Talk:World War II/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 10

Statistics on Participation of military personnel

Is there any statistics on participation of military personnel by country (particularly from allied nations)? We have a pretty good idea about how many soldiers were involved from the ww2 caasualties stats but this article would be complete with statistics on how many soldiers fought in the war. [I tried google but couldn't find it. I (or somebody else) probably would have to go check library or something.]

Lists of participant countries

I'm not sure I like the current lists of "allied countries", "supporters of the allies", "axis countries", "Supporters of the axis", and "Countries that were occupied or switched sides". The idea that the Soviet Union (and France, for that matter) are not listed on the allied side, but a bunch of Latin American countries that did practically nothing are, is pretty ridiculous. And that the Soviet Union, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Poland are all in the same category is pretty ridiculous. Perhaps some better system could be worked out here. john 00:04 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

This is very true! Also the table on losses would need some work. -- Ruhrjung 01:35 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

To be honest I pasted the Soviet Union in "Countries that were occupied or switched sides" just because I found this list rather insulting for France, Poland and Czechoslovakia and certainly others. Ericd 11:06 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Sorry Tannin, my source wrote British troops. You know the free French forces in Italy where mainly Moroccan, Tunisian or Algerian we don't have any word like Commonwealth for French Empire this could be useful in many cases. Ericd 12:49 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

No problem, Eric. Simply take that outdated imperialist source outside and shoot it. :) It is only too common for the British to complain for all they are worth about "those rotten damn Yankees pretending that they and the Great General Patton won the war all by themselves" - and then turn around an in almost the same breath, perpetuate the exact same crime against history by laying claim to any number of "British" achievements that were, in fact, largely the result of the sweat and sacrifice of Canadians, Australians, Indians, New Zealanders, South Africans, and so on. Quite often, they manage to put this tomfoolery across so convincingly that they get away with it. (See my post on 212's talk page for an example.) Or consider the incredible effort that the Canadians put into the Battle of the Atlantic. The who? Yes, the Canadians. Their contrbution was enormous, and gets completely forgotten by even otherwise quite competent historians who are so busy arguing about whether the British or the Americans tried harder ..... Bah.
Now, you raise another example: the French effort. Some time ago, I came across an entry here (sorry - I forget which page) where it said that the British took Syria from Vichy France. In a fit of disgust, I crossed that out and replaced the disinformation with a factual account: that it was Australian and ... er ... I think Indian ... troops that did that. And it was not easy fighting; the Vichy French troops were smart, brave and very determined. Hence my going ballistic just now at seeing another example of classic British claimjumping. (Not your fault - the fault of the incompetent psudo-historian writing your source. I used to teach history, and he would not be getting an "A" on his paper. He'd be darn lucky to get even a pass mark. )
However, I've possibly fallen into that same trap myself: I wrote "French" when, I see now, I should almost certainly have written "French colonial forces", or something similar. No "A" for me either!
I can't think of a word that's exactly equivalent to "Commonwealth" but "colonial" would be a step in the right direction, I think. Tannin
I think this is taking material out of its historical context. Tssk tssk. The Australian and Indian divisions which fought in N. Africa and Syria were part of the British 8th Army. The Canadian ships were attached to British convoys. Since these are broad articles and the context is the Second World War British, should be taken to cover any combination of Commonwealth/Imperial forces (in opposition to the other major power blocs). As you point out most formations on land, sea or air had a multi-national composition - indeed, the 8th Army was barely half British at any given time. Any competent historian would know that. Calling it British is not "claim-jumping" or "imperialist" - it's a reflection of the way the forces were organised at that time. If you want to go into detail about individual warship or unit-scale actions along nationalistic lines then feel free to write the articles, but I think that's divisive and would not have been the way the combatants identified themselves. Ed 19:05, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

French colonial troops ? In fact this recover important ideological differences. While in UK there could be several nations with one King or Queen, there's is only one French nation with one French Republic. Well according to the French governements.... And until one part of this nation gained independance (like Algeria).... This led to terrific debate whan Lionel Jospin governement admited they could be "a corsican nation which was a part of the French nation...". Ericd 14:20 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

And people wonder why I mostly write fauna articles these days .... Believe it or not, it's actually easier to wrestle with the intricacies of duck taxonomy than it is to write history. (sigh) Tannin
Tannin can you look to my page it seems I've been goofy about Iceland....
WW I is so simple compared to WW II...
I think I will stick on Citroën 2CV I've found an interresting article that corrects some popular beliefs...
Ericd 14:41 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The list of countries invaded still seems to be short on Pacific campaign countries. I am not sure entirely which ones are countries now that weren't then. Also most of the lists may need to be moved to their own articles to keep this page from getting too long. We certainly need more detail hear on the war itself. Presently we seem to have more on the history and run-up to the war, than about the war. Rmhermen 15:18 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I am already getting the 32kb warning so I will move the list of participants and the list of casualties to separate pages later today if no one objects. Rmhermen 16:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A good idea, Rmherman. Tannin
See: Talk:World War II/Casualties -- Ruhrjung 16:16 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Is there particular reason why France is being listed as Allied Power, while Poland as occupied coutnry? By 1945 IIRC Poland fielded more soldiers than France.

Tannin I just want to tell you there's no surprise in the fact the Vichy French troops were smart, brave and very determined, they were so every time they fought. When they weren't so they simply refuse the fight or switched to the other side. The Free French had hard time to avoid a French against French Battle in Morrocco and it seems that the lacks of support by the civilian authority made the decision of Vichy officers. Ericd 15:27 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ericd, with regard to the list of occupied countries, I think your additions are chiefly factually correct and fine and everything, but in my personal opinion paragraphs as (Yugoslavia began the war as neutral but Yugoslavia's Regent signed the Tripartite Treaty on March 25th, 1941, but met an anti-Nazi coup d'état when he returned on March 27th. This led to German occupation from April 6th 1941) are too longish, and would better fit for History of Yugoslavia.

