Talk:World War II/Archive 23

Nazi Germany
Is it necessary to say always "Nazi Germany" instead of just Germany? We aren't saying Churchill's UK or French IV (or whatever it is) Republic. The country's official name wasn't "Nazi Germany". --Taraborn 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think its necessary either, some people think every German was a Nazi or something. They mostly fought as Germans not as Nazi's. It should be Nazi Germany only in the intro section to show the regime but after that its pointless. Wiki1609 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed, so long as the first instance is internally linked as "Nazi Germany", we can call it just "Germany" everywhere else, including the first link. We don't use "Kingdom of Italy", "Empire of Japan" or "French Third Republic" every time we need to reference the country. Oberiko 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

i think we mean we dont call united kingdom "capalist united kingdom" etc. Nazi is natiolism in german. the nazi's were facists. facists are a re very right ring political party. we should not rether to germany by calling them nazis, but germans. Its like saying "royalist united kingdom" or "imperial united kingdom", "british empire" (like japan is rethered to as the japenese empire often) and "republican united states" (republican not standing for the political party, but stands for a country without a monorcay --leemyster 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikijunior World War II
Wikipedia sister project Wikijunior has just launched a book for children between 8-10 on World War II. Anyone interested is welcome to contribute. --Xixtas 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
Any reason why everything on the invasion of Yugoslavia was removed? 96T 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add Yugoslavia to the sections dealing with the Soviet-German War. As is, the top section is Germany vs the Western Allies, while the latter is for Germany vs. the Soviets (and their allies).  You're right that I should add something on their initial invasion and conquering of the state in the section though. Oberiko 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please do. 96T 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've added the intro and the conclusion is in the final section on the Soviet-German War. Oberiko 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm supportive of adding it. --LtWinters 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hirohito-Tôjô
Hi, I noticed you changed the leader oj Japan from Hirohito to Tôjô. I suggest you read articles on Imperial General Headquarters, on emperor Showa himself and the Tokyo tribunal about the propaganda work made by Douglas Mac Arthur. Furthermore, there is an entire chapter in Hirohito and War by Peter Wetzler that described the relationship between the to men and explain that Tôjô was entirely devoted to his emperor. Considering Tôjô, a prime minister between 1941 and 1944, the "leader" of Japan is a bit outdated. --Flying tiger 18:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Japanese Emperor is entirely ceremonial, and has not had any political power for a thousand years. To list him as being in "command" is a misrepresentation of the facts; it is as wrong is calling George VI of the United Kingdom in "command" or Victor Emmanuel III of Italy as being in "command". Or the Pope for that matter, since both Hitler or Mussolini were Catholic.
 * You may be right in saying that Tojo was devoted to the emperor, but that does not change the fact that the Emperor had no polical power whatsoever. He did not plan the war, he did not order it. You may also say the Churchill was devoted to his King, he most certainly was, but that does not change the fact that the King was not in command. JdH 15:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not quite the "clean" separation in Japan as it was in European monarchies. The role of the Emperor is heavily disputed, not aided by the fact that many believe there was a cover-up after the war to protect the Emperor, making him out to be a powerless figure-head.  Oberiko 15:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that to Westerners the role of the Japanese Emperor is hard to understand. Looking back in history, in the Tokugawa period it was the Shogun who was in command, and even before that the Emperor did not have any political power. Things changed of course after the Meiji Restoration, but even after that the Emperor did not have any political power. Instead it were the leaders of the Restoration who moved to power. And their successors still were in power, in the period leading up to WWII.
 * You may ask yourself: Since these people proclaimed to be devoted to the Emperor, couldn't Hirohito have applied that devotion to stop them from going to war? No doubt an interesting question, but it is merely an academic one, since it does not change the fact that Hirohito was not in command. You may equally well ask yourself whether the Pope should have applied his influence to stop Mussolini from going to war; but once again, it does not change the fact that the Pope was nor in command. JdH 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a huge difference between the pope and other European monarchs and Hirohito


 * The Emperor sanctioned the use of chemical weapons in China
 * Japan joined the Axis by signing the Tripartite Treaty on 27 September 1940
 * The plans to go to war with the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands were made on September 4th, 1941
 * Hitler, Churchill and Mussolini all obtained power mostly on their own (in the case of Mussolini, the King appointed him in order to prevent a civil war where Mussolini could have potentially seized power on his own). Hirohito specifically appointed Tojo, on October 18, 1941, instead of a member of the Imperial family, since "if the war were to begin while a member of the imperial house was prime minister, the imperial house would have to carry the responsibility".
 * Hirohito specifically requested for Tojo (and few other high officials) to "provide justification for the war"
 * The Emperor approved the plans for the initial attacks again Pearl Harbor and European-controlled territories in Southeast Asia
 * The Emperor made major interventions into the war, including pressing for the attacks on Bataan and Chungking
 * As stated by Shuichi Inada: "There has never been a cabinet in which the prime minister, and all the ministers, reported so often to the throne. In order to effect the essence of genuine direct imperial rule and to relieve the concerns of the emperor, the ministers reported to the throne matters within the scope of their responsibilities as per the prime minister's directives... In times of intense activities, typed drafts were presented to the emperor with corrections in red. First draft, second draft, final draft and so forth, came as deliberations progressed one after the other and were sanctioned accordingly by the emperor."
 * He continued to press for greater efforts after the disaster at Midway

