Talk:World War II/Archive 47

Edit request on 2 January 2012
Prescott Bush (grandfather of George H.W. Bush jun.) through Union Banking Corp. UBC served in financing and money laundring for the Nazi regime under Hitler. Therefore he got sentenced by the american justice system. Bush had good connections to the German industrial Franz Thyssen and so on. ((So actally America financed the war of Germany against itselves...))

Sources: http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Kind regards J.C.

Jcgloor (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see this as necessary here, there were many companies in all the Allied countries that did business with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Doing business with someone does not necessarily make you a sympathizer of their cause. Perhaps there could be a separate article on companies that did business with Nazi Germany.Mediatech492 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ❌ per above. -- Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Japanese invaded the USSR"
Hey, this is not correct. The Japanese never "invaded" the USSR in the formal meaning the article claims. What happened were border conflicts. And while some historians belive that defeat in the border conflicts made the Japanese change their mind about attack the USSR, there's no conclusive evidence of this. Also, the Japanese perspective must be considerate as well. Masanobu Tsuji for example, belived he could have won if IGHQ supported him. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

Maybe you're right, but we need a citation. So... Agent 78787 talk 02:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry
Just a quick question. Why isn't the German word "Fall" translated anywhere as "operation"? -- Director  ( talk )  10:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No-one's thought of doing it yet. Where would you put it in for best effect? Britmax (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't see any instances of the term 'fall' being used in this particular article. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

World War II Article
The article on World War II is currently semi-protected against possible vandalism. I suggest that it be fully protected against vandalism so that only Jimmy Wales, and high level administrators can add, delete, change, or alter the article. 71.72.18.201 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Why? There's not really any reason for it. There's only been a handful of reverted edits since December, which hardly constitutes a vandalism spree. It's fine as-is.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed with User:L1A1 FAL, no need to change. Semi-protection, or in other words requirement to actually take responsibility for one's edits, is hardly a strangling prohibition for any legitimate editor. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler killed in action?
In the "Commanders and Leaders" list Hitler is marked as being "Killed in Action". This is incorrect since he committed suicide.Mediatech492 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed true. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012
I wish to add the details of peril harbor and the USS Lexington aircraft carrier.

Fireflykidwell (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

National wikiprojects
I don't think we should be including this article in the scope of national wikiprojects, just like articles on Earth, history of the world, and such don't do so. Some events and concepts are international, and it makes little sense to tag them with national wikiprojects. It makes for a gigantic and unwieldy header, too. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

war or conflict
hi everyone. i think we need to link to the war article in top of this article. if anyone think the war world not be suitable i change it to armed conflict.. regards,--Behtis (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Japan was already at war with China, irrelevant and unnecessary
Japan fighting China in the second Japanese-Chinese war should not be included in the beginning of the paragraph, maybe at the end or somewhere less visible as it distracts the reader from the actual start of the war. If your mentioning precursors you might as well talk about the German invasion of Austria or Czechoslovakia, or even the independent SARS region. I smell some serious Chinese bias here, only in China do the textbooks say WWII started in 1937. PLZ FIX

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.79.118 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * kitty are awesome and i hate dogs you no--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)the worlds is aesoem yu know my bffs are y. stevens Yea if you are biased toward the Chinese, why start with Japan and China if the war was fought primarily between western powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous1290 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Allies?
this i a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.79.5 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In one section, it states the "allies" successfully defended Port Moresby. This is incorrect, only Australia was present in that part of the war. If someone makes the correction, I would be happy thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that at all. It correctly note that the defeat of the Japanese force in the Battle of the Coral Sea was an Allied effort (the US Navy dominated they Allied forces here) and the rest of the section doesn't specify nationalities. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth trying to take this article to A class?
I was wondering if there was interest in developing this article so that it passes a Military History Wikiproject A class review? I don't think that it would require particularly huge changes to the article, but those changes which are made would need to be done through a consultative process (for instance, it's likely that many of the asides to the main narrative which have been added over the years would be removed/rearranged). I'd be happy to take the lead if other editors agree that a) this is a good idea which they're willing to help with and b) they don't want to take the lead themselves! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I never participated in such work before, so it would be interesting to try. I think you are a right person to take the lead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections? If not, I'll start working through the article to make minor changes and post suggestions for significant changes over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How could anyone make a serious objection to attempting to improve an article to A-class? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A class review preparations: Comments and proposed changes
As noted above, I think that it's worth trying to develop this article so that it meets the Military History Wikiproject's A class criteria. This thread is for discussion of changes relevant to preparing for this review. I'm going to post my comments on the article and proposed changes here, and encourage other editors to also work their way through the article and do the same. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article contains too many piped links, and some common terms are linked when they don't really need to be. I've removed some of these links (by either editing the sentence to remove the piping or de-linking the term), and propose working through the article to further reduce this piping. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of the references which have been used seem a bit odd (eg, they're reliable sources, but are mainly about a completely different topic from what they're being used as references for, and presumably only mention the topic in passing). I'm replacing these references with references to works specifically about the topic, as these will be of greater use to readers wishing to use the article as a starting point for further reading on the war and provider better background. I'm also removing low quality references (eg, reprints of old books or popular-type histories) with references to more recent and better regarded works. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