If the list is to remain a bullet-list, then I had wished the list to retain the looks of a list. But as some countries were occupied by different powers, it can't be split up in lists of Axis-victims and Allied-victims. So (in my opinion) one has to add the dates for when one occupant succeeded another. But that, I hoped, ought to be all:

  • Country,
  • action (taking place the date in question, like invasion, occupation...),
  • date,
  • additional action (if necessary),
  • additional date (if necessary).

-- Ruhrjung 16:39 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Photos of Hitler, Tojo, etc

Do we need a photo of uncle Adolf ? I would prefer Winston Churchill... Ericd 23:17 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Given that Uncle Adolf actually caused the war, I would have thought the answer is obvious. Yes, if one is available, Churchill too should be in, and Roosevelt, Mussolini, etc. The more photographs the better in terms of making the page reader-friendly, but Adolf Hitler is an absolute must. FearÉIREANN 23:22 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

We may find another one like the photo of Hitler visiting Paris it would be more illustrative the article ? Ericd 23:26 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Who had effective power in Japan during the war Hideki Tojo or the Emperor ? Ericd 00:19 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Tojo and his cronies. No question. Tannin 02:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I have added in some more images, as I mentioned on your talk page. To be honest the one on Hitler is fine. Kids starting out reading history often find it hard to get into a topic without 'knowing' the people. A mug shot is fine for letting them get visual impression for who Hitler was. FearÉIREANN 00:23 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The problem with Hitler is that he may soon become the most photographied man on Wikipedia. There is a good reason : there is few risk with copyrights on german nazi archives. But there also a risk all the photos of Adolf were carefully selected for propaganda... it's much easier to find an unpleasant photo of Churchill or Roosevelt.... Ericd 00:33 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

True. But then most offical pictures are the same. How many of George Washington or Elizabeth I are not constructed? And the shot of Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin was very carefully constructed to send a one for all, all for one progagandistic message. FearÉIREANN 02:56 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Obviously De Gaulle was more laxist see http://www.archivesnationales.culture.gouv.fr/chan/chan/gaulle/CHANGau3.htm
Ericd 11:12 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's an interresting photo of Tojo here http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/fall_2001_war_crimes_1.html Ericd 00:44 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My opinion: I am against putting any photos of people on this page. Just imagine what photos you would find in a paper encyclopedia here. So no Hitler, no Mussolini, no Tojo. A map of troop movements: fine. Photos of bombed-out cities (Coventry, Dresden): fine. But people photos should be on the people pages like Adolf Hitler. Otherwise, they 1. have no informational value at all, 2. are pure decoration to make text float around them and 3. consequentially, the photos would have to be added to every other text that Hitler, Mussolini et al appear in. I am suspecting a severe case of overdecorating here. :-) djmutex 10:45 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the pictures we have now are great. But just one or two points; firstly the picture of the BIG THREE should be moved to later in the article where it is more relevant; secondly can we find a picture of De Gaulle that is more contemporary for the article. It looks like he was in his 90s when that shot was taken. Mintguy

The problem with the Big Three image is simply layout. If the pictures were laid out linked to the part of the text dealing with that area, we would have too many pictures piled on one another at the end and the top and large gaps with text. The Big Three is where it is simply because on the overall page, it made sense in terms of visual balance to put something there and where would have been chronologically was already full of images that were relevant there. As to de Gaulle, it was simply the only image of him on wiki right now. When other copyright-free images of the younger de Gaulle are found, they can be used instead.

As to Dj's comment, not putting photos of people on this page would be absurd in the extreme, and suggests he never taught history or laid out history books. Maps of troop movements are all very well, apart from the fact we don't have any downloaded, as anyone who has taught history knows, ordinary teenagers with an interest in history but at the beginning of the learning process of a topic often find themselves drowning in cold clinical knowledge and say that often the biggest help they can get is to know who. Studies have shown that using a visual image of a person makes a dramatic difference to the ability of someone to grasp the information. Names can simply appear as names with no identity behind them. Showing them what the person looked like enables them to personalise what they are reading, not just reading about Hitler but to feel they know him because they have seen him and know what he looks like. One of the biggest turnoffs in history is reading about something divorced from any sense of location, context, personality,etc. Showing what someone looks like is seen as crucial, for the young reader, which is why history books particularly for the younger reader before college level use plenty image visual images. Seeing Mussolini makes a crucial impact on helping a young reader grasp something of his essence. As a web-based source, wiki is likely to have a younger readership than the average encyclopædia because they can check it in their bedroom on the computer rather than go to the library. It is all too easy to read history as a collection of events without understand the humanity behind it; people died, battles were raged because of decisions taken by Hitler, Stalin, Roosevelt, de Gaulle, Churchill, Mussolini. Using personal images helps a young reader realise that it was people, no different from the people they pass in the street except for the power they held, who shaped the war and changed the course of history. If you lose the personal aspect to the war, you reduce it to a cold clinical game of tactics, not a war created by people, fought by people, in which people died, and which depending on the outcome would change other people's lives forever. It would be absurd in the extreme not to show the reader what the big players looked like.FearÉIREANN 02:11 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

time-line of the subversion effort

I am blue-penciling the article to try to tie it together as a whole.

I do not understand the time-line of the subversion effort directed at Austria, If Dolfuss was killed on 25 July 1934, why did local Nazis announce his resignation on 12 March 1938?