In short, the war was given the go ahead well before Tojo entered office and the Emperor most certainly had a pretty strong hand in dictating how it was to progress. Hirohito's level of influence seems much in-line with Roosevelt and Churchill then with that of George VI or Emanuel III. Oberiko 16:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Japan was basically ruled by the miltary elite that came to power with the Meiji restoration. Hirohito was merely a figurehead, and he did not have any real power. The fact that he may have signed off on all sorts of documents does not change that; indeed that is something that happens in any consitutional monarchy.
 * I am really saddened to see so much misunderstanding about the role of the Japanese Emperor. there are some excellent articles about that, even in Wikipedia. Look for instance at the articles on Hideki Tojo, Fumimaro Konoe, and Meiji Restoration. JdH 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wrong? Prove it.  All the arguments I gave have sources cited on them, where are yours? Oberiko 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The propaganda view of the "Figurehead" vs the anonymous "military clique" is completly outdated since the analysis of the japanese archives such as the "Sugiyama memo" and the "Kido diary" by authors such as Wetzler, Fujiwara, Yamada, Yoshimi and Bix.

Here are some citations, :

-Peter Wetzler, Hirohito and War, 1998, p.200 :«In Japan, the head of the imperial house had a more subtle, but no less important influence on political and military decisions... During the crucial time immediately before the outbreak of the war, Hirohito stood for the imperial line and that meant asserting is right to participate in the decision making process. In particular, consonant with his role as the emperor of Japan, Hirohito was told well in advance exactly how the attack of Pearl Harbor was to be carried out. This was done in a private audience on 3 November 1941. If Hirohito had any objections as he had expressed unmistakably in similar previous audiences, they were not voiced or recorded.»

-p.55 «The Army's efforts, however, do not absolve the emperor from responsibility for going along with their plans. Not only the emperor was well informed, he was given ample opportunity to make his concerns known in private before decisions were officiaky promulgated.»

-David Titus, Palace and politics in prewar Japan, 1974, p.300 «The emperor did not simply keep himself informed, he also pressured his officials in regard to correctness and consistencies of their policies.»

-Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan, 2000, p.447. «Right around this time, Hirohito made his first major intervention in an ongoing Pacific front operation. Worried about the stalled offensive on Luzon, he pressed Army Chief of Staff Sugiyama twice, on January 13 and 21, to increase tropp strenght and launch a quick knockout of Bataan... On February 9 and 26, Hirohito again pressed Sugiyama about the operations in Bataan.

-Akira Fujiwara, The Shôwa emperor fifteen years war, 1991, p.122 «Considering the discussions that went on behind the scenes prior to these (imperial) conferences and the liaison conferences that preceded them, the thesis that the emperor as an organ of responsibility could not reverse cabinet decisions is a myth fabricated after the war.»

Finally, you refer to Konoe. Here is what he said when he justified himself after his demission to his secretary Kenji Tomita. «Of course his Majesty is a pacifist and he wished to avoid war. When I told him that to initiate war was a mistake, he agreed. But the next day, he would tell me : "You were worried about it yesterday but you do not have to worry so much. Thus, gradually he began to lead to war. And the next time I met him, he leaned even more to war. I fell the Emperor was teling me :"My prime minister does not understand military matters. I now much more." In short, the Emperor had absorbed the view of the army and the navy high commands. Consequently, as a prime minister who lacked authority over the high command, I had no way of making any further effort because the emperor, who was the last resort, was this way». )Akira Fujiwara, idem, 1991, p.126, and Bix, idem, p.419, citing Tomita's diary) Is it a comment about a figurehead??!!!!

--Flying tiger 17:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tojo, was in fact, the one commanding Japan. I do not understand why this is even an issue, especially since every reliable source basically states this. I will revert any attempts at trying to put Hirohito up. Everyone should also notice that, in the Japanese World War II article they have Tojo, and NOT Hirohito. TheGoodSon 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Curiously, any editor who argue that Tôjô was "the leader of Japan" is not able to cite any credible and updated source. They simply ignore reputed authorities wiyhout ANY coherent argument, and write about their personal feelings and "reliable sources" without ever identify any of these. The Japanese wikipedia is certainly NOT a reputed source...--Flying tiger 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It is widely accepted - worldwide - that Tojo commanded the Japanese Imperial Army during much of WWII. All the WWII wikipedia pages in other languages state it as such, but we are only having a problem here, and that is because of your ignorance. You cherry picked a few sources and claim "I have sourced the info", yet you choose to completely ignore that at the time of the war, Tojo was the Japanese equivalent of Adolf Hitler and Benito. This is obvious from war time posters, speeches made by the American president, and others. Your cherry picked sources are not quite enough. Sorry, but we are going to go with worldwide concensus, not your personal opinion. TheGoodSon 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I hardly see Flying Tiger's sources as "Cherry picked", in fact, he has provided far more sources for Hirohito being responsible then anyone else has for him not. I'm reverting, since Hirohito was there first and there are several cites to support it.  I'll remind you about WP:3RR before anyone reverts back.  Please provide sources (as FlyingTiger has done) before making any change back. Oberiko 22:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, his sourced are not only "cherry picked", but he is misinterpreting them. Tojo was appointed, by Hirohito, as the Prime Minister, Chief of Staff of the Army, and Minister of War from October 1941 until July 1944.


 * "In July 1941 Tojo was appointed by Fumimaro Kondoye as minister of war. He advocated an aggressive foreign policy and strongly opposed plans by Shigenori Togo to remove Japanese troops from China and Korea.