 * Lead: "The Japanese Navy was defeated by the United States, and invasion of the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands") became imminent." - this is very simplistic to the point of being misleading given that the Japanese Army was also defeated. I'd suggest changing this to "Meanwhile, Allied forces advanced through the western Pacific during 1944, defeating Japanese forces in a series of campaigns, and by mid 1945 were preparing to invade the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands"). Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Japanese Army was not defeated until the very end of the war. Thus, Operation Ichi-Go was a full success. If I understand correctly, naval defeats, which lead to the blockade of Home Islands and to capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, was more important factors then the defeats of some Japanese garrisons stationed on isolated Pacific islands. In my opinion, oversimplifications are unavoidable in the lede, and this is not the only oversimplification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but in the 1944-45 Philippines campaign the US Army defeated quite substantial Japanese Army and Army Air Force units as well, so 'forces' works better. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "The Japanese Navy was defeated and key West Pacific Island were captured, so invasion ... became imminent"? In any event, since the lead is doomed to be somewhat imprecise (simply by virtue of its small size), I have no serious objections against the change you propose. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Background and Pre-war events sections: the single-paragraph sections on the Invasion of Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War in the 'Pre-war events' section partially repeat material in the 'background' section. The small sections on the 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' also seem too detailed given that these occurred before the war, and the events are actually described in greater detail than those in the war proper. I suggest merging and trimming this material into the 'background' section (with sub-headings) Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' can easily be merged into a single section (especially, taking into account that those events were interconnected). With regard to the  Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War sections, they can be simply removed, although corresponding "background" paragraphs need in some expansion: we need to devote a couple of sentences to each of those events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Casualties and war crimes section. The last sentence of the second para currently says:
 * "Roughly 7.5 million civilians died in China under Japanese occupation,[287] and hundreds of thousands (varying estimates) of ethnic Serbs, along with gypsies and Jews, were murdered by the Axis-aligned Croatian Ustaše in what would become Yugoslavia, with retribution-related killings of Croatian civilians later in the war.[288]"
 * I am not sure death of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs needs in an explicit mention along with the death of 7.5 million of Chinese. It was not the only European nation that suffered tremendous losses, and Ustaše were not the only perpetrators. We definitely need to mention the outburst of nationalistic violence that (frequently under the Axis control) lead to mass deaths of various ethnic groups, however, to mention only Ustaše (as perpetrators) and Serbs (as victims) would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fifth paragraph says:
 * "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals, incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include population transfers in the Soviet Union and Japanese American internment in the United States; the Operation Keelhaul, expulsion of Germans after World War II, mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army; the Soviet Union's Katyn massacre, for which Germans faced counter-accusations of responsibility. Large numbers of famine deaths can also be partially attributed to the war, such as the Bengal famine of 1943 and the Vietnamese famine of 1944–45. "
 * I am not sure the wording is adequate. By writing "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial (...) incidents caused by the Allies were not," we thereby imply the crimes were of comparable scale. In actuality, neither population transfers in the Soviet Union nor Japanese American internment can be comparable with the Holocaust, starvation of Leningrad, or Nanking Massacre.
 * Some events described in this paragraph, namely Operation Keelhaul and expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be considered war crimes simply because they occurred after the war.
 * "mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" is not accurate wording, because in actuality the rapes were committed by almost all Allied troops, the Soviet rapes were simply more numerous.
 * The Bengal and Vietnam famine deaths should not be mentioned in a context of Allied criminal acts, so I suggest to move the last sentence to the more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note, besieging a city is not a grounds for a war crime. At least not according WWII era accords. Whole point of the statement was that war criminals of victorious parties were allowed to walk free. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Axis advances section, paragraph beginning "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France,". This para appears to go into too much detail on diplomatic maneuvers in eastern Europe and Soviet expansion, and basically presents the lead up to war between Germany and the USSR as being the result of 'normal' great power politics and tensions. This ignores the very strong role the Nazis' ideology played in starting the war. I suggest reworking this para to simplify the material on eastern Europe and remove the material on tensions between Germany and the USSR as it's misleading, especially as the article generally doesn't go into explaining the motivation for various activities. Alternately, it should be reworked to include the Nazis' views towards the USSR, but I think that this would be over-complex for this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the paragraph can be improved, I am not sure I fully understand what concretely do you propose. If we remove the information about Soviet-German tension, it will be unclear why Soviet-German cooperation (which is being discussed in the paragraph in details) lead to Barbarossa. In addition, whereas it is tempting to present the conflict between the USSR and Germany as a collision of two ideologies, some authors believe it was more a result of what you call "'normal' great power politics and tensions". In any event, I think it would be better to discuss some concrete text. Can you present a new version of this paragraph as you see it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your statement that the article doesn't go into explaining the motivation is not correct. Thus, the connection between American oil embargo and Japanese decision to occupy Indonesia and to attack Pearl Harbor is being discussed in the War becomes global section. Nevertheless, I agree that the paragraph should be shortened. What do you think about that?
 * "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and then annexed the disputable Romanian region of Bessarabia. Meanwhile, Nazi-Soviet political rapprochement and economic cooperation gradually stalled,, and both states had begun the countdown to war. "
 * Some explanations: I removed mention of rigged elections and illegality of annexation of the Baltic states, because forceful nature of this annexation is tantamount to its illegality. We do not need to go into such details here. I added the notion about the dispute over Bessarabia, because, by contrast to the Baltic case, the USSR never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (the position that was tacitly supported by many other states). I removed the mention of population transfer, because it is unclear what concrete point it was supposed to demonstrate. I removed the mention of the Axis-Soviet talks, because we do not discuss the failed negotiations in this article. I propose to leave the last sentence, because some logical linkage between Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa is definitely needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That wording looks excellent to me Paul: it's concise and gets to the core of what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Disputed" would be better than "disputable", and "to prepare for" than "the countdown to", if you ask me. 216.8.135.197 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a change as such, but I think that the British occupation of the Faroe Islands should be mentioned in the article. A very brief mention, along the lines of and in the same area as the Invasion of Iceland, would suffice. Manxruler (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
What is Czechoslovakia doing in the Allied list? Czechoslovakia ceased to exist months before the outbreak of the war, in fact would it not be simply easier to only say Allies and Axis instead of getting specific, and leaving some country out of the list as we do at present? Particularily when some countries fought on both sides in the war. Also it would avoid odd things like having Britain listed as "British Empire" yet the Dominions (sans Newfoundland and of course Ireland) are listed as seperate countries entireley, (which would have been shocking news to hear at the time in New Zealand say, particularily as they did not adopt the Statute of Westminister until 1947). Hawjam (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam
 * Just as there was a Free France, there were several other countries that maintained a government in Exile during the Nazi occupation which had status among the members of the Alliance. One of these was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile under Edvard Beneš. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response but I don't think that is enough to justify that country's inclusion, according the article you linked to the government-in-exile was only established after the war began and did not even recieve particularily wide international recognition even amongst Allied nations for several years. Nor does it seem to have been particularily important to the war effort, certainly it seems to have been a far less important member of the Allies than the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which not only waged a conventional war (however briefly) but also had considerably more partisan activities not to mention actually de facto existing when the war began. Threadnecromancer (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
 * I'm not sure what you consider "sufficient recognition" to be included. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich was a Czech operation as were hundreds of other operations by covert operatives and resistance fighters such as the Slovak National Uprising; which means they did considerably more to oppose the Nazis than most of the Pan American states which did little more than make a symbolic declaration of war and then sat back and waited until the end; yet they are also included. Czechoslovakia was an official signatory to the United Nations Declaration of 1942; which shows the Allies considered them to be sufficient to be recognized as a member. I don't think we need to look further than that. Just because they were small does not mean they were insignificant.Mediatech492 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Perspective and 1939 Starting Point
Mine name is riles:) Not to reignite an old argument, but since the starting date for the war seems to be partly a matter of historical perspective, why not amend 'generally said' to 'said to have begun in the West' in 1939? This isn't meant to debate or neutralize the 1939 starting point, but just to acknowledge that the war has been appraised and remembered differently in different places -- not only in China, but in Japan and other parts of Asia as well.

74.68.136.97 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I second this. By definition, a world war is a war that contains all the world's great powers, so if you want to use that definition, you could say the war didn't begin until 1941, before which point Russia and the United States, both of which are great powers, were not in the war. In reality, we know that's not a proper starting point for the war, so we have to use our best judgment to decide at what point the conflict went from a "regular" war that was contained within a certain part of the world, to a "world war" thats effects covered a large portion of the planet. Prior to 1939, the war was a Pacific war and not a world war. 1939 is when it expanded beyond the continent of Asia, so i agree with 1939 as the starting point, but the way it is currently phrased on this Wikipedia page could easily give the impression, to those who aren't knowledgeable on the subject (and they're the ones who are going to be reading this page above all others), that the world went from a state of peace to a state of war almost entirely during the year of 1939, which is of course not accurate. I would recommend something like what 74.68.136.97 mentioned above, that better acknowledges that war existed well before 1939, but that the conflict did not truly become a world war until that time. I might suggest something like, "With Japan and China at war since the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, war had existed throughout Asia for over two years, but the war did not expand to Europe until September 1, 1939, when France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, which is why that date is generally the one used as the starting point for the war. Until that point, it was a Pacific war, not a world war." Someone could refine it a bit and make it a little less verbose, but something to that effect I think would be great to begin the second paragraph, in place of what's there now. Tron55555 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas I am not sure if any commonly accepted definitions of a world war exist, it is natural to expect that a world war is supposed to involve most (not necessarily all) great powers. However, one can argue, and most Western authors agree about that, that after 1st September, 1939 involvement of all great powers became inevitable, so Soviet and American neutrality would end in any event, sooner or later. Therefore, 1st September, 1939 is usually understood as a start of the WWII retrospectively.
 * Regarding SSJW, I cannot agree that this conflict expanded to Europe. In actuality, the the conflict in Europe, which would later become the WWII, had a purely European origin, and SSJW had little or no effect on its outbreak. In contrast, expansion of a local SSJW onto whole Pacific (including the attack of European possessions there, and of Pearl Harbor) became possible mostly due to the German successes in Europe.
 * In connection to that, it would be more correct to say that Pacific conflict merged into the European war (what the article currently implies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, your comment is well-taken, but also seems to validate the notion that the 1939 date is largely a matter of Western historical perspective. Japan was also a great power, and the Pacific theater -- which outlasted the European theater -- is understood retrospectively in Asia as having begun in 1937, and sometimes 1931, for the same structural forces of inevitability you mention when speaking of Europe.  Let's not forget that whatever inevitability we see in the US getting involved retrospectively starting in 1939, it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, and this attack was not made any more possible by German advances in Europe (as you claim) than it was by Japanese advances in Asia.  Now to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 1937 date should take precedence or that it's objectively more correct, but only that the word 'generally' in the article seems to actually imply 'in the West.' 140.247.45.85 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we use this article as the only source, it becomes clear that the US pressurised Japan to stop their war in China, and imposed embargo on Japan. This embargo was the ultimate reason that triggered the Japanese decision to seize Indonesia and to neutralise the US in Pacific by destroying their fleet. Obviously, if Britain had not been deeply involved in the war with Germany, if France, Belgium and Netherlands not been occupied by the Axis, Japan would never attempted to expand hostilities outside of mainland China. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a misunderstanding here. This isn't about whether Europe or Asia is more important.  Yes, the European theater is central and crucial to understanding the causes of World War II, and Japanese foreign policy was formed with Europe and other actors in mind.  I think all parties agree on this.  The central point is that when we say World War II started in 1939 we speak as Westerners, and that many people in East Asia wouldn't think of it that way.  History's messy and political, and so are its interpretations; is it really too much to acknowledge this with the modest words 'in the West'? 140.247.43.177 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, however, since a whole Chronology section is devoted to this issue, the viewpoint you are talking about has already been covered in the article. I don't think we need to add anything to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- this is a question of semantics, not adding new information. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Most historians would define "World War II" as a continuation of the unresolved hostilities of World War I, and as such the September 1 1939 starting date is correct. This is the date Germany invaded Poland, and England and France declared war. I would also suggest that the summary of the war needs some clarification overall as well. In the summary and sidebar different dates and terms are given. I think these ought to be better-defined using the common legal and diplomatic terms and dates. ie: Sept. 1 1939 as the declarations of war, that the Japanese instrument of surrender was signed on Sept. 2 1945 (and this was legally the end of the war, August 15 is merely a ceasefire date). The phrase "The war ended with the total victory of the Allies over the Axis in 1945" could be better defined as "The war ended with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers to the Allies in 1945". Victory sounds more positive, but from a diplomatic and legal perspective it was the acceptance of the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies that largely prevented a repetition of post-WWI politics and foreign policies, and the surrender by the Central Powers in WWI was NOT unconditional.209.89.236.191 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all the Axis countries surrendered unconditionally. I don't think that Italy did, and Japan probably wouldn't have surrendered unless the Allies had agreed to maintain the Emperor in his position. 'Total victory' is entirely accurate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And 'probability' is entirely irrelevant. That's pointless obfuscation.209.89.236.191 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is debating the correctness of a 1939 start date. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, Italy DID surrender unconditionally. As per http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/8/newsid_3612000/3612037.stm Eisenhower also made a radio announcement to this effect209.89.236.191 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