I presume the 1934 date is a typo but dare not change it without one of you Smart Guys telling it it is OK. Now, with four tildies … PaulinSaudi

Finland

disorganized page

The more I look at this disorganized page I wonder if we have reached our wiki-limit. Some points are repeated, others are left out. Little overall consistancy. Harumph!

Anyway, please note my additions about airpower in the summary section.

Now, with four tildies … PaulinSaudi 12:26 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article stirs a real mix of emotions, and people frequently feel compelled to try to highlight their country's role in the war, or to highlight the evilness of their country's archenemy, so it's had a lot of hit-and-run editing by people determined to advance a POV; efforts to make a coherent presentation get eroded away eventually. It's like Israeli-Palestinian conflict but with even more people :-), so yeah, it could very well be beyond wiki's ability to converge on a consensus version. I wish we had more Russian editors. Stan 13:43 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I think you may be right. Perhaps I should go back to my Nuc Tests were there is more chance to write with quality.
Front-page topics where everybody has an opinion, informed or not, are the very toughest articles in all Wikipedia, and until somebody comes up with a clever scoring/moderation system, will probably never stabilize. But there are thousands of needed subtopics - many WWII battles are undescribed, as are important campaigns, strategy, and units that took part. For instance, you've touched on many Eastern Front operations, but we're still missing material that stitches them into an overall picture that is useful but more detailed than one would want in the top-level WWII article. In fact, re Eastern Front articles, we could "fight it out on this line if it takes all summer". :-) Stan 16:14 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The WWII is one the most complicated article you can imagine :

  • first it's a very complicated war regarding military operations (compare to the WW1 where nobody move between 1914 and 1917),
  • second there's is still a lot of nationalistic pride to hurt in mentionning among other :
    • the agression of many countries by USSR ;
    • the aliance between Finland and Germany ;
    • the Vichy governement in France ;
    • the neutrality of the USA before Pearl Harbor ;
    • the relationships between the USA and the Free Frenchs ;
    • the fate of Easter Europa after Yalta ;
  • third if you focus on milatry and diplomatic issue you will be criticized for minoring the genocidal acts of the Germans and the Japaneses.
  • thith some acts by the allied can be viewed at least as crimes of war (Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki);
  • sixth the role of the partisans is also very important if you omit to mention it you'll be criticized ;
  • seventh there is still some ideological issues in this war that can bring debate.

This brings me to the idea that we should try to work on the structure of the article to adress these issues.

It has few few relationship with what I wrote before but after reflexion all the photos of the person should be removed (except maybe the Yalta photo) and that a photo of Hiroshima is an absolute necessity. I suggest everyone to make proposal about 2 or 3 photo that he consider essential to illustrate the article (had it found one or not). Ericd 17:34 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Perhaps if editors agreed to make this a summary, and to put the contentious topics into sub-articles, but there's a contingent who are apparently offended if their particular issue is not at the top in the first paragraph. From the American point of view, an interesting bit of insight into the state of European unity, heh.
On pictures, FearÉIREANN is right, the pictures of people are essential. You could double up on Hitler/Mussolini, there are pics of them together, and yes, there should be some pictures of the devastation. If you were limited to just ten pics, atom bomb would make the cut but de Gaulle might not. One way to "cheat" on this kind of article is to look at what the pros do in EB etc - not for content, but to see how many pictures they use, what are the subjects, how long is the general article, how many words each part of the article. Amateurs learn from the pros in other fields, why not do it with encyclopedia writing? Stan 18:01 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ericd seems to be right on most (or all) points above. Though the part on Nationalist Pride neglects responses on factual errors. :-) -- Ruhrjung

"founder of the Nazi Party", other images

I deleted "founder of the Nazi Party" from the caption below the Hitler picture. According to Nazi Party: The NSDAP was founded in 1919 by a Munich locksmith, Anton Drexler. RickK 00:24 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Correct. I inadvertently lost the change in a save, put went in again to reinstall your change.

I've put in an image of Dresden (with an additional - click on to see image) and an image of the mushroom cloud over Nagasaki. BTW I chose the image of Dresden that shows the dead because I think it is worth reminding the reader visually that war does involve casualities, and not just troop movements and derelict buildings. I put an image of the physical destruction of Dresden as a media - click to see - shot. We could do with a corresponding image of the destruction and death caused by the Axis powers. The only good shots I could find on wiki so far were of death and destruction by the Allies. While they are must include shots, we need something showing the destruction caused by both sides.

This article does however need a major factual overhaul. It is clear that there is no way a properly detailed article can be on this page, without being way over 32K. What I would suggest is a single relatively short narrative on the war in general. Daughter articles could then be attached with separate detailed analysis of the various theatres, etc. This page should in effect be a type of disambigulation page, from which a series of articles on aspects of the war would branch out. That way, wiki could have a first class detailed analysis of the war, which cannot be achieved on such an immense and complicated topic in under 32K. FearÉIREANN 01:26 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I found an image of Birkenau which as it relates to the holocaust is a must. I had added it in. FearÉIREANN 02:03 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Japanese attack on the Soviet Union

I've added a bried para on the Japanese attack ont he Soviet Union. Here's the text:

In 1939 Japanese forces tried to push into the Soviet far east from Manchuria. They were soundly defeated by a mixed Soviet and Mongolian force led by Georgi Zhukov. This stopped Japanese expansion to the North and Japan and the Soviet Union kept un uneasy peace until 1945.


