Talk:World War II

Archives
Archive Index
#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7
#8 (8/05 - 2/06)
#9 (3/06)
#10 (6/06)
#15 (8/06)
#16 (8/06 - 10/06)
#17 (12/06)
#18 (1/07)
#19 (4/07)
Topical Archives
Britain (#11, 7/06 - 8/06)
Intro (#12, 7/06 - 8/06)
Start Date (#13, 7/06)
Other Topics (#14, 6/06 - 8/06)
Combatants (8/06 - 12/06)
Combatants 2 (1/07 - mid 2/07)
Article Length
Photos
Casus Belli

This article was chosen as Article Improvement Drive article of the week on Sunday, 18th December 2005. The archive of the selection process can be found at Talk:World War II/AID vote archive

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

Xaxafrad's additions and my edits

Just to explain my edits of Xaxafrad's additions based on the french article.

1) I removed the reparations issue as this was not a faithful translation and is prone to be misunderstood. The French article essentially talks about unsatisfactory resolution of WWI, which does not just involve German misunderstanding of the reason for reparations...

2) I removed the Spanish Civil War as I don't believe this is generally seen as a part of WWII (it's a precursor war).

3) Added a short explanation for the urge for European Unification, maybe a link to Euro Federalism might have been more appropriate then the EU link I used, but I'm not sure these motivations are fully explained in any article.

4) Added political dissidents/opposition persecution to Atrocities, this is actually how many concentration camps such as Dachau started. Note that other political currents should probably be added (Christian Social(ists) for instance, I'm not entirely neutral in this case).

5) According removal of murder of dissidents... as that's now covered under atrocities.

6) Removal of Napalm as that doesn't seem to have seen much use in World War II. What's really meant is fire bombing, and probably White Phosphorus.

Otherwise just minor changes and corrections.

One question, which language standard is used for this article? I'd assume international, but I find many sentences in later parts of the article using american spelling. I was wondering because of the term labor/labour.--Caranorn 12:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Were you the person that made the introduction a lot longer? If you did than bravo cause it's a lot better than it was... --LtWinters 19:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No that was Xaxafrad's work, I just edited it somewhat.--Caranorn 20:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Civil War and WW2

I think there is virtually no mention of Spain, or the Spanish Civil War in this entire humongous article. Spain was a republic before 1936. Franco, a nationalist, almost a socialist, was supported for three years by over $200 million sent from Hitler and Mussolini. The republican government was supported by the Soviet Union. The others allies and members of the League of Nations kept their heads in the sand, afraid of another bloody nose (actually, they were afraid of jumping into a war they weren't sure they could win, since losing another war could lead to a popular uprising, and that's the last thing a democratic government wants). The Spanish Civil War is intimately tied to the pre-war political climate of Europe. It also laid the foundation of distrust between Hitler and Stalin. Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in this article? 75.111.32.151 21:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it should be mentioned, but you were wrong about one thing. The US did send troops into the Spanish Civil War. There was no draft, it was only volunteers. --LtWinters 22:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find a good place in the article I'll add it for you. --LtWinters 15:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that "The US sent troops into the Spanish Civil War" or "Some combatants (on one side or the other, e.g. in the International Brigade or whatever) in the Spanish Civil War were Americans". These two statements are emphatically not the same. If the former, I find that remarkable, and this is the first time I have ever heard about this. I would be grateful if you could provide more details. Badgerpatrol 15:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there was a volunteer military unit in the International Brigade made up of Americans, called the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. By 1937 it had about 450 members, and I'm not sure how they organized that but in the WWII infantry that could be from 2 or 3 companies to a whole battalion. It saw combat from 1937-1938. --LtWinters 17:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Resistance and Collaboration

Well I commonly read over stuff so if no one corrects me by 4/20 then I'm going to add stuff, but doesn't that subtopic "Resistance and Collaboration" not include any collaboration? All it says is some Germans resisted allied rule... but what about the French collaboration? Petain was sentenced to life in prison for it! The only reason they didn't execute him was because of his WWI contributions.--LtWinters 15:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support inclusion of Vichy and other examples of collaboration. Don't forget that Petain wasn't the only Vichy collaborator. Maxime Weygand, Pierre Laval, Joseph Darnand, and François Darlan were all notable collabortators. Parsecboy 20:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'm going to do that now because since we did a huge revision on the main body of the article that section may be deleted. --LtWinters 00:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Greek Civil war

This happened after World War 2. So why is it under the heading of "Contemporary wars of world war 2" ? Its like saying that the Turkish war of Independence was a war of world war 1 when of course, it happened after. Tourskin.

Where's it say that in the WWII article?--24.225.156.40 18:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The Greek Civil War was a direct consequence of WWII, I'm not sure it's in the article right now, but a short sentence would not be out of place. If you read the GCW article you will find that the first and second stage of the Civil War coincided with WWII.--Caranorn 20:41, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.225.156.40 (talk) 21:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

It is in the article people, its under CONTEMPORARY WARS with that list including the Finnish Lapland war, anglo-iraqiu war, winter war etc.