German and USSR invasions of Poland
Paul, explain to me what you find objectionable about my edits. Germany did invade Poland from the east. And the USSR did invade Poland from the west several weeks later as the text states. In the subsequent sentence about the division of Poland, I added that such a division was in accord to the previously signed Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In particular, the changes I added were inline with the information in initial invasions section of the M-R Pact article. Is there a problem with my rather modest changes? Let's talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Germany invaded Poland from the west and north (by virtue of its geographic position). For the same reason, the USSR could invade Poland only from the east.
 * Regarding MRP, neither the pact nor the secret protocol contained a direct agreement to divide Poland. Moreover, some sources (e.g. Geoffrey Roberts) say that the decision to invade Poland was made by Stalin only after German invasion started.
 * BTW, the text used by you is wrong. The cited author does not tell about some concert attack of Poland:
 * " The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war." (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78)
 * Thank you to pointing at this issue. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems as if we are quibbling here. First with respect to geography. Yes, Germany invaded from the north as well as the west and also the south. See Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Germany invaded western Poland. Subsequently, the USSR invaded eastern Poland. Mentioning the geography should help the reader since most people need a reminder.
 * Secondly, I didn't say it was a concerted attack. The spoils were agreed to prior to Germany's invasion--and before Germany's occupation of the sphere of influence agreed to by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That's also discussed in Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). As to the motivation of Stalin and timing of his decision, that I'd leave to another article. The way it reads now makes the phrase "after signing a cease-fire with Japan" suggest that the agreement with Japan has the greatest bearing on the invasion of Poland. Mentioning that the two European superpowers talked about "spheres of influence, anticipating potential 'territorial and political rearrangements' of these countries" (as it says in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) seems to be a more appropriate emphasis than "after signing a cease-fire with Japan." Don't you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not quibbling, I just removed the geographically incorrect statement. I also do not think "east" or "west" are needed here, because people usually know where Germany, Poland and the USSR were. We do not explain a direction of invasion of France, why do we need to do that in this particular case?
 * It's a judgment call. You have a greater estimate of the reader's knowledge. I thought it might help. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding MRP, the pact stipulated just the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence. Some sources interpret that as a territorial division of Poland, whereas others (e.g. Roberts) are not. There is no direct proof that German invasion of Poland and Soviet participation in it were discussed before 1st of September, 1939 between Germany and the USSR. The most likely, the decision to invade Eastern Poland was made by Stalin later. We do not need to add a discussion of spheres of influence here, because the "European occupations and agreements" section already does that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we should remove the "signing a cease-fire with Japan" or move it to the "agreements" section. It leads to the implication that the agreement with Japan has to do with the Soviet invasion of Poland and that it has greater bearing than the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Again, I'm not commenting on Stalin's decision. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that it was nothing more than "hey Adolf took possession of his sphere, and that was easy, why not take possession of ours?" The agreed upon spheres of influence has bearing on Germany's immediate actions and scope of operations. Who invades half a country? Explain that to the reader. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot move a truce with Japan to the "European occupations and agreements" section, because the section tells about the per-war agreements, whereas the agreement with Japan was signed after the war started.
 * That's fair enough but it shouldn't be a dependent clause of a much more significant act. Don't you agree, Paul? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't read it as a dependent clause, however, if you prefer "the USSR signed a cease-fire with Japan, and invaded Eastern Poland", I will not object.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Who invades half a country?", Germany invaded half of France (Vichy France remained unoccupied). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * C'mon. That's not the same by a long stretch--you know the details. Germany invaded half of Poland with the intent of absorbing it's agreed-upon sphere. Why not tell the reader that Germany invaded western Poland as per MRP? That makes clear Germany's aim and intent at that point in time.Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "invaded western Poland as per MRP" (MRP did not stipulate such an invasion), but "invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. How about putting it in the article? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Paul, 'tis odd, your "Some sources interpret that [MR pact] as a territorial division of Poland" some don't, considering that Berlin communicated to Moscow on the 3rd (invasion on the 1st) that Stalin should go ahead and occupy Poland up to the prior agreed-upon line of demarcation. And of course, we have the Soviet radio signals from Minsk to guide the Luftwaffe invasion. (Your retort to that in the past has been that the Nazis duped the Soviets into unknowing complicity.) I'm curious on what basis Roberts contends Stalin didn't intend to partition Poland in concert with Hitler. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The full text of this telegram (with Roberts' commentaries) was as follows:
 * "''The foregoing evidence can also be read as demonstrating German anxiety about whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain. However, and this is the third documentary clue, on 3 September Ribbentrop telegraphed the following instruction to Schulenburg:
 * ''We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest, and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would not only be a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well.
 *  Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find. What other explanation can there be for Ribbentrop's evident need to interpret the 'sense' of the Moscow agreements of 23 August?" (Roberts, op. cit.)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read the sources it becomes clearer. Ending years of flare-ups in the East with an agreement with Japan allows Stalin to immediately turn his attention to the situation in Poland. As you show in the Ribbentrop telegraph, Hitler has a dilemma. As I ask above, how do you fight half a nation? Ribbentrop notes that for military reasons he will have to secure the Soviet sphere if Stalin doesn’t. He can’t, as you insinuate above, create a Vichy regime since that would put the eastern part in the German sphere of influence. With Japan no longer requiring attention, Stalin can proceed (planned or not) with the Polish invasion. If Germany invades half a nation what’s Stalin’s options to secure its sphere if MRP remains operative? Why not insert your sentence above: “Germany invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol.” Jason from nyc (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this proposal will not be objected by anyone within next few days, feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Paul, I'm not a WWII buff (I focus on events leading up to the American Revolution and the last years of the Roman Republic). You, Vecrumba, and everyone here and on the other articles led me to many good sources. Let me do something more modest. I'll clarify that Germany "invaded western Poland" because that's exactly what she did. And the Soviets invaded "eastern Poland". The emphasis is on events; I'll leave the full discussion to the other articles covering specifics of the invasions, motivations, leaders, and other details. I'll put it in; if anyone objects they can take it out. Thanks everyone for the discussion.Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted that edit. The wording implies that the Germans and Soviets had limited goals in their invasion of Poland, which is inaccurate as they intended to conquer the entire country. It's also not accurate to say that the Germans invaded western Poland on geographic grounds (for instance, as shown by File:Poland2.jpg, they invaded the north and south of the country and advanced well into its east). Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul, on your "clearer evidence," that would also necessitate that Berlin's communication to Moscow two days after Germany's invasion regarding the USSR's occupation of Polish territory was sent in the absence of any prior expectation of Soviet invasion. And Molotov's agreement would have been given in a state of complete surprise. (While Molotov "agreed," he stated the time wasn't quite right.) Moscow subsequently communicated its invasion to Berlin prior to its launch. And, upon completion of partition, a joint statement was released. I read this as Berlin communicating to Moscow that the USSR needs to get along with its invasion to complete crushing Poland—this was the predatory partitioning of a sovereign state after all. Such language as appears in the communication is not atypical; the observation that Germany would otherwise need to pursue Polish forces into the Soviet "sphere" was a clear signal for the USSR to keep up its part. I suggest more sources on lack of premeditation on the part of the USSR (and Germany) if you wish to make such an (attributed, not universal) contention. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also likely that Japan factored in all along for the USSR. The MR pact was signed days after Zhukov started his offensive at Khalkhin-gol; Poland was invaded a day after the Japanese peace was signed. That is, Stalin timed his invasion of Poland (not my words) to coincide with elimination of the Japanese threat. As sources discuss planned timing, Japan should be mentioned to provide additional context. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not my "clearer evidence", that is a quote from the reliable source (an author MRP which has been extensively cited in the MRP article). I present reliable sources, and you - just your own speculations. In connection to that, I suggest you to remove your annoying and uncivil soapboxing. We know nothing about your own credentials as a historian, and therefore your personal opinion is hardly valuable for us in this particular case.
 * Regarding some "attributed, not universal contention", since I do not propose to add any positive claim on that account, I do not have to prove anything. In contrast, the users who want to add a statement about coordinated Nazi-Soviet invasion have to provide the evidence that their viewpoint is a sole mainstream point of view.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is as enamored of Roberts as you are. Yours was the characterization of no "clearer evidence"; that characterization does not stem from Robert's words. I don't see that discussing potential issues with the contentions of a source you cite is soapboxing or uncivil. If it's as clear as you indicated, you should have a plethora of sources contending the same. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 * BTW, Snyder, in Bloodlands, specifically writes that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland. I don't see that I have to prove "sole" anything. Nor is Roberts' opinion "sole" anything, either. That the Soviet invasion of Poland was an afterthought is the minority view. (And, upon re-reading, your contention of "proof" of no prior agreement is your synthesis unless Roberts indicates this is clear and incontrovertible "proof".) And as you can't prove a negative in any event, any such proof is ultimately an opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the words "Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find" are not my words, that is what Roberts says. Please, read carefully the text you are trying to refute.
 * Re Snyder, we have two opinia: that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland (Snyder and others), and that no such an agreement existed (Roberts and others). In that situation, the best way would be just to present bare facts: that Germany invaded Poland on 1st of September, and that the USSR ivaded Poland on 17th of September.
 * And, again, please stop making comments on me. Your accusations are offensive and false. Try to maintain necessary decorum or leave this page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the extract from Bloodlands which says they "agreed" please? I am having trouble finding it. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot say that the Snyder's Bloodlands presents a universally accepted or mainstream viewpoint. It presents no new arguments either. Thus, Omer Bartov in his review on this book says:
 * "The book presents no new evidence and makes no new arguments. Facts and interpretations are culled from established authorities: Christian Streit on the Soviet prisoners of war (POWs); Christian Gerlach on “hunger politics”; Nicolas Werth and Lynne Viola on the Ukrainian famine; Dieter Pohl and Karel Berkhoff on German-occupied Ukraine; Peter Longerich, Christopher Browning, and Andrej Angrick on the Holocaust. Admirably synthesizing this voluminous scholarship, Snyder stresses that most civilians (and POWs) died in the east. While not a revelation for scholars of the period, this argument may appear startlingly new and shocking to nonexperts. " (Omer Bartov. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder. Slavic Review, Vol. 70, No. 2 (SUMMER 2011), pp. 424-428)
 * According to Bartov:
 * "The book is also permeated by a consistent pro-Polish bias and fails to critically engage with Polish policies and attitudes." (ibid)
 * "Bloodlands also tends to present German and Soviet soldiers’ conduct as similarly criminal for similar reasons." (ibid)
 * "By equating partisans and occupiers, Soviet and Nazi occupation, Wehrmacht and Red Army criminality, and evading interethnic violence, Snyder drains the war of much of its moral content and inadvertently adopts the apologists’ argument that where everyone is a criminal no one can be blamed." (ibid)
 * I am not sure we can use this source as a support for any general claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This wikiarticle is written by non-experts to non-experts, and synthesis is a good thing in research. The possible pro-Polish bias and lack of criticism towards Polish attitudes is something we need to keep in mind, along with other reasonable caution measures, but none of this allows us to dismiss a book as easily as Paul suggests. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jaan, you didn't understand me. I neither propose to dismiss the book nor I claim it to be without any merit. My point is that it would not be correct to speak about Snyder as a mainstream source and about Roberts as a minority/revisionist. We can speak about two viewpoints having approximatelly similar weight, so if one of those two opinions are mentioned, another one should be discussed too. However, I am not sure such a discussion to belong to this concrete article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction on end date of WWII
While the commonly accepted end of WWII is 1945, which was obviously the end of all hostilities, the war did not officially end until the Treaty of San Francisco went into effect in 1952. That should be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.145.181 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That brings up an interesting point, does a war end when the killing stops or does it end when the bureaucrats have finished the paperwork? If it requires a piece of paper to end a war then the Peloponnesian War never ended and Sparta and Athens are still at war. In fact most of the wars of history never had a treaty to end them. Likewise a treaty does not always end a war sometimes the killing will go on long after treaty is signed. For example, the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the treaty of Ghent was signed.Mediatech492 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WWII ends at the date reliable sources says it does. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Japan was already at war with China, irrelevant and unnecessary
Japan fighting China in the second Japanese-Chinese war should not be included in the beginning of the paragraph, maybe at the end or somewhere less visible as it distracts the reader from the actual start of the war. If your mentioning precursors you might as well talk about the German invasion of Austria or Czechoslovakia, or even the independent SARS region. I smell some serious Chinese bias here, only in China do the textbooks say WWII started in 1937. PLZ FIX

