaming Finland for World War II?

Please explain who we should blame. After we establish that, we can start investigation of the evidence behind your theory. I have no problem with the sentence being removed during this discussion. --Habap 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's not a scientific question to ask "who should we blame". Trying to answer to that inevitably leads to promoting "victors' truth". Yes, Finland did have its share in causing the Second World War. Without the idea of Greater Finland, Finland wouldn't have attacked to pre-1939 Russian territory. Obviously Finland's ambitions aren't the only ones causing the war, but they're there, just like German and Soviet ambitions. --Vuo 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, they aren't there in the same way at all, because the Finnish participation in the war was a deeply minor factor compared to, say, German, Soviet, Japanese, American, British, French, and Italian involvement. Looking at the major countries, the British and French involvement stemmed out of a desire to prevent German expansion, not to expand themselves; the Soviets only got involved in the war when they were invaded by the Germans (whatever ambitions Stalin may have had), and the Americans were mostly concerned with stopping Hitler and, to a lesser extent, preventing Japanese expansion. Of the lesser allies, the Poles are probably most significant, and Polish expansionism was not a notable cause of the war. On the other side, the Germans began the war by attacking Poland, the Japanese were involved in aggression in China and then attacked the American, British, and Dutch territories in Southeast Asia to secure oil; and the Italians began the war by attacking the French during the height of the German invasion, and continued by invasions of Egypt and Greece. As to Finland, perhaps Finland can partially be blamed for its own participation in the war, at least its participation on the German side from 1941 on (I don't think Finland can be blamed for getting invaded by the Soviets in 1939). But the fact that Finland participated in the war on the Axis side was pretty damned insignificant to the war as a whole. Blaming the war on the military aggression of Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism seems like a fair enough shorthand. john k 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So, Finland was a victor, writing the victor's history? I'm really confused which war you're talking about. If Finland's fight led to any countries besides the Soviet Union entering any war in this period, it's news to me. I will admit to imprecise knowledge here (especially as regards British and French actions in Norway), but I really don't understand how Finland could be to blame for the invasion of France. Japan and Germany, led by men who are long dead, invaded other countries. This was the start of the war. The causes of the war are more complex, but that's the basics. --Habap 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Habap. I can see you really have it in for the Japanese. For others who are not so one-eyed, you can read Causes of World War 2. Habap, you can just keep on listening to this sort of stuff churned out in the USA around the time. [1] Wallie 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Wally, please desist with these baseless ad hominem attacks. Haber 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Your comments and the way you are directing these discussions make it very clear that you hold a very strong bias indeed against the Japanese people, and maybe even against German people too. When I point this out, you then say this is attack on yourself. My points are not baseless. Wallie 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Wallie, I have two eyes. While I don't take offense at your mistake, it does read as though it was intended to be a personal attack. I believe you are also confusing Haber and I, Habap. Despite similar usernames, we are not the same person.

No, I don't have a bias against the Japanese people. I do have strong feelings about the military regime that ruled Japan with the Emperor's consent during the war and about the atrocities committed by the Japanese military against civilians and prisoners of war. Similarly, I have strong feelings about the Nazi regime that duped the German people into starting a war and attempting to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and anyone who didn't fit their molds correctly.

Please provide some books that I can read which support your arguments. I am always interested in learning more. --Habap 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg

I think this image needs to go for copyright reasons: please consult the image information page and the talk page Image talk:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg for more detailed information. No fair use rationale has been specified for the image's use on this article and AP specifically denies that fair use is available for this image. Hence, we need to be very, very careful when making fair use claims for it. As per Wikipedia copyright policy, "by permission" usage of an unfree image (even one only unfree for commercial purposes) is unacceptable unless it is merely in addition to a good fair use claim. TheGrappler 06:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

GA review

Corrections are needed only for images :

• Images such as Image:Hitlermusso.jpg, Image:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg, Image:Polish infantry.jpg, Image:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg, Image:V-1.jpg, Image:McArthur.JPG & Image:Massdeportations.png don't give their fair use rationale.
• This image has a deletion request : Image:Adolf Hitler in Paris.jpg.
• These image have an obsolete tag : Image:Panzer(Afrika).jpg, Image:Dieppe pebble beach.jpg, Image:Stalingrad.jpg & Image:Warsaw siege3.jpg.
• The fair use of this image is disputed : Image:Gustav line.jpg. Lincher 17:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Section full of bias and inaccuracies.