On another note, I now see that the Greek civil war did have an earlier phase during World war 2. I wouldn't call it a direct consequence, other than the fact that there was a power vacuum. Well world war 2 didn't help the country, thats for sure. Tourskin 01:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

War in Europe

I just have to correct what is written about Vidkun Quisling weakening the norwegian defense forces, it is absolutely prepostorous. It was created many theories about this after the war, but every seroius historian in Norway has rejected this as rediculous propaganda. In my opinion the picture of Vidkun Quisling is, for those who know of him as in foregin history, very incorrect, though that is another subject. If there was any weakening of the norwegian defense the guilt is to be carried by Quislings political opponents who almost completely disarmed the norwegian military during their reign in the 30s, but that is also another subject.

The news about Quisling was reported almost immediately after it happened, in an article entitled, "Quislings Everywhere". The historians you cite, who think this is ridiculous or preposterous, must have had their brains trampled in by moose. Haber 04:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox combatants

Since I don't think a short list of "major" combatants violates WP:NPOV, as evidenced by numerous other interwiki infoboxes, I'll include as many countries as I think the infobox can hold, without becoming overwhelmingly large. Xaxafrad 05:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Why is Finland not in the Axis? I think they were a considerably more major power then Bulgaria. And how can we have Australia, France and Canada, but not include Poland in the Allies? Why do we have the number of combatants that we do? I'm assuming you have a fact-based and referenced answer to these questions, otherwise, I'm calling NPOV. Oberiko 12:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

One more point, why are they in the order that they're in? It's not alphabetical, so why is Australia placed higher then the United Kingdom? Oberiko 12:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Instead of including Australia, New Zealand, India and Canada, couldn't it just say "United Kingdom with colonies and Commonwealth"? And if Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are included, then Poland (and probably other Allies) should be as well. Is it possible to find a list of armed forces by country in WW2, and just add the countries with the highest numbers? 96T 20:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it will be very hard (quite likely impossible) to find a list everyone will agree on. Generally I'd agree that countries such as Poland, Belgium or Greece, for their initial contributions to the war, should be included in a list that includes countries like Canada, Australia or New Zealand. But in the end, the best solution seems to be to list no one and instead link to the Allies respectively Axis articles. I wish that mediation (I was not listed initially, and decided not to sign up) had lead to some solution acceptable to everyone.--Caranorn 22:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm adding Poland, Greece, Norway and Finland if no one can give me a good reason why they shouldn't be there. Oberiko 22:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, we can't keep doing this guys. This is why that whole mediation thing failed a month ago, because people kept saying well I'll put in whatever I feel like. SO NO ONE PUT IN ANY MORE COUNTRIES. THERE ARE ENOUGH AS OF RIGHT NOW. If you want to put in another one, just leave a message here and we'll discuss it and if it seems reasonable then we'll add it. --LtWinters 23:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

That was basically the point I was trying to make. It's an extremely slippery slope here from having X to having X + 1. Once I added Poland, Greece, Norway and Finland, I'd be clear to add New Zealand (they were in the war so much longer then Poland) as an Ally, and the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent of the Axis (they supplied more manpower against the Allies (Polish Campaign) then the Bulgarians did). Of course, since we then have the USSR on both sides, I'm clear to do the same with Finland.

In the long run, I wanted to show this. I can easily prove country X was in the war and can usually find some metric where they are more major then another nation we already have. As soon as country X is in, I can go to country Y which did nearly as much and ask why the line was drawn to exclude them. Repeat until the full list is present. At this point, the infobox is essentially useless as a summary ("Why are Finland, France, U.S.S.R. and Italy listed twice (or more!)") and we have to go back to the Allies and Axis. Doesn't sound pleasant, I know, but it's something that has happened and will again, I just wanted to speed up the process and demonstrate exactly why we can't list the combatants by nation. Oberiko 01:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my idea. Let's just stick with the Big Three for each side. United Kingdom, USSR, and United States in that order (alphabetical), and Italy, Japan, and Nazi Germany. I would add that right now but those infoboxes are too confusing for me to learn to operate, so if someone else could do it I'd appreciate it (sorry, I don't want to sound lazy so I'll learn sometime).--24.225.156.40 11:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

