Talk:World War II: Difference between revisions

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

---

Archived at:

• Talk:World War II/Archive 1
• Talk:World War II/Archive 2
• Talk:World War II/Archive 3
• Talk:World War II/Archive 4
• Talk:World War II/Archive 5

Battle of the Scheldt noted

The Battle of the Scheldt, is without a doubt one of the most significant battles on the Western front, but for some reason has been overlooked countless times by many historians. I just finished the article and some supporting documents on it. I think it is absolutely worth including in the main ww2 article, as without the supply lines, the allied defense during the Battle of the Bulge would have been sketchy at best.

All discussion and debate is welcomed here in terms of it's noteworthiness in this article, and on the talk page for the Battle of the Scheldt.

cheers. --Oldsoul 4 July 2005 23:23 (UTC)

date for the ending of the war (V-J day)

Right now it says in the second paragraph that the war:

... continued in Asia and the Pacific until (...) the Japanese surrender on September 2, 1945 (V-J Day).

but September 2 was only the day for the formal signing of the terms of surrender. The war is much more frequently said to have ended on August 15, when Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam declaration and laid down her arms. And this day, August 15, is indeed the V-J day as it says in the V-J Day article. I was about to change the date, but thought I'd ask about it here first.

Shanes 02:10, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Make note of both, indicating which is which and why. --User:naryathegreat | (talk) 00:16, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Treaty ending WWII

Is there any information anywhere about the treaties Germany, Japan, and Italy signed ending the war? There is lots of stuff on the internet about the Treaty of Versailles, but not on the end of WWII. There needs to be something about this.

As far as I understand it, World War II was not ended by treaty, it was ended by surrender - of the Germans and Japanese separately. There were no 'terms' worth mentioning, so the exact nature of the documents is not important. DJ Clayworth 06:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know that there were only surrender documents signed, but the article on the Gulf War mentions something about Germany and Japan paying without sending soldiers, because of the agreement after WWII. I never heard of that, and just want confirmation on that. Also, if memory servers, the 1974(?) edition of the New Book of Knowledge Encyclopedia mentions something about the war officialy ending in 1950 or something. But I read that about 5 years ago, and it was only a small little thing.

The Allies wrote restriction on the use of military force into the constitutions of Japan and Germany that were adopted after the war. West Germany gained full sovereignty in 1955 and Japan in 1952 except for Okinawa (held until 1972). Rmhermen 19:17, Jan 16, 2005 (UTC)

On could even say that they war never ended because Japan never signed a surrender document with the USSR.

Article Re-write

The current World War II article is very burdened. The war is a HUGE topic, and there are billions of details. Unfortunately I think too many of these details have been presented in the main article, and not enough is presented in orderly sub-articles. I have made a re-write of the article, aiming to present a concise and orderly picture of the war to a researcher, especially a novice to the war (because that's the point isn't it?). I have posted the current incarnation of it on my user page user page and would appreciate some commentary on whether it represents an improvement over the current article or not. I have not completed adding all of the links, and undoubtably am missing some chunk somewhere that should be there. However, it is missing many details that I have intentionally dropped as material that would be better presented in a sub-article. I don't want to lose information, but the main article shouldn't be bogged with minutae, especially on a topic as big as WWII. Thank you ahead of time for any commentary, you can post it here or on my user talk page. Thanks!!! Joshbaumgartner 07:42, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

In general, it looks good. A few notes:

1. I believe some if not all of the most common names for WWII are redirects here, but so many things do that Special:Whatlinkshere is overloaded and I can't verify. Should the names be mentioned in the first paragraph?
2. How much of the information that has been removed from the main article is suitable for adding to sub-articles?
3. In the "Civil impacts" section, are there articles that each of the subsections can link to?
4. A good deal of wikification is needed, but that can be done later.

--Carnildo 08:53, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. As for common names, you are probably right that at least the most common should be there in the lead paragraph, such as Great Patriotic War. As for sub-articles, ideally, yes, each heading should contain a paragraph or so about the item, and should have a Main article listed for more information. I think I will create the links and at least provide a stub as a starting point for the sub-article if a relevant one does not already exist. As for wikification, naturally that will take time and is probably best done by the community once at least the highlights are done. Joshbaumgartner 18:02, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)

If there is no objection, I will post the re-write at the end of the week so all can edit (or sooner if requested). Joshbaumgartner 00:46, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

I don't know exactly how to do this, but I would advice you to try to get in touch with other experienced Wikipedians, whose input surely would be valuable. Until then, I hope you have analyzed how the focus of your proposal is different than the focus of the article as it stands today — at least in order to prepare yourself on (from where to expect) the most intense criticism. /Tuomas 07:02, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, I will assume that there will be such reaction. I was hoping to be able to get some of that from posting on the talk page here. Joshbaumgartner 02:57, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I object to your rewrite as it is now, at 04:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC).

• Questionable neutrality from words such as "tragedy", "carnage", "Unfortunately".
• Poor writing, such as "Another friend of Hitler's, Japan...", "War had been going in East Asia for...".
• Introduction is less useful. The article in general also omits too much in my opinion.

119 04:33, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

119, in response, I admit that it is impossible to be entirely neutral. I have edited the sections you noted to make them more objective. Same for your second point. As for the last, it is a difficult matter. The subject is obviously impossible to cover fully in a single article, thus it is necessary to omit items from the top-level article, and address them in sub-article. Please clarify if you are merely referring to such things, or if there are omissions that actually are lost information.

Additionally, it is much more helpful to providing good criticism if you not only identify what you don't like (easy for anyone to do about any submission), but suggest what might be an improvement you would make. For example, instead of merely saying a particular phrase is poorly written, suggest a possible re-write that you would find positive. This not only will help the recipient of your criticism better address your concerns, but will also help demonstrate that you are genuinely interested in helping improve their work, and are not just being negative and counter-productive about the matter.

Thanks, Joshbaumgartner 10:21, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedian, I suggest you write it on a temp page first, have others help you polish it up, and then move it here. →Raul654 04:35, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent point, Raul, I will certainly do that! Joshbaumgartner 10:21, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

The article re-write has been posted to a temp page: World War II/temp for further improvement and comment. Joshbaumgartner 10:43, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

A rewrite of this article would be a good thing! Take this sentence for example. "Multiple efforts [1] to bring to a peace agreement, and officially end the war." What multiple efforts? It needs a either a cleanup or a rewrite. --Lukeisham 7 July 2005 07:06 (UTC)

Generally this rewrite is very nice. It's well-balenced and about the right length. I'd have no issue is this was made the main article. It obviously owes quite a bit to the old article, so maybe we should replace the text rather than move it, so as to preserve the old author history.

Two comments though: the summary section is really not necessary. If anyone has read down that far then they already have the information there. The 'participation' section is also a bit redundant. Again, anyone reading that far has already found out most of the things there. There is room for a section describing the effects on some countries (such as Britain's effective loss of Empire and the US rise to economic prominence) but they could go in an 'aftereffects' section. DJ Clayworth 7 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

• Temp version

I've made a few edits to the temp article on the subject of the Italian campaign, which was rather garbled before. However, I'm concerned that this version of the article is simply too short. It outlines the course of military campaigns, but doesn't explain why. The political background is hardly mentioned. There is no mention of Yalta, Tehran, Lend-Lease, the Atlantic Charter, Stalingrad, and so on and so on and so on. Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt seem only to be mentioned in that picture from Yalta (or Tehran). There is the usual bias against the Eastern Front - why does Operation Torch get mentioned, but none of the individual Soviet offensives? And China is also barely discussed. I realize that any article has to pick and choose, but it feels like this article simply leaves too much out. The main article on World War II ought to be a solid article, and not just a portal for links to other, more detailed articles. I think this is especially true in terms of the high politics stuff, which simply isn't going to get covered elsewhere. john k 21:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Excellent input re: World War II/temp. I agree that more should be said about the Eastern Front in the main article, and I have added a new paragraph giving greater information about the events of that front and giving the reader a better idea of the sheer size of the conflict. Naturally, it is impossible to do true justice to such a front that was such a critical part of the war.

As for the political aspects, this is also, I agree, a must-have for the main article. I do think a section covering the politics of World War II would be great, and it sounds like you may have the knowledge to really make a concise entry on the matter.

China is tough, especially since while it is an integral part of the war, the Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) is considered by many to be an ancillary and contributory conflict (not unlike the Winter War). It bears some discussion though. I have created an Events preceding World War II in Asia page--there was one for Europe, but none for Asia--to start gathering some of that information. How much to move to the main article? I'm not really sure.

I look forward to more input, Joshbaumgartner 01:38, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

In terms of the politics, I feel like the current organization makes it a bit difficult - A more chronological framework, where we talk about the war in each theatre in each year, would make it easier. For instance, Tehran makes sense in the context of being in late 1943, as the western allies prepare their second front, and so forth, and the context gets lost if you just have one big section on high politics. As to China - I agree about the early part of the Chinese conflict. But after December 1941 it becomes pretty closely related to the Pacific War, particular the China-Burma-India Theatre, which was one of the main fronts of the war against Japan. By the way, I agree with you that the current version is pretty awful. john k 02:15, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia procedures, I am sorry to see that the rewrite at /temp can't be transparently substituted with the current version. Having read both versions, I see advantages with Josh's approach and particularly with his language, but the appearent coherence of the narrative, that is one of the chief advantages of the /temp-version, will most probably not last for very long once the article is put in place. As a result, many of its disadvantages, including the UK/US-POV, may remain for a longer time than its advantages. That's why, if given the choice, I would support the old version staying.