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.79.118 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


 * kitty are awesome and i hate dogs you no--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)the worlds is aesoem yu know my bffs are y. stevens Yea if you are biased toward the Chinese, why start with Japan and China if the war was fought primarily between western powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous1290 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Allies?
this i a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.79.5 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In one section, it states the "allies" successfully defended Port Moresby. This is incorrect, only Australia was present in that part of the war. If someone makes the correction, I would be happy thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't say that at all. It correctly note that the defeat of the Japanese force in the Battle of the Coral Sea was an Allied effort (the US Navy dominated they Allied forces here) and the rest of the section doesn't specify nationalities. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth trying to take this article to A class?
I was wondering if there was interest in developing this article so that it passes a Military History Wikiproject A class review? I don't think that it would require particularly huge changes to the article, but those changes which are made would need to be done through a consultative process (for instance, it's likely that many of the asides to the main narrative which have been added over the years would be removed/rearranged). I'd be happy to take the lead if other editors agree that a) this is a good idea which they're willing to help with and b) they don't want to take the lead themselves! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. I never participated in such work before, so it would be interesting to try. I think you are a right person to take the lead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Are there any objections? If not, I'll start working through the article to make minor changes and post suggestions for significant changes over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How could anyone make a serious objection to attempting to improve an article to A-class? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A class review preparations: Comments and proposed changes
As noted above, I think that it's worth trying to develop this article so that it meets the Military History Wikiproject's A class criteria. This thread is for discussion of changes relevant to preparing for this review. I'm going to post my comments on the article and proposed changes here, and encourage other editors to also work their way through the article and do the same. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * The article contains too many piped links, and some common terms are linked when they don't really need to be. I've removed some of these links (by either editing the sentence to remove the piping or de-linking the term), and propose working through the article to further reduce this piping. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * A lot of the references which have been used seem a bit odd (eg, they're reliable sources, but are mainly about a completely different topic from what they're being used as references for, and presumably only mention the topic in passing). I'm replacing these references with references to works specifically about the topic, as these will be of greater use to readers wishing to use the article as a starting point for further reading on the war and provider better background. I'm also removing low quality references (eg, reprints of old books or popular-type histories) with references to more recent and better regarded works. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