 * Tojo became prime minister on 16th October 1941. He initially backed the foreign office's efforts to reach agreement with the United States. However, when convinced that a negotiated deal was possible, ordered the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7th December, 1941.


 * As well as prime minister Tojo also held the posts of minister of war, home minister and foreign minister. From February 1944 he was also Commander in Chief of the General Staff.


 * Tojo, aware that Japan was unable to win the war, resigned from office after the loss of Saipan in July 1944. He shot himself in the chest just before he was arrested by the US Military in 1945. Tojo survived and after being nursed back to health was tried as a war criminal. Hideki Tojo was executed on 23rd December 1948." (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWtojo.htm)

Below is from the National Diet Library, photos and biography (Japanese government website):


 * "Military officer, statesman. Born in Tokyo as a son of Hidenori Tojo, a military officer. He graduated from the Military Academy and the Army War College. He became chief of staff of the Kanto Army in 1937 and vice war minister in the following year. Fully displaying his talent as an able official, he was called "Razor Tojo". After concurrently serving as Inspector General of Army Aviation and chief of the Army Aeronautical Department, in 1940 he became war minister in the second and third Konoe cabinets. In 1941, replacing Fumimaro Konoe, he became prime minister and concurrently held the offices of war minister and home minister. With the early operational success of the war against the United States and Britain in the background, in 1942 he implemented an election called "Yokusan Senkyo" (the general election of 1942), based on the candidate recommendation system aiming at establishing a pro-Tojo parliament. This election made it a parliament in name only and strengthened the dictatorial war regime. In February 1944, he concurrently held the office of chief of the General Staff. However, the senior statesmen began to criticize him strongly for deteriorating the war situation, and in July his cabinet resigned en masse. After defeat in World War II, he tried to commit suicide but failed. He was convicted as a class-A war criminal and sentenced to death by hanging in International Military Tribunal for the Far East." (http://www.ndl.go.jp/portrait/e/datas/142.html)

Further, what goes on the Japanese wikipedia in regards to Japanese leadership during WWII will certainly go for the English. A few cherry picked sources, and misintrepreted at that, are NOT going to fly by here. Sorry, again, world consensus over "Flying Tigers" personal opinion. TheGoodSon 19:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To start off with, we don't use the Japanese Wikipedia as a valid source, the same as any other Wikipedia article (unless using a statement which is specifically attributed to a legitimate external source)


 * To continue, Tiger has several sources saying that the Emperor bears most the responsibility, you'd need to find sources stating that Tojo does or that the Emperor doesn't. A few more "Hirohito" sources are:


 * Christopher Barnard, in the book "Language, Ideology and Japanese History Textbooks" makes several points regarding the repression of the opinion that the Emperor bears responsibility, the subject being taboo, and hence hushed up.
 * John W. Dower, in the book "Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II" discusses how blame was intentionally shifted away from Hirohito, including a break in the trial when Tojo "mistakenly" stated that the Emperor had "ultimate authority", Tojo was then "coached to recant this testimony". He also discusses Prince Konoe speaking critically of the Emperors responsibility.
 * Jane W. Yamazaki, in the book "Japanese Apologies For World War II: A Rhetorical Study" discusses the military as a convenient scape-goat for Japan in the Second World War.
 * Peter Wetzler and Peter Michael Wetzler, in the book "Hirohito and War: Imperial Tradition and Military Decision Making in Prewar Japan" attempt to discern some of the complexity of Hirohito's role, including his being informed of Pearl Harbor six years before it occurred and his revisions of specific plans.

And that's from a two minute Google search. Should someone be willing to put more effort in, I'm sure a wealth of information about his actions and potential responsibilities can be found. Oberiko 23:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

TheGoodSon, you choose to act "personnal" by accusing me of being "ignorant" and doing "cherry picking". I can go personnal too. Have you ever read any book on the way decisions were made in Japan during the war? Certainly not. Having read book about the imperial propaganda such as The Thought War by Barak Kushner ?

What are your aguments ? : 1) speeches made by a foreign president, 2) propaganda posters and "others"... With this you compare the powers of Tôjô with that of dictators like Hitler and Mussolini!! What a scientific mind!

Do you know that in JAPANESE propaganda, there never was any "commander" showed on the posters ? Do you know that the war was going on for 4 years BEFORE Tojo was appointed by Hirohito ? Do you mean he was commanding before and the year after he was put out ? If not, who was commander ? Do you know that the Imperial General Headquarters was a consensual structure ? There never was ANY dictator in Japan. If Hirohito is the closest to "infobox commander", it is because he was descibed as such in the constitution and was there for the 15 years war. He had the authority to "command" as he admitted himself in his eight hours haichoroku: «Contrary to the views of the Army and Navy general staffs, I agreed to the showdown battle of Leyte thinking that if we attacked at Leyte and America flinched, then we would probably find room to negotiate.» (Bix, ibid., p.481) but lacking true military knowledge (as occidental politicians), he had to trust his chiefs of staff who could never have overruled his will. In fact, Tôjô admitted that himself during the Tokyo trial : «Nobody could have gone against the emperor's will»! In hope to exonarate the emperor, Joseph Keenan had to use Ryukichi Tanaka to make Tôjô revise this admission. (John Dower, Embracing defeat, 606-607)

Your last citations do not add anything to the discussion. These are just general wikipedian descriptions of Tôjô without any references to the command structure in Japan. How can these compare to exhaustive studies made after analysis of historical documents such as Kido Koichi nikki, Sokkin nisshi, Jijubukan Eiichro Jo and the Sugiyama memo ? Do you know anything about historical process before arguing childishly about "world consensus" ? Historians such as the ones I refered worked with primary sources that show the emperor and his men in action, talking to each others. Those sources were made available mostly after the death of Hirohito in 1989, this is why you did not found them in your student books. They do not write about vague description such as those you gave as proof. Do you know anything about the role of Bonner Fellers and the american prosecution team to enlarge the role of Tôjô during the Tokyo trials ??