However, I propose that we either agree to change the structure of the article according to Josh's proposal, but keep the old text and in particular the existing links until the new structure has stood the test of time for some months, or that Josh replace the text of the current article paragraph by paragraph or section by section in a moderate pace, which makes it easier to spot, discuss, and correct errors, introduced bias, and omission of links to other Wikipedia-articles. --Johan Magnus 16:20, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Deadline for temp

I was wondering if we could have a deadline (obviously in a reasonable timeframe) for the temp page (which is quite excellent at the moment, even if it still needs improving!) to be shifted to the normal page? I say this because I'd hate to have editors edit the current page and discover all their hard work wiped out! Also, maybe a note on the temp version could be added to the page so that editors know of the work being done? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Merging in the temp page

What's the status of World War II/temp? Should it be merged back into this article? OR what? →Raul654 00:56, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I'm willing to replace it as soon as I'm done copyediting it. It'll just take a few days or so.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:20, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Peer review

Article listed on peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II. 119 05:01, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Requesting references

Does anyone have references or, on the latter, POV attribution on these bits in Consequences?

The repatriation, pursuant to the terms of the Yalta Conference, of two million Russian soldiers who had come under the control of advancing American and British forces, resulted for the most part in their deaths.

The destruction of Europe and the destruction, via aerial bombing, of a significant proportion of the United Kingdom's cities would also symbolically destroy the aura of invincibility the European nation had in the eyes of their colonies. Coupled with the enormous amount of money it had expended during the war, an empire was perceived to be an unnecessarily expensive possession. Thus this would provoke the rapid decolonisation process that would see the empires of the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, and others swept away.

Date of beginning

World War II started in Europe, namely in Poland, in Danzig (Gdańsk), at dawn of 1 Sept. 1939. The German warship "Schlezwig Holstein" shot at the Polish coast-guard station. This is the fact that all educated children know as the beginning of WW2, which then spread nearly all over the world. No debate over this date, please!

There are multiple views on this throughout the world. Please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. 119 00:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, then no. 119, the most neutral point is when you remain silent and percept nothing. If anyone wishing to learn something about WW2 finds this article on the web, they will find also a piece of information that there is "a debate", which is perhaps some niche conflict between historians, not a commonly accepted fact. Namely, later in the article we can read, when exactly the war started, i.e. on 1st Sept. 1939. Two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany. These fact are most remarkable. We should highlight the most imortant facts if we are to treat Wikipedia as a real encyclopaedia, shouldn't we?

Don't you consider Japan to be a participant in the war? And if you do, is there any principled method for deciding which parts of Japan's expansionism are part of the war and which aren't? Arguably WWII was two separate wars that merged, giving various options for defining "the starting date". You can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or you can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately. But there's absolutely no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war. — B.Bryant 12:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, mostly catering to the U.S. and British Commonwealth. Being that the case, the generally accepted start date for the war in these nations is the invasion of Poland, leading the British and the French (the Allies) to declare war on Germany (principle member of the Axis). Wikipedia's in other locales, such as East Asia, will probably state otherwise. Oberiko 12:48, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The article is about WWII, not the West's involvement in WWII. — B.Bryant 13:13, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but our audience is Western. Considering how many different interpretations there could be for a "start" date (The Winter War, The Norwegian Campaign, The Second Sino-Japanese War, The Attack on Pearl Harbour, The invasion of Poland, Annexation of Austria and Czechoslavakia... etc.) depending on whom you're speaking to, and then compound that with the belief some people have that it's the same conflict as World War I (which has it's own starting time debates) and there's not going to be any clear or 100% technically right answer. Instead, we'll go by what is commonly accepted by professionals within our target audience (English speaking countries: ie. The United States and British Commonwealth) and use the Invasion of Poland which brought France, the United Kingdom, Poland and Germany into direct and declared war. Oberiko 15:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would rather like to say that Wikipedia's audience is predominantly Western, or at least an audience that is used to Western sources. We have reason to have this in mind, pragmatically, when writing prominent passages of the text, as for instance the introductory sentence. But, and this is one thing I like about this project, Wikipedia strives to be an international encyclopedia, not geared towards common myths in specific nations such as the UK, the US, or Australia. We actively strive to get rid of biases, including pro-Western and pro-Anglosaxon bias. Hence I would be happier with some weaseling at places where the issue can't be carefully investigated. ...often held to have begun at September 1, 1939, when... could be one suitable wording. --Johan Magnus 16:06, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Though I myself am from the west and believe 1939 to be the year World War II started, I disagree with Oberiko. Just saying that wikipedia's main audience is one particular group doesn't mean we should sacrifice our integrity by omitting other views simply to appeal to that group. The day wikipedia does that I'd blow my brains out... Anyway, I think that the way the start of the war is shown on the article is perfect. --DA Roc 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

60 million or 57 million?

Both figures are given for the total number of deaths - one in the first paragraph, the second in the third paragraph. Which is correct? It looks not very good right now to have both figures there. Moncrief 20:03, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

57 million is given at World War II casualties, 60 million was added by User:Bluemoose. 119 20:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As if there can be given a correct figure!

Without any doubt, the uncertainity is far greater than the difference between 57 and 60, and I would suggest that we hang on to about 60 million as a hint of this. --Johan Magnus 16:08, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why does the link behind the figure show even more deaths? 103 mil to be exact. We should at least try to keep both pages the same. Or at least figure out which page is wrong. --Soyweiser 09:07, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Most estimates I've heard say there were between 50 million and 60 million casualties, although I've seen some as low as 40 million and as high as 70 million before. bob rulz July 3, 2005 06:35 (UTC)

• My suggestion is as the article now states: "Almost 60 million people died...". It is a fairly accurate estimate of the non-exact figure which it is, and always will be. I dont think we want to go scientific and say 58.55 +- 12.86 million? :) Regards, Dna-Dennis 18:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"The repatriations..."

"The repatriation, pursuant to the terms of the Yalta Conference, of two million Russian soldiers who had come under the control of advancing American and British forces, resulted for the most part in their deaths."

I am not sure what that means. Kingturtle 06:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

24.214.192.86 and 1932

24.214.192.86 has revised the intro to state as fact that the war's starting date is 1932. Please note that this violates NPOV. If you are familiar with a reference which states the war's opening date as 1932, that would be very useful in attribution. However, Wikipedia does not assume one view is fact. 119 01:23, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Also's - Strategic Bombing

The link points to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Bombing_During_World_War_II but this turns up as a untouched page. The link maybe should lead to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing#World_War_II ? --macaddct1984 4:55, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

radar vs RADAR

I thought I changed "radar" to RADAR since it is an acronym; however, it doesn't look like the change is taking effect.--P Todd 03:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well now it seems to have been commited.--P Todd 03:43, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And jeep is an acronym too, but there's no need to capitalize the letters. --Madchester 04:46, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this statement?

"On December 7, 1941 Japan bombed the U.S. naval base called Pearl Harbor. Thus making the U.S. bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki."

It makes some sense. It is referencing the US' counterattack with the A-Bombs, which was years later anyway. If it hasn't already, it should be removed. Also, it skips everything that hapenned in between that time. On another note, the grammar doesn't flow correctly. --Zeerus 18:44, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Zeerus. That statement can be a little misleading, and really just does not look like encyclopedia material. --DA Roc 14:06, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stub

I have a few suggestions for the stub article under the heading Contemporary Culture. I think we should remove that entire section, and put the given link tot he main article under the See Also section. Also, I think the stub label should be removed under the genocide section of this entry. The same goes for the Home Front part of the page. If anything we can try and expand the Home Front and Genocide sections with some more information. Just enought o get the stub label removed. I'm open to suggestions on those. For now, I'm going to remove the section on contemporary culture and move the link to the see also section --Zeerus 19:10, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we have an entire article on World War II related topics, we can simply put that in the See also section and clear off quite a bit of this. Oberiko 19:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. The temp article is coming along pretty well. Who exactly is working on it now? I'd like to try and contribute what I can. What do you think about the other two stubs I mentioned? --Zeerus 19:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that the Genocide and Home Front should be left relatively small and linked to from the main article. The Genocide is much more closely linked to Nazi Germany then the actual War itself. The Home Front is more of an effect of the war rather then about the war itself. Oberiko 20:39, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the stub tags are holding back this page. Get rid of those, and this article has a better chance of being a Featured Article. We don't necessarily have to get rid of them, just expand on them a little bit more. As far as the genocide part goes, it doesn't even give statistics of the Holocaust and the war. Another thing, in this case, would you attribute the word genocide to the Holocaust, or the entire war? I think it better suits the former. --Zeerus 21:07, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Balkans in Europe or Mediterranean?

I see that the Balkan states are in the European theatre of WWII, can I recommend they be moved to the Mediterranean section? Oberiko 23:25, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be moved. Then again, most of the fighting the Balkans were involved in was in the European campaign. But, i ultimately think it should be moved. It would be less confusing for some people. --Zeerus 17:41, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Continents

Just reading this, but I don't think WWII involved all continents. If my suspicions are correct Antartica was exempt from WWII.