The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; Africa where the Afrikakoprs of Erwin Rommel fought in Egypt and Libia ( to in Italian East-Africa where the Italian army´s where soon defeated ) also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

Points

• Britain and France were the ones that declared war on Germany. Otherwise WW2 would not have started then.
• No mention of the post WW1 actions of the allies which ruined the German economy.
• The Japanese Emperor was a figurehead. The statement implies he directed the war.
• Repetitive use of the word "invaded", indicates strong bias.
• Loaded words such as "aggression", "occupied" and "defeated".
• No mention made of the American blockade of Japan.
• No mention made of any fighting "in and around" Asia or Australia, even though it did really happen in these two continents, and not just in "the Pacific".
• Little mention of Soviet participation
• No mention of why America stayed away for so long.

These are just some of the examples of what I would only describe as American propaganda and glaring omissions. We all know that America won the war, but how long do the defeated peoples have to endure these sorts of distortions of world history? Wallie 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Wallie, lots of times you write "no mention of" when in fact these points are mentioned plenty. What you seem to be objecting to is that in the one-paragraph introduction we are unable to go into all the subtleties and nuances of the question of the responsibility for WWII. Frankly, that is impossible! To do what you seem to want would be to expand the introduction so that it was the same length as the article. Then we would have to write an introductory paragraph, and we would be exactly back where we started. To counter your specific points:

• Asia and Australia are around the Pacific.
• 'invaded' is exactly the right word to use when one country moves into another with its military.
• 'defeated' is exactly the word to use when one side in a war surrenders. 'occupied' and 'aggression' are likewise appropriate.
• The Soviets get one mention in the intro, which is exactly the same number as the British and Americans.

Your other points are covered extremely well in the rest of the article. Frankly it begins to look as if you are making these comments just to stir up trouble. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on DJ Clayworth's comments (in italics) by Wallie

• Asia and Australia are around the Pacific.

So what you are saying is that the Pacific is more important than Asia and Australia. Possibly as America is part of the "Northern Pacific".

• "invaded" is exactly the right word to use when one country moves into another with its military.

Not used if a "friendly country" is involved. The United States moved into Vietnam. But this was not called an invasion.

• "defeated" is exactly the word to use when one side in a war surrenders. 'occupied' and 'aggression' are likewise appropriate.

Same as usage of the other loaded words, such as invaded. Only applicable when describing enemies.

• The Soviets get one mention in the intro, which is exactly the same number as the British and Americans.

There is something about the crafty way the Soviets are introduced here, which makes me feel very uneasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallie (talk • contribs)

No. This is absolutely not my intention, and you know it very well. If the points are covered in the rest of the article, why are they completely left out in this overview? Do you really and honestly believe that this section is unbiased? Wallie 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The points are left out of the overview because it's an overview. If you put all the points back in, it stops being an overview and starts being a complete article. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If the overview only contain's one country's POV, then it is biased. The overview should not to my mind blame any country for the war, but refer people to the "Causes of the War" article instead. I know that it is very difficult for any American to understand this, due to the education system there. The good guys are American and the bad guys the commies, nazis and japs. Wallie 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

What a bunch of revisionist BS. JPotter 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

If I may briefly respond to each of Wallie's points at the start of the section:

• Britain and France were the ones that declared war on Germany. Otherwise WW2 would not have started then.

Britain and France declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Germany had thus already started a war. Britain and France were fulfilling their obligation by treaty with Poland.

• No mention of the post WW1 actions of the allies which ruined the German economy.

While the economic disaster caused by the Treaty of Versailles was a cause of the war, it wasn't the primary one (men marching across borders).

• The Japanese Emperor was a figurehead. The statement implies he directed the war.

That's reasonable. Perhaps there is a better way to refer to the government of Japan than as Imperial Japan.

• Repetitive use of the word "invaded", indicates strong bias.

Neither Poland, nor China invited these two powers into their countries. "Invaded" is the proper word to use.