It needs the input someone who knows more about these events, but I'm mindful of 32k problem. Lisiate 08:58 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finland

POV sentence about invasion

"The invasion could never realistically have been mounted successfully..." IMO this is POV and should be removed. Ericd 09:43 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is POV in a way. However, if that point of view is justified, then there is less call for its removal. How do you think the Germans could have invaded successfully in the face of the remains of Fighter Command, and the full strength of Bomber Command, Coastal Command and the Home Fleet? A minor edit is probably best, in order to make it conform with the most strict version of Wikipedia's NPOV rules.

David Newton 12:44 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Finland, yet again

As this talk-page had grown to considerable length, and as I hope the controversy on Finland (for this time) is settled, I took the liberty to archive that discussion. This came to include recent additions by myself and David Newton, which is done without any bad intention.
-- Ruhrjung 09:16 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Jolacaust (Massive Murder)

The The Jolacaust (Massive Murder) section need NPOVing. --Ann O'nyme 13:02, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Clemenceau quote

About the recently reverted edit : George Clemenceau said about WWI : "I don't know who is responsible for the war but I know that Wilhem II invaded Belgium" You just have to replace what needs to be replaced. Ericd 22:32, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Ooops ! I've read too fast not everything was bad in that edit the Treaty of Versailles was certainly a "bad peace" and thus a major cause of the WWII.
But well if Hitler had been more pacific... Treaties can be re-negociated.
Ericd 22:46, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

page too large

This page is more than twice as large as is technically acceptable. Please shorten it, and move text to subpages. Pizza Puzzle

Unwinnable

If the war was unwinable for Japan as stated in the article. Why is the battle of Midway so crucial ?
Was could have been the issue of the war if the Japanese had sunk the aircraft carriers in Pearl Harbor ?
Ericd 23:11, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

If the article states that the war was "unwinnable", please delete the POV. The war was not unwinnable. Pizza Puzzle

Length, splitting

Perhaps the best solution to the length of this article would be to split it into two or more parts say World War II part I and World War II part II, like has been done with the History of the Soviet Union and the Great Famine articles. G-Man 23:20, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I would rather the article be broken up into relevant sections; with this here being a very simple overview, and then pages like World War II: Italy, World War II: Japan, World War II: Tank Production. Pizza Puzzle

Operation names

Question: In this article, the invasion of Normandy is called "Operation Neptune", and it says that the combined operations of Neptune and Dragoon were called Overlord. I thought that the invasion of Normandy was called Overlord and the invasion of southern France was called Anvil/Dragoon. (Never heard of "Neptune".) This is what the "Invasion of Normandy" article (hyperlinked to by "Neptune" in this article) seems to say -- so the two articles are currently contradicting each other. So, which is it? Bedevere 08:30, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Section split

This article is rather long, and I'm splitting it up into sections. Firstly, I'm removing the 2 lists of names, because that merely duplicates information in List of people associated with World War II (I'm checking the names I'm removing are on that list).

Additions to a Pacific Theater paragraph

I propose some italicised additions to a Pacific Theater paragraph, which are pasted below:

  • This, however, only had the effect of turning world public opinion against it. In an effort to discourage Japan's war efforts in China, the United States, United Kingdom, and the government in exile of the Netherlands (still in control of the oil-rich Dutch East Indies) stopped trading oil and steel (both war staples) with Japan. Japan saw this as an act of aggression, as without these resources Japan's military machine would grind to a halt. Japanese forces invaded Siam, Malaya, and the Philippines on December 8, 1941, the local date, and simultaneously (December 7, 1941, the local date) attacked the American fleet at Pearl Harbor. Although Japan knew that it could not win a sustained and prolonged war against the United States, it was the Japanese hope that, faced with this sudden and massive defeat, the United States would agree to a negotiated settlement that would allow Japan to have free reign in China. They were incorrect, and Japan was faced with a war it knew it could not win. (By the end of the war in the Philippines, 6 of every 7 Japanese soldiers (84%) sent there were destined to die there, mainly from disease and malnutrition.)

169.207.88.26 22:18, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Parts cut out

I cut out parts of the article and put those parts into new articles to help alleviate the size of this article. WhisperToMe 03:21, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Russian/SU involvement

"...in Russia known as The Great Patriotic War, and before the involvement of Russia and the United States also known as the The War Against Aggression"

Just Russia or the entire Soviet Union? --Jiang 22:30, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Fair point. Certainly it should say "... before the involvement of the Soviet Union". But as that no longer exists, should we say "... in the states of the former Soviet Union". ? Mintguy 22:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) BTW For those who doubt the second clause about "The War Against Aggression" - I take it from a 1941 edition of Pears Cyclopaedia. Mintguy 22:42, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

European summary

The European summary section needs to be completely replaced. It is very much over-simplified and has glaring errors of fact e.g. Ferdinand Marcos as ruler of Spain. (Geoff97)

balance problems

I find that this article has balance problems. Some minor incidents are covered in relative detail, while important matters are left. I'm going to try to redress in both directions. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some of this problem occurs because the detailed discussion on the theater of war, etc. was moved to related pages (almost said subpages, bad me!) and then people keep adding detail back into this page. Unevenly. European theater is already to long again. Rmhermen 15:21, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Germans->Germany

I reverted the change 'Germans=>Germany' because I am unconvinced that this is 'more neutral' whatever that means. We say 'British' and 'Italian' throughout the article and nobody seems to question it. The change also made for some strange sounding phrases like 'after the counterattack by Germany, the Allies entered Germany', and 'Germany was driven out of Africa'.