96T, if we are going to use the Commonwealth (technically "British Commonwealth" in 1926-49) as shorthand for Canada, Australia, India etc — and I stress that I do not support this — then we should also remove the UK since the basic idea of the Commonwealth (as opposed to the Empire) was that the UK was just one member among many, not the leader or even "first among equals". Also Ireland was technically part of the Commonwealth during WW2 and it was neutral so... Grant | Talk 07:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I realize my original judgment in listing combatants was poor; it was almost arbitrary. So instead, I'm going to use the countries mentioned in section 0 of Allies and Axis as a short list of "major" combatants, using the "and others" link to fill in for the remaining sections of those articles. Tell me how that violates NPOV. If somebody wants to add Canada or Poland or Hungary or Finland, let them do it to the lead sections of the Allies and Axis articles first. Doesn't that sound fair? Xaxafrad 18:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland was there, but you either conveniently didn't see them or chose to ignore your own logic. I've added them. Oberiko 10:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --LtWinters 19:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, I agree with the 5v3. Nice job. Haber 21:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, if I were to add "The original Allies, as a result of the Franco-Polish Military Alliance and Polish-British Common Defence Pact at the outbreak of the European Theatre of war, were the United Kingdom, France and Poland." to the Allies page, would I then be able to add Poland to the list of major Allies? Same goes for the Soviet Union if I include them as a major co-belligerent on the Axis page during the early phase of the war. Oberiko 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds like a fine idea to me. We can include the Soviet Union on both lists, with notes, and it will be even more informative. I don't think such notes will be overly cumbersome, but we'll have to see how they look to be sure. Oh, what about the Western betrayal? Didn't that kind of make those "old era" treaties meaningless? The UN is really a much better deterrent to war than the "if you attack me, my friends will attack you" strategy. Xaxafrad 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for including the combatants in the infobox, I anticipate another long and tedious edit war. Grant | Talk 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus for including them, and since if they are included there is even less consensus for just who "them" are, isn't the best solution - for the stability of the article and the sanity of editors - to just leave them out? Primum non nocere and all that. Eron ^Talk 03:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Don't expect logic to prevail, however. Grant | Talk 03:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Why are we cramming in as many countries as possible? THERE'S A PAGE FOR BOTH AXIS AND ALLIES! There's really no reason to throw such minor countries as Bulgaria in there. --Throw some d's 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I would much rather have just Axis and Allies than try to list all countries - especially when someone decided to put some countries on both sides. Yeah, that's really comprehensive. "Italy was on both sides! What? What do you mean you don't get it?"Jwinters820 12:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting On Infobox

~please only put you name, date, and time, and if you must a sentance or two on your position~

This voting is on which major nations will be in the allies/axis infobox. It has been suggested (although it may change) that all votes be entered by 4/22.

ALLIES AS: United Kingdom and All Commonwealth, United States, and USSR

AXIS AS: Italy, Emperial Japan, and Nazi Germany

YES:

--LtWinters 02:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NO:

--I think that "Allies" and "Axis" is better than your proposal because it solves endless arguments such as why isn't China included (IMHO, their war effort was greater than that of Italy). And btw, if you list the Big Three alphabetically, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics would be placed first, not last (not that I think that's wrong). With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

-- Axis and Allies (or vice versa) seems to be the only approach that could work in the long run. Even if it were decided to opt for major Powers, those should not be the Big Three.--Caranorn 12:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

YES: absolutely. how can anyone argue who the major powers are? it's almost common knowledge. Merely leaving it as Axis and Allies provides no information. --Jwinters820 12:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What about China? They tied down almost the entirety of the Japanese Army and lost a significant number of people. Why are you against putting the Chinese in the infobox? Oberiko 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It obviously isn't common knowledge, otherwise we wouldn't be arguing about it. One can make an excellent case for any number of nations (for the Allies, France, China, Poland and various Commonwealth nations stand out, for the Axis Hungary, Romania, Vichy etc etc can and have all been suggested). Equally, we can make arguments against them. Some have offered arguments against for example the USSR being classed as a "major" ally. It would not be hard to construct cases against the UK and US either, on various grounds (perhaps this has already been done at some stage of the debate). The whole situation is ridiculous. Either everyone should go in the infobox, or no-one at all. PS- I apologise to you Lt. Winters if my comments below sound short, but I think we are all a little frustrated here by what I frankly see as needless intransigence. It seems that you are a newbie and may not be familiar with how the Wikipedia "system" "works" (...). You should probably read the archives of this page and the relevant pages on constructing straw polls. Your poll is flawed because it completely ignores the total removal of nations from the infobox, a course of action which is in fact supported by the vast majority. Voting will not work because one side has resolved to refuse to accept any outcome that is not favourable to their point of view, regardless of the strength of support for it. I don't mean that as a personal attack on anyone, I am stating it as a manifest fact based on prior experience. What we need now is to come to some sort of compromise to end this frustrating mess. PPS- I assume that "Jwinters820" is either your sockpuppet or a friend or relative. It's usually considered quite bad form to participate in Wiki debates without acknowledging this. All the best, Badgerpatrol 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think with the sub-note "and others", it is very fair to include only the major powers (stated above) in the info box. Obviously France wasn't a major player, and China almost never comes to mind when thinking about major combatants in WWII. Taking all of the countries out would be taking information away. Who doesn't know the terms "Allies" and "Axis?" Providing just the major countries involved provides information without too much information. --Throw some d's 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is about China - they did nothing to fight the Japanese compared to the Americans (Taking back most of the pacific islands and nuclear bombing two major cities (which resulted in the Japanese surrender.)) -- Throw some d's 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

This will sound odd but actually I changed my mind about China as Oberiko pointed out... 20 million dead? That's as much as the USSR so I feel its fair to put them in. --LtWinters 21:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But it comes back to China being a major combatant. It fought one country and, for the most part, lost. Jwinters820 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm LtWinters' cousin. He told me about this, and I thought I'd give my two cents. --Jwinters820 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC) If there are links to the individual pages for Allies and Axis powers, why list all countries? The major combatants provide enough detail for a basic understanding, and if a reader wants more information, he can click on the links. -- Jwinters820 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Voting on More Votes < --- Shall we delete this section? Jwinters820 22:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why France is included in Allies list, and Poland isnt? There was more Polish troop in war, than French...