• Loaded words such as "aggression", "occupied" and "defeated".

I find no bias in those, but you are welcome to offer substitutes.

• No mention made of the American blockade of Japan.

Please provide details, especially indicating which of the ships in the US Navy participated.

• No mention made of any fighting "in and around" Asia or Australia, even though it did really happen in these two continents, and not just in "the Pacific".

No fighting occurred in Australia and it is far easier to refer to territories which all border on that ocean with that short phrase. --Habap 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

In and around....

1. Japanese bombing of Darwin (quite major)
2. New Guinea, Solomans etc
3. Coral Sea and Midway were effectively the battles for Australia
4. Australia was a strategic base, even though somne Americans may think that all the US soldiers were living on USS Hornet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallie (talk • contribs)

I've changed the paragraph to indicate "Asia and Australia" instead of "the Pacific". I would disagree that all the battles north of Australia were really battles for Australia, but am willing to concede a lack of detailed knowledge of the fighting in the southwest Pacific.

It's a shame you feel the need to smear the American education system in so many of your posts as these comments add nothing to the value of your arguments and make you seem biased.

Additionally, since the USS Hornet was an aircraft carrier, the few people who would be able to name it would know that it couldn't carry troops (certainly not the many divisions of the US Army and Marine Corps that fought in the Pacific). None of the editors of this article have demonstrated ignorance of Australia as a strategic base. --Habap 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is you that is biased, especially against the Japanese. Your depiction of Germans as "Nazis" is unfortunate too. And yes, I do put this down to the American education system. I find that people such as yourselves othen change their view over time, when they obtain more of a world view. But unfortunately, the damage is already done. At this stage, whatever I say, you will disagree with, as you are so tied up with the idea of "good" vs "evil". Wallie 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As noted elsewhere, when I (and historians) use the term "Nazi", it is to separate discussion of the German people from the Nazi regime. The Nazi regime was "evil". If you don't agree, I suspect you lack a complete understanding of what the regime's goals were OR that you have some bias. You are correct in your assertion that I won't be changing to a favorable view of the Nazi regime in Germany or the Japanese military from the 1930s until 1945. --Habap 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Little mention of Soviet participation

Someone already noted they get listed once, just like everyone else.

• No mention of why America stayed away for so long.

That is, perhaps best left in another article. We can't put everything in the opening paragraph. You are, of course, welcoem to submit your own proposal for an opening paragraph. --Habap 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You forget that the commies were among the good guys in that cartoonish view of the war. --Habap 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We should say "the Pacific" when describing that part of the war in the intro, because that is what the theatre of war is known as in most cases. DJ Clayworth 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on where you come from. It is a US-centric term. However, very little of the war was fought around California, which springs to mind, whenever the word Pacific is mentioned. Wallie 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

As we've established, I am from the US. Oddly, when I hear "The War in the Pacific", I never think of California. There was no fighting in California (you could look it up) and I don't know why it springs to mind for you. It seems a bit US-centric that you think of a US state when hearing "Pacific". --Habap 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Wallie's a troll. I suggest dropping it since you've already destroyed him. Look at it. You're arguing with a moron over what the Pacific means. Haber 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Atomic bombings ended the war

This is not true. By Soviet version for example, it was the Soviet offensive in the Far East that ended the war, and the defeat of the Quantun army.--Nixer 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is somewhat controversial, I believe, and subject to revisionist history by those who claim the use of nukes was unjustified. Perhaps it can be safely worded to say that it was a combination of the two that brought the war to an end.[2] Thanks. — RJH (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be acceptable for me but in fact it is also contraversal. Factually Japan agreed with capitulation of Japanese army and government before the bombings and the offensive. But they rejected the capitulation of the Emperor. The USA insisted the Emperor should also capitulate and Japan declared republic. After the bombings and the offensive the Japanese position did not change. But the USA agreed with Japanese terms. The Japanese government and the army capitulated, but not the Emperor. It is a fact. By the way, the position that the bombings wwere unjustified is not a revisionist position. Because it was the position of the USSR all the way. Can we call Soviet position "revisionist"?--Nixer 05:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

If this was the Soviet position, might it have been politically motivated? Since the Soviets rapidly developed their own nuclear weapons, I don't think they were anti-nuclear. They may simply have expressed outrage as the beginnings of the Cold War. I would agree that it is at least not revisionist history to claim the bombings were unjustified as that position has been well-known for decades and subject to debate.

