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

Archives
Archive Index
2004/5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
2006: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
2007: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27
Topical Archives
Combatants (8/06 - 12/06)
Combatants 2 (1/07 - mid 2/07)
Article Length
Photos
Casus Belli
Infobox

Infobox talk is at Template talk:WW2InfoBox.

Seasonal Bias in article

I'd like to bring up the seasonal bias in the Course of the War - Overview section. Although winter may span between years in the Northern Hemisphere, in the Southern it does not. Please see [1]

I would tag the offending sentence but as I am a new user I cannot, due to the article being semi-protected.

Edit: Further, I have read more of the article and have found multiple occurences of this. For an article as important and global as this, I think it is a fairly important issue to globalise the times and dates found within it.

Thanks, Jmfarquhar 09:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at all references to "winter" and "summer" (didn't bother with autumn of spring) and I think its very clear that these particular events were occurring in the northern hemisphere. Particularly clear from phrases like "winter of 1939–1940". And "After Poland fell, Germany paused to regroup during the winter while the British and French stayed on the defensive." - clearly this is Europe and the seasonal weather conditions are contextually significant. I personally don't think there is an issue here, buy, how would you suggest rephrasing the sentence? Jooler 12:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One reason to stick with northern use of winter is that it is clearly the predominant usage in most literary works, historical works, etc. Christmas is considered a winter holiday, in December. The histories of most wars reflect the northern seasons, eg, Valley Forge, Napoleon in Russia, etc. The passage of northern seasons would be familiar to Southern people from most literary works. --Steve, Sm8900 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

While the war was a global war, most of the major engagements were fought in the northern hemisphere, and for many of these the season was a critical factor in how things played out. I think that as long as we include sufficient chronological markers to make it clear what we are talking about, there is nothing wrong with referring to the local season where appropriate. - Eron ^Talk 14:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, you make a good point. Would it not be possible to specify the month in some instances rather than a season, however? It is a fairly broad timespan. Jmfarquhar 03:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Name first used?

Would appreciate if someone were to add the information of as to when and how WW2 got its name. From the cursory research I've done on the net: 'Time magazine was the first to dub the 1939-45 conflict as World War II; from the 11 September 1939 issue' I think this article is logical place for this, if not any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.26.64 (talk) 11:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that was discussed, and is somewhere in the archives. I'll poke around and see if I can find it. Parsecboy 12:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahh yes, here it is. Also, it's apparently discussed at World war. Hope that helps. Parsecboy 12:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

in britan they never had to wear there gas masks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.224.218 (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Great Thanks. World war is definetly the right place for this information to be kept. It's quite a well written article so although there is an inline link to it in the initial description I would propose that it would deserver to be put into the 'See Also' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.25.2 (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WWII wiki

I know that this is for discussing editing the page, but is there a world war II wiki? There are wikis for flopped video games, but I can't find one for the biggest war in history... Contralya 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Within Wikipedia? Certainly. Try Portal:World War II and World War II. Binksternet 18:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Section 6: Allies gain momentum (15 May 1943 - 5 June 1944)

Following the Guadalcanal Campaign, the Allies initiated several operations against Japan. In May, 1943, American forces were sent to eliminate Japanese forces from the Aleutians, and in June the Allies began a major operation to isolate Rabaul by capturing points in the Solomon Islands, New Guinea, and other surrounding islands. By mid-August, the Japanese had withdrawn from the Aleutians and in November Allied forces began to attack the Japanese perimeter in the Gilbert and Marshall islands. By the end of March, 1944, the Allies had isolated Rabaul, neutralized another major Japanese base in the Caroline Islands, and completed their invasions of the Gilbert and Marshall islands. In April, the Allies then launched an operation to retake Western New Guinea.

In mainland Asia, the Japanese launched two major offensives in the spring of 1944: the first was against British positions in Assam, India, while the second was in China with the goal of linking Japanese-held territory in Indochina, Hong Kong and Manchuria. The Chinese had also gone on the offensive in the spring, invading northern Burma from Yunnan. By the start of June, Japanese forces were besieging Commonwealth positions at Imphal and Kohima, and were being besieged by the Chinese in Myitkyina; in China, the Japanese had conquered the province of Henan and begun a renewed attack against Changsha.

In the Mediterranean, Allied forces launched an invasion of Sicily in early July, 1943. The attack on Italian soil, compounded with previous failures, resulted in the ousting and arrest of Mussolini on July 23rd. The Allies soon followed up with an invasion of the Italian mainland in early September, prompting the Italians to agree to an armistice with the Allies. When this armistice was made public on September 8th, Germany responded by disarming Italian forces, seizing military control of Italian areas, and setting up a series of defensive lines. On September 12th, German special forces further rescued Mussolini who then soon established a new client state in German occupied Italy. The Allies fought through several lines until reaching the main German defensive line in mid-November. In January, the Allies launched a series of attacks against the line at Monte Cassino and attempted to outflank it with landings at Anzio. By late May both of these offensives had succeeded and, at the expense of allowing several German divisions to retreat, on June 4th Rome was captured.