All you arguments are typical of superficial classroom knowledge. --Flying tiger 23:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am supportive of Hirohito. Although it is true he barely did anything with the war, he was the supreme commander of the combatants, and if he wished, he had the power to be involved in the war. --LtWinters 14:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary Section Break 1
Okay, lets calm down here. I would suggest trying to find some consensus. Perhaps both Hirohito and Tôjô could be listed in the infobox? List one as Emperor and the other as PM? --myselfalso 15:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally would prefer to either list several commanders for each country, or not list any commanders at all. It's far too complex a situation to list one person who was in charge for each country. Sure, Churchill was the PM of England, but Montgomery, for example, was pretty important too. Parsecboy 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, the editors on WWI were able to agree on that. --LtWinters 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Against that here. Far to much room for personal bias.  How many people would we list for each?  What would be the criteria?  All figureheads, de facto heads of state and high military officials?  Potentially we could have dozens of valid entries.  I should state I'm still against listing any nations and commanders.  Oberiko 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oberiko does have a point; the infobox already is grotesquely huge, we don't need to add more stuff to it. Parsecboy 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the hybrid political-military "commander" category only really work for Hitler, Mussolini and maybe Staline, whether you consider allies or axis. Which bring us again to the "allies vs axis" listing without individual flags...--Flying tiger 23:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying the ww1 people agreed on it. But I'd prefer 1 for each country. Why don't we continue this on Oberiko's page for the infobox?--LtWinters 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I came here from Rfc, always put the emperor's name & then explain how that general was much more influential in the decision makings of the war. Also, I just don't think that Tojo was that influential either. I thought that there was a cabinet in the war department that made all the decisions. (Wikimachine 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC))

France, Poland in the infobox
I'm going to remove France and Poland from the infobox. Poland was in the war for 1 month and the French Third Republic for less then a year. Vichy France was far more prominent, and was hardly an ally. Oberiko 22:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly how is "France" a major power? Which France are we talking about? Why is De Gaulle's resistance group in there, but none of the other, larger resistance movements? Oberiko 14:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll go either way for putting Poland and France in the infobox, but I think we should change the titles of the combatants to Free French and well I dunnno what we called the Free Polish units...--LtWinters 14:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Free French were not even close to providing the same manpower and materials as the Canadians or other large resistance groups like the Yugoslavian resistance movements. Oberiko 14:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering what kind of manpower you think the Canadians provided. As far as I can tell their contribution was limited to 7 divisions and 2 brigades plus a few minor contingents, the French (technically not the Free French as that episode came to a conclusion in 1943) fielded at least as many (9+ divisions just out of memory). But even that is assuming that the France of 1943-45 is distinct from that of 1940, which is not really the case. Simply put, in 1940 France was one of the European Powers with the ability to project forces globally, in 1943-45 France once again had become a Major Power. Lastly, after WWII France received a permanent seat on the UN security council, recognising it's status as a Major Power. Note, I'd prefer a simple Allies vs. Axis listing without leaders and let readers decide whom they consider major or minor, but as long as France and/or China are not listed, when others are listed individually, I will have to add them. Unless of course we were to find a consensus after all.--Caranorn 14:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Iies at all (even though I know there is separate article about it, and both Poland and France and also lots of other countries are listed there). Of course, making someone sad or happy is not the reason to include something in Wiki. I don't know did our contribution change the history, but infobox is not named "major powers", it says "combatants", and Polish soldiers were fighting from the very beginning of WWII till the end. Maybe rename infobox, then?
 * There is also wiki article "Polish contribution to World War II" (which mostly is a proof that this metters to us :), if you wish to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.244.172 (talk • contribs)


