Jump to content

Talk:World War II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.160.33.132 (talk) at 19:37, 23 September 2015 (→‎Pyrrhic victory). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleWorld 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.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Good article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

inter-national, not global

"was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945"

The word global is misused here. Global means a war that spans the entire globe. WWII did not span the entire globe. It was inter-national. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.143.139 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, global economy does not span Antarctica, but it's still global, isn't it? World War II did span enough countries on different continents to be called "global". Vanjagenije (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
World War II took place on or adjacent to (in the case of Antarctica) every continent, so it was a global war. Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pyrrhic victory

Some time ago I noticed through my watchlist that FilBox101 inserted 'pyrrhic' before 'victory' in the infobox. Later Alex Bakharev removed it. Can we get a consensus on this? Or has one already been reached? Green547 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the victory be pyrrhic. The phrase pyrrhic victory is, as far as I know, generally reserved for a situation where a battle (or war) has lead to such devastating losses at the side of the victor, that another battle with the same enemy would almost certainly result in a decisive defeat of the earlier victor. By the end of WWII this is definitely not the case as the US-UK-USSR(and other allied) armies could easily crush any army fielded by either Germany or Japan (or any other Axis nation). Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well User:FilBox101's edit summary was 'due to the massive number of casualties' and definitely it was a massive number of losses. I'd like to see his POV on this before moving ahead. Green547 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Probably none of the parties would be able to field the same power as they had in the field in 1940. But since there were no powers in the world at that time who could, that does not make it a Pyrrhic victory - a victory with so much casualties it would lead to almost certain loss if the ongoing war would continue from the status quo after the victory. If we redefine Pyrrhic victory to fit the outcome of WWII almost all major wars would have ended in a Pyrrhic victory. E.g. the outcome of the Napoleontic war would also be Pyrrhic (Wellington would not have been able to confront the Grande Armee immediately after Waterloo -- But that was a non-issue as Napoleon already lost that army in his ill-fated Russian campaign). Similarly the French would probably not have been able to withstand the original 1914 German attack in 1918, however the Germans were not able to execute that attack anymore in 1918.
But I am interested in User:FilBox101 detailed arguments why this would be a Pyrrhic victory as well Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going through that sort of arguments in my head, but I think the number of casualties and resources expended is relevant also. Pyrrhic victory could simply mean a victory won at a terrible cost. We need his imput on this. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In a summary like an infobox, when a qualifier such as Pyrrhic is at all debatable....then it should be left out. An editors opinion on it is not RS'd. Only if the consensus of mainstream historians employ it..should it ever be considered. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, have not seen "pyrrhic victory" applied to World War II, and find it inappropriate. Perhaps it's the huge Russian losses that make that term seem suitable, but a pyrrhic victory is appropriate when the defeated has inherently greater resources and can eventually win a war of attrition. The Axis had no such reserve strength against the Allies. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've also never seen any source describe World War II as a "Pyrrhic victory" or similar for the Allies. It's hard to see how that would be the case given that the Allies completely defeated the Axis powers and then went on to dominate the post-war world. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WW2 was certainly a pyrrhic victory for Britain and France as the two countries were completely destroyed. (Dredernely (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)) Striking out comment from sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But being completely destroyed after being victorious is not necessarily a Pyrrhic victory - a Pyrrhic victory means that after such a victory the next battle to the same enemy is almost certainly lost. While Britain was very much damaged, Germany could not have fielded an army with any hopes of defeating Britain in mid 1945 (as Germany was even more damaged at the time). Therefor it was not a Pyrrhic victory.
In the larger scope of things WWII did result in the folding of the European colonial empires (not only British and French but also Dutch, Italian and German). So if we consider WWII as an episode in ongoing colonial wars it may be construed as a Pyrrhic victory. However that construal would be original research; and in any case be beyond the current article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the major parties emerged from the war with not only stronger armies, but with greater world power. Neither the USSR nor the USA were prepared to fight in the beginning. Both developed their militaries during the war and were stronger in 1945 than they were in 1940. The USSR took vast losses. The USSR's army was stronger at the end than at the beginning. That's not Pyrrhic in the slightest. Yes, Europe lost colonial empires but that took place for decades after the war, due the rise of the new powers that be, and only indirectly due to the war itself. Germany's motivation was to build an empire within Europe, not to simply take over colonies, so that makes it an existential war for Europe, not a colonial one. Western Europe was then rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, money provided by one of their wartime allies. A Pyrrhic victory means you win the battle but lose the war. Yes, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, etc., lost influence and colonies, but they emerged nationally intact, were rebuilt with the assistance of a wartime ally (and were able to build a beneficial international alliance that did not exist pre-war), and were not subsumed into a Thousand Year Reich, so it's a vast stretch of the imagination to say the Allies won the battle and lost the war. Poland could make the argument they won the battle but lost the war, but I'm really not sure any other country could.71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Start Date of 1937

I am an Englishman with no particular connection with China, but I think a start date of 1937 has merit and should be reconsidered.

The occupation of Manchuria can be compared with the annexation of the Sudetenland, or the rest of Czechia, in that it was barely resisted; and also because peace between nations was restored afterwards, whether it should have been or not. For these reasons they can all be considered precursor confrontations along with the invasion of Abyssinia, the reoccupation of the Rhineland, and the Spanish Civil War. The Japanese invasion of China in 1937 was as fiercely resisted as the German invasion of Poland in 1939, and China did not end hostilities with Japan until 1945, just as Britain and Free France did not end hostilities with Germany until 1945. The Tripartite Pact binding together the Axis was not signed until after each one of these invasions had already begun.