 * Lead: "The Japanese Navy was defeated by the United States, and invasion of the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands") became imminent." - this is very simplistic to the point of being misleading given that the Japanese Army was also defeated. I'd suggest changing this to "Meanwhile, Allied forces advanced through the western Pacific during 1944, defeating Japanese forces in a series of campaigns, and by mid 1945 were preparing to invade the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands"). Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Japanese Army was not defeated until the very end of the war. Thus, Operation Ichi-Go was a full success. If I understand correctly, naval defeats, which lead to the blockade of Home Islands and to capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, was more important factors then the defeats of some Japanese garrisons stationed on isolated Pacific islands. In my opinion, oversimplifications are unavoidable in the lede, and this is not the only oversimplification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but in the 1944-45 Philippines campaign the US Army defeated quite substantial Japanese Army and Army Air Force units as well, so 'forces' works better. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe "The Japanese Navy was defeated and key West Pacific Island were captured, so invasion ... became imminent"? In any event, since the lead is doomed to be somewhat imprecise (simply by virtue of its small size), I have no serious objections against the change you propose. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Background and Pre-war events sections: the single-paragraph sections on the Invasion of Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War in the 'Pre-war events' section partially repeat material in the 'background' section. The small sections on the 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' also seem too detailed given that these occurred before the war, and the events are actually described in greater detail than those in the war proper. I suggest merging and trimming this material into the 'background' section (with sub-headings) Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' can easily be merged into a single section (especially, taking into account that those events were interconnected). With regard to the  Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War sections, they can be simply removed, although corresponding "background" paragraphs need in some expansion: we need to devote a couple of sentences to each of those events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Casualties and war crimes section. The last sentence of the second para currently says:
 * "Roughly 7.5 million civilians died in China under Japanese occupation,[287] and hundreds of thousands (varying estimates) of ethnic Serbs, along with gypsies and Jews, were murdered by the Axis-aligned Croatian Ustaše in what would become Yugoslavia, with retribution-related killings of Croatian civilians later in the war.[288]"
 * I am not sure death of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs needs in an explicit mention along with the death of 7.5 million of Chinese. It was not the only European nation that suffered tremendous losses, and Ustaše were not the only perpetrators. We definitely need to mention the outburst of nationalistic violence that (frequently under the Axis control) lead to mass deaths of various ethnic groups, however, to mention only Ustaše (as perpetrators) and Serbs (as victims) would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The fifth paragraph says:
 * "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals, incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include population transfers in the Soviet Union and Japanese American internment in the United States; the Operation Keelhaul, expulsion of Germans after World War II, mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army; the Soviet Union's Katyn massacre, for which Germans faced counter-accusations of responsibility. Large numbers of famine deaths can also be partially attributed to the war, such as the Bengal famine of 1943 and the Vietnamese famine of 1944–45. "
 * I am not sure the wording is adequate. Penis . <=====3By writing "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial (...) incidents caused by the Allies were not," we thereby imply the crimes were of comparable scale. In actuality, neither population transfers in the Soviet Union nor Japanese American internment can be comparable with the Holocaust, starvation of Leningrad, or Nanking Massacre.
 * Some events described in this paragraph, namely Operation Keelhaul and expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be considered war crimes simply because they occurred after the war.
 * "mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" is not accurate wording, because in actuality the rapes were committed by almost all Allied troops, the Soviet rapes were simply more numerous.
 * The Bengal and Vietnam famine deaths should not be mentioned in a context of Allied criminal acts, so I suggest to move the last sentence to the more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a minor note, besieging a city is not a grounds for a war crime. At least not according WWII era accords. Whole point of the statement was that war criminals of victorious parties were allowed to walk free. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Axis advances section, paragraph beginning "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France,". This para appears to go into too much detail on diplomatic maneuvers in eastern Europe and Soviet expansion, and basically presents the lead up to war between Germany and the USSR as being the result of 'normal' great power politics and tensions. This ignores the very strong role the Nazis' ideology played in starting the war. I suggest reworking this para to simplify the material on eastern Europe and remove the material on tensions between Germany and the USSR as it's misleading, especially as the article generally doesn't go into explaining the motivation for various activities. Alternately, it should be reworked to include the Nazis' views towards the USSR, but I think that this would be over-complex for this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I agree that the paragraph can be improved, I am not sure I fully understand what concretely do you propose. If we remove the information about Soviet-German tension, it will be unclear why Soviet-German cooperation (which is being discussed in the paragraph in details) lead to Barbarossa. In addition, whereas it is tempting to present the conflict between the USSR and Germany as a collision of two ideologies, some authors believe it was more a result of what you call "'normal' great power politics and tensions". In any event, I think it would be better to discuss some concrete text. Can you present a new version of this paragraph as you see it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your statement that the article doesn't go into explaining the motivation is not correct. Thus, the connection between American oil embargo and Japanese decision to occupy Indonesia and to attack Pearl Harbor is being discussed in the War becomes global section. Nevertheless, I agree that the paragraph should be shortened. What do you think about that?
 * "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and then annexed the disputable Romanian region of Bessarabia. Meanwhile, Nazi-Soviet political rapprochement and economic cooperation gradually stalled,, and both states had begun the countdown to war. "
 * Some explanations: I removed mention of rigged elections and illegality of annexation of the Baltic states, because forceful nature of this annexation is tantamount to its illegality. We do not need to go into such details here. I added the notion about the dispute over Bessarabia, because, by contrast to the Baltic case, the USSR never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (the position that was tacitly supported by many other states). I removed the mention of population transfer, because it is unclear what concrete point it was supposed to demonstrate. I removed the mention of the Axis-Soviet talks, because we do not discuss the failed negotiations in this article. I propose to leave the last sentence, because some logical linkage between Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa is definitely needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That wording looks excellent to me Paul: it's concise and gets to the core of what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "Disputed" would be better than "disputable", and "to prepare for" than "the countdown to", if you ask me. 216.8.135.197 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a change as such, but I think that the British occupation of the Faroe Islands should be mentioned in the article. A very brief mention, along the lines of and in the same area as the Invasion of Iceland, would suffice. Manxruler (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
What is Czechoslovakia doing in the Allied list? Czechoslovakia ceased to exist months before the outbreak of the war, in fact would it not be simply easier to only say Allies and Axis instead of getting specific, and leaving some country out of the list as we do at present? Particularily when some countries fought on both sides in the war. Also it would avoid odd things like having Britain listed as "British Empire" yet the Dominions (sans Newfoundland and of course Ireland) are listed as seperate countries entireley, (which would have been shocking news to hear at the time in New Zealand say, particularily as they did not adopt the Statute of Westminister until 1947). Hawjam (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam
 * Just as there was a Free France, there were several other countries that maintained a government in Exile during the Nazi occupation which had status among the members of the Alliance. One of these was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile under Edvard Beneš. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response but I don't think that is enough to justify that country's inclusion, according the article you linked to the government-in-exile was only established after the war began and did not even recieve particularily wide international recognition even amongst Allied nations for several years. Nor does it seem to have been particularily important to the war effort, certainly it seems to have been a far less important member of the Allies than the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which not only waged a conventional war (however briefly) but also had considerably more partisan activities not to mention actually de facto existing when the war began. Threadnecromancer (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer
 * I'm not sure what you consider "sufficient recognition" to be included. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich was a Czech operation as were hundreds of other operations by covert operatives and resistance fighters such as the Slovak National Uprising; which means they did considerably more to oppose the Nazis than most of the Pan American states which did little more than make a symbolic declaration of war and then sat back and waited until the end; yet they are also included. Czechoslovakia was an official signatory to the United Nations Declaration of 1942; which shows the Allies considered them to be sufficient to be recognized as a member. I don't think we need to look further than that. Just because they were small does not mean they were insignificant.Mediatech492 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Perspective and 1939 Starting Point
Not to reignite an old argument, but since the starting date for the war seems to be partly a matter of historical perspective, why not amend 'generally said' to 'said to have begun in the West' in 1939? This isn't meant to debate or neutralize the 1939 starting point, but just to acknowledge that the war has been appraised and remembered differently in different places -- not only in China, but in Japan and other parts of Asia as well.

74.68.136.97 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I second this. By definition, a world war is a war that contains all the world's great powers, so if you want to use that definition, you could say the war didn't begin until 1941, before which point Russia and the United States, both of which are great powers, were not in the war. In reality, we know that's not a proper starting point for the war, so we have to use our best judgment to decide at what point the conflict went from a "regular" war that was contained within a certain part of the world, to a "world war" thats effects covered a large portion of the planet. Prior to 1939, the war was a Pacific war and not a world war. 1939 is when it expanded beyond the continent of Asia, so i agree with 1939 as the starting point, but the way it is currently phrased on this Wikipedia page could easily give the impression, to those who aren't knowledgeable on the subject (and they're the ones who are going to be reading this page above all others), that the world went from a state of peace to a state of war almost entirely during the year of 1939, which is of course not accurate. I would recommend something like what 74.68.136.97 mentioned above, that better acknowledges that war existed well before 1939, but that the conflict did not truly become a world war until that time. I might suggest something like, "With Japan and China at war since the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, war had existed throughout Asia for over two years, but the war did not expand to Europe until September 1, 1939, when France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, which is why that date is generally the one used as the starting point for the war. Until that point, it was a Pacific war, not a world war." Someone could refine it a bit and make it a little less verbose, but something to that effect I think would be great to begin the second paragraph, in place of what's there now. Tron55555 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Whereas I am not sure if any commonly accepted definitions of a world war exist, it is natural to expect that a world war is supposed to involve most (not necessarily all) great powers. However, one can argue, and most Western authors agree about that, that after 1st September, 1939 involvement of all great powers became inevitable, so Soviet and American neutrality would end in any event, sooner or later. Therefore, 1st September, 1939 is usually understood as a start of the WWII retrospectively.
 * Regarding SSJW, I cannot agree that this conflict expanded to Europe. In actuality, the the conflict in Europe, which would later become the WWII, had a purely European origin, and SSJW had little or no effect on its outbreak. In contrast, expansion of a local SSJW onto whole Pacific (including the attack of European possessions there, and of Pearl Harbor) became possible mostly due to the German successes in Europe.
 * In connection to that, it would be more correct to say that Pacific conflict merged into the European war (what the article currently implies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, your comment is well-taken, but also seems to validate the notion that the 1939 date is largely a matter of Western historical perspective. Japan was also a great power, and the Pacific theater -- which outlasted the European theater -- is understood retrospectively in Asia as having begun in 1937, and sometimes 1931, for the same structural forces of inevitability you mention when speaking of Europe.  Let's not forget that whatever inevitability we see in the US getting involved retrospectively starting in 1939, it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, and this attack was not made any more possible by German advances in Europe (as you claim) than it was by Japanese advances in Asia.  Now to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 1937 date should take precedence or that it's objectively more correct, but only that the word 'generally' in the article seems to actually imply 'in the West.' 140.247.45.85 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if we use this article as the only source, it becomes clear that the US pressurised Japan to stop their war in China, and imposed embargo on Japan. This embargo was the ultimate reason that triggered the Japanese decision to seize Indonesia and to neutralise the US in Pacific by destroying their fleet. Obviously, if Britain had not been deeply involved in the war with Germany, if France, Belgium and Netherlands not been occupied by the Axis, Japan would never attempted to expand hostilities outside of mainland China. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there's a misunderstanding here. This isn't about whether Europe or Asia is more important.  Yes, the European theater is central and crucial to understanding the causes of World War II, and Japanese foreign policy was formed with Europe and other actors in mind.  I think all parties agree on this.  The central point is that when we say World War II started in 1939 we speak as Westerners, and that many people in East Asia wouldn't think of it that way.  History's messy and political, and so are its interpretations; is it really too much to acknowledge this with the modest words 'in the West'? 140.247.43.177 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right, however, since a whole Chronology section is devoted to this issue, the viewpoint you are talking about has already been covered in the article. I don't think we need to add anything to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed -- this is a question of semantics, not adding new information. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Most historians would define "World War II" as a continuation of the unresolved hostilities of World War I, and as such the September 1 1939 starting date is correct. This is the date Germany invaded Poland, and England and France declared war. I would also suggest that the summary of the war needs some clarification overall as well. In the summary and sidebar different dates and terms are given. I think these ought to be better-defined using the common legal and diplomatic terms and dates. ie: Sept. 1 1939 as the declarations of war, that the Japanese instrument of surrender was signed on Sept. 2 1945 (and this was legally the end of the war, August 15 is merely a ceasefire date). The phrase "The war ended with the total victory of the Allies over the Axis in 1945" could be better defined as "The war ended with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers to the Allies in 1945". Victory sounds more positive, but from a diplomatic and legal perspective it was the acceptance of the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies that largely prevented a repetition of post-WWI politics and foreign policies, and the surrender by the Central Powers in WWI was NOT unconditional.209.89.236.191 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all the Axis countries surrendered unconditionally. I don't think that Italy did, and Japan probably wouldn't have surrendered unless the Allies had agreed to maintain the Emperor in his position. 'Total victory' is entirely accurate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And 'probability' is entirely irrelevant. That's pointless obfuscation.209.89.236.191 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is debating the correctness of a 1939 start date. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, Italy DID surrender unconditionally. As per http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/8/newsid_3612000/3612037.stm Eisenhower also made a radio announcement to this effect209.89.236.191 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