 * I agree in some aspects with the Polish editor above (hell freezes over). I'd say that the Franco-Polish Military Alliance of early 1939 set the stage for WW2. BTW, the red colors in the info boy are ugly, the Soviet Flag is unrecognizable. Try to use only one red. Also, European and Asian theatres should be separated, makes few sense to combine them. How did USA/UK/ANZAC organize themselves in that aspect? -- Matthead discuß!     O       00:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To clarify my earlier statement, to which the Polish anon was replying, I meant more of "they think the war was one largely by their efforts" or something to that effect. As for the Soviet flag, I think it's being instead of the "fire engine red" one because it's the Soviet flag that was in use at the time. The bright red flag wasn't adopted until 1955, so it'd be an anachronism to use it. Just like using a 50-star US flag. Parsecboy 01:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about any kind of "big players" during WWII USA, Great Britain, Soviet Union and Republic of China are a must. But let's focus on the French and Polish for a while. It was already mentioned that in Europe Poland was the first Allie. We were the first ones to show resistance against Germany. Now look at France even after declaring war on Germany they didn't moved at all! Germany was clearly exposed in the west so if France attacked and France alone or with British help they would have take over German territories without any serious casualties. But they didn't. The only troops that were willing to fight were Polish troops that got to France before Fall Gelb. A day before surrender of Warsaw the first resistance organizations have been formed. Polish resistance was one of the biggest resistance movements during the war or even at all times with Yugoslavian resistance movement being the largest I think. Polish resistance movement did many things to help the Allies including capturing a V2 rocket that fell on the ground (If I remember corectly it fell into a marsh) and did not exploded and destroying valuable supply transports heading for Eastern Front which saved many soviet soldiers with the way Soviet infantry tactics went before 1944... There were no organized groups that were collaborating with the enemy, there were only single traitors. There was no collaboration government in Poland. Now look at France It was defeated also as fast as Poland even with it's large terrain, large army and British help. The French resistance movement was very small, much smaller when compared to Polish resistance movement. There was also the Vichy France with Marshal Pétain... Collaboration at it's "best"... Only Free French were the French Allies until liberation of France in 1944 and other French soldiers were under control of Vichy and therefore were supporting Germans... Polish had lots of contribution during WWII which you can find in "Polish contribution to World War II" article. We were fighting on all European fronts and on northern African front. One Polish was even fighting along the American "Flying tigers" against Japanese in China. He's name was Witold Urbanowicz, you can read about him and that episode of his life in the right article. Poland also was the forth country with casualties in millions (about 5,000,000) and the country with most losses as % of country's prewar population (over 18%!!!). France was twelfth with casualties in millions ( only 562,000!!! That's roughly 4,500,000 less than Poland!!!) and not even a loss of 2% of prewar population... I'm not even saying that Poland after the war was forced to change into a communistic country which was devastating for us in many ways. I forgot to metion that it was Polish mathematics who decode Enigma and therefore made war for the western Allies much easier as well as made operation Bodyguard.


 * So now tell me who should be considered more of a "big player" in WWII? Poland or France?


 * Still France. The reason why France's casualty rates were relatively low is that very large numbers remained Prisoners of War from June 1940 to 1945, if they could have, many of those would have fought with the new French Army. Anyhow, French contribution post 1940 is not limited to individuals (such fought on all fronts including of course in China (at least in 1945) and the Pacific). In 1944, before the Liberation of France, 9 French Divisions were on frontline service or available for frontline service, add to that a number of capital ships and air units. After the Liberation these forces were further reinforced, at that point the Problem was not manpower but equipment (the Allies were unable or unwilling to equip all the planned new French Divisions (this had been a problem even in 1943 when additional units could have joined the then 8 regular Divisions, but no equipment was at hand)) and political reliability (the FFI were largely seen as Communist and were not employed as units or only in light infantry roles). Both in 1940 and later in the war (at any date), the French military contribution was greater then that of Poland. Politically France also had a greater weight on Global events then Poland. But remember, in the end, both countries did their outmost to fight Germany, both were defeated in 39/40, both suffered enormously from the war, both had significant resistance movements, both fielded Free Armies long before their territory was liberated, and both contributed their share to the Allied victory.--Caranorn 14:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're saying big contributions but you don't give any examples. Give me some examples of French contribution to Allied cause. And either way I think we should agree that both France and Polish should be listed there because both had their share of fine contribution to WWII. If it wasn't for Polish Western Allies wouldn't be able to read German transmissions and it could end drastically for them. If it wasn't for French resintace the operations in France would be much harder and so on and so on.


 * I too support an Allies/Axis infobox, but I have to say that the comments made here concerning the lack of French contributions are rather uneducated. I'll give a list of French contributions, not including the Free French (which ceased to exist as an organization by 1943, when it was combined with the former Vichyites of North Africa). Following the fall of France, there was the Vichy North African Army which, after fighting the Anglo-Americans for three days, joined the Allies and fought in the Tunisian front (over 60,000 men of the French XIX Corps). Afterward, the reunited French government sent about 120,000 men to Italy as the French Expeditionary Corps, where they were instrumental to the Battle of Monte Cassino, credited with achieving the breakout against the Gustav Line. Finally, the French First Army took part in the liberation of Southern France (post-Operation Dragoon) and accounted for approximately half of all the liberating Allies in Southern France (the bulk of the rest being Americans). The French First Army liberated Toulon and Marseille, the latter of which as a port would provide 1/3 of all supplies for the Allies up at Normandy until the liberation of Antwerp. This same French First Army fought for the rest of the war in Eastern France, Germany, Austria, and, later, in Northern Italy for a short time. The French 2nd Armored Division, meanwhile, liberated, alongside the US 4th Infantry Division, Paris, as part of Patton's 3rd Army. These contributions do not include the Gaullist Free French of 1940 - 1942, but rather only (former) Vichy French and the reconstituted French Army of the Liberation (Vichy and Free French). Furthermore, the majority of the Empire, though initially Vichy (with the exception of most of French Equatorial Africa, New Hebrides, Wallis and Futuna, and a few others), had completely joined the Allies (and thus merged with the Free French) by the end of 1943; the sole exceptions to this were France itself (where the Vichy government ceased to be an internationally-recognized entity following the Vichy North African administration's re-alignment to the Allies and the subsequent Case Anton) and Indochina. Indochina itself, however, tended to be aligned with the Allies throughout the war; it had a minor conflict with Japan back in September 1940, then a war with Thailand (which would later become Japan's ally), and then fought desperately against Japan again in some rather heavy fighting following the March 9th, 1945 coup. Besides all this, there were more minor (Free) French actions, such as the Normandie-Niemen regiment (only Western European air force to fight on the Eastern Front under the Soviets), Bir Hakeim (which was not minor), Elba, Corsica, Kufra, and, of course, the interior Resistance (FFI/Maquis), etc., etc. Yes, Vichy France did fight against the Allies, but this was merely because of violated neutrality: a look at events in Indochina showed that the Vichyites were willing to resist incursions on their neutrality (given they had resolve) whomever the invader may be. Even then, overall fights against the Allies, even in Syria/Lebanon, were no where near as large-scale or costly as later actions once the Vichy armies had all joined the Allies (this can be presented via casualty counts). Even the only Petainist Vichy military unit left after 1942 (following Case Anton, in mainland France), the 1er Regiment de France, did not join the war until on the side of the Resistance in September 1944. By the end of the war in Europe, France was fielding 1,250,000 soldiers in Europe (this does not include the forces in Indochina that fought the Japanese, which had not officially been placed under de Gaulle's leadership yet and were still remnants of the former Vichy regime). In conclusion, despite the immense sacrifice of the Polish Resistance (such as at Warsaw), the Polish II Corps and First Armored Division (in the west) and the Polish First and Second Armies of the Eastern Front, in overall contribution France was indeed the more influential of the Allies. This does not mean that France sacrificed more proportionately, but rather than in terms of strictly numerical and strategic value, France's output during the war (not relative) was greater than that of Poland's. It is definitely not an exaggeration to say that France was a major Allied power again from November 1942 to the end of the war. Nevertheless, I would not classify France as a power of equal caliber as the US, UK, USSR, or China. Personally, my own opinion is that France would be after China, followed closely by Poland and the British Commonwealth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.221.243 (talk • contribs)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, if one is to look at the war effort as absolute numbers of enemy personnel killed, captured or wounded, weapon systems destroyed etc., one would easily see the best reasons for excluding Poland, France and Italy from the list. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Italy's not such an easy one. According to The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison (pg. 19):