If the Japanese had already agreed to surrender, then the Soviet position that they influenced the decision is also wrong. --Habap 11:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Tha atomic bombings ended the war in the sense (at least) that they were the final act. It's a reasonable thing to put. DJ Clayworth 13:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, I've just read over the Potsdam Declaration, which was the set of conditions for Japanese surrender and the abdication of the Emperor is not mentioned at all. (see Wikisource of Postdam Declaration) As such, the Allies (not just the USA, as the war involved more than just the two parties) did not deviate from those terms. The Japanese accepted them unconditionally (see Wikisource of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender ). So, based on the documents, the argument about the Emperor is simply not true. --Habap 14:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sweetening of "Racist terminology"

Haber, the Nazis expansed in the Eastern Europe because they really belived this territory to be biological base of Jewry, not because Jews simply "concentrated" there. Please do no sweetening their ideology and goals. Otherwise we should remove for example any mentions of "Lebensraum" etc.--Nixer 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, I think I see where you're going with this, i.e. bad Nazis, and I couldn't agree more, but maybe you are unaware that in English the term "biological base" implies vermin-like qualities. You need to enclose such dehumanizing terminology in quotes. Otherwise it isn't clear where the thought is coming from. To give another example of what shouldn't be written: "One objective of the Ku Klux Klan is to ship all the mud people back to Africa."... perfectly illustrates how vile the Klan is, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's a direct quote. Even then, I would recommend great caution. Haber 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the Nazis also saw the Slavs as "sub-human", eliminating them was considered a nice side effect of securing Lebensraum in their lands, I suppose. --Habap 04:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go again. At least the Germans stopped thinking this way after 1945. Americans kept the idea going, and to my mind still do. You are still going on about "commies" are you not? What did Americans think of Japanese people in WW2? I think you know, if you are honest. So, before you start criticizing others, please look at yourself and your own country first. Wallie 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am referring to the Nazi's as holding this view to separate it from the bulk of the German people. It's a shame you blame the Germans for the aberrations of the Nazi regime, but some of us are more open-minded and worldly, I guess.

I don't need "extra" honesty to know that US propaganda depicted the Japanese badly. Of course, it didn't help the image of the Japanese that the Japanese military committed so many atrocities. --Habap 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

In reference to "commies", you should note that I used it reference to a statement you made calling them "commies". Your statement had incorrectly identified the Soviets as being "bad guys" in the American view of the war, when, in fact, the Soviet Union joined the Allies and in a cartoonish view of the war in which everything is only good and evil, the Soviets were "on the good side". Even the "good versus evil" view had wrinkles about who was good and who was evil, based on necessity. --Habap 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Habap that really doesn't make much sense. I don't know what Stalin's intentions were in the beginnning of World War II, but they certainly were aggresive-slicing and dicing Poland between Germany and themselves. Then Germany cut the pact and invaded the Soviet Union. The thing is the Soviet Union never was on the "good-guy" side. When the U.S. joined the war, it just happened to be that the Soviets were fighting the Germans and so were the Americans, so undoubtly, that made them on the same "side." Oyo321 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was only in reference to a propagandist, cartoonish view of the war. It was a challenge for the US gov't to spin the realpolitick of helping the Soviets when they'd been portraying the communists as the Red Menace for so long. As noted, even the cartoonish view of the war, which attempted to portray Stalin as "Uncle Joe", wasn't as simple as those who would troll the subject portray it. --Habap 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Is any of this helping us build a better encyclopedia? DJ Clayworth 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course Oyo321 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

British winter of 1946-1947

Unless someone can make a compelling case for keeping this link, I'm going to delete it from this article. I have two reasons: First, its current context leads the reader to believe that British winter of 1946-1947 is going to have something to do with "British Malaise." Instead, it's a meteorological history of the winter months of 1946 and 1947 in the UK. Second, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and the linked-to article seems a decent candidate for deletion. Tcatts 13:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)