And so was South America in most respects, I think. Bgohla 10:45, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

1938-1939

This period should be covered in more detail: along with Soviet treaty with Hitler 1939 the similar treaty of the West with Hitler 1938 should be mentioned (I tried to introduce it). Also to be included: Soviet proposal for the treaty with the West (declined by the latter) against Nazi Germany in April 1939 should be present etc. For the timeline of events see, e.g. [1]. 213.115.184.126 14:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think your recent edit is an accurate and NPOV way of describing the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and why it was signed.

• First: "Soviet Union, trying to protect itself from anticommunist Nazi Germany, signed..." is POV. It could just as well be written the other way (Nazi Germany trying to protect itself from communist Soviet Union signed...). But that's also POV. Why not just keep it as it was, and leave the debate over who wanted to protect itself against who to the Molotov-Ribbentrop article where all this is discussed. Discussing it here will make this already long article way too long.
• Second: "In this sense it was pretty similar to Munich Agreement". No, it wasn't. The Munic agreement didn't have any seecret clause sharing a country between the signers of the agrement as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact had.

In short I think your edits should be reverted. But I'd like to get your (and others) comments before I do so. Shanes 16:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you Shane. Let's leave opinions and comparions (unless extremely relevant) out of this article, if for no other reason then length. Oberiko 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree totally (with Shane and Oberiko). --Johan Magnus 16:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Reverted it now. Shanes 18:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pearl Harbor

In the section on Pearl Harbor I found this: "The attack is widely seen as the final straw that drew the United States into the war." widely seen? I would have thought there was no need for this qualifier. Any objections? DJ Clayworth 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really, though I think it should be mentioned that, for the European Theatre, it was Germany that declared war on the United States. IIRC, the U.S. likely would not have become actively involved in Europe otherwise. Oberiko 15:27, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could be argued that the US was already actively engaged in WW2 before Pearl Harbour as they were sailing supplies and war material across the Atlantic. While the military participation in this was limited, it can be seen as an act of violence against Germany to supply war materials to Great Britain.

Minor Ally "Surrender"?

Romania and Bulgaria did not "surrender", they switched sides and fought the Nazis till the V-E Day and later. --Vladko 04:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you are fighting against someone, and then stop and fight for them, that's usually a surrender (unless there is a negotiated peace). For example Italy surrendered, and then joined the Allied cause. Is there any evidence to show that Romania and Bulgaria behaved differently? DJ Clayworth 05:36, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

graffiti on page that cannot be edited

In the section regarding the Battle of Britain, the phrase "The war sucked major balls!" has been inserted at the end of the paragraph, but I don't see that line when I switched to edit mode. Not sure how this graffitit can be removed, but thought I'd pass this along.

It was probably due to a delay in updating the article. Sometimes the displayed version gets behind the version in the database by a few minutes, so you don't see a change that was just made. When you edit the article it gets the most recent version from the database. The problem should correct itself after a few minutes. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

WW I and WW II one conflict separated by a ceasefire?

The article says

Still others argue that the two world wars are one conflict separated only by a "ceasefire".

One conflict separated by a 19+ year ceasefire in which Italy and Japan change sides? Who argues this? Clearly the wars are connected, but to say that they were one conflict seems very strained. Quale 07:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

When the Treaty of Versailles was signed, war was technically over. However, it's no doubt that parts and effect of that Treaty actually caused WWII to break out. One example of ceasefire that is still currently occuring is the Korean War. The two Korean nations are still technically at war. No peace treaty was signed so far. --Kvasir 07:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The Picture

File:Stalingrad.jpg

File:Spitfire.JPG

Does anyone else think the nuclear explosion is not the best picture to head up this article? I know it's a significant event, but it's not typical of the war. I wondered if we could maybe head the article up with a stack of three pictures of battle in progress - one land, one sea, one air. Ideally they could be from different theatres, maybe Battle of Britain, Russian front and Pacific naval. We could move the mushroom cloud down to the appropriate section. DJ Clayworth 21:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that mushroom cloud is a very good as a representation of the enormous impact the war had on 20th century history; the unpresentend scale of death and desctruction, the ushering in of the atomic age and the rise of the US as one of the superpowers. I can't really think of a better candidate myself.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:14, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth and would argue it is not the best picture. The mushroom cloud is the defining image of the Cold War, not World War II. The War was more or less won by Hiroshima/Nagasaki — the bombs were dropped as the Allies were planning post-war polcy — as Germany was beaten (though invading Japan by conventional means would of course have had horrific consequences). Surely images which sum up the war better are:

• Signing of acts of surrender (Japan or Germany)
• D-Day landings
• Soviet flag over the Reichstag

Mark 22:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added one example of what it might be here. DJ Clayworth 23:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please try not to introduce even more militarycruft to the article. WW II was a lot more than just a long string of battles. The political and civilian impact needs to be focused on a lot more, and in this context the mushroom cloud is a lot more appropriate. If not Fat Man, at least find a pic that would appeal to more than just WW II-"fans".

Peter ^Isotalo 23:14, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DJ Clayworth as well. Honestly, my first thinking about WWII is always about the Atlantic theatre. I wonder if there'd be a way to get a couple smaller pictures in the first part of the article, one for each theatre, perhaps, rather than the HUGE image of the mushroom cloud. (I think the stack of three photos above would be decent, btw, but I think one non-military picture would be good, something perhaps to symbolize the Holocaust, or perhaps a picture of the destroyed Hiroshima...) It's a sensitive issue, though, because there's always the risk that such an edit could be seen as a pro-America (i.e., try to ignore America's use of nuclear weapons) change. kmccoy (talk) 03:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

While I'm not actually a military 'fan', I take Peter's point. Maybe we could add some non-military scenes, such as the aftermath of an air raid, or a concentration camp. I think the mushroom cloud is even more 'militarycruft'. DJ Clayworth 13:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree with DJ Clayworth and particularly with Mark83, who had very good picture candidates. The "mushroom cloud" makes you think of so many other things than World War II; nuclear weapons in general, the Cold War, the arms race, the modern world, Dr.Strangelove, etc etc. Or, think of it in this way: How many percent of books on World War II have the "mushroom cloud" as cover? My suggestion is a combination of the previously mentioned suggestion:

Simply - a montage with one big picture, and a couple of more under, or around it. One suggestion would be the following:

• Big picture: The D-Day Landings

(since the main theatre of WW2 was Europe, considering the reasons of the outbreak)

• Small picture suggestions, with reasons:

• The Soviet flag over the Reichstag (marking VE)
• Marching nazis (after all, it was the igniting torch)
• Pearl Harbor (marking the entrance of USA)
• The gates of Auschwitz (not as offensive as the inside of the camps)
• Japanese kamikaze-pilot (there was a pacific theatre aswell)
• and...maybe the "mushroom cloud"! :)

What do you guys think? I'd be glad to hear your opinions. (My talk page).

PS. I could do more than just suggest. I offer to do this montage. DS.

I like the montage. It covers most of the ground. The only other suggestions I'd make are: a) I'd like to see it it bigger. I know header pictures are traditionally 300 pixels but I think this could be an exception. b) I'd still like to see a picture representing air and/or sea war, which could also represent the Pacific Theatre. Aerial attack on a naval vessel would be good, since that was a fundamental shift in the nature of sea warfare, or a strategic bomber formation, which would also be a new (and very important) development. DJ Clayworth 16:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Hello DJ Clayworth! I'm very thankful you basically like the montage; naturally I was afraid that you, the starter of the subject, would promptly object (btw, hope you noticed that a discussion on the montage itself has started below). My answers on your opinions:

* a) Exactly what do you mean by a bigger image? Maybe I don't understand you, but you can click on the image to see the original file stored in Wikimedia. There you can also zoom in on it.

* b) I was, and am, considering these suggestions. When I did the montage I thought of Pearl Harbor (both air and sea), but could not find any good contender in Wikimedia. Futhermore, one problem is we can't have too many images in the montage since then they would be too small to see (see Shanes' opinions). What do you think of replacing the Blitz-picture with the flag of Iwo Jima? If you don't mind, please reply in the "Montage" section below.

Regards, Dna-Dennis 17:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The montage

I previously talked about a montage. Regarding the posts on the image subject, there seems to be a consensus that the Nagasaki image is inadequate.

After long and careful considerations I am myself convinced; rather than depicting World War II, the Nagasaki Bomb marks the transition from one era to the other (pre- to postnuclear, pre- to postworldwar etc.). If we examine the image very bluntly, it could really be any nuclear explosion - and this is a good reason why it should not title this page. Furthermore, it envokes so many other feelings which are not immediately connected to World War II, e.g. "Nuclear Testing", "The Cold War", "The Nuclear Arms Race", "Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)" etc. - the list goes on and on. I really think the quality of the main page is actually diminished due to the Nagasaki picture.

Conclusively, I hereby completely stick out my neck: I have realised my previous suggestions and spent the entire day on a new picture. This picture has been uploaded to Wikimedia and linked to from the World War II Main Page. I did this today because I think there is a consensus, and if no-one makes a bold move, the issue could be open for a long time...