Guest

Q: Who thinks we should waste our time with yet another vote over an intractable issue that has been discussed exhaustively over the past 3 months and over which we have already conducted 4 votes (or is it 5? I think the madness is starting to set in as my mind atrophies from the tedium and frustration....) , of which only one was legitimately and logically conducted (the result of which was completely ignored for no good reason). Badgerpatrol 09:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

(For God's sake) NO

• ME. Badgerpatrol 09:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
• Winters, asides from this being a shoddy vote set-up, read the history archive (the two combatants sections) to see the discussion. This is a waste of time. Oberiko 12:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's a waste of time, why did you comment? --LtWinters 15:05, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's not a waste of time, why didn't he vote? Badgerpatrol 15:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

YES

I just want to point out that the Spanish, Italians, Dutch, and Polish were able to agree on something, to name a few. Why can't we?

Note that they also don't agree with each other. And other Wiki's generally aren't considered extraordinarily reliable sources. Oberiko 01:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying they are reliable sources, and although they argued they were at least able to put down something. You guys seem to be forgetting, if you search ww2 in Google this article is the first you get, and in yahoo its the third. This article is not for us- its for the 7th grader doing a history report on WWII, and trying to make this article more confusing than it is allows us to understand it- but not the reader. --LtWinters 10:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom's Role Played Down

Considering World War 2 was started when Great Britain declared war on Germany.

The thing that really made it a world war was Great Britain's massive empire being at war with the Axis, and that Great Britain in the lead up to World War 2 had been the World's main policing Superpower due to its leadership of the League of Nations and the extensiveness of its empire, influence, and overseas trade. Great Britain's role during the Second World War was played down over the duration of the Cold War by people mistaking Great Britain's strength during the Cold War as its strength during the Second World War.

In regards to Second World War roles played by nations people tend to overexagerate the Soviet Union's role by mistaking the increase in its power during the Cold War as its power during the Second World War and with Great Britain they down play its role by mistaking its power during the Cold War as its power during the Second World War.

In 1939 when the Second World War started Great Britain was no weakling considering though it no longer had the world's highest GDP it was the world's largest trading nation and its GDP was only second behind the United States, with the largest empire in the world (more than all others at the time combined), and militarily it had the world's largest navy, arguably the world's most advanced air force with the launch of the Spitfire fighters and it being the only country in the world to start using radar and was also the first country to start researching the atom bomb.

My point is that in the factbox I think Great Britain should be the first mentioned considering all this and the main points of that the Second World War was really Great Britain's war against Fascism when it declared war on the number 1 Fascist country Germany and got its ally France to do the same, who at the time just followed whatever Great Britain did.

The Second World War was started by Great Britain as its last resort of stopping Fascism's advance around the globe as it was the world's only policeman at the time along with its protege France, and so Great Britain really should be the first mentioned in the infobox. Also Great Britain was in the Second World War longer than any other country in the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.10.175 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this about the infobox? If it's not, and it's really about the content of the article, then go ahead and add whatever comments about Britain you want, 88.109.10.175, but use references if you want them to stick around....Oh, I see it is about the "factbox". In that case, go to Allies of World War II and make Britain the first country named in the article, and I will make it the first country in the infobox. But all those facts you spoke of, if true, deserve to be in Wikipedia, somewhere (because the WW2 article is pretty full, although some facts would probably be appropriate for general inclusion). Xaxafrad 02:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you being serious or facetious? Do you mean that the countries listed in the infobox are now going to follow whatever order they are listed in on Allies of World War II and Axis Powers of World War II. If you're not joking...where's the logic in that? Badgerpatrol 09:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, I notice that you didn't even follow your own logic and didn't add Poland. I've added it and now question the NPOV since we have Poland (which fought for a month as a nation) but not some other nations that fought for the entire duration of the war. Oberiko 10:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The article I was looking at when I picked out the "major" members of the Allies was this one. I still don't see Poland in the lead. Xaxafrad 02:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox lineup

Wouldn't the most simple way to order the countries would be to have them in chronology of when they joined the war rather than in any fashion or some other way? The Axis lineup seems to be ordered by chronology of when they joined the war. In what way are the Allies supposed to be set at the moment? I think it's very disrespectful to the UK that it's so low on the list and makes it seem like the war it created against Fascism has been hijacked by others.

UK was arguably the third most important allied power. It's war effort was probably greater than that of China, while certainly less than that of the Soviet Union and the United States. As for the "war against Fascism" - they did create it to an extent, in Munich in 1938. Ko Soi IX 04:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nations violate NPOV