To 82.82.*.* : If you really think the changes you made were important, please discuss it on this page. I'm certainly prepared to listen to arguments. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I found German to Germany conversion more reasonable than the previous German and Germany to Nazi Germany change by this author. However it isn't necessary as DJ Clayworth points out we use the common terminology for other countries -even Japanese. Rmhermen 15:21, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
I still think 'Germany was driven out of Africa' sounds strange. DJ Clayworth 17:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Yeah, that jumped out at me too. Could be changed to "German army". Rmhermen 18:42, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)
consider it done DJ Clayworth 18:47, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"belligerents in order of entrance into war"

An (orphaned) temp page with a list of "belligerents in order of entrance into war" is at: Talk:World War II/Temp/Article -- User:Docu

Costs and death tolls

Hi, could someone add some statistics on the costs and death tolls (per country) as well? I will try to look it up too. --ShaunMacPherson 17:18, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Singapore

This phrase: "The British island fortress of Singapore was captured in what Churchill considered one of the most humiliating British defeats of all time." caught my eye. Is there any elaboration on it? I can't find any in the 'pedia. --LukeyBoy 22:00, 01 Apr 2004 (JST)

Add causes

This page on WW2 should contain the cause or reasons for the war.

Pointless dig at France

"The defence of France is of great ridicule in military history and it is clear that the French is not any Victorious power she thinks she is."

This adds nothing to the write-up, the grammar's dreadful and it stinks of pointless predjudice. Could it be removed?

yes. It lowers the tone of the article and is factually incorrect.

Peregrine981 17:17, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Geneva Conventions

I would be interested to see a paragraph or two in the "Historical significance" section of a short analysis of the role of the Geneva Conventions in the war. Did they hold? Was poison gas not used because of the Conventions, or because it was not practical in any theater? How many prisoners were repatriated from each side at the end of the war? Tempshill 00:45, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Please remember that not all "Law of Land Warfare" is in Geneva, some is in Hague and some is "traditional". Also that Geneva 4 wasn't until after the war. Rmhermen 14:11, May 15, 2004 (UTC)

Map of Europe and South-East Asia during WW2

I can't seem to find any maps on the pages concerning World War II perhaps somebody could provide one. Moravice 10:15, May 21, 2004 (UTC)

Statistics on Participation of military personnel

Is there any statistics on participation of military personnel by country (particularly from allied nations)? We have a pretty good idea about how many soldiers were involved from the ww2 caasualties stats but this article would be complete with statistics on how many soldiers fought in the war. [I tried google but couldn't find it. I (or somebody else) probably would have to go check library or something.]

Theater/theatre

Why is it that the American spelling of theater is used? Wikipedia's rules clearly state that spellings should be localised to tie in with the topic area. Seeing as the European Theatre is to do with Europe and British English is the dominant form of English in Europe, the British spelling should surely be used. Furthermore, the article it links to (European Theatre of World War II) uses the British spelling.

This is a case that it could be either spelling. In such cases, we generally go with whatever the original author wrote.→Raul654 00:06, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be concerned about audience? In that case, we are talking about 159 million internet users in america versus 25 million in the UK (official statistics from both governments).
who the hell did the fighting? it's an international topic, IMO. --Jiang 23:27, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The Russians probably did the most fighting. How do you spell "Theatre" in Russian? --Samuel Wantman 06:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
theatre doesn't even make sense; do you pronounce it like the-A-tray? No! You prounouce it like theater, so this makes more sense.
I think that most Americans will be able to understand that Theatre is the same as Theater. Wikipedia policy states that the spelling should be determined by the topic. Much of World War II is centred on the European theatre, and should therefore follow European, ie British guidelines for spelling. NOt to mention that Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders played important roles in both the European theatre from a much earlier date than Americans, and in the Pacific theatre along with Americans. Even if it is an international topic, original english should be used, rather than one regional variation so as to avoid confusion.

Peregrine981 01:00, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

English spelling hasn't made sense since we got rid of the runes. Kairos 05:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't care how you spell it, theatre or theater, I DO think it is important that it is spelled the same way throughout the article. It just looks unprofessional. If it isn't consistantly spelled the same way in an article, people will assume that someone made a mistake, and this debate will go on forever! If the subordinate articles are spelled "theatre" than "theatre" should be used throughout, otherwise, rename the subordinate articles. Since that would be a pain (and pointless), why not just go with "theatre".
If wikipedians continue to get bent out of shape about these differences in spelling, perhaps there should be another language version of wikipedia so there would be one for British English, and another for American English. Perhaps it could be automated so that the words are automatically changed, just like the date format. While were at it, why doesn't the editor have a spell checker?
I rather enjoy the differences between the dialects of English. While traveling in South East Asia, I met an Australian woman who asked me what I was wearing around my waist. I sait is was my "fanny pack". She turned bright red and said "WHAT!!". Turns out "fanny" is quite a vulgar term for Austrailians. I think they call them "bum bags" --Samuel Wantman 06:42, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Changing the spellings as a preference (such as theater/theatre and color/colour) is a great idea! I don't know why it isn't already a preference. However, you'd never be able to create seperate english versions-1, takes too long, and 2-too many people from both sides already participate.--naryathegreat 01:07, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, to further complicate matters, "theater" is not always the American spelling. See: Talk:Broadway theatre --Samuel Wantman 06:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey, i noticed something up there about the spelling in broadway, know that a theater of a war will always be spelled as theater in written american english.--naryathegreat 01:26, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good idea as well, but it would wreak havoc upon certain articles. Kairos 06:13, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Isn't there some sort of formatting that turns off the wiki stuff? I'm sure I've seen it somewhere, Those certain articles would have to be written with the wiki stuff turned off. --Samuel Wantman 06:36, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Good point. The tag you speak of is <nowiki>. I hadn't thought of that. Kairos 03:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What do you mean by Wiki stuff? Also, as another idea, you could have some new type of formatting such as: 
[[ab]] or ''''word here''''
which would let the preference tool identify which words to change.