In the Soviet Union, the Germans spent the spring and early summer of 1943 making preparations for a large offensive in the region of Kursk; the Soviet's anticipated such an action though and spent their time fortifying the area. On July 4th, the Germans launched their attack, though by July 17th, Hitler canceled the operation. The Soviet's were then able to mount a massive counter-offensive which, by June 1944, had largely expelled Axis forces from the Soviet Union, reclaimed Ukraine and pushed into Poland.

In November, Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill met with Chiang Kai-shek in Cairo and then with Joseph Stalin in Tehran. At the former conference, the post-war return of Japanese territory was determined and in the latter, it was agreed that the Western Allies would invade Europe in 1944 and that the Soviet Union would declare war on Japan within three months of Germany's defeat.

Comments
As per usual, comments and feedback welcome. One issue I see off-the bat is that I think we can afford to expand the section detailing the Soviet-German war during this period (especially the massive Soviet offensives following Kursk) but would need a bit of help fleshing it out a bit more. Oberiko 16:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Germans called off Citadel because they were not able to achieve their goals on the battlefield, not because several thousand allied soldiers landed a few thousand kilometers away. It's a common western myth, that Citadel (and even the larger Battle of Kursk - as the Soviets view it) was decided in Sicily. Really, the landing in Sicily as the turning point of the war? Laughable; this is from the same school of ideas that see no problem comparing the skirmish at El-Alamien to the titanic struggle at Stalingrad, or view the D-Day as the turning point of the war. Strangely enough, nobody thinks of writing that due to Germans being heavily invloved in the Eastern Front, successes of western allies, like El-Alamien, Sicily, Normandy, the Buldge etc. were made possible. Should I likewise go around, adding this to almost every single western victory? With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the Battle of Kursk states that the invasion of Sicily was the reason Hitler canceled the operation. But, if its a contestable fact, then we can remove it from this article, leaving it to the Kursk one to explain in greater detail. Oberiko 16:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, this so called "contestable fact" is a question of historiography, not history. The Battle of Kursk article is a befitting place to deal with it. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Iwo Jima - invaluable?

The section on japanese home islands state that the conquest of Iwo Jima proved "invaluable", but the main article that this section links to disputes this, and states that the gains from invading this Island were "debatable". It also contradicts some of the points in this section.(Usefulness of a fighter base for long-range escort). Not very consistent.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.77.240 (talk) 22:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

That Burrell joker seems to really want to shake things up. Some historians just like to be contrary. That's how they stay in business.

I originally wrote most of that paragraph, using Dan Yoder's article in History of the Second World War as a source. It reflects what I see everywhere else, and what I hear from WWII veterans, that taking the island was miserable, but in the end was worth it because of how it improved the air situation. Haber 17:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Post-surrender bombing of Japan

I would like to see more date and time information added to the paragraph describing the last big bombing blowout ordered by Hap Arnold. Such data will help the reader judge the military/political situation within which Arnold made his decision. Was surrender not yet a certainty? Also: how many cities? Which ones? Which aircraft carried leaflets and were those from different air units? The article leaves the reader to assume bombs and leaflets were dropped simultaneously; if true, it would be quite an insult. I don't have any references that address this operation. Somebody who does, please flesh out the paragraph with more detail and clarity. Binksternet 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have the time right now to add more scholarly information about it. Here is the source material, from the official Air Force History (p. 732-733):

http://uwashington.worldcat.org/wcpa/oclc/9828710?page=frame&url=http%3a%2f%2fpurl.access.gpo.gov%2fGPO%2fLPS48354&title=&linktype=opacFtLink

As is evident, one of the "grand finale" organizers wanted to nuke Tokyo too, but there was not much left to nuke, not after the city was torched with napalm attacks several months earlier, with a firestorm even worse than the Dresden bombing.

The leaflet part is not part of the official history, but one person who read one of those leaflets, as it was dropped on him, is interviewed here:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/03/14/18076761.php

He was a famous Japanese writer and peace activist. Here is the Wikipedia article on him, which links to that interview.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makoto_Oda

Gar Alperovitz’ The Decision to Use the Atom Bomb, p. 419, also discusses the grand finale. People can also go see the New York Times of August 15, 1945. The Twentieth Air Force did that bombing, just like they did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In his Class Warfare, p. 60, Noam Chomsky says that the grand finale “didn’t kill as many people as the atom bombs, but in a way it’s more depraved.” I hope that helps. Wadefrazier 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Wade Frazier

I see that reference to this arguably “post-war” massacre has been removed not only here but also removed from a massacre list on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres#1939_to_1945_-_World_War_II

It definitely qualifies as a gratuitous massacre. As can be seen in the official Air Force history that I provided a link to, not one American plane was lost in the “finale” that was launched as Japan was surrendering after being nuked twice. Napalm was also used in that finale. Japan was not able to defend against the American bombings in 1945. In the spring of 1945, Hap Arnold informed Curtis Lemay that by October 1945 there would be nothing left worth bombing in Japan, as the entire nation would be in ruins.