Why is Poland in the infobox (which it is according to Xaxafrad's logic of using the Allies page), which was only in the war as a nation for about a month, but not Canada, which fought from the begging until the end? Oberiko 10:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bulgaria, Italy, Finland and Romania (which still satisfy the use of the Allies page) but not Canada? Definite NPOV. Oberiko 10:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are these guys allies?????? Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland?--24.225.156.40 11:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because they fought with the Allies and because they are mentioned in the lead in for Allies of World War II. To exclude them would therefore be illogical. Badgerpatrol 12:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting a bit pointy. Everyone agrees (I hope) that "Allies" and "Axis" are the two combatant groups. No one agrees (apparently) on which members of those groups should be listed, in what order, and how many of them. Yes, yes, there is a Big 3 faction, a 5v3 faction, a list-'em-all-and-let-God-sort-'em-out faction, but there is no consensus. It's all opinion. So I'll ask a question that I asked in a previous incarnation of this debate: what do reliable, verifiable sources say? Is there a consensus view among reliable historical sources as to who the "major" Allied and Axis nations were? If so, then we should publish that list with a reference. If not, then any list is inherently POV, probably original research, and has no place here. - Eron ^Talk 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem, EronMain; we've tried that before, and any source that lists a certain list can be contradicted by another source with a different list. Several editors as well as myself have been saying this for a long time now: the only suitable option is to list only the links to the Allies and Axis pages. Parsecboy 12:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. If the sources that we are supposed to use can't even agree, how are we supposed to? - Eron ^Talk 12:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That is at least a sensible suggestion. Unfortunately...any list, even if defined using sources is not going to be stable. There is so much written about WWII that any number of sources can be invoked to support a given editor's point of view. It will not be hard to find a source that mentions only the "Big 3". It will not be hard to find a source that includes those 3 and France. Or those 3 and China. Or those 4 and China. Or that includes Poland. Or that lists the Commonwealth as separate to Britain. Or that doesn't. Or that lists the USSR as fighting with the Axis. Or that doesn't. Or that lists France as being Vichy and therefore with the Axis. Or that doesn't. That is the problem. The selection of the sources in this case is just as liable to POV as anything else, and in a situation like this where national sentiment and POV are inherent (I notice that this recent edit [1] left in Finland as an Ally (even though they actually declared war on Germany in March 1945) but took out Romania and Bulgaria (which declared war on Germany in 1944), that's a big issue. Badgerpatrol 12:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I restored (and asked the editor to leave input here). Oberiko 12:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

The section says it all. It seems Badgerpatrol and Oberiko's last edits to both this article and the Allied Powers article were to prove a point (that anyone could add any country any which way). Don't do that! It only disrupts the information we are trying to provide to average users. lets instead try and debate rationally how we can solve the current problem.--Caranorn 13:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. So I'm going to restore to Allies and Axis until (if) an objective, NPOV criteria is selected. Oberiko 01:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was actually my intent to rejigg the intro to Allies of World War II to reflect the actual complexity of the issue, but I suppose you are correct that the effect has been to emphasise how ridiculous the notion of deciding the infobox according to the arbitrary ordering in another page. As to your other point- rational debate has been tried and has failed. A coterie of editors- in fact, perhaps just one person- has demonstrated that they will neither listen to rational debate, put forward any logical counterargument, or abide by the overwhelming result of a fairly conducted and reasonable poll. I think that one side of the debate has *always* been careful to coolly discuss the issue, take everything slowly, canvass the opinions of everyone and only take action when it seems a consensus has been reached. The other side- hasn't. Any frustration that has now built up (over a simple issue that should and could have been resolved months ago) directly stems from that obstinacy and needless intransigence. Badgerpatrol 13:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know where to respond in this discussion any more, so I'll add my comments to the end. Is it really "ridiculous" to use the articles devoted to the listing of all the allies of both camps as an informal authority on who the "major" members were? Wikipedia is usually not a list, but those two articles are effectively just that, but with an appropriate amount of prose thrown in. More or less prose can add comments about minor countries, or remove all comments about any countries. If it comes to that, then let the infobox reflect it. Didn't somebody talk about Britain's importance in the war and spout dozens of facts, seemingly off the top of their head, all in support of changing the infobox instead of the body of WW2 or Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, and without signing the talk page. How serious should we take those suggestions? Xaxafrad 20:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to interwiki infoboxes

World War II
World War II montage image Clockwise from top: Allied landing on Normandy beaches on D-Day, the gate of a Nazi concentration camp at Auschwitz, Red Army soldiers raising the Soviet flag over the Reichstag in Berlin, the Nagasaki atom bomb, and German police entering Austria.
Date September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945 Location Europe, Pacific, South-East Asia, Middle East, Mediterranean and Africa Result Allied victory. Creation of the United Nations. Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers. Creation of First World and Second World spheres of influence in Europe leading to the Cold War.
Belligerents
Allies  Australia  Belgium  Canada  China  Czechoslovakia  Egypt  Finland  France (to 1940)  Free France  Free Thai  Greece  India  Italy  New Zealand  Poland  South Africa  Soviet Union  United Kingdom  United States ...and others	Axis powers  Bulgaria  Croatia  Finland (to 1944)  Germany  Hungary  Italy (to 1943)  Japan  Manchuria  Norway  Romania  Slovakia  Soviet Union (to 1941)  Thailand  Vichy France ...and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders	Axis leaders
Casualties and losses
Military dead: 12,000,000 Civilian dead: 33,000,000 Total dead: 45,000,000	Military dead: 6,000,000 Civilian dead: 3,000,000 Total dead 9,000,000

As of April 20th, of the 86 interwiki articles linked from en:WW2, 34 have been developed enough to gain infoboxes...