I believe that the principles here are the same as for the rest of Wikipedia. Either British or American spellings are acceptable, and there is no need to change from one to the other. If an article is about a predominantly British or American subject then the spelling should reflect that; otherwise the first author to use one or the other gets to decide. However there should be consistency within the article.

Please don't move articles when there is no need to - especially to use American spelling in areas where Americans played a minor role. DJ Clayworth 16:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On WIkipedia it is normal to discuss changes before making them. I suggest reaching a consensus here, and then we will implement it. My suggestions are:

  1. There was a perfectly good Category:World War II campaigns and theatres before you created Category:World War II Campagns and Theaters which has the wrong capitalisation. Let's leave the WWII articles in the first category.
  2. Each article gets the spelling it started with, or the spelling of its most relevant area. European-centred articles get European spelling, American centered articles American spelling. There will be a few inconsistencies, such as the template messages which have to be the same in all articles - lets just live with them. That's Wikipedia policy.

If you think a different approach is required please argue for it here. Anyone else is free to contribute, too. DJ Clayworth 17:51, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


There you go again, using that british spelling (capitalisation-capitalization) :) Anyway, it's time a decision was made. I think regardless, it ought to be uniform, just as many visitors who are american will want to look at the Battle of Britain, for instance. Also, please don't call anyone's role minor until you've looked at the details. And yes, more than just two people should decide the fate of a subject as big as world war ii (that's not much a vote anyway, and i'd never beat you like i'm going to :-) ).--naryathegreat 18:08, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

I am well aware of the exact nature of the US's contribution to WWII. Remember there is already a policy on this. Let's see what other people think. DJ Clayworth 18:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Problem is, most people forget to come look at the talk page.--naryathegreat 18:12, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Refering to the earlier rant which mentioned about the many American volunteers in the Battle of Britain. For the record there were 10 US born pilots in the Battle of Britain. The Eagle Squadron was not formed until September 1940. A total of 244 US born pilots volunteered to serve with the RAF and the RCAF. Mintguy (T)
OH MY GOODNESS! ANOTHER PARTICIPANT! PLEASE STAY AND CONTRIBUTE TO THE DISCUSSION!--naryathegreat 18:16, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
Hello all. I'm actually the one that created the original campaigns and theatres pages, categories and templates. Frankly I thought it was just fine the way it was, but, to be honost, so long as the it follows the rules, I'm relatively neutral as to which spelling is used (nice thing about being Canadian, both US and UK english are used). Still, I can't say I'm happy with someone just up and changing them for no reason other then that they prefer a specific way or that one country has a larger audience (IIRC, the English spoken in most parts of the world outside of the U.S. more closely resembles the UK's). Oberiko 19:59, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

However, they have few internet users in comparison with America. The UK is the biggest but, like the facts mentioned above, is a mere fraction of the users present in the U.S. By the way, I don't understand how you could use both spellings, but it doesn't bother me. :)--naryathegreat 21:11, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

OK, for the time being, i have put only mostly u.s. theaters and campaigns in the World War II campaigns and theaters category, since these deal with mostly u.s. troops (your own argument against you). This is the best interim solution i know of.--naryathegreat 21:27, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

It is just plain stupid to split a category up because of spelling. Please stop these incesant petty changes. Mintguy (T) 22:01, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We are just asking you nicely. We presume that you are a reasonable enough person to listen when you are asked nicely. DJ Clayworth 22:30, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All instances of "theater" must be corrected to "theatre". — Chameleon My page/My talk 08:04, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh thank you for correcting us oh omnipotent one. However should we displease you? (say please next time, gosh...)--naryathegreat 01:03, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC

"Corrected" to 'theatre'? What's to correct? "Theater" is not a misspelling, and therefore should be left alone. If any changes are to be made, replace the British spelling with the American spelling. The Wikipedia servers are located in America, and therefore the American spelling should be used. When the British house the servers, they can decide how to spell it. Mr. Grinch 22:18, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, technically this is a situation where the European Theater of Operations United States Army would be a correct useage. The origin of the terms actually came from United States Army units. For example, Eisenhower was Commanding General, European Theater of Operations as well as being SCAEF late in the war. The term theatre of operations has come into general English use, but if we are referring to WWII then it is correct to use the American spellings. David Newton 09:32, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Both theatre and theater are acceptable usage in American English not only in the context the stage arts (where theatre is overwhelmingly used by the professionals) but in the context of WWII. For instance these books are all US publications.
..but theatre is the only acceptable spelling in British English. Mintguy (T) 10:22, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone with any kind of credibility spell theater as theatre in the United states (some books do, but they are published by British publishers and print houses and authors).--naryathegreat 21:36, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Oh really, you obviously live a very sheltered life and don't get out to the theatre much. Have a look at [[1]]. Mintguy (T)
And you obviously can't read. If you'll notice above, I discuss theatre as in Broadway, I think we're talking about wars here. You might assume that's what we mean. And no one in any American school will tell you to spell theater theatre. Ask any person and they will say theater. It is overwhelming and a non-issue.--naryathegreat 01:18, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)
I forgot that it was you who said that. Anyway see your talk page and below.

I can't believe it. I go away for a week's vacation (or possibly holiday?) and you're still arguing when I come back. DJ Clayworth 03:10, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well...someone (I think Chameleon) basically ordered us to change things to theatre and that made me mad. Then some people, for the first time, took up the banner of theater. But I won't change pages this time. But the debate will never go away I fear.--naryathegreat 03:28, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to stamp out the dispute, rather than fuel it

... by showing that it is a non-issue. My point is that the issue between the use of theater and theatre in a military context is not as clear cut it might first seem. "Theatre" is overwhlemingly used with regard to the stage art when used by professionals in that field, and it appears that this spelling also has some usage in the military context. A simple google test, limiting the sites to .gov (no possibility of links outside of the United States) shows that about 1 in 10 times theatre is used rather than "theater".