Naturally, it still is a suggestion, and I would really appreciate all opinions. For your reviewing - here are my notes on the image I created:

General:

• All pictures in the collage are from Wikimedia; thus there are no copyright problems.
• The picture is about the same size as the "Nagasaki" (except width 300px instead of 295)
• The filesize is not bigger - I optimized it for web publication

Choice of pictures:

• Main Upper: "D-Day" - symbolizing the "beginning of the end" of World War II, and also indicating the immense human sacrifice and suffering
• Center 1: "The 1936 Nuremberg Rally", symbolizing the psychological factors and the massive indoctrinations of the totalitarian regimes
• Center 2: "Arbeit macht frei" - the cruel letters above the gates of Auschwitz, symbolizing the immense civilian suffering
• Center 3: "Soviet Flag over Reichstag", symbolizing VE and much, much more (see my notes below)
• Right 1: "Blitz-bombing in London", symbolizing the immense civilian, psychological and material suffering (if you look closely, you can see a red London bus in the crater!)
• Right 2: Our beloved "mushroom-cloud", still being a good contender, symbolizing the start of the nuclear and cold war-era

Last, I would like to say the following; if there is any one picture I personally would choose, if I had to, it would be the Soviet flag over the Reichstag. Look at it - it is a truly amazing picture! Perfectly composed, it shows the brutality of the war and the victory - the devastated, still smoking Third Reich capital, the Soviet flag set down firmly in the heart of Europe, marking both VE and the start of the Cold War.

As I said, I appreciate your opinions; I'd be happy to edit my image if I find the suggestions are relevant and/or there is a new consensus. If you wish to contact me personally, please leave a message on My talk page.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis 21:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, is it only my browser/monitor, or is this picture so dark that it's impossible to see what it is a picture of? I can see that it says "World War II" on the top, then there's some white in the middle before it goes back to dark. At the bottom I think I can spot a Soviet flag and a helmet to the right, but it's very hard to say for sure, since the contrast is so low (or something). Shanes 22:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

You're not the only one. I left a message with Dna to see if the montage pictures can be lightened up. I think the top is fine, and the earth to the left as well, but the other photos are too dark to really make out. Wikibofh 22:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I can't see any earth there at all. Not even when you tell me where and what it is. The left is all black on my screen. Shanes 22:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not good. I designed the montage so that the images wouldn't be so blunt, but smooth. I seem to have failed and I will make immediate changes to my picture. The image looked good on my monitor, but now that you are mentioning it I remember that my friends' monitors usually are darker than mine; my monitor is thus probably brighter than normal...

I will start by editing the picture montage to the default opacity, and continue from there.

When the new picture appear (in ca. 30 minutes), please tell me how it looks. Regards. Dna-Dennis 23:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

It's already done & uploaded - the new montage with unchanged brightness of the original photos. Please, remember to "refresh" with your browser so you don't see the old image cache...and please tell me if it is better. Regards. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Now I see everything. Not sure I'm 100% convinced, though. To be specific: I think maybe many of the pictures show details that get lost since they are (and have to be) so small (and dark) and it makes it hard to tell what they are pictures of. The mushrom is good, same with the Auswhich, they are easy to recognise and see what they symbol even if they are small. But: the first picture (a landing somewhere, I guess) has still to low contrast, IMO, the soldiers are just big black dots and I don't know what that black triangle in the center of that picture is or is doing there. The Nazi-picture is too small for the amount of details, I think, and the picture to the right is also hard to make out what is (a building/ruin, or something?), and the one with the soviet flag at the bottom is also to small for me to make out more than that I see the flag and a greyish background (it's the capture of Berlin picture, right?=. The earth is good, (maybe it could even be in colour?).

All these critical things said, it is actuelly quite cool and having a montage is a nice idea. But most important: I don't know anything about pictures and how and what makes a picture/montage good. I'm actually extremely clueless. So feel free to ignore me on a professional ground ;-). And if others are fine with it, then I am, too. At least it's not all black anymore. Thanks. Shanes 23:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Just a sugestion: Maybe (a part of) the famous Ivo Jima picture could be used in the montage? It is, I believe, one of the most the most famous pictures from WW2. It's also quite simple and should make sense and be recognised even if it is shown in a very small version. Just an idea from me, still the amateur. Shanes 00:14, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• It looks much better! Thanks. My only other thought would be to not "optimize" the photo to get the same size. Make the image hi-res and let the wiki handle the resizing. That way when if someone clicks on it they'll get a bigger version that they can see all the details of the individual photos. Thanks again for the quick response and good work! Wikibofh 00:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• The montage looks great and is a definite improvement over the mushroom cloud. Lisiate 00:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

On Shanes' opinions: I agree to an extent with you on the small size of the montage pictures. First I thought about using only 3 smaller pictures, but then I would had to scrap two - which? I don't however think the Earth should be in color, since the other pictures are black & white - it would be confusing. But the suggestion of the Iwo Jima flag is good - I thought about when I planned the montage. I think I'll wait a while until I hear the opinion of others...

On Wikibofh's suggestions: I could upload a hi-res image, but would not this be a disadvantage to modem users? My original psd size is 1680 kB and max jpeg is 440 kB. How large do you think the file may be?

And, thank you very much, Lisiate.

• The image size isn't a big deal, because the wiki resizes it when you "thumb" and put a pixel count on it. Let me provide an example. The image in the template (on the far right) of Soviet submarine B-39 is 25KB. The original is 1.2MB. I didn't create two different versions, but just let the wiki handle the sizing. Wikibofh 01:36, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Wikibofh, now I have uploaded the maximum hi-res version... now users can zoom in on the bus :).Dna-Dennis 02:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Looks great! Thanks again for taking this on. Wikibofh 03:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

(Thanks, Wikibofh!)

Another thing which have just struck me...

Since I've been working on the WW2 montage aswell as the World War I article, I am considering making a montage for the WWI page aswell. I think it would be appropriate for basically the same reasons as the WW2 montage, and, make the WWI and WW2 pages more corresponding. Therefore, I would really appreciate opinions posted on WWI discussion page "A Main Picture Montage".

Regards, Dna-Dennis 18:42, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think what may be needed is something else from the Pacific theater, no tjus the mushroom cloud. IMO the Iwo Jima picture shouldnt be use unless the soviet flag one is removed (I don't see a need for two flag raisings) and I would like to keep th espviet flag, so they are not like usual forgotten in North America. Same with a naval landing and the one at he top. I also don't like the globe. IMO it just doesn't look right. I would suggest replacing it with possibly two/three pictures or shifting the pictures other than the mushroom cloud over and making it taller then adding one more picture. Possibilities I would suggest from other pages are: the dive at the top of the Battle of Midway (showing also the air war), the ship under air attack at the top of Battle of the Bismarck Sea (shows air and sea, but I dont know if it will correct smaller), the top picture on Battle of the Bismarck Sea (shows naval war well) thats all the time I have, but I think one of those images or similar would be good especially showing the naval war because that is a main idea when thinking about the pacific theatre and the second one also showing aircraft would work good because another important part of the war (the war in the air and before, the navalwar) is not showed (except for the aftermath). say1988 01:53, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

(Note: The WWI page has now got itself a similar montage, making it more corresponding to WW2. I would appreciate opinions on it under "A Main Picture Montage" on the WWI talk page.) Dna-Dennis 01:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

DNA -- thanks for the new photo; it's much more comprehensive than any single photo. The only trouble is that the total effect with the giant half-globe and the title "World War II" is a bit cheesy -- it's fairly obvious what the subject of the article is; the text and globe detract from an otherwise nice collection. Thoughts? 140.247.60.206 16:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for you appreciation, 140.247.60.206! I agree - the title and the globe can seem a bit cheesy. When I designed the picture, I wanted to (1) "break off" the war pictures with something completely different, (2) include something everybody recognizes and (3) underline the true globality of the war. To fill the picture with only small war pictures would, I believe, make it dull and uninteresting to the average reader. I think I rather go for "cheesy" than "dull". I appreciate your opinion, and if you have any suggestion, please post them here. And let's also hear what other people have to say about it. Regards, Dennis Dna-Dennis 21:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I also appreciate the work that went into it, and the design problems you face, but I agree that the globe and title are bit distracting - I thought it looked kind of like a book cover for a university press, which is not bad, but may not be what we are looking for. Perhaps either (1) using a map as a background might help or (2) using fades, as in [2] or (3) allowing the pictures to cover each other a bit more as in [3]. --Goodoldpolonius2 22:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions Goodoldpolonius2! I will sleep on it (I'm in Sweden) and perhaps experiment tomorrow. Thanks! Reagrds, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 22:33, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, I just came to the article and noticed the picture. I like the idea of a montage. But... my opinions: (1) Yeah, the globe and title are a bit too dramatic. :p (2) I don't like the emboss effect on the individual pictures. (3) The D-Day picture looking out from the LCVP is very American POV. Nothing against America, but a distinctly POV picture shouldn't dominate the montage. Coffee 15:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinions, "Coffee"! (1) I have noted your view on the globe and will have a go on it today. (2) I don't particularly like the emboss myself. I did this to "break off" the pictures, since the edges otherwise were too undefined when the pics were put together. (3) If you think about it, the D-Day picture is not at all American POV: The British and the Canadians were also part of the invasion. Furthermore, actually any picture would be POV (except the globe! :) ). If you have a suggestion on a NPOV upper picture, I'd be happy to hear it. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Now, there are very many people who are critical to the globe, so why haven't I changed it? Am I trying to ignore it? Am I too proud of my work? No, not at all. To tell you the truth, I have had a lack of inspiration; I simply had not known what to do else. But today I will give it a try and hopefully upload a new version of the title picture. Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 14:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

• New version of the title picture

Due to various opinions (see discussion above) I have now made a new version of the title picture. When you are viewing the WW2 article or the full size pic in Wikimedia, remember to hit "refresh" to ensure you are not viewing your browser's cache! (as I myself did and got VERY confused). The changes made are the following:

1. The globe has vanished (because most people were critical to it)
2. The montage pics are not embossed anymore (no need to, since I separated them some pixels apart)
3. The pic of the Blitz bombing is gone (due to layout organization reasons). It was quite hard to see what it was anyway.