German and USSR invasions of Poland
Paul, explain to me what you find objectionable about my edits. Germany did invade Poland from the east. And the USSR did invade Poland from the west several weeks later as the text states. In the subsequent sentence about the division of Poland, I added that such a division was in accord to the previously signed Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In particular, the changes I added were inline with the information in initial invasions section of the M-R Pact article. Is there a problem with my rather modest changes? Let's talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Germany invaded Poland from the west and north (by virtue of its geographic position). For the same reason, the USSR could invade Poland only from the east.
 * Regarding MRP, neither the pact nor the secret protocol contained a direct agreement to divide Poland. Moreover, some sources (e.g. Geoffrey Roberts) say that the decision to invade Poland was made by Stalin only after German invasion started.
 * BTW, the text used by you is wrong. The cited author does not tell about some concert attack of Poland:
 * " The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war." (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78)
 * Thank you to pointing at this issue. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems as if we are quibbling here. First with respect to geography. Yes, Germany invaded from the north as well as the west and also the south. See Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Germany invaded western Poland. Subsequently, the USSR invaded eastern Poland. Mentioning the geography should help the reader since most people need a reminder.
 * Secondly, I didn't say it was a concerted attack. The spoils were agreed to prior to Germany's invasion--and before Germany's occupation of the sphere of influence agreed to by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That's also discussed in Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). As to the motivation of Stalin and timing of his decision, that I'd leave to another article. The way it reads now makes the phrase "after signing a cease-fire with Japan" suggest that the agreement with Japan has the greatest bearing on the invasion of Poland. Mentioning that the two European superpowers talked about "spheres of influence, anticipating potential 'territorial and political rearrangements' of these countries" (as it says in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) seems to be a more appropriate emphasis than "after signing a cease-fire with Japan." Don't you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not quibbling, I just removed the geographically incorrect statement. I also do not think "east" or "west" are needed here, because people usually know where Germany, Poland and the USSR were. We do not explain a direction of invasion of France, why do we need to do that in this particular case?
 * It's a judgment call. You have a greater estimate of the reader's knowledge. I thought it might help. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding MRP, the pact stipulated just the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence. Some sources interpret that as a territorial division of Poland, whereas others (e.g. Roberts) are not. There is no direct proof that German invasion of Poland and Soviet participation in it were discussed before 1st of September, 1939 between Germany and the USSR. The most likely, the decision to invade Eastern Poland was made by Stalin later. We do not need to add a discussion of spheres of influence here, because the "European occupations and agreements" section already does that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps we should remove the "signing a cease-fire with Japan" or move it to the "agreements" section. It leads to the implication that the agreement with Japan has to do with the Soviet invasion of Poland and that it has greater bearing than the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Again, I'm not commenting on Stalin's decision. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that it was nothing more than "hey Adolf took possession of his sphere, and that was easy, why not take possession of ours?" The agreed upon spheres of influence has bearing on Germany's immediate actions and scope of operations. Who invades half a country? Explain that to the reader. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We cannot move a truce with Japan to the "European occupations and agreements" section, because the section tells about the per-war agreements, whereas the agreement with Japan was signed after the war started.
 * That's fair enough but it shouldn't be a dependent clause of a much more significant act. Don't you agree, Paul? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't read it as a dependent clause, however, if you prefer "the USSR signed a cease-fire with Japan, and invaded Eastern Poland", I will not object.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Re "Who invades half a country?", Germany invaded half of France (Vichy France remained unoccupied). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * C'mon. That's not the same by a long stretch--you know the details. Germany invaded half of Poland with the intent of absorbing it's agreed-upon sphere. Why not tell the reader that Germany invaded western Poland as per MRP? That makes clear Germany's aim and intent at that point in time.Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Not "invaded western Poland as per MRP" (MRP did not stipulate such an invasion), but "invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. How about putting it in the article? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec) @Paul, 'tis odd, your "Some sources interpret that [MR pact] as a territorial division of Poland" some don't, considering that Berlin communicated to Moscow on the 3rd (invasion on the 1st) that Stalin should go ahead and occupy Poland up to the prior agreed-upon line of demarcation. And of course, we have the Soviet radio signals from Minsk to guide the Luftwaffe invasion. (Your retort to that in the past has been that the Nazis duped the Soviets into unknowing complicity.) I'm curious on what basis Roberts contends Stalin didn't intend to partition Poland in concert with Hitler. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The full text of this telegram (with Roberts' commentaries) was as follows:
 * "''The foregoing evidence can also be read as demonstrating German anxiety about whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain. However, and this is the third documentary clue, on 3 September Ribbentrop telegraphed the following instruction to Schulenburg:
 * ''We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest, and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would not only be a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well.
 *  Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find. What other explanation can there be for Ribbentrop's evident need to interpret the 'sense' of the Moscow agreements of 23 August?" (Roberts, op. cit.)
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I read the sources it becomes clearer. Ending years of flare-ups in the East with an agreement with Japan allows Stalin to immediately turn his attention to the situation in Poland. As you show in the Ribbentrop telegraph, Hitler has a dilemma. As I ask above, how do you fight half a nation? Ribbentrop notes that for military reasons he will have to secure the Soviet sphere if Stalin doesn’t. He can’t, as you insinuate above, create a Vichy regime since that would put the eastern part in the German sphere of influence. With Japan no longer requiring attention, Stalin can proceed (planned or not) with the Polish invasion. If Germany invades half a nation what’s Stalin’s options to secure its sphere if MRP remains operative? Why not insert your sentence above: “Germany invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol.” Jason from nyc (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this proposal will not be objected by anyone within next few days, feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Paul, I'm not a WWII buff (I focus on events leading up to the American Revolution and the last years of the Roman Republic). You, Vecrumba, and everyone here and on the other articles led me to many good sources. Let me do something more modest. I'll clarify that Germany "invaded western Poland" because that's exactly what she did. And the Soviets invaded "eastern Poland". The emphasis is on events; I'll leave the full discussion to the other articles covering specifics of the invasions, motivations, leaders, and other details. I'll put it in; if anyone objects they can take it out. Thanks everyone for the discussion.Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted that edit. The wording implies that the Germans and Soviets had limited goals in their invasion of Poland, which is inaccurate as they intended to conquer the entire country. It's also not accurate to say that the Germans invaded western Poland on geographic grounds (for instance, as shown by File:Poland2.jpg, they invaded the north and south of the country and advanced well into its east). Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul, on your "clearer evidence," that would also necessitate that Berlin's communication to Moscow two days after Germany's invasion regarding the USSR's occupation of Polish territory was sent in the absence of any prior expectation of Soviet invasion. And Molotov's agreement would have been given in a state of complete surprise. (While Molotov "agreed," he stated the time wasn't quite right.) Moscow subsequently communicated its invasion to Berlin prior to its launch. And, upon completion of partition, a joint statement was released. I read this as Berlin communicating to Moscow that the USSR needs to get along with its invasion to complete crushing Poland—this was the predatory partitioning of a sovereign state after all. Such language as appears in the communication is not atypical; the observation that Germany would otherwise need to pursue Polish forces into the Soviet "sphere" was a clear signal for the USSR to keep up its part. I suggest more sources on lack of premeditation on the part of the USSR (and Germany) if you wish to make such an (attributed, not universal) contention. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also likely that Japan factored in all along for the USSR. The MR pact was signed days after Zhukov started his offensive at Khalkhin-gol; Poland was invaded a day after the Japanese peace was signed. That is, Stalin timed his invasion of Poland (not my words) to coincide with elimination of the Japanese threat. As sources discuss planned timing, Japan should be mentioned to provide additional context. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not my "clearer evidence", that is a quote from the reliable source (an author MRP which has been extensively cited in the MRP article). I present reliable sources, and you - just your own speculations. In connection to that, I suggest you to remove your annoying and uncivil soapboxing. We know nothing about your own credentials as a historian, and therefore your personal opinion is hardly valuable for us in this particular case.
 * Regarding some "attributed, not universal contention", since I do not propose to add any positive claim on that account, I do not have to prove anything. In contrast, the users who want to add a statement about coordinated Nazi-Soviet invasion have to provide the evidence that their viewpoint is a sole mainstream point of view.
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not everyone is as enamored of Roberts as you are. Yours was the characterization of no "clearer evidence"; that characterization does not stem from Robert's words. I don't see that discussing potential issues with the contentions of a source you cite is soapboxing or uncivil. If it's as clear as you indicated, you should have a plethora of sources contending the same. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC).
 * BTW, Snyder, in Bloodlands, specifically writes that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland. I don't see that I have to prove "sole" anything. Nor is Roberts' opinion "sole" anything, either. That the Soviet invasion of Poland was an afterthought is the minority view. (And, upon re-reading, your contention of "proof" of no prior agreement is your synthesis unless Roberts indicates this is clear and incontrovertible "proof".) And as you can't prove a negative in any event, any such proof is ultimately an opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, the words "Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find" are not my words, that is what Roberts says. Please, read carefully the text you are trying to refute.
 * Re Snyder, we have two opinia: that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland (Snyder and others), and that no such an agreement existed (Roberts and others). In that situation, the best way would be just to present bare facts: that Germany invaded Poland on 1st of September, and that the USSR ivaded Poland on 17th of September.
 * And, again, please stop making comments on me. Your accusations are offensive and false. Try to maintain necessary decorum or leave this page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the extract from Bloodlands which says they "agreed" please? I am having trouble finding it. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot say that the Snyder's Bloodlands presents a universally accepted or mainstream viewpoint. It presents no new arguments either. Thus, Omer Bartov in his review on this book says:
 * "The book presents no new evidence and makes no new arguments. Facts and interpretations are culled from established authorities: Christian Streit on the Soviet prisoners of war (POWs); Christian Gerlach on “hunger politics”; Nicolas Werth and Lynne Viola on the Ukrainian famine; Dieter Pohl and Karel Berkhoff on German-occupied Ukraine; Peter Longerich, Christopher Browning, and Andrej Angrick on the Holocaust. Admirably synthesizing this voluminous scholarship, Snyder stresses that most civilians (and POWs) died in the east. While not a revelation for scholars of the period, this argument may appear startlingly new and shocking to nonexperts. " (Omer Bartov. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder. Slavic Review, Vol. 70, No. 2 (SUMMER 2011), pp. 424-428)
 * According to Bartov:
 * "The book is also permeated by a consistent pro-Polish bias and fails to critically engage with Polish policies and attitudes." (ibid)
 * "Bloodlands also tends to present German and Soviet soldiers’ conduct as similarly criminal for similar reasons." (ibid)
 * "By equating partisans and occupiers, Soviet and Nazi occupation, Wehrmacht and Red Army criminality, and evading interethnic violence, Snyder drains the war of much of its moral content and inadvertently adopts the apologists’ argument that where everyone is a criminal no one can be blamed." (ibid)
 * I am not sure we can use this source as a support for any general claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This wikiarticle is written by non-experts to non-experts, and synthesis is a good thing in research. The possible pro-Polish bias and lack of criticism towards Polish attitudes is something we need to keep in mind, along with other reasonable caution measures, but none of this allows us to dismiss a book as easily as Paul suggests. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Jaan, you didn't understand me. I neither propose to dismiss the book nor I claim it to be without any merit. My point is that it would not be correct to speak about Snyder as a mainstream source and about Roberts as a minority/revisionist. We can speak about two viewpoints having approximatelly similar weight, so if one of those two opinions are mentioned, another one should be discussed too. However, I am not sure such a discussion to belong to this concrete article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction on end date of WWII
While the commonly accepted end of WWII is 1945, which was obviously the end of all hostilities, the war did not officially end until the Treaty of San Francisco went into effect in 1952. That should be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.145.181 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That brings up an interesting point, does a war end when the killing stops or does it end when the bureaucrats have finished the paperwork? If it requires a piece of paper to end a war then the Peloponnesian War never ended and Sparta and Athens are still at war. In fact most of the wars of history never had a treaty to end them. Likewise a treaty does not always end a war sometimes the killing will go on long after treaty is signed. For example, the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the treaty of Ghent was signed.Mediatech492 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WWII ends at the date reliable sources says it does. ( Hohum  @ ) 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