"Among the Axis powers, Japan was the poorest, then Italy, with Germany at an income level comparable with the British. When it was the turn of the Axis powers to go down, defeat came to Italy in 1943, then Japan in 1945, in that order not because Italy was poorer then Japan, but because that was the order in which the Allies attacked them." Oberiko 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone object if I move this conversation to the infobox page? Oberiko 14:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Are we seriously still having this discussion? C'mon, people, there's no need to keep bickering over this minor issue. Leave the infobox as it is and be done with it. Let's put this thing to rest and move on to working towards improving this article, shall we? Parsecboy 00:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Word. --LtWinters 13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Link to a book
what about a link to www.freedomhistory.com

my book Our Hallowed Ground: World War Two Veterans of Fort Snelling National Cemetery (University of Minnesota Press)


 * While I'm sure your book is a worthy one it is far too obscure to list in the main article about WWII. Lisiate 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Making a template of the infobox
It seems like well over 50% of the edits on this page are about quibbles with the infobox. I'm going to make a new template for our infobox so that edits and discussions over it can be kept off of this page Oberiko 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Where is it?--LtWinters 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It's at Template:WW2InfoBox Oberiko 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried doing that with WW2infobox 3½ months ago, but it was nominated for deletion after about three days, and since this Wikipedian doesn't feel worthy of arguing with Kirill Lokshin, I gave up on fighting for the template's survival (Oberiko seems worthy, however). For what it's worth, Oberiko's got my support. Xaxafrad 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Matthead's reverts
I agree with the wording, so Oberiko, why is it such a problem for you? Do you feel like this is *YOUR* article or something? Both Germany and USSR attacked Poland, not just Germany, and Poland had invaded Czech in 1938. TheGoodSon 23:33, 9 July 2007


 * I agree with Oberiko to an extent; Matthead's edit was poorly worded and had grammatical errors in it. Perhaps the better action would've been to copyedit it and do some rephrasing to bring it up to snuff. Thegoodson, remember to assume good faith. Parsecboy 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to be difficult, but the wording that Oberiko prefers does not take into account that the USSR, along with Germany, started the war. He prefers to put the blame all on Germany. I am not saying that Germany was had no part, but clearly, the USSR had played a big part in starting the war. TheGoodSon 23:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your assertion. The fact that you're ignoring/forgetting is that France and the UK declared war by the 3rd or so of September, and the USSR didn't invade Poland until the 16th, if memory serves me. Sure, Germany and the USSR agreed to divide up Poland, and that may have greased the wheels towards Germany's invasion, but Hitler had his eye on Poland for quite a while before that; a German attack on Poland was inevitable. Parsecboy 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I admit that my own personal feelings are getting in the way here, but I still feel like certain parts of the article are slightly anti-German. However, I will agree with what Oberiko wants, but maybe slightly different wording can help make things a little more levelled. TheGoodSon 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There were also some content issues. For the invasion of Poland there is the question of timing, the German and Soviet attacks were not simultaneous, rather a clear case of a German attack followed some days later by a Soviet attack/occupation. Another problem with the additions is/was how Poland was also essentially accused of warmongering prior to WWII, that kind of accusation would definitely require a source. Then comes Germany supposedly conducting a preventive invasion of Norway and Denmark (the first has some merit, the second is news to me). Again the claim that the SU was an ally of Germany which definitely doesn't have consensus here. So a number of controversial changes. Lastly I agree that the language was not an improvement over the current version.--Caranorn 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

USSR did not start the conflict, they joined after the declarations of war were made and the U.K. and France never extended it to include them; officially (or, at least, as officially as something like this can get), the Soviet Union wasn't really part of World War II until Germany attacked them; hence the Winter War (which also isn't mentioned at the top level) is not considered part of WWII, but a concurrent war.