I hope the new version of the title picture is to most persons' satisfactions. I know I can't satisfy everyone, but at least, I try. As before, I am thankful of all opinions. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 17:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

"Japanese, American and Australian troops"

There is a sentence: "During the Allied island advances in the Pacific, surrendering troops were almost routinely killed by Japanese, American and Australian troops." Should it be Chinese here instead of Japanese? I wouldn't think the Japanese were killing troops that surrendered during allied advances. I would have thought, if anything, they were the troops that surrendered during allied advances. Open4D 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the point is that all sides killed surrendering troops. However, to my knowledge there were very few engagements in which Japanese troops actually surrendered in significant numbers. --Cavgunner 11:31, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Pacific War was fought with a less than perfect adherence to the Geneva Convention (to which Japan was not a signatory until the post way years) by both sides. But to say such things happened "routinely" is worse than inaccurate. It's positively defamatory. There were thousands of Japanese POWs in camps in Australia, the US and New Zealand. Without them, the Cowra breakout (for example) would not have been possible. Grant65 (Talk) 15:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the whole section, which was poor, in my opinion. By the way, check this excerpt from a post in an online discussion, by T. F. Mills of the University of Denver. The last paragraph cited below suggests that the worst excesses occurred not in the Pacific but in Burma:

9 million Japanese served in the armed forces. 41,500 were captured.

This compares to:

6 million British in the armed forces, and 172,600 POW.

2.6 million Indians in the armed forces, and 79,500 POW.

1.3 million Australians in the armed forces, and 26,400 POW.

These figures demonstrate the relative shame the Japanese attached to being captured. And as Judy mentioned, it went both ways: enemy POWs were not worthy of humane treatment.

Of the Japanese POWs, 37,280 were captured in the Pacific, and only 3,100 in South East Asia, and 1,080 in China. (That makes for 100 short of the grand total estimated Japanese POWs.)

From various other sources: More than half of the Japanese POWs (23,571) seem to have been taken in the exceptionally fierce Bougainville campaign. But it is hard to ascertain how many of these prisoners were taken at the final Japanese surrender when they heard that the war was over. I am pretty sure the 41,500 total does not include any from the final surrender in August 1945. At that surrender the Japanese still held many of their 1941 conquests, and the Allies were hard pressed to send forces everywhere to accept surrenders. Particularly in Indonesia the British arrived to take the Japanese surrender on behalf of the Dutch, but were spread much too thin to manage a Military Administration and they actually used the Japanese to administer and police the region. This was just part and parcel of the incredibly massive human displacement and chaos at the end of the war. As the Australian Army demobilised and combat battalions disbanded, two whole new battalions of men whose terms of service were not completed were formed in August 1945 simply to manage surrendering Japanese.

The comparatively low number of Japanese prisoners taken in SE Asia is further illustrated by some microscopic views. In one day of the Meiktila campaign, the British counted 800 Japanese dead and 36 prisoners. In one week of the Pyawbwe campaign, the British counted 2,900 Japanese dead and 29 prisoners. Normally in warfare such numbers are reversed.[4]

And so on. Grant65 (Talk) 16:06, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Needs a slight fix

It seems that the article has been copied upon itself at the end, I don't have time to but someone should fix that.

Thanks. I reverted back 9 edits to fix it. Shanes 14:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Italian Front

Currently, the information given on the Italian Front is far from detailed. At the moment, the entire section is one paragraph:

"North Africa was used as a springboard for the invasion of Sicily on 10 July 1943. Operation control was, for the first few months, based on the island of Malta. Having captured Sicily, the Allies invaded mainland Italy on 3 September 1943. On July 25 Mussolini was fired from office by the King of Italy, allowing a new government to take power. Shortly before the main invasion of 8 September, the new Italian government surrendered. The German Army continued to fight from the Gothic Line and then Winter Line in Italy's mountains. The conflict would last until the spring of 1945."

Somehow, I think this is not up to Wikipedia standards. It should say more on the major battles, such as the Battles of Monte Cassino and Anzio. It should also include more on the situation with Mussolini and the fall of Rome, the first Axis capitol to be captured.

Feel free to add. But let's not go too far. Remember this is already a very long article, and users can always go to the more detailed articles if they wish to know more. DJ Clayworth 21:05, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The French Resistance and Darlan

In the section on Operation Torch: is there a source to back up the statement that it was the French Resistance who captured Darlan and Juin? All the English language sources I've been able to find did not say this; they also said that the Algiers coup was put down by the end of 8 November, at which time as far as I can tell Darlan was still at large. DJ Clayworth 21:37, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've found some sources that pretty much discredit the 'coup' account. I'm going to erase all but the bare bones and then build up the Operation Torch article. DJ Clayworth 13:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Too many links

Does anyone agree with me that there are too many links to other articles on this page? Too much blue linked text doesn't make it easy to read. Obviously a lot of links are very relevant and have to stay - I'm thinking more of removing links to all the years and dates, and all the individual countries. Do people think doing that would be OK? Jez 12:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think unrelated events occuring on these dates are very important. Maybe keep the basic years linked, tho.

The country links can go, tho. It's a World War for crying out loud! Every major country was involved at some point in one way or another.

--Ashmodai 12:35, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The date/year links should be kept because they allow for the dates to automatically formatted to the user's preference. I'm sure we can cut down some other stuff though. DJ Clayworth 13:22, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also believe there are too many links. Now, naturally, the WW2 article is a complicated matter due to the IMMENSE number of facts. I will try to have a go at the suggestions which have been mentioned. I will document the changes, and post a message here when I am done. Regards, Dna-Dennis 22:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Due to this discussion I have now unlinked all countries, except those which does not exists anymore, e.g. "Soviet Union", "Yugoslavia" etc. Regards, Dennis. Dna-Dennis 16:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Okinawa (Pacific front)

Can anyone expand Naha, Okinawa#History section? Thanks. --Aphaea* 03:52, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cannonical abbreviation for World War II?

I've noticed that a number of articles will abbreviate this was as 'WWII', others will use 'WW2', and I'm sure that others are in use. I'd like to try my hand at standardizing these across Wikipedia, but I'm not sure which is more popular. Opinions? --Bletch 17:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, WWII is more appropriate, since it is commonly World War II, and that is the name of the article.--naryathegreat | (talk) 01:03, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Casualties

Added "Casualties" to the 'Consequences' section at the bottom. Zanturaeon June 30, 2005 01:26 (UTC)

Casualty typo?

In total, about 23 million soldiers lost their lives in the Second World War along with about 57 million civilians.

This doesn't make sense, as earlier in the article it states there were 55-57 million casaulties total. Should that 57 million civilians be changed to 32 million? --Njk 12:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

"Specifically, Allied forces suffered approximately 14.2 million deaths, and Axis forces suffered approximately 6.8 million deaths, Germany specifically had 5 million. The Soviet Union had the largest death toll, suffering an estimated 20 million civilian casualties along with 8 million Soviet soldiers killed." This also doesn't make sense as the Soviet casualites is higher than the total Allied Casualties. Can I suggest that we remove this entire paragraph until someone comes up with some definitive figures? DJ Clayworth 14:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we make it tie up with World War II casualties. DJ Clayworth 14:11, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can I also suggest moving Yugoslavia and Greece to the Mediterranean Theatre. Currently Yugoslavia appears in both, which is confusing. DJ Clayworth 14:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Because of my major reorganization into one chronology, Yugoslavia is not a problem anymore. Regards Dna-Dennis 18:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits POV?

Please check out this diff. It's the last version I reverted to the current version, where it looks like some vandalism took place. Does anyone care to comment? I think without sources, the comments on the quality of the respective German and Italian forces might need to be fixed. Wikibofh 15:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Something odd happened here. When I made this edit it was a reversion of someone adding comments about Underpant Gnomes, and if you go to the history and look at the diffs there, that is what you get. The edit you give above makes changes I didn't intend to make at all.