problem with "History of World War II by country..." box on right side of page
In my internet browser (Safari via Mac OS X), the box on the right side of the page that is titled "History of World War II by country and ?" can not be accessed, because the word "show" that you would normally click on to expand the box is covered up by the title of the box ("History of World War II by country and ?"), mixing the words together, so that when you try to click on the word "show" to expand the box, it clicks on the title of the box hyperlink instead, and takes you to that page. I assume the title needs to be shortened, but I don't know how to do this, so I thought I would bring it to your attention in case someone can find time to fix it, or tell me how to. Thanks. Tron55555 (talk) 12:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I use Chrome for Mac and have the same problem. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mdann52 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

BS removed
The casualties and war crimes section mentions Operation Keelhaul, a controversial British-American post-war repatriation of Russians in Germany to the USSR, as an example of a World War II crime of the Soviet Union. (World War II ended a while before that happened.) The provided source describes this as an "evil" rather than a "war crime." It is an essay written by a libertarian political activist that was written for a minor political advocacy group, the Future of Freedom Foundation. (Because American libertarians take the position that becoming involved in World War II was not good.) I am now reverting this. The section also includes "Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" as a piped link for the article Rape during the occupation of Germany. In fact, rape on a vast scale was also conducted by French and American troops, as seen from the sources included there. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 16:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Operation Keelhaul was a POW repatriation operation, and repatriation is an inherent part of the war effort. As for the issue of rape, no one is arguing that apes did not occur in the western sectors, the question is that of scale. The number of rapes in the western sector numbered in the thousands, and many of the culprits were tried and convicted for their crimes, whereas in the Soviet sector the numbers were in the millions, while rape convictions were negligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We might want to separate this out:
 * i. Per WP:RS, you will need a source calling Operation Keelhaul a "Soviet war crime" to cite it as an example of a Soviet war crime on Wikipedia.
 * ii. Regarding rapes, I am not arguing that there was a fewer or comparable number of rapes done in the east, but saying that Western forces participated in the rape of Germany on a significant scale as well - the number convicted similarly being a fraction of the estimate. (A lot of literature discusses it; see Robert Lilly's book Taken by Force: Rape and American GIs in Europe during World War II, a text by a reputable criminologist, for his estimate of rapes by US soldiers alone.) And since we have an article for Rape during the occupation of Germany, we should link to that and not Mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army, which is a redirect that was moved to a neutral title by consensus. (Is there an actual number at which many instances of war rapes within a short timespan become "mass rape" - is it in the thousands, or tens of thousands? ) Zloyvolsheb (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That website by the The Future of Freedom Foundation definitely isn't a reliable source, and doesn't label Operation Keelhaul a war crime anyway. A strong citation is needed to support this material's retention in this article. While it's widely accepted by historians that the Soviet soldiers conducted mass rapes and that their commanders were aware of this but did little to stop it, I don't think that many reputable historians argue that the Western Allies also did so, and especially to the extent that this was a 'war crime' or comparable to the extent of what happened in the east (please provide references if my understanding of this isn't correct, however). Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The title of the article is "Rape during the occupation of Germany", and it contains references to the sources that confirm that the rapes were committed by most Allied armies, and not only by military personnel (thus, former inmates of Nazi concentration camps also participated in rapes). Therefore, it would be more correct to restore Zloyvolsheb's version, because it does not imply that the rapes were committed exclusively by the Soviet Red Army (and only by the army personnel), which is obviously untrue. Regarding your analysis of the The Future of Freedom Foundation as a source, I completely agree.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While it is true that rapes were not committed exclusively by the Soviet Red Army, it is certainly true that rapes were committed predominantly by the Soviet Red Army. As I recall the article "Rape during the occupation of Germany" was originally "Mass rape by the Red Army" until someone wanted restrict the focus of the article to Germany and include other allies. Alexander Statiev writes in The Soviet Counterinsurgency in the Western Borderlands that Soviet forces also conducted mass rapes in Eastern Europe:
 * "The authorities could not prevent hungry and poor Soviet soldiers from plundering the local population. However, they could have done much more to prevent grave crimes such as rape. Their failure to do so resulted in a pandemic spread of sexual violence all across the borderlands. Women of all ages became victimes of Soviet rowdies."
 * Statiev then cites as example the rape of a five year old girl and a 60 year old woman in Western Ukraine. So while the authorites finally put an end to mass rapes in Germany, the pandemic of rape actually started long before Soviet forces reached Germany. --Nug (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hiroshima Nagasaki in intro
It simply states invasion of Japan was "imminent" then Japan surrendered, completely ommiting (in my view) one of the greatest crimes in history, the dropping of A-bombs on the cities. Okay forgetting my view, its still notable and should be put there. --JTBX (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted you. As has been discussed here previously, it's rather simplistic to state that Japan surrendered as a result of the atomic bombs, and it's generally thought that they were one of a combination of multiple factors which lead to the surrender. Please note that this isn't a forum for general discussion of the war. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply Japan surrendered directly because of the bombs, only that it should be mentioned. JTBX (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Second world war not world war 2
Does anybody agree with me that "Second World War" should be the title, with also known as world war 2* as subtext rather than the other way around. As an english speaker Second world war is correct but not in common american parlance hence the title of the article but it is a better description both in respect to the events and the people who endured it. It wasn't a sequal to a movie is what I'm driving at.


 * I could go further by being snarky and saying or dubyadubyatoo by idiots but thats beside the point.