The other thing to keep in mind was where it was being added. That's the top summary there, unless it's absolutely critical information, we can't afford the space to put it in that section. You'll notice that the summary doesn't even include far more relevant items like World War I and its massive repercussions, the Spanish Civil War, or all but the very largest / most important of battles; things like the Tunisia Campaign are a single sentence. The material added isn't even on Causes_of_World_War_II or Events preceding World War II in Europe and is not of extreme importance to understanding the war. If we add it, then we have things like the details about the overthrow of Zog of Albania, the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, the Chinese Civil War, the Polish-Soviet War, the Great Purge, the Night of the Long Knives... again all things which had potentially more impact on the course of the war.

To be blunt, we can't cover everything in the article, let alone the summary of the article; only things with a direct, substantial and basically undeniable impact can go there. Remember, this article has to be the summary of the hundreds of other ones covering the Second World War. Oberiko 22:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've got to say, I agree with Matt's edits. --LtWinters 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that my edits are backed up by Wikipedia articles and that the editors involved here know the details, I did not bother to give references for each of my changes. Seems I better save small changes with a summary each in the future. The overview had pro-Allies and anti-German bias - I understand that Anglophones have their POV, but six decades afterwards, they better start to look at a wider screen than the stereotype Hollywood movie can cover. Here are my points:


 * Oberiko's "only things with a direct, substantial and basically undeniable impact can go there" might sound reasonable at first glance, but his choice of "things" is different from mine, as I want to link at least to some of the often obscure(d) reasons that had an impact, rather than repeating the well-known impacts once again.


 * "USSR did not start the conflict"? The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact actually had the impact of triggering WW2. Here, the relevant decisions were made and the "go!" was given, as the unheard of Nazi-Communist cooperation was a prerequisite not only for Hitler invading Poland, but also for continuing for nearly two years during which the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement literally fueled the war. It also fed the German civilians, unlike in and after WWI, when thousands of Germans, among them many children, had starved to death due to British blockade, a fact which is, let's say, not well documented on Wikipedia yet. The Allies surely were surprised by the pact in 1939 - everybody was. Did they ever recognize they were at war with Stalin, if not directly with the Red Army, but at least with the Soviet oil that powered Luftwaffe bombers over Britain and u-boats in the Atlantic? If they knew, it was a gamble to wait until Hitler and Stalin would turn against each other, or until the USA would enter.


 * As mentioned above, it's heavily debatable if the USSR was part of the war at the start. The American's had oil agreements with Italy (they were not part of the League of Nations which placed an arms and oil embargo on Italy due to their hostilities in Africa), but we don't list them as an ally of the Italians.  If you check the next section, you'll see more detail on the Soviet-German relations. Oberiko 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From 1919 to 1939, Poland had military conflicts with the Soviet Union, Lithuania, and with Czechoslovakia as late as 1938. After the Munich agreement, German forces moved unopposed into the German speaking Sudetenland, while Poland took a Czech town by force, a factoid that is either forgotten or deliberately ignored and deleted. In essence, Poles were maybe not as "warmongering" as Hitler, but then Poland was surely not the innocent little lamb that it is often portrayed, attacked by a big bad German wolf - and by a Slovakian cub, something which is often forgotten, too. Including the independent Free City of Danzig, Poland had 7 neighbor states, and it seems that Romania was the only neighbor Poland had no conflicts with, hardly surprising as these countries are far apart nowadays.
 * Poland took "Czech town" not by force, but after issuing ultimatum to Czechs to which Czechs agreed. This was not because "warmongering" but because of politics. The issue was that for 20 years Poland was constantly playing to avoid being considered the pawn in European politics - and Munich was one of many similar steps in which Poland was always reduced to the role of the pawn. Polish politicians were also affraid, that after Munich, Germany would propose something like: you give us Danzig, and in turn you will get the Zaolzie. Getting Zaolzie was therefore with two purposes: to show that Poland is refusing to recognise some special role of "great powers" and to prevent future Munichs. Szopen 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, they were initially hostile, as most European nations were, how does that effect the war? As shown, the Spanish Civil War, and the Second Italo-Abyssinian War (actual wars mind you) aren't mentioned in the top either; they are closely related, but they are not a direct part of the war itself.  We aren't even including the Anschluss or annexation of Albania in the top due to lack of space.  If you'd like to expand on this, why not start with Events preceding World War II in Europe (which is part of what we're trying to summarize here)? Oberiko 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * the pre-1941 aggressions of the Soviet Union, against Poland, Finland, Romania and the Baltic states (maybe I forgot some states, I do not know all details either) were completely missing from the overview, which is not acceptable, like the statement "... not considered part of WWII, but a concurrent war" is nothing but denial of an inconvenient truth. Why not stating "Certain countries were not part of the World, but of a concurrent one"? Other Wikipedia articles echo this POV, for example the intro to T-34: The T-34 was a Soviet medium tank produced from 1941 to 1958. It is widely regarded to have been the world's best tank when the Soviet Union entered World War II. In essence, the lucky Poles, Finns, Balts have not only been spared from the world's best tank then, but also from WW2 - until the Germans started it in 1941?