Looking at the paragraph you are talking about, the whole thing is inappropriate. I don't think the comments about relative qualities of the Axis forces is appropriate or necessary. If we record the facts that the Italian invasion was repulsed by the Greeks, and then the German invasion succeeded in capturing Greece, readers can draw their own conclusions. The stuff about Narvik shouldn't be there, even if it is right, which is doubtful. DJ Clayworth 15:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I've neutralized both the sections about the Greek conflict. DJ Clayworth 15:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Good work. It looks to me like in the reversions of vandalism some of this snuck in, so I wanted to bring it up so we could figure it out. It's always annoying when the vandals don't just make one large easy obvious thing for us to whack.  :) Wikibofh 16:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Not that the changes really bother me, because all I fixed in the missing paragraphs was some minor grammatical stuff, but are you guys seriously so politically correct that you're afraid the article might offend fascist Italian forces from 60 years ago? I think we're pretty safe there. Do we really need to beat around the bush and hint at the fact that the German military was a stronger opponent than the Italians? That's just the way it was, plain and simple. If this is some kind of ethnic debate, then that's not my department - I don't have a drop of Greek, German, or Italian in me - but if this was actually eliminated due to lack of "sources" pointing to the basic inferiority of the Italian army... that's just absurd. There's no need to list a source, because any book - any book - can back that up. Kafziel 17:31, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

There are several reasons to eliminate what was said. Firstly this is a really long article; it should be shortened wherever it can be, and assessments of the Italian forces capabilities can go in specific articles about the WWII Italian military. Secondly, facts are always preferable to opinions. No matter how factual you may think your assessments are, someone will disagree. I ran into an editor who insisted that an entire section on the Italian Parachute Regiment be inserted into an article on the North Africa campaign, not because it played a large part in the campaign (it didn't) but because that regiment had been exceptionally brave, and he thought it should be in there to counter the seeming bias that the italian army did not fight well. DJ Clayworth 17:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

And that's an extremely revisionist idea. It's just rearranging facts to skew the neutrality of the article in the opposite direction. It's still wrong. It's a fact that the Italians won relatively few victories and were defeated in a far shorter amount of time, while inflicting far fewer casualties on the Allied opposition. If that doesn't mean they were deficient, then how do we define "deficient"? Kafziel 18:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Overall improvement

So, now I am about to stick out my neck again... I've read a lot of info on why the WW2 article failed as featured article, and why a complete rewrite was considered. It seems to me that the main concern was the lack of organization. Now, I don't know the status of the rewrite, but this original article is updated on a daily basis, that is, much more often than the rewrite; today is July 30 and the last update for the rewrite was June 2. Is the rewrite scrapped, one wonders?

I have identified the following main criticism of the WW2 page:

1. Lack of organization
2. Sections missing (e.g. "Resistance Movement")
3. More media files exist that could be referenced
4. Each section should have a lead picture
5. Better grammar and style

I myself agree with the above (I am currently trying to fix note 3 by adding appropriate Wikimedia images). Now, I would also like to give the organization issue a try, but this will be a little bit tricky:

Currently the article with its corresponding table of contents have two dimensions:

1. Theaters (Europe, Pacific, Mediterranean)
2. A chronological within the theaters (1939, 1940 etc..)

After some consideration I believe it should be the other way around, i.e.

1. Chronology (1937 - 1945)
2. and the theaters within the chronology

Otherwise, for instance, the war will end on two very different places in the article (Berlin and Japan).

I would really like to hear opinions on this.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson, Dna-Dennis 08:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

PS. Let's work together to make this article a FA. DS.

Another suggestion: shouldn't all main articles be listed under "See also"? Dna-Dennis 10:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have now seen to that all main topics have corresponding pictures. Dna-Dennis 12:52, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I am currently working towards achieving "chronology" as the first dimension, but don't worry, I will be careful and make this in small steps. I will first try to rename the very long titles like "3.6 1944: France invaded, Soviet-Finland armistice, surrender of minor Axis, Ardennes offensive".

If you have opinions on this work, please post them here on the talk page.

Regards, Dna-Dennis 16:17, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have now managed to shorten all subtitles under "Europe", "Pacific and East Asia" and "Mediterranean". I would appreciate opinions on this. Regards, Dna-Dennis 17:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have now merged "Europe" and "Mediterranean" in order to try to implement an overall easy-to-read chronology. Now I will have a go at the "Pacific and East Asia". Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• I have now completed the new chronology as to my suggestion above - now I believe it is more easy to follow the flow of the war from 1939 to 1945. As before, I'd appreciate any opinions.Dna-Dennis 17:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I like this new article. It could still use some fleshing out, like the Causes of War section is way too short and, in general, some missing information in some sections. However, I do like the new article more than the old one (which I read about a month ago). bob rulz 00:08, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Bob rulz! I've worked hard the last couple of days. Dna-Dennis 00:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent rewrite of this article. I totally approve of the straight-line chronology. It gives a much better overall picture. Good work Dennis. DJ Clayworth 13:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have now added a summary table (like on the World War I page) because I think:

1. It's good with a summary for the average reader
2. It's nice if the layout of the WWII & WWI pages are somewhat similar

Furthermore, I don't think it clogs up the page, since it appears directly right of the table of contents (which was completely empty before).

It is a template I created called Template:MultiWarbox so it is very easy to edit. I do not know what others will think of it, but, as before, I appreciate any opinions.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 03:36, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Many historians...

Weasel words. Does anyone have WP:CITE for:

By this time the Soviet steamroller had become so powerful that many historians argue that the U.S. and British landing at Normandy was more to prevent a coast-to-coast Soviet block than to fight Germany. In all, 90% of all German casualties were suffered on the Eastern front, and Europe became divided along Germany- had the U.S. not invaded the sparsely defended Western Front, Stalin would have controlled all of Europe. This view-point is seldom heard in U.S. books, movies, and classrooms; an attempt is made to give as much credit as possible to the 1944 "D-Day" landing. (emphasis added)

Wikibofh 21:00, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the addition since I believe (1) It is very close to a POV, and (2) It does not belong here, but rather on the D-Day/Battle of Normandy page. In any case, to let this addition be the intro to the "Beginning of the end" is a POV in itself! Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Couple changes

This article looks pretty good, but I made a few edits, and wanted to explain them. First, I rewrote some of the atrocities section - it had a lot of editorializing before, mostly about the Soviet Union's war crimes, and lacked some chronology, which I attempted to add. I also brought out the Holocaust in its own sub-heading, and tried to summarize the events of the Holocaust there. Also, I added statistics on the civilian casualties for bombing. To make it explicit from Matthew White's page:

• Allied bombings:
  • Germany: 305,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 400,000 (Hammond); 410,000 (Rummel, 100% democidal); 499,750 (Clodfelter); 593,000 (Keegan; also Grenville citing "official Germany")
  • Japan: Total: 330,000 (1945 US Strategic Bombing Survey); 363,000 (Keegan, not including post-war radiation sickness); 374,000 (Rummel, incl. 337,000 democidal); 435,000 (P. Johnson); 500,000 (Harper Collins Atlas of the Second World War)
• Axis bombings:
  • Russia: Richard Overy, Russia's War (1997): "an estimated 500,000 Soviet citizens died from German bomb attacks."
  • England: Portcities London: >20,000 k. (7/40-5/41) [also London Transport Museum and Virtual London
  • Belgrade, Yugoslavia: German air raid: 6 April 1941): 17 000, Gilbert: 17,000 civilians k. (also Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad)
  • I don't have figures for Poland and France

Finally, I added a couple of maps from the US Military Academy's site. They are large, but it was odd not to have any. Incidentally, the site is a great resource for anyone needing public domain maps of conflicts. Let me know if you have comments. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think your changes were good - not too brief and not to detailed. I also liked the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 10:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Captions

I would like to restore the versions of the captions that I added:

• First, I would suggest that we change the map captions back, since otherwise the maps are difficult to parse at their current size. The original captions: "Axis powers are in pink, the maximum extent of their conquest in yellow. The Allies are in green," and "The maximum extent of Japanese territory in July, 1942 is in yellow," allow readers to at least tell at a glance the basic participants and geographical extent of the war, without needing to click on the full size picture. Since we have no other maps to illustrate the participants, this is important.
• Second, the caption for the first picture is a little too glib: "World War II was a truly global conflict with many facets: immense human sacrifice, fierce indoctrinations, and the use of new, extremely devastating weapons—the atom bomb being the ultimate." Of the 50+ million dead, few would be classified as a sacrifice, which implies some sort of semi-heroic choice. Additionally, I don't know what "fierce indoctrinations" means, and why that was a unique feature of World War II. Finally, "the atomic bomb being the ultimate" reads oddly. Better to use no caption (since this is just a title picture) or use the summary sentence of the first paragraph: "The most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind."
• Perhaps we should replace the title picture with something that is more informative? Maybe a world map showing the participants in the war, which would give a better summary sense of scale.

--Goodoldpolonius2 12:43, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

My opinions:

• a) I agree with this point. I will immediately restore the map captions.
• b) I agree to an extent. I believe a caption should be here, since otherwise one might think it is a cover of a book. On 'sacrifice': I agree with you, but seriously I can't think of a better word. Any suggestion? On 'fierce indoctrinations': It clearly is a very important facet of WWII (i.e. Nazi master race theory and Japanese militarism), since without the indoctrinations of the people, WWII might never have occured. On 'atomic bomb': The bomb was the ultimate weapon of WWII. Why is that odd?
• c) I do not agree. I do not think a map is a good intro to the article, since I believe the average reader would be discouraged, believing it is an "elite" article written for WWII enthusiasts. Furthermore, please see the numerous opinions on the talk page ("The Picture" and "The Montage").