Most of the opposition to a 1937 start date seems to be based on whether the Sino-Japanese end of the conflict was big enough to warrant the term "World War", before the entry of America. This strikes me as thinner, more semantic argument then perhaps its advocates realise. "World War II" is a term of art. Even if no-one had thought to call it that, historians would still have to acknowledge somehow this war that grew from two locations- Europe and the Far East, that drew in more and more participants until a large portion of the world was engulfed, and which was uninterrupted by any peace between all parties. I think the sterility of trying to decide how much of the world makes a "World War" is well demonstrated by the contributor below.

I also suspect from some of the archived talk pages that a lot of people are shy of defying the conventional wisdom about when the war started. This doesn't seem like a very 'Wikipedia' type of approach to me. 90.195.57.233 (talk) 09:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia type of approach is to cite reliable sources (See: WP:V). We are not allowed to draw our own conclusions (see: WP:NOR), but only to present the information already published by reliable sources. Encyclopedia Britannica says that the WII started in 1939 [1], as do most other reliable sources. Do you have some reliable sources that explicitly say the War started in 1937? Vanjagenije (talk) 12:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that history is written by the victor, the victor in this case didn't really get involved militarily in 1939. It is unfortunate that the Asia Pacific theatre in particular had a two year head start, but there are no major works that hold to this point of view among the victorious nations. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As noted the start date of WWII must remain subject to historical consensus. However, the paragraph in the article does deal with this issue reasonably well--perhaps it could be better phrased. On the other hand the statement that "the victor" not being involved till 1939 is a wee bit anglo-centric. Some (perhaps a lot) might indeed say the victors did not get involved till June or December of 1941. OR in either case. Juan Riley (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there are some sources supported 1937 claim: "Forgotten Ally: China’s World War II, 1937-1945"[2] by Rana Mitter and Senshi Sōsho by Ministry of Defense of Japan. I think China was also one of the victors. If not, China would not be one of the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council with veto power. Actually, all Allied Powers could be considered as the victors.
Other sources:
  • "The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. " (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945: 1931-1945, pg. 30)
  • "Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia." (A Companion to the Vietnam War, pg. 124)
  • "What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II." (American History the Easy Way, pg. 236)
  • "The Rape of Nanking:The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II" by Iris Chang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.240.81 (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italy

I am reluctant of including the fall of the Italian Empire as a consequence of the Allies' victory. It is certain that Italian Social Republic fell, the Kingdom of Italy fell in 1946 after a referendum.

I am also proposing to include "2 flags" for the Axis section for Benito Mussolini. One flag of the Kingdom of Italy & one flag of the Italian Social Republic.

Oh an this is for the Axis page, I suggest for "Italy" to have a "formerly" title next to it. After all, Italy became a co-belligerent in 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:BC2B:9F64:ACF2:311D (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Books I've read are very clear about the collapse of the Italian Empire as being a consequence of the war, and it's hard to see how this wasn't the case: the entire Empire was conquered by Allied forces prior to September 1943, and Facist Italy's collapse was due to the defeat of their forces in various theatres. I don't think that we should complicate the infobox in that way. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, Nick-D. From the article, Kingdom of Italy,

"Shortly after the war, civil discontent led to the Italian constitutional referendum, 1946 on whether Italy would remain a monarchy or become a republic. Italians decided to abandon the monarchy and form the Italian Republic, which is the present form of Italy today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:8C00:EE:1C12:8246:B024:9414 (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

I suggest that we mention the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War (surrender of Japan to China) on 9 September 1945 in the "Chronology" section. Also, in the same section, "surrender of Japan" could be specified "surrender of Japan to the Allies".

Sidyla Se T. L. (talk) 15:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Why? As I understand it, the Second Sino-Japanese War was part of the broader war against Japan, and was covered by the same surrender arrangements. There were various surrender ceremonies across the Pacific, but the one in Tokyo Bay was the key one. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the above-mentioned section discussing the various dates should mention the Act of Surrender, 9 September 1945. Sidyla Se T. L. (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
In some form I would not be against such a listing...but...read the surrender articles carefully (as ref'd by User:Sidyla Se T. L.). They appear to indicate that the surrender was of Japanese forces in China to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek pursuant to the Sept 2 surrender of Japan to the Supreme Commander for the Allied powers (aka MacArthur). Thus potentially twas just a formal forces surrender and the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War still was legally Sept 2? Juan Riley (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - there were surrender ceremonies like that across the Pacific (for instance, the British orchestrated a major one in Singapore, and the Australian forces did the same in Borneo and Rabaul). Was the one in China really unusual or special? I also don't see a strong case to note what was really a diplomatic formality given that the war had ended in mid-August, with the important paperwork (so to speak) being signed in Tokyo Bay. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that China just the other day (Sept 2 not Sept 9) had ceremonies for the 70th commemoration of the end of the war. Moreover a Chinese General was aboard the Missouri at the formal surrender Sept 2 ceremony to sign for China. And as you said there were many local formal ceremonies associated with the surrender of Japanese forces to local commanders. See Surrender of Japan#Further surrenders and continued Japanese military resistance. Perhaps User:Sidyla Se T. L. should check there to see if he is satisfied or can add additional info? Juan Riley (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&oldid=682444577"