• 5 wikis (including en) list only Allies and Axis: en, fr, ca, no, th
• 14 wikis list some individual countries, and link to the full articles: es, pt, nl, da, id, vi, tr, zh, hr, ru, bs, sr, sh, fy
• 6 wikis note there were other countries, but have, so far, inconsistently linked to the full articles: pl, it, he, sk, bg, bn
• 9 wikis may or may not include a note about, and links to, the others: ja, sv, fi, lv, cs, ur, el, ar, yi

I took the liberty of bolding the top 10 biggest wikis which have links from wikipedia.org, as I'm assuming those wikis have the most users, and the most oversight, and are most likely to be well developed and within Wikipedia's guidelines. It doesn't seem like listing a few countries in the infobox really violates NPOV. So again, I assert that the listing of just a few countries is not biased, is not against Wikipedia policies, and is more informative to the dear readers.

But there are some obvious drawbacks to such a listing. I won't spell them out at this point, as anyone involved in this discussion is already aware of the situation. If a 3vs3 short list is undesirable, then let's go with something like 15vs15...I'm going to take every country from all the interwiki infoboxes and see if that makes our infobox want to throw up. If it looks okay, then we'll see how many countries still want to be added.... Xaxafrad 17:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have time at this point, but if anyone wants to comment (additions, subtractions) on my new list before I start getting the appropriate wikilinks together, feel free: (US, UK/Crown colonies, SU, France, Canada, China, India, Australia, Poland, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Belgium, Brazil, Greece, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia) vs (Germany, Italy, SU, Japan, Bulgaria, Finland, Romania, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Thailand, Yugoslavia, Vichy France, Manchukou, Spain, Argentina, Turkey). That's 17vs17, and I'll be alphabetizing them for the infobox. Xaxafrad 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that would actually violate one agreed usages of the infobox itself, as agreed on by the Military History task force.

“ combatant1/combatant2/combatant3 – optional – the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article. ”

Oberiko 18:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Is 17 a large number? If I only need to take off my socks to count to it, it's not too big. Note the heavy use of the word "may" in those guidelines (because it's not a policy). I also read somewhere that flagicons were discouraged, but that's mostly the only reason I want to see some individual countries. For reference, only a handful of the interwiki infoboxes didn't use flags. Xaxafrad 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think 17 is easily readable, especially since if it's at that amount, we would have a few nations on both sides. That would cause a lot more confusion then it would solve. I'm still not understanding what your objection to Allies and Axis is though. Oberiko 21:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

My objection is that I feel "Allies vs Axis" is unnecessarily short, I think you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and I think we can find another solution. In my view, I'm working on the problem, while you're ignoring it. But in your view, I'm guessing, there wouldn't even be a problem if I would ignore the infobox.

Ultimately, I didn't stick with that exact list, mostly leaving off Argentina, Yugoslavia, Turkey, and maybe some others; it wound up with 16 vs 13.

I still believe we can have a partial list of combatants without violating the NPOV or OR policies. Xaxafrad 23:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Axis and Allies (+ allied forces) is to short at all; it's the only entry which fully encapsulates the combatants without going overboard on explaining who and why (which we have three separate articles for) and not choosing who to include based on dubious criteria. Oberiko 04:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I say yes to Germany, Japan and Italy for the Axis, USSR, UK, USA and China for the allies. We can also go just Germany and Japan for the axis (Italy can be excluded, for they were not as significant as the other two) and USSR, UK and USA for the allies. Thegoodson 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of my point. 20vs14, as I have now put together, doesn't seem too big when viewed as a whole with the rest of the article. Which other countries might you recommend to add? Xaxafrad 04:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't like that new info box at all. First off, how did we choose those 20 and 14? Why not 21 and 15? What objective criteria did you use to select them and why? As you've included non-nations, such as the Free French, does that mean we can include resistance movements, including partisans? What about governments-in-exile? Does a nation like Brazil really warrant mention? And what will you do about leaders, put every leader (both political and military)? And why is Norway in the Axis side?

I've reverted (until we resolve this) and put the infobox you created here for reference. Personally, I feel this causes many more problems then it solves. Oberiko 04:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to the interwiki versions of WW2 and selected all the countries from the lengthiest infoboxes. Then I scanned some comments from the above discussions and added an extra handful. Which resistance movements, partisan groups, and governments-in-exile do you propose to add, or was that facetiousness? Do other resistance movements have their own flag? Is Brazil really inappropriate? Let's remove it (done, on the reference infobox). I don't recommend listing leaders with a large partial list of countries. Norway was occupied by Nazis, and the government was at least partially purged of non-National Socialist elements.

Doesn't a long list (15-20ish) best reflect the enormous span and composition of the alliances? And why should such a reflection not be permitted in this article? It's not because of length issues: between the lead and TOC on the left, and the info and campaign boxes on the right, they're just about equal in length, with the long infobox. This big war deserves a big head, stylistically speaking, no?

I'm truly sorry that I can't see a good reason for not listing these countries. You might have to explain your position as if to a child. Xaxafrad 05:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

TOTAL INCONSISTENCY...WHAT THE HECK?