Please note that I really appreciate your opinions, and think your map additions are VERY nice. Thanks! If you know of more WWII maps like this, I would appreciate a personal message on my talk page. I also liked your contributions to the "Atrocities" section!

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I understand why you want to keep the picture and caption, that makes sense. Since the caption serves a summary of the war, perhaps taking a line from the article: "The Second World War was the most extensive, expensive and bloodiest armed conflict in the history of mankind," which sums it up. If you really want to keep the current version, instead of intense sacrifice, what about "large-scale deaths" or "extensive military and civilian casualties." I would drop the indoctrination point entirely, the problem otherwise is that the indoctrination article isn't specific to World War II, so the point you are making about Japanese and German militarism doesn't come through -- besides, every has had intense indoctrination, see the Crusades, for example. As for the atom bomb, I don't object to its mention, the sentence was a bit awkward. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I just think they would be too long, but thanks to your answer, I came to think of the following substitutions: 'suffering' instead of 'sacrifice', unlink of 'indoctrinations', and 'like the atom bomb' instead of 'the atom bomb being the ultimate'. I will do this immediately. Thanks again and thanks for your link to the maps! Regards, Dna-Dennis 14:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Temp merge - Intro

I would like to replace the main article's intro with the temp article's intro. It is superior IMO. --JPotter 02:51, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a bad idea. The current intro is rather on the long side but it embraces the entirety of a very complicated and expansive topic. I think the short one in the temp article is bland, too short, and has an oddly written second paragraph. I don't think we should do this. However, feel free to edit the current one, and Be bold--naryathegreat | (talk) 04:04, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with naryathegreat, it is a bad idea. The quality of the temp intro is not even close to the quality of the intro of the current article. Regards, Dna-Dennis 11:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The start of World War II

The opening lines of the current article was

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe."

I know what the writer implied, but I have changed this to

"World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 1 September 1939."

because of the following reasons

• The conflict in Asia was not a global conflict - thus the line is misleading and a "slight" POV
• World War II turned global when the Asian and European conflicts converged - thus September 1939
• There are a number of other contending dates: Rhineland occupation, Anschluss, Prague etc.
• But maybe most importantly: it is the common view that the world war started in September 1939

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I know this might be squirrelly, but I'm going to go ahead and change it to "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that by most accounts began on 1 September 1939." Now I know this may not sound definite enough, but I think it would help deflect any criticism of a Eurocentric POV. Tmrobertson 06:47, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

- Squirrelly it might be, but then I am a squirrel aswell...:) I think your change is good, and I also believe that it probably deflects eurocentroview (may be we can call it EUROPOV?) . Regards! Dna-Dennis 15:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC).

Somebody is insisting on changing the start date to "late 1930s". I do not understand the reason for this, and I think it is way too inexact. I have now changed it back to the previous edit, and I think most people would agree with this, so please do not change it back until you have motivated it here on the talk page, and after we have reached a consensus. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 16:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the re-wording, especially as the start of the war in Asia is noted in the second paragraph. Lisiate 22:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There was another discussion of this in which B.Bryant noted:

"WWII was two separate wars that merged, giving various options for defining "the starting date". You can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or you can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately. But there's absolutely no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war."

I do not see what is incorrect about this position, and what is wrong with the original quotation "World War II or the Second World War was a truly global conflict that began on 7 July 1937 in Asia and on 1 September 1939 in Europe," since the former date was obviously far more significant than the latter in the Asian theatre. I agree with B.Bryant in that the wars "merged" in 1941, not 1939 since the United States's entry into the war was highly significant for both theatres in a way that Germany's invasion of Poland simply was not.

While I think providing an objective description of history rather than 'refuting charges' whether or eurocentrism or anything else should be our goal, someone has removed even the "most accounts" qualification from the original paragraph, which I have inserted back in. But I think it would still be better to go back to the original wording.Cicero83 02:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We have to draw the line somewhere

First of all, I have no personal opinion on when the war started. The problem is, when we are writing the introduction we simply must draw the line somewhere. For instance, if we are discussing the start date, we could also discuss the end date; not every conflict was resolved in 1945. Now, we all know that World War II is a general western term for the world-wide conflicts at the time, and a common view is that two (unspecified) conflicts - West and East - converged on some point in history. Again, where do we draw the line? It is all about perspective and which physical resolution of the world we use. Consider the following examples:

• WEST/EAST : In this case I believe the merge occurs on 1 September 1939, because Europe is the Western world and Asia the Eastern. Not 1941 because: (1) this is later, (2) USA is part of the West and (3) The armed conflict between USA and Japan is an addition to the West/East conflict which was already present due to alliances, supplies, lend/lease etc.

• WEST/ASIA : It could be argued that the merge occurs 22 June 1941 as Germany invades Russia, since Russia is part of Asia. It could also be argued that it occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA, but again, this is later.

• USA/WORLD : The merge occurs 7 December 1941 as Japan attacks USA and Germany declares war on USA. The problem is, this would be USA POV.

My opinions are:

1. It would be wrong to imply a start date of one conflict, like Japan/China 1931 or 1937, because this is a local conflict and World War II, as the name implies, is a term for the global conflict. Therefore my opinion is that we have to consider when the merge occurs.

1. We have to draw the line. I believe our perspective and physical resolution should be WEST/EAST as mentioned above. Therefore: 1 September 1939 or simply 1939.

1. We can't omit the dates altogether - they are too important to the average reader in the intro

Last, I agree with Cicero83 that it is quite important to use "by most accounts" when referring to the start of the war.

Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Dennis, I agree we have to draw the line somewhere, but I'm afraid that bias drawn from tradition is coloring our discussion of where to draw that line.

Your stated opinion above regarding the 1939 date seems to imply two disputable points: (1) The date when the two theatres converge as opposed to when sustained fighting first broke out is the important date. (2) Two localized wars, one in the West and one in the East adds up to a single merged war. The argument relies on the presence of 'alliance, supplies, lend-lease,' etc. but then again, lend-lease by itself did not mean the United States was in the war, nor was the degree of cooperation great enough such that Japan can have said to have really assisted the invasion of Poland.

The argument that the war merged on 7 December 1941 can be made independent of USA POV. It lies in that: (1) World War II's claim to be a truly global conflict rests on it having involved all the major powers in the world in the actual fighting, and did not achieve this status until 7 December 1941 (2) World War II's claim to be a single war encompassing both the European and Asian theatres rests on the existence of at least one power engaged in both theatres, and this did not substantively occur until 7 December 1941.

From this perspective we can opt for when the first started (1931 or 1937), or when the two sub-wars merged (1941), or we can list the starting date of the two sub-wars separately (The ending dates are indeed listed separately). But there's still no justification for picking the starting date of the second sub-war as the starting date of the entire war.

Part of the problem is there is more here than the unmitigated search for truth. We face the fact that a convention has developed over time among Anglo-American historians that the war began on 1 September 1939. At the same time Wikipedia's policy clearly stands against taking a POV view even if it is a majority POV, either explicitly or implicitly. Currently, the bulk of the article and certain associated articles assumes the war began on 1 September 1939. Frankly I do not know what to do about this, but it seems the status quo is more a result of convention rather than of pure objectivity. Regards, Cicero83 14:17, 16 August 2005

• Thanks for your opinions, Cicero83! You are clear and concise, and it is quite clear that neither you or me has an intended personal opinion on the matter. And what you said above made me think about it...why am I (and others) partially convinced that the war started on 1 September 1939? It can only be because we learned it in school, we read it in the books and everyone we talk to says so. As you say, it is a majority POV, and as you imply, it can be a very complicated discussion. And I repeat your words: neither I know what to do about this. I guess it was you who wrote the current text: "The conflict by most Western accounts began in 1939". And considering your words on POV, I think the line is almost completely unquestionable, since it deflects Western POV. So perhaps we should go with this status quo? In any case, I urge other users to join this discussion, and then maybe both Cicero83 and myself can get some fresh ideas on the matter. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 19:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Edits by Paranoid

Paranoid insists on removing parts of useful info and replacing it with his own POV, hardly accepted by any serious historian, not to mention common sense. In particular, the problems I have with his version are:

1. After all Soviet attempts to oppose Germany by aiding its ally Czechoslovakia and later Poland were prevented by Poland and other countries - this needs a proof and a source. It's the first time I hear that the Soviets were trying to help Poland and that Poland made such help impossible
2. Soviet Union had to sign the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - nobody forced the Soviets to sign a pact partitioning its neighbour states. Also, if it wasn't for the secret ammendment to it, the Soviets would have absolutely no border with Germany and no aggression would be possible between the two states.

Also, his version does not include the following statements which seem perfectly right to me:

1. Until attacked by it in June 1941, the Soviet Union was effectively allied with Nazi Germany through the non-aggression Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact - which is a fact. It was not only a political alliance dividing the spheres of influence, but also a strategical and military one, with military cooperation during the war against Poland in 1939. Finally, the alliance included economical cooperation which involved millions of tonnes of war materiel and resources traded between the states.
2. leading to the USSR later invading and occupying parts or the whole of Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Romania - which is also a fact and part of the World War II. Why should these agressions, often by means of military force, be omitted?
3. However, the US did aid the allies and after first Japan and then Germany declared war on the US and launched attacks on US soil, the US had no choice but to fully enter the war - again, a plain fact. Why should this be deleted from the text?