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/war.htm#after

It is becoming a cultural phenomenon regarding the gradual corruption of Wikipedia by people controlling the content with their agendas (usually right-wing, and sometimes well-paid). This is typical history engineering, as I write about:

http://www.ahealedplanet.net/lies.htm#more

If nowhere else, it should make the WWII War Crimes list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_during_World_War_II#1939-1945_World_War_II

which is pathetically small regarding Allied war crimes. The napalm attack on Tokyo was worse than the Dresden attack. According to the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey carried out after the war, more people were killed in the six-hour span of napalming Tokyo (somewhere between 80,000 and 200,000) than in any other six-hour span in history.

War is never a civilized affair. There were no “good guys” in WWII, but the winners always write the history.

To illustrate this point further, in the George Washington talk section, there is mention of Washington’s swindle of the natives with his plan of fraudulent treaties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_Washington#Native_American_land_treaties

It was Washington’s greatest achievement – a plan to steal a continent from its inhabitants, but the standard biographies do not mention it, and it will likely never make it into the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has big problems, but it is far from alone in this regard.

Wade Frazier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wadefrazier (talk • contribs) 13:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should We include the justification the Germans had for invading Poland

In many essays and in many books. There is an account of armed SS guards dressing up like Polish Nationalists. They then went into Poland and then came into Germany. They raided a radio station killing one man and broadcasted a fiery speech in Polish that was anti-German. The Nazis then used this for Justification of thier invasion of Poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carharttjimmy (talk • contribs) 01:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the article; it states that the Germans used a faked Polish attack (which links to the Gleiwitz incident) as justification to invade. More information about the incident would be too much for what is supposed to be a general overview of the war, and would be better suited for one of the sub-articles, Invasion of Poland (1939) would likely be the best bet. Parsecboy 13:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Politically correct unencyclopedic statements

I thoght this was to be a encyclopedic reliable source of information, not a place to voice your own belifs and intrests. In the beginning, the narrative, at the very end of it, it says "while Europe itself began traveling the road leading to integration". There are a good many people who wouldn't agree with this and the EU is a power machine, much like many other totalist governments, like Soviet or Nazigermany. I think it's idioticall to state something like that. The EU a union between countries, some ruled by fascists, some ruled by ceriminals who caouldn't lose an election lest they go to prison. It's a union, not gods gift to the human race, not an non-profit organization based on good will. It's a very powerful buerocratic union who does not approve of free referendums in the member countries since that might weaken it's strenglehold over the democarcies in them. This ought to be removed or re-written.It's not a factual truth and there is much debate about questions like it, it's not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Couldn't-care-less (talk • contribs) 15:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

But all it says is that Europe began moving towards integration. It doesn't say anything about whether the EU is good, bad, ugly. It just says the integration began to happen. It's precisely factual without a hint of subjective judgement or point-of-view. I don't understand your objection to the line. <eleland/talkedits> 17:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it only states the fact that Europe began integrating, not that it's a good thing or not. Also, please try to spell correctly. People won't take you seriously if you sound like a fool. Parsecboy 16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, people won't take you seriously if you attack others and lack civility (which includes the hypercorrection of unencyclopedic).—Twigboy 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Starting point for discussion

This article was much better 5 months ago. (procedural "starting point". No opinion on the validity of the statement.) --Onorem♠Dil 17:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I happen to agree with Dallasfan, but I'm through babysitting you guys and you can control the talk page if you want to. Under Oberiko et al. this article has gone into the crap pile. The fact that Google lists this as the first result for a World War II search is a travesty. I'm not going to do your work for you and tell you exactly what needs to be fixed (if collectively you had half a brain among yourselves this would have been done already), but I will throw you a tiny little crumb. The first sentence of this article, in the lead, has a glaring error that every single one of us would automatically agree to fix if only someone would point it out. Props to the least retarded Wikipedian who can find it first. Haber 17:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review policy on personal attacks and civility. Thanks very much. - Eron ^Talk 04:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Haber, Cowboysfan is me. --redact angry message from LtWinters --LtWinters 01:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If I might interject, plz, I would put this on your user page but it seems to be protected at the moment. A wiki editor with your knowledge and experience would be welcome at http://encyc.org/WorldWarII, where I also dabble a bit. Thanks and sorry for the interruption everybody. Duke o Puke 03:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

info image

As WP:Image use policy states, articles are generally not allowed to contain the same image twice in an article. I will be replacing the WW2 infobox image (the map one) to [Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] See [Template talk]. -- Penubag  04:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Please read the discussions on the template talk page first. Consensus arrived at the map as the best, NPOV image for the infobox. You must establish consensus before changing it again. Parsecboy 14:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Rephrase. There never was any real consensus to replace the image with a map. Just because people say it enough times does not make it so. Haber 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you were watching the discussion at the infobox discussion page; but the editors involved in the image discussions did achieve a general consensus to change the montage to the map. Parsecboy 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Until consensus has clearly made that the image should be replaced, the image shall stay.Kfc1864 talk _{my edits} 10:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)