Soo...in like three places in the article, different numbers of casualties are marked. Like in the first part, the article says like 62 people died, and in the second part it said 73 people died!!! What the heck! This article is soooo inconsistant!!! Can someone make it better? Lila 14:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, we're too busy arguing over issues which should have been sorted out months ago and for which the solution is obvious. I do have a gap in my Wiki diary in about February next year tho, provided the current issue has been resolved by then (Inshallah....) Badgerpatrol 14:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Given these edits, I would suggest that if you don't want inconsistency, don't introduce it. - Eron ^Talk 14:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed that because WAY over 62 million people died. At first, I didn't see the number in the fisrt part of the article. But you are evading. Lila 14:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What am I evading? If you think there are factual errors or inconsistencies in the article, then do something about it. But try not to make the problem worse in so doing. - Eron ^Talk 14:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We should include a numerical spread of estimates to make the uncertainty explicit (although I do think it is already stated fairly clearly that there is no exact estimate). 62 million is certainly a reasonable figure, as is 75 million. Badgerpatrol 14:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the general statements ("XX million dead...") to reflect the apparently well-referenced count of approximately 72 million as detailed in World War II casualties. So that at least is consistent. The infobox breakdown into Allies/Axis and military/civilian does not match this total and some serious number-crunching may be required to fix that, once we figure out just who the Allies and Axis countries were. Then there will be some no doubt controversial decisions over things like where to count Holocaust victims. (Killed by the Axis, so they must be Allied casualties? Residents and citizens of Axis countries, so the must be Axis casualties? Oy.) In any event, at least the grand totals in the body of the article now match, unless I missed one somewehere. - Eron ^Talk 15:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We should put somewhere that all guesses are estimates, because I've heard so many different figures. All these figures you guys keep saying are higher than what I've heard. I've heard 52, 55-60, and 62 million, never 72 million. Are there any other sources that say there were 72 million deaths? This figure comes from the addition of all the other sources, which is not working. --LtWinters 20:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

If 72 million is wrong - and I'm not saying it isn't - then World War II casualties needs to be fixed too. All I was attempting to do was to ensure internal consistency in this article, and consistency with the main Wikipedia article. I'd rather be consistently wrong than inconsistently wrong. - Eron ^Talk 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it needs to be fixed, but it really can't because all sources differ. For example, a Dutch source on Belgian casualties may say 1 million Belgians died, but a Belgian source might say that 1 million Belgians died, but because only 1 million deaths were confirmed, and another 100,000 were reported as possible deaths yet not comfirmed, obviously the Belgian source is going to say 1.1 million, so all numbers of different sources will not add up. So yes, WWII casualties needs to be fixed, but it can't because as I keep saying all sources are different, so let's just leave it as it is. But what we should do is say in the WWII page that over 62 million died, or 60-73 million people died, or something along those lines. --LtWinters 21:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Inline citations within this article might be a good way to fix this. Haber 21:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've just gone over the article again and revised the approximate total downwards to 60 million, which seems to be what majority of sources say. I have provided three different (online) external references that support this; print would be better, I think, but I don't have access to any such sources right now. I've also trimmed out a lot of redundant and conflicting numbers from the casualties section, and I have eliminated the use of World War II casualties as a reference. Now I'm off to fix the infobox number to agree with the sources I have found. - Eron ^Talk 14:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that works...umm well you know I personally do not think wiki is that reliable...i.e.

There is probably some high-school student doing some project on WWII (bumps self) and they are looking at the article every day, but each day they see a different amount of casualties and when they put the number in their paper...and then it all is confusing.....ya know what I mean? Lila 15:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, it is a bit confusing. World War II was a world-spanning conflict that lasted for years. It is a deep, broad, complex subject with few simple answers. Looking just at casualties, for example, there are many different estimates of the total numbers - as you have noted. So you may need to look at more than one source and try to find a number which is consistent, or which at least appears to be well supported. (Which is basically what I did to try and make this article consistent.) - Eron ^Talk 15:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Beginning of war

The anniversaries page states September 1, 1939 as the beginning of the war, as does every other book and documentary I have ever seen. Why does the intro to the article state 1937 as the beginning of the war? This date is accepted by no one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.174.104 (talk • contribs)

Because Japan entered the war by invading China on that date. --LtWinters 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and it was called the Sino-Japanese War Lila 15:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the Second World War did not start in 1937, it began when Germany invaded Poland in 1939. I am going edit the part which states that the war began in 1937. Thegoodson 21:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Chronology, and other sections

So I'm just trying to get this article into a good shape; 173kb doesn't seem good. It's 61kb now, after pushing the chronology section into the chronology article, again, and also moving the causes and aftermath sections into better locations. Some people will think it's better, some people will think it's worse...I hope to hear from both groups. Xaxafrad 00:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I assert that this article is a general article about the many facets, aspects, and characteristics of this arguably unique war and hasn't the room for such operational detail as was included in the chronology. How many people keep adding things to the middle of the article, without noticing the notice at the top of the article admonishing editors to consider placing new content in sub-articles? Isn't this article almost too big, even without the chronology section? I might call it well-rounded, as it stands now, while the chronology section was like some kind of tumor. Xaxafrad 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of keeping this as a general article, I just deleted the Ukrainian Insurgent Army section. It was a direct copy of the lede from the main article, and was far too specific for an overview article. Hope no one minds, though I am sure someone will. - Eron ^Talk 00:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I know wikipedia's policy is that articles too long is not good, but why is that the policy? For what reason is that? And I agree with the removal of the Ukrainian army.--LtWinters 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just so I don't have to start another talk section....I shuffled some of the causes and aftermath sections around, and these two swathes were left behind. Maybe they're redundant? What do you think? Xaxafrad 07:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Causes

File:Hitlermusso.jpg

Benito Mussolini of Fascist Italy (left) and Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany.

