Talk:World War II

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

Insert the icon image moment of the Italian freedom operations Husky[edit]

I wait your comment to insert these information about the most iconic picture of the US rescue operation against Nazi in Italy. Unluckly I don't have the rights of these photo, maybe someone can insert. The facts:

The Battle of Sperlinga and the iconic image of the advance of U.S. troops[edit]

During the Second World War, the special units of the American assault troops, including the Rangers and the historical 1st Infantry Division (United States), land on the beach of Sicily island e to free to free Italy from the Germans Nazis, supported by 3,200 ships and hundreds of aircraft. The July 27th, 1943 the American Special Forces allies win in a tough battle against the Germans Nazis inside the ancient castle of Sperlinga and the historic village at his feet, in the province of Enna, not far from the Mediterranean. In the medieval village of Sperlinga, built by Prince Natoli in 1597, in the district of Capostrà, was shooted the picture that will become the iconic worldwide symbol of the liberation of Italy from the Nazis by the American army. The picture shooted by Robert Capa portrays a Sicilian shepherd that show to an American special soldier and his companions the direction to hit the German Nazis troops.

about halfway down this page?. Not wanting to sound picky but Italy was under the Italian fascists as much as the German ones. Most of the troops on the island were Italian. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
?? what does? with the battle of Sperlinga ?! and the photo ?

anyhow, Italy have the fascism with Mussolini, but next when understand the Nazism concept the Italian people rebelled but was under the slave dictatorship of Nazis also with the persecution and Italian Jewish, and it was only the American army to liberate Italy and give the freedom and independence to Italy. These facts and what she says makes it even more important to the meaning that this image has had worldwide. All the Italians people was on the side of the US army. Maybe I didn't explain well these iconic photos and significance for the Italian population. I wait your and others comments about the Sperlinga photo. --Alec Smithson (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That comes across as an idyllic interpretation of the causes of the Italian armistice after Italy's 4 years of war against the UK and nearly 2 against the US. Also underplays the multinational nature of the Allied force in the Italian campaign. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree: it's an obviously-posed propaganda photo with very little historic value (and arguably negative value given that it miss-represents the nature of the fighting in Sicily, where German and Italian forces fought together to defend the island), and may not be be in the public domain (and hence usable on Wikipedia) anyway given that Capa spent most of the war as a war correspondent. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] for that very serious accusation. Rmhermen (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

WWII and the crimes against the humanity[edit]

The brutal and ruthless murder of the European Jews, the area-covering bombings of hundreds of towns with many thousends of deads at every massive air raid, the maltreatment and killing of civilians in the occupied territories with millions of refugees and displacements of whole population groups during and after the war, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with hundred thousands of innocent victims, all these atrocities were doubtless barbaric crimes against the humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It was actually the British who bombed civilians first. (RobbieSterling (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC))
Aside from that not being relevant to the above, it isn't true: please see the Bombing of Wieluń article, for instance. The original post was also mistaken as the bombing of civilians was not a war crime at the time of World War II (though it is one now). The Aerial bombardment and international law article discusses this issue. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The British were the first to deliberately bomb civilians in World War II, on 11 May 1940. They invented aerial bombing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 1920s. (RobbieSterling (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC))
And Weilun was bombed by the Nazis in September 1939. As for aerial bombing of cities (which almost certainly put civilians in danger), Bulgarians might have been first to do so (they bombed Adrianople in 1912). Your point being? (talk) 11:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle: should we put him in the infobox or not?[edit]

I wonder why CDG is not located in the infobox, near Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, who are quoted as being the main allied leaders. I have searched on the other Wikipedia and I saw that CDG was quoted in each infobox, except in the Portuguese one. So I would like to know if we could put CDG in that infobox or not, because I've already made it in the past, and that someone answered me that CDG could not be considered as a country leader and that it was a lost cause. --Embu wiki (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I think he should be included - most sources refer to the Big 5. There was lengthy discussion about whom to include which is now archived. TFD (talk) 01:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There have been several discussions on whether to include de Gaulle. I've been on the side of not including him for the reason that this article itself barely mentions de Gaulle. What do the other articles have to say about him other than placing his name in the infobox? Dhtwiki (talk) 06:44, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
As noted last time, the Free French forces were relatively small until the very last months of the war and de Gaulle did not play a significant role in the strategic direction of the Allied war effort - for instance, he wasn't told about the timing for the liberation of France until a few days before the D-Day landings and wasn't invited to attend the Yalta or Potsdam conferences. The sources on the war I've read generally consider him a second tier at best figure during the war, and certainly don't rank him alongside FDR, Churchill, Stalin or Chiang Kai-shek. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
You think in terms of military strengths, but what about the politic he led? As you know, Churchill didn't like him because he managed to do what he wanted to do and this against its will. Moreover, the fact that France has occupied with Americans, Russians and Britains a part of Germany shows well who were the main allied and victorious leaders of the war.--Embu wiki (talk) 01:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
France was only an occupied contry and not a leading power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, but and Chiang Kai-shek? Was he any different? Bertdrunk (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

There is the Declaration of the Four Nations in 1943 (See "The Yearbook of the United Nations":[1]) which confirmed China as one of the "Big Four" in Declaration by United Nations in 1942. France was not one of the 26 original signatory in Declaration by United Nations. Chiang is one of the three who attended Cairo Conference, issued the Cairo Declaration and the Potsdam Declaration (reference:[2] "We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war.") . In Franklin D. Roosevelt's original plans for the United Nations, the Four Policemen or Four powers (the US, UK, Soviet Union, and China) were the only nations allowed to possess weapons more powerful than a rifle. Hence, the United Nations was formulated among the delegations from the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and China in Dumbarton Oaks Conference in 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
And miss the point that he barely could control his own country. Seems as arbitrary as any other draw line. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think every view may miss some point. Maybe I miss something but I did not mention the fact China was the only nation which fought with Japan from July of 1937 to December of 1941(more than 4 years). Then China fought with perhaps 3 or 4 millions (three-quarters of their manpower?) of Japanese. I cannot determine the draw line because I'm not politician or expert of International relationship. I just listed the proposal and draw line from Franklin D. Roosevelt, Yearbook of the United Nations, and some official documents like Declaration by United Nations(See Official website from UN [[3]]:"On New Year’s Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations added their signatures."). I choose to trust these documents or proposal. If you disagree these,it's OK. We just have a different perspective on things. I don't try to debate with you but something like the proposal from Roosevelt and Declaration by United Nations are more convincible for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, this is totally arbitrary. In fact, if someone compare how many times these appear in literature with things like the Big Three, it's barely noticiable. Bertdrunk (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

inter-national, not global[edit]

"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 (talk) 05:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

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)