  • war "european theater" site:gov [2] = 865 hits
  • war "european theatre" site:gov [3] = 91 hits
  • war "pacific theater" site:gov [4] = 936 hits
  • war "pacific theatre" site:gov [5] = 98 hits

Doing the same test limiting site to .edu (again no possibility of sites outside of the United States) gives the following results, which gives us a ratio ranging between approx 1:6 and 1:4.

  • war "european theater" site:edu [6] = 3,660 hits
  • war "european theatre" site:edu [7] = 1,620 hits
  • war "pacific theater" site:edu [8] = 3,540 hits
  • war "pacific theatre" site:gov [9] = 648 hits
It may be that in some cases the BE spelling with regard to "European Theatre" is refering to theatre on the stage but this can't be argued for "Pacific Theatre". So it appears that this spelling has some usage in a military context in the US, although I suppose you might argue that these instances are incorrect usage, and are in fact misspellings. Mintguy (T) 08:37, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is an issue-don't tell Americans what's acceptable or commonplace in they're own country. We know and you don't. No one spells it theatre when concerning a war. Yes some people do it with things like Broadway and such, but I haven't read an American author under an American publisher use that spelling (a lot of those books, not searches, you used above have foreign, not U.S., publishers and authors, and they're obscure--not mainstream--I visit my history section often thank you)--naryathegreat 19:19, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

I see. So I'm not allowed to comment on American issues because I'm not American. Well am I allowed to comment on World War II even though I wasn't alive when it was being fought? Am I allowed to comment on issues to do with women even though I'm not a woman? Whatever. I have found plenty of evidence that the spelling "theatre" is not unknown in the US in the context of World War II. Here though perhaps is the most significant - This is a photograph of the memorial to the 101st Airborne Division in Arlington Cemetery [10]. Mintguy (T) 08:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, you're not allowed to tell us what's allowed and what's commonplace in our own country. Read next time.--naryathegreat 18:15, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

In my experience, "theater" and "theatre" are both very commonly used in the United States, much more so than other such spellings. Kairos 23:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see theatre used, other than with such things as plays or the like (and this is just "pretty stuff", like the use of centre instead of center in a store name, my church is named lake pointe, but we don't really spell it pointe, its just a "pretty" thing, maybe aesthetic is the word?)--naryathegreat 01:01, Jul 20, 2004 (UTC)

You already lost this argument. The 101st memorial being the nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. Enough already. Mintguy (T) 07:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This [11] is the result of a google search for 'theatre' on www.army.mil. While some of the references are about military theatre, (i.e. plays) there are plenty of clear uses of 'theatre of operations'. While a few are quoting foreign documents, most are not. 'theatre' seems to be used about 1 in 20 times. Of course this is not really relevant - it is, as we have said before, quite OK to use British English in articles about international subjects. DJ Clayworth 16:40, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't really care how it's spelled in the article, someone just said that theatre is perfectly normal in America (which I don't consider to be true). So I said something, and he said something back, and on and on. But I really do not care how you choose to spell it in this article anymore. It is irrelevant, especially since I am engaged in more frivolous disputes elsewhere :-)--naryathegreat 17:30, Jul 21, 2004 (UTC)

On another note

I corrected a mistake in the introduction which stated 55.5 million deaths and then 50 million, it now only lists the 55.5 million, and only once, though still maintaining style, I hope--naryathegreat 00:10, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)

Pacific Prelude to War Missing

There seems to be quite a bit missing from the Prelude to War in the Pacific Theatre. Why are there no even brief contributions presenting the intrusion into and exploitation of China and Japan by western forces? Consider the implications of the following events from the mid 1800s onward..

The Closed China

The First Opium War

The Forced Opening of China

The Second Opium War

The Kanagawa Treaty

The Forced Opening of Japan

The Harris Treaty

Germany's seizure of Kiau Chau in China.

Britain's seizure of Wei-hai-wei.

The US acquisition of the Philippines in 1898 in a surprise attack on the Spanish Navy.

The Russian seizure of Port Arthur.

The May 4th 1919 Tian'an Men Square protest over the government's agreement that Chinese territory formerly under German control be handed to the Japanese.

Roosevelt's 1939 approval for a covert air war in China, under Chennault, which continued resistance against the Japanese. After 2 years, in April, 1941 (before Pearl Harbor), FDR issued a secret executive order which formulated the American Volunteer Group (AVG), and authorized Chennault to have 100 American pilot mercenaries and planes (the Curtiss P-40 Warhawk fighter) and $50 million for the Chinese effort.

Its ludricous that these events and numerous others are not documented in the prelude to war in the pacific theatre, no?


This page is an overview of the entire war and its effects. Such a detailed explanation would never fit into the structure and size limits. Only a couple paragraphs on the background are appropriate on this page with a link to the in-depth article specifically on the background to the Pacific War. Rmhermen 05:18, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


But, and this is the point, there is no in-depth article which details these events and is then referenced in the main article in the way that you describe. Some might suggest that the omission is politically motivated but I doubt it. So, the question is, why is there no solid documentation of these lesser known events and hostilities which lead to the Pacific War in a separate article referenced from within?