--Halibutt 07:07, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the USSR was allied with the Nazis is also rather POV. But mostly, it suggests that they were allies in the war, which is not the case because the treaty was signed just before the war broke out. Of course, the short timespan between the treaty and the outbreak is highly suggestive, but an encyclopedia may not infer too much. So I rewrote it to exclude the uncertainties. This is not meant as a definitive version, but seems a more neutral basis to add facts, if necessary. A tricky point is whether the attacks of the USSR (your one but last point) were part of WWII. There is a similar discussion here, about the starting date of the war. Japan had already started fighting before Germany did, but that is not taken to be part of WWII. And it isn't mentioned in this section. So I'd say mention both or neither. In this section, that is. DirkvdM 09:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

At least two of the aggressions by the Soviet Union were undoubtedly a part of WWII: the backstab of Poland and attack on Finland. Both of them happened during the WWII, were connected to the world-wide politics and influenced the overall situation in the world (if it wasn't for the Soviet invasion, Romania would stand by the Allied side for a longer time and if it wasn't for the Winter War, the Allies would not land in Norway so quickly). Anyway, as to the two sides being allied during their common war against Poland - undoubtedly yes. Although the pacts they signed were not called an alliance, but such a double speech was common in both regimes. Anyway, both the secret protocol and later ammendments to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact fit all the criteria of a military alliance:

1. On August 19 the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement was signed. It practically meant that, until the start of Barbarossa, the Soviets were supporting the Germans by handing them raw materials. Such an open support for a warring state is often regarded as a breach of neutrality - and this was the case

1. On August 28 both states signed the M-R Pact, which, among other things, decided the fate of Poland, which was to be dismantled and divided between them

1. On September 17 the USSR fulfilled the pact by invading Poland. Although no declaration of war was issued, the state of war occured as the Soviet attack fits all criteria of an aggression. Also, the aggression was in accordance with the earlier agreement with Germany.

1. Finally, on September 28 the original M-R pact was ammended to exchange parts of Polish territory for that of Lithuania - which makes the original intentions even more clear.

All in all, the M-R pact and the Nazi-Soviet Alliance might've been a controversial issue before 1992, that is before the Russians admitted that there was such a pact. But nowadays? Halibutt 21:00, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

1. Soviet Union was not neutral. It had a non-aggression pact and it was co-operating in various areas, but it wasn't "effectively allied". Simple as that.
2. No. Soviet Union simply got back the West Ukraine and West Belorussia that were annexed by Poland in 1920. Please look at the map, it's that simple.
3. The declaration of war WAS issued. Read any history book and find out how the embassador in Moscow simply was refusing (illegally) to accept the note. Also note that by 17.09 the Polish government has already fled the country.

The intent still is and will remain controversial as long as anti-Soviet forces will try to make it seem as if Soviet Union was bent on world domination. Paranoid 09:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So it's rather complicated. Too much to mention in the 'Participants' section, I'd say. Or is there one thing that really stands out and deserves (and will fit in) a short mention? DirkvdM 10:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Soviet Union at first joined the war against the allies on the axis side surely deserves a mention. As to the points by Paranoid:

1. Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga.
2. Well, The Soviet Union got back the area it never owned. Bolshevist Russia occupied the area between July and August of 1920, but that was hardly an ownership. Also, show me a rule of the international law that says that all pacts can be broken as long as one state wants to get some area back...
3. Another effect of commie propaganda. The alleged lack of Polish government at home was used as a casus belli in the declaration handed over to the Polish embassador overnight of September 16. However, the government left the state 24 hours later, after the Soviet tanks were already approaching the place where it was located, which makes such a casus belli a complete rubbish. Also, there was no declaration of war, at least neither the Polish nor Soviet government issued it. Or am I wrong? Please provide sources, such a discovery would really be interesting... Halibutt 16:10, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

About that first (unnumbered) remark. It should then be made clear that the allies in this sense existed before the war even started, because people will associate the term 'allies' with the war and thus could easily misinterpret that. The Allies article it links to even states that "the Allies of World War II came together as World War II unfolded and progressed". But it also states that the USSR at first wanted to join the allies and that then also deserves a mention. I now see that it is all even more complicated than I thought, so a short introduction like this needs careful handling. Especially stating that the USSR was effectively allied with the Axis (which only formed in late 1940) sounds a bit POV since it could just as well have been that they wanted to prevent Germany from conquering too much land (especially Poland). But now I am speculating. DirkvdM 20:15, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, indeed it's a speculation. The official Soviet propaganda stated that the invasion of Poland happened because of the need to protect the Polish citizens against the Nazi attack. Quite a bizarre explanation, especially that the alleged protection consisted of warfare and then of NKVD-led terror. To set it in proper context: the USSR captured approximately 50% of Polish territory with circa with circa 12 millions of people. Until June of 1941 between 1,5 million and 2 millions of them were sent to Soviet prisons, Gulags or simply murdered. That's not what I would call protection of civillians... Halibutt 14:22, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

So that was even the official reason. Whichever is the case, my point is that all this needs too much explaining, for which there is no place in this section, so maybe it had better stick to the NPOV facts. DirkvdM 17:40, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And the NPOV fact is that the two powers were effectively allied. Halibutt 22:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt's bias

Halibutt, you are too biased to reason rationally about this topic. I notice that your arguments follow the following pattern:

• You say that A is true.
• I counter this saying that A isn't true, because B
• You argue that B is not exactly true, because of C.

But you don't care about your original point, you simply like to be winning the debate, no matter what this debate is about. You forget A - your original assertion and no longer care whether it's true or not, as long as you can make some new claims that sound true to your ears.

For example, saying "Indeed, the Soviet Union breached its neutrality by concluding an alliance with Germany and breaking the non-aggression treaty with Poland and the Peace of Riga." doesn't prove that Soviet Union was allied with Germany, you simply repeat your assertion, adding some other facts, which aren't very related.

You also choose to completely ignore other facts that don't support your point, such as the fact that Poland itself was the first to annex part of Czechoslovakia without any permissions from other countries (Germany had such permission).

Or the fact that Soviet Union warned (23.09.1938) Poland that their 1932 non-aggression pact is void if Poland attacks Czechoslovakia (then a Soviet ally).

The fact that Soviet Union wanted to help Czechoslovakia defend itself against the Nazi Germany (and that France and Britain wanted it too), but Poland refused to let Soviet forces through, despite many pleadings from France (then also an ally of Czechoslovakia) and Britain.

Or the fact that Ribbentrop promised to Poland German support in case of a Polish-Soviet conflict (01.10.1938, letter of Polish embassador in Germany).

Or the fact that in 1939 Britain and the Soviet Union offered Poland to extend its alliance with Romania for defence against Germany as well. Or the fact that France (then an ally of Poland) asked Poland to provide a narrow corridor for the Soviet Army (Soviet Union was in 1939 an ally of France) to pass through Poland and attack Germany, assisting French forces. Poland always refused.

Halibutt, you don't know history and you are trying to present it wrongly in this article. This is not commendable at all. Paranoid 10:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't turn this discussion into a field of personal attacks. As per your specific arguments:

1. I listed all the arguments for treatment of Nazi-Soviet cooperation as an alliance. I only forgot about the common declaration of September 18, issued simultaneously in Berlin and Moscow, and Molotov's speech of October 31st. You did not list yours to prove that the military, political and economical cooperation was not an alliance. Please do so.
2. Polish relations with Czechoslovakia were completely unrelated to the war of 1939. There was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia for the disputed area of Cieszyn, the armed conflict ended in 1920, when the area was conquered by Czechoslovakia. In 1938 it was retaken peacefuly by Poland, after a common Polish-Czechoslovakian conference and negotiations. Though it might've influenced the public relations of Polish diplomacy, there's no connection with the Soviet-German cooperation. - and that's what we're discussing here.
3. I don't know if Poland was warned. But anyway, there was no war between Poland and Czechoslovakia and the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact was never renounced by either side. Neither was the Riga peace treaty.
4. Poland refused to let the Soviet forces enter its territory - no wonder why. Is it already a cassus belli?
5. As to the possible Polish-German alliance against the Soviet Union - such proposals arrived from Berlin several dozen times, since early 1930's. Even as late as 1939 Ribbentrop suggested that Poland could exchange Danzig for Odessa. However, all such proposals were dismissed.
6. As to the extended alliance with Romania - I admit I never heard of it before. The alliance of 1922 was valid against aggression by USSR, perhaps there were some plans to extend it, but I don't see how this fact might've influence the Nazi-Soviet alliance, especially that the Polish-Romanian pact was a purely defensive alliance.
7. As to the "narrow corridor" - please provide evidence. It seems highly unlikely, especially that it was obvious to everyone in Poland that letting the Red Army in is much easier than expelling it out. Which, BTW, was proven by its presence in Poland or the Baltics for 50 years after WWII...

Anyway, I'm still waiting for your arguments that the Nazis and Soviets were not allied in 1939. Halibutt 14:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)