Main articles: Causes of World War II, Events preceding World War II in Europe, and Events preceding World War II in Asia

The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the German invasion of Poland, as well as the Japanese attacks on China, the United States, and the British and Dutch colonies. All of the attacks resulted from the leadership of authoritarian ruling elites in Germany and Japan. World War II began after these acts of aggression were met with an official declaration of war or armed resistance.

Aftermath

Germany's territorial losses 1919–1945.

Main articles: Aftermath of World War II and Effects of World War II

The war concluded with the surrender and occupation of Germany and Japan. It left behind millions of displaced persons and prisoners of war, and resulted in many new international boundaries. The economies of Europe, China and Japan were largely destroyed as a result of the war. In 1947, U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall devised the "European Recovery Program", better known as the Marshall Plan. Effective from 1948 to 1952, it allocated 13 billion dollars for the reconstruction of Western Europe. To prevent (or at least minimize) future conflicts, the allied nations, led by the United States, formed the United Nations in San Francisco, California in 1945. One of the first actions of the United Nations was the creation of the State of Israel, partly in response to the Holocaust.

Totaling the amount of destruction is fraught with difficulties

Wow, this poor article. We've got the honor student lead, the infobox that doesn't inform, and now the chronology has been discarded. Revert? Haber 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert to what? Oberiko 03:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a work in progress, like a lot of articles, but it's not that bad, is it? It could almost be featured, as is, I think. But it could also not be a good article any more...<goes to look at other FA/GA war articles> Please look at: Yom Kippur War (3 weeks in 1973, 71kb), Kargil War (3 months in 1999, 62kb), Polish-Soviet War (1917-19, 100kb). Okay, so I'm willing to give WW2 ~150kb to work towards FA with. Xaxafrad 03:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I still think that an encyclopedia article about WWII should tell readers quickly that a man named Adolf Hitler was involved, and that Great Britain and France were in the war, while avoiding overblown language. Call me weird. The chronology is actually one of the better-crafted sections of the article, if exceedlingly long-winded (and that can be fixed without axing it). Anyway, you seem to have a sincere interest in helping the article, and the old brief intro/overview/chronology layout wasn't so great either. I agree with getting rid of the overview. Thanks for your efforts. Haber 01:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the overview was still in the article, just split up and integrated with subsections. I've just deleted about 8.5kb, including some of these sections which I feel are redundant at this point. We're getting there. I agree 150 kb is a reasonable goal. Haber 03:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Prelude to war

I was considering adding the following text (clipped from History_of_Germany#Weimar_Republic) before the causes section. I know it's in the opposite direction of smaller, but I think it makes the article more well-rounded and informative. I recall reading (on Wikipedia) about the brief French occupation of the Rhineland (or Ruhr) in 1926, in violation of League of Nations rules. And Asia.... Xaxafrad 06:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Main article: Interwar period

On 28 June 1919 the Treaty of Versailles was signed. Germany was to cede Alsace-Lorraine, Eupen-Malmédy, North Schleswig, and the Memel area. Poland was restored and most of the provinces of Posen and West Prussia, and some areas of Upper Silesia were reincorporated into the reformed country after plebiscites and independence uprisings. All German colonies were to be handed over to the Allies. The left and right banks of the Rhine were to be permanently demilitarised. The industrially important Saarland was to be governed by the League of Nations for 15 years and its coalfields administered by France. At the end of that time a plebiscite was to determine the Saar's future status. To ensure execution of the treaty's terms, Allied troops would occupy the left (German) bank of the Rhine for a period of 5–15 years. The German army was to be limited to 100,000 officers and men; the general staff was to be dissolved; vast quantities of war material were to be handed over and the manufacture of munitions rigidly curtailed. The navy was to be similarly reduced, and no military aircraft were allowed. Germany and its allies were to accept the sole responsibility of the war, and were to pay financial reparations for all loss and damage suffered by the Allies. The humiliating peace terms provoked bitter indignation throughout Germany, and seriously weakened the new democratic regime.

Faced with animosity from Britain and France and the retreat of American power from Europe, in 1922 Germany was the first state to establish diplomatic relations with the new Soviet Union. Under the Treaty of Rapallo, Germany accorded the Soviet Union de jure recognition, and the two signatories mutually cancelled all pre-war debts and renounced war claims.

When Germany defaulted on its reparation payments, French and Belgian troops occupied the heavily industrialised Ruhr district (January 1923). The German government encouraged the population of the Ruhr to passive resistance: shops would not sell goods to the foreign soldiers, coal-mines would not dig for the foreign troops, trams in which members of the occupation army had taken seat would be left abandoned in the middle of the street. The passive resistance proved effective, in so far as the occupation became a loss-making deal for the French government. But the Ruhr fight also led to hyperinflation, and many who lost all their fortune would become bitter enemies of the Weimar Republic, and voters of the anti-democratic right. <end of section stub>