There is a very small section in the Causes of... article but clearly as an afterthought. And no article yet equivalent to the Events preceeding ...in Europe article. Anyone want to start writing? Rmhermen 04:02, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Wikireader proposal

I am seriously considering doing a World War II wikireader. What do people think of the idea? Any volunteers? →Raul654 21:55, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Preliminary work is starting. Volunteers are very welcome! Register at Wikipedia:World War II wikireader. →Raul654 21:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Removed statement

I removed this statement from the article: Note: This article is not meant to completely describe all of the causes or events of the Second World War, and is meant only as a guide or general idea. Further detail is available in linked articles. Every attempt is made to keep neutrality.

I see no point in having it. The same could be said of any article large enough to have sub-articles. It completely irrelavant to the topic, so I removed it. →Raul654 21:47, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

Great Britain

Please don't use Great Britain when you mean the United Kingdom. Great Britain in effect means the United Kingdom minus Northern Ireland. Sometimes, for example in sport, Northern Ireland has a separate existence from the rest of the UK, so GB can be used. But when you are talking about the whole United Kingdom (eg, the awarding of VCs, etc) use UK, not the truncated GB.

I know it sounds technical and anal, but the history of the islands of Britain and Ireland is very complex, with different names used at different times to mean different geo-political entities. (Example: The Irish Republic and the Republic of Ireland are two different things.) GB is the name of the full kingdom before 1801 or that bit of the kingdom excluding Ireland/Northern Ireland after that date! As an encyclopaedia we need to get the terminology right. FearÉIREANN 20:22, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do we have an article somewhere detailing what the thing was called at various times? --Carnildo 21:15, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Day of Surrender

Hi, maybe this was already discussed: the article states "but one week later the German armed forces surrendered unconditionally on 7 May 1945". This is not necessarily true. On May 7, the signed the document but it took in effect on May 8. So, Germany surrendered on May 8 and not May 7.

Well, following your logic we should write that Germany surrendered on May 12th, since on that day the last organized unit of Wehrmacht recieved the order and ceased fire. However, the document of unconditional surrender was signed on May 7th and that is the date we should use. Similarily, the US of A declared independence on July 4, 1776. Should we change that to September 3, 1783 just because on that day the country became fully independent? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:01, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
Good point :). But then we may want to add that the offical day is May 8 (V-E Day).

Actually Germany surrendered on 7 May only to the western allies. To the Sowjetunion it was on 9 May. So, 8 May is more appropriate.

German victory?

Hey guys. I would like to have a little debate on what the Germans could have done to win the war. Maybe we could post info on this article on how they could have won. (NOTE: I don't support them. I just want everyone's opinion)- B-101 21:23, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bad idea. What-if history is below the wikipedia:encyclopedic standard that is our goal. --Johan Magnus 12:17, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hmmm.... Not invading URSS ? IMO Hitler's adventure was already doomed after the Battle of England and maybe earlier. But in anyway that's out of the scope of the article IMO.

Ericd 13:40, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lives lost

In the intro paragraph, I changed "55.5" millions of lives lost to "tens of". The problem is that the number of lives lost goes up or down depending on how you count. If you do research in this area, you quickly see that it's rare for two sources to agree on how many lives were lost. I'm willing to allow specific numbers back in if the numbers are cited and if we give both a lower range estimate and an upper range estimate. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:25, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, World War II casualties discusses this in more detail, and the fact that it has a {{disputed}} tag on it just goes to show how contentious this issue is. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 20:30, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Music

In writing the "music of" articles, I have noticed a number of them mention the moving about of soldiers as a lasting influence on their music. There doesn't appear to be a section on cultural effects, but maybe there should be. (World War 1 might have one too, as I remember there being a number of British battlefield poets then) WW2 undoubtedly had some effects on the Dadaists and had other cultural effects (didn't American soldiers bring french fries back from Belgium?). Tuf-Kat 22:46, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Music of Papua New Guinea comes to mind as an example. Is there a way to find out what links to World War 2 from one of the "music of" articles? Tuf-Kat 22:50, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Casualties by campaign and theatre

Is there such a list? I am interested in compareing Allied casualties in the Italian Campaign versus the Pacific Theatre.Stbalbach 15:32, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)


World War: The Sequel

Quite some time ago, I sent a letter to the Times' 'Notes and Queries' section, asking them at what point 'The Great War' became 'World War One', and at which point the hostilities of 1939 became officially 'World War Two' rather than merely a set of regional conflicts - a tricky question, given that Japan, China, Italy, Spain and Germany had been or were already involved in various armed or hostile conflicts. Stupidly, I didn't buy the edition of the paper which had the answer! But from what I remember, 'World War I' and 'World War II' as terms came into public use during The Great War, and was popularised by H G Wells in 'Things to Come' and numerous editorial pieces. If anybody has any more information, I believe this little fact would be a useful addition to the article. - Ashley Pomeroy 15:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question

Is Band of Brothers an accurate portrayal of the situation of Easy Company?

I have heard (i.e. I have nothing to back this up) that it is not completely accurate. Events such as the attack of Eagles Nest are overly dramatic or did not happen at all. --Chichin0 19:05, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

There may be a need to put a lock on this page since somebody has gone through and interspersed the words "fuck hitler" throughout the entire document. --Chichin0 19:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

As you see, a quick revert and everything is back to normal. The person concerned has been politely asked not to do it again. No problem. DJ Clayworth 05:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The only time I've seen a page protected was when it was systematically vandalized eighteen times over the course of 24 hours. --Carnildo 06:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Page protection is primarily used to give a timeout for an edit/revert war. Protection is seldomly applied for vandalism unless said article is a main page article and attracting en-masse vandalism. Alkivar 07:22, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm obviously new to this. Thanks for correcting the page. --66.188.43.9 19:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edit

"The nazi sucked the jews balls" appears at the top. While the verscity of the statement is unclear depending on context, it probably doesn't belong on this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Archive_5&oldid=1137332096"