 * Those are separate articles, not this one. The Soviet annexation of the Baltic states is mentioned in the section Blitzkrieg on Europe.  Again, officially, the Soviets were not really part of the early stages of the war, if they were, who were they against?  Neither the Axis nor the Allies were at war with them. Oberiko 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * France and UK declared war on Germany on early September. If their prime intention was defending Poland, they would have declared also war on Stalin after September 17, when he took his part of the prey, as outlined in the secret part of the Pact only weeks ago. Yet they did not declare war on the Soviets even after they attacked more and more countries, see above. The least thing Wikipedia should do is stating the fact that the western Allies did not declare war on Stalin, but even allied with him, and later they permitted him not only to take "his half" of Poland, but all of it, including its move to the west. Western betrayal neatly sums it up. If defending Poland was the reason for declaring war, then France and Britain have utterly lost that war. On the other hand, Hitler won this war, being long enough in possession of Poland to kill large parts of the population there. Imagine millions of tombstones stating "this live was saved by the victorious heroes Chamberlain, Churchill, Petain and de Gaulle - NOT!".


 * Again, we include the Western Betrayal in the section Blitzkrieg on Europe. Oberiko 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Mussolinis aggression, no matter how inept it seems in hindsight, needs to be mentioned too. Italian Fascism and aggression, which predates German one by a decade, was the main reason Germans had to get involved on the Balkans, in Africa and later in Italy in first place. Italians deposed the Duce only after allied invasion in Sicily, caused a chaos, and were not subject to post-war sanctions. Would the Germans have gotten away, too, if the 20 July plot had succeeded? Or earlier attempts well before D-day? Hitler offered peace talks in October 1939, and was nearly killed in November by Georg Elser. Did the Allies ever offer any other way to peace than unconditional surrender of Germany? -- Matthead discuß!    O       02:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, we expand on Italy's aggression in the section Blitzkrieg on Europe. Oberiko 13:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * To summarize, it's about space. If you look at the section immediately afterwards (which is where we have more details), we have almost all of those items you listed. We can't show everything at the very top; heck, we only list one battle, indirectly, from the seven year Sino-Japanese War which killed over a dozen million people. Oberiko 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit
I want to put this edit in. Any objections?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=World_War_II&diff=144185753&oldid=144101121

--LtWinters 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Howdy.


 * I don't have any, but I should state that I'm planning on rewriting that section entirely, like I did for the first three in the Western European theatre. Oberiko 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I tried adding it today, but I messed up on the format I guess and the footnotes got messed up, look at the first edit I did today. Can anyone fix that and put this in?--LtWinters 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

HyperWar Project in external links
HyperWar Project provides a very large library of WW2 documents in the public domain. Could we consider adding the link http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ to External links/Directories 07/19/07
 * Seems like a good idea, it's one of the best sources of WW2 information available on the Web. Oberiko 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Pacific War section
Does anyone else think the way it's set up now is really confusing? The way it's organized now doesn't present a logical progression of events. It goes from 1944-45 Philipines to 1942 Dutch East Indies. I plan on a major rewrite of the section to make it flow better, chronologically wise, but I won't have time to do it until tomorrow or perhaps Sunday. I wanted to post here beforehand, to let others weigh in before I make any changes. Thanks for any and all comments. Parsecboy 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The sectioning was taken from my rough redo of the WWII article, but I'll willingly admit that beyond what I think the first level headings should be (China, Southeast Asia, Western Pacific, Pacific Ocean), I have very little knowledge of the Asia-Pacific theatre of the war. I'd personally welcome a major rewrite by someone more versed in the topic. Oberiko 12:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I don't plan on changing the headings, just the text within them, so it flows better. Parsecboy 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I still say it was best when we had it a few months ago, splitting it up like the western fron may 1940-may1944, the eastern fron september 1939-may1941. --LtWinters 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed my mind as I was doing the reorganization, and decided that the section headings were unteneble if it were going to be chronologically based. Take a look and tell me what you think. Or just edit it mercilessly :) I think it makes a lot more sense and is easier to read this way than having to continually go forwards and backwards in time. Parsecboy 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wrong Guy
Some one need to fix the list of leaders, on the right, where it says "Commanders". I'm in history class, and we're talking about World War II. On the article, it saids Hirohito leads Japan. The 3 leaders are Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, not Hirohito.

Hirohito is the Emperor. Tojo is the Prime Minister, The Prime Minister controls the Japanese military, not the Emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.67.40 (talk)


 * That may be true now, but according to this, under the Imperial Constitution of Japan adopted by Emperor Meiji the Emperor had supreme command of the military before and during World War II. Some Allied generals and leaders wanted him tried for war crimes because of a perceived personal involvement. RHB - Talk 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Check the section above, you'll see the arguments about this and why we're keeping it as Hirohito. Oberiko 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

yes the emperor was technically in charge, but he was a puppet leader. the military under tojo had gained control, and ran the country, not hirithito

Montage photo's caption
The caption says "clockwise from top" and then precedes to to start at the bottom, skip to the top right photo, go to the top left, middle right, and middle left. Anyone want to correct this? 69.246.150.153 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Parsecboy 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WWII picture captions are wrong
The pictures on the right-hand side of the WWII page are out of order. The top left picture and the bottom picture have the wrong captions. They are backwards. The bottom picture should be the landing at Normanday, and the top left should be the police invading.76.187.7.138 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. This is the first time I've visited this page and the awkward caption is the first thing I noticed. The description for the main image isn't clockwise as stated, it's more of a "topleft-topright-centerleft-centerright-bottom" thing. Pele Merengue 00:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)