Brummyjim1 (talk) 16:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The two mean exactly the same thing, such a change for mere semantic is pointless. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with the first speaker - the majority of the English speakers to take an active role in the war would live on (or would have lived on) to call it the 'Second World War' in the UK fashion, rather than 'World War Two' as (more sensibly, perhaps) is used in North America. Is it unreasonable to suggest that the rise of 'World War II' west of the Atlantic is more an effort to save on syllables than anything else? The war in the Pacific was, of course, a bad thing, but the war was - fundamentally - a European affair. Just as North American subjects use AmEn spellings, European subjects ought to use BrEn. Wkerry (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Mediatech492 has it exactly right. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This question has already been discussed multiple times as recorded in the archives. On all occasions it was decided to leave it as it is . I don't think it needs to be rehashed again. Mediatech492 (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I suspect the reason Mediatech's conclusion has already been reached is that there are five times as many AmEn speakers as there are BrEn speakers. If we're going to use this reasoning, then 20% of Wikipedia is going to have to be rewritten to eradicate British language. We should allow the British to claim this article as 'more European than American', and therefore use their preferred title. Remember and consider, the USA lost 0.3% of its population in that war, but Britain lost nearly 1% (which is barely anything compared with Russia or Germany etc). Wkerry (talk) 11:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The WP:EGNVAR guidelines are clear enough. If User:Wkerry has anything to add to the the conversation other than conspiracy theory then I'd like to hear it. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No, don't worry. I'm no conspiracy theorist and find I may have been playing devil's advocate. I hope that you appreciate how it is not a good thing for the preponderance of US Wikipedia editors to influence or skew the content. Here, 'World War 2' seems appropriate. I'm not qualified to say so, but I would suggest that you refrain from political rhetoric too fiery - we're supposed to discuss, not attack, but we are agreed that a rehashment is not a very good idea, so thank you Mediatech. Wkerry (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Why was this removed?
The following lines were removed from the article soon after they were inserted:

"There is also evidence of Allied deployment of chemical weapons near the combat areas: in 1943 an American ship storing nerve gas was sunk by German aircraft in the Italian port of Bari. The massive gas leaking that ensued killed more than one thousand Italian civilians."

The reported event really happened. Gas was not widely used in WWII battles (if it was at all) but both the Axis and the Allies had it available--in fact, it was probably the threat of reciprocity that discouraged its use. Only talking of Axis use of gas is unilateral. Suppressing the truth smacks of Ministry of Propaganda. I'm going to re-insert it and I hope it won't be removed again, this time. Pan Brerus (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I've just removed it. The Allies didn't use chemical weapons, so there's no need to include it in the article. Moreover, if we do include it we should do it properly and describe the mutually assured destruction-type approach - there's no need to allude to some kind of "evidence of Allied deployments" of chemical weapons given that the pre-emptive stockpiling of these weapons around the world to respond to any Axis first use is well documented (as but one example, the Australian Army supported the publication last year of a huge book which detailed the Australian and American stockpiles of chemical weapons in northern and eastern Australia during the war - most reviewers noted that the book was over long as these deployments have been public knowledge for decades). Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Suppressing that text gives the impression that the Axis powers were prepared to use gas on the battlefields while the Allies were not. I'm not informed about actual gas attacks; the article seems to suggest the Axis performed such attacks but the Allies didn't, and you state so much (ehm, how do you know?). In fact, as far as I know that may or may not be true. But what business did the gas-filled ship have in an occupied Italian port, with the front line just some 100-200km away? That was not Australia...

Moreover, gas is ONLY mentioned in the section about "war crimes", and the Antipodean gas stockpiles you referred to are nowhere to be seen in the article, even if you deem them worth mentioning in the discussion.

Another contribution of mine was suppressed--the one about the famine in Bengal. The article does mention the famine in Bengal, but says merely that "Large numbers of famine deaths can also be partially attributed to the war" as in Bengal and Vietnam. Indian Nobel Prizewinner Amartya Sen, an economist, clearly puts the famine down to the British war effort. In peacetime, the crop failure wouldn't have been enough to cause mass starvation.

I see BIAS behind all that.

The same bias that I see in the section about "concentration camps". Allied concentration camps for POWs were not kindergartens; mortality was high and from roughly 1945 on, starvation was planned in the American camps, or at least it was an unspoken but quite obvious result of purposeful measures adopted by the military authorities (who covered what they were doing by coining a new category, Disarmed Enemy Forces, implying the inmates were not POWs and therefore were not protected by the Geneva Convention). Mortality in Soviet POW camps was always high, but it stemmed from the harsh climatic conditions and the country's pervasive poverty (there are records of former prisoners stating so much).

I'll anticipate your next objection: reliable sources. I read quite a few books about all that, but that was long before I ever got the idea to contribute to Wikipedia, so I can't readily quote them. Moreover, such sources are a lot more likely to be written in German or Italian than in English - for reasons that are obvious to any somewhat sophisticated observer. My statements are true, as far as I know; there being available any reference to reliable sources is immaterial to the issue of their truth.

I understand proper references are important in their own right, though, and I admit this is a weak point in my argument. I hope in some help from those who are in a position to find adequate references. I'm not going to restore the removed text, but I do maintain the article is biased and something should be done about that. Pan Brerus (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Too insignificant for the WWII article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't nerve gas anyway, it was mustard gas. --John (talk) 01:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

To Paul Siebert: if gas is insignificant, why is it in the article at all, but only in so far as it relates to the Axis powers?

To John: thank you for the piece of info. Mustard gas is somewhat "nicer" than nerve gas, but even so, it killed more than one thousand civilians in the above-mentioned episode.

I'm worried about the bias.

The article about "Air warfare" is also biased in that it doesn't mention the intentional and methodic targeting of the German civilian population in strategic bombing, nor any number of victims except for one raid on Berlin: "2,900 died (both sides exaggerated the total to 25,000 for propaganda purposes)". The body count for Hamburg or Dresden exceeded 100,000 in either case. In Hamburg, the first wave dropped phosphor torches, some hours later came the blockbuster bombs that could be aimed at the fires. The objective was to set ablaze the wooden houses so typical of German downtown areas, so that the fires might raise air temperature to water boiling point and, even if they failed to do so, they might suck off all of the oxygen. Is this all that irrelevant in an article about "air warfare"? I doubt it. In the essence, that was vintage "strategic bombing". Those effects were consciously planned for and actively sought.

The Germans are not suppressing the evidence of cruel warfare and criminal extermination of certain categories of people during WWII. The Japanese and Italians, to a certain extent, have done so. But should Wikipedia do the suppression of unpalatable truths selectively on behalf of the strategic bombers etc.? Food for thought.

It goes without saying that if the Axis had won the war, an open discussion like this might be a criminal offense -- unless, that is, the Nazi and Fascist régimes had already had time to reform their usual totalitarian ways. Pan Brerus (talk) 10:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your claims of 'bias' appear to actually be an argument that the article should include a series of dubious, and in several cases fringe, claims about the Allies. For instance, 100,000 people were not killed at Dresden: historians generally believe that the actual death toll was about a quarter of that number. Your suggestion that the Allied post-war POW camps were in some way comparable to Nazi concentration camps or the German treatment of Soviet POWs is seriously ill-informed. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Nick: not "Allied", but "American" camps, not for POWs but for "Disarmed Enemy Forces" (a brand-new category, coined by Eisenhower so as not to have to grant POW treatment to captured German and other military) were like German camps for "Italienische Militär-Internierte" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_military_internees) in that the inmates were not treated as dictated by the Geneva Conventions, and also because food was given them, er, sparingly.

This is Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmed_Enemy_Forces): "Because of the logistical impossibility of feeding millions of surrendered German soldiers at the levels required by the Geneva Convention during the food crisis of 1945, the purpose of the designation—along with the British designation of Surrendered Enemy Personnel (SEP)—was to prevent categorization of the prisoners as Prisoners of War (POW) under the 1929 Geneva Convention."

The German Wikipedia puts it like this: "Bereits im März 1943 bestand in den USA die Befürchtung, nach einem Sieg die deutschen Kriegsgefangenen nicht ernähren zu können. Davon ausgehend wurde im Stab des Oberbefehlshabers Dwight D. Eisenhower beschlossen, die Gefangenen nicht als Kriegsgefangene zu betrachten, sondern als „Disarmed Enemy Forces“, kurz DEF (etwa „Entwaffnete feindliche Streitkräfte“), als arrestierte ehemalige Soldaten eines nicht mehr existenten Staatsapparates. Dem entsprechend sollten sie nicht der Genfer Konvention entsprechend, in bezug auf Ernährung und medizinischer Versorgung den Garnisonstruppen der US-Armee, sondern den Displaced Persons und der deutschen Zivilbevölkerung gleichgestellt. Einen ähnlichen neuen Begriff hatte die deutsche Wehrmacht im September 1943 mit dem Wort „Militärinternierte“ für die gefangenen italienischen Soldaten geschaffen. Militärinternierte wurden ebenfalls zur Zwangsarbeit verwendet und galten nicht als Kriegsgefangene.[2]"

More authorities: Nobel Prizewinner Heinrich Böll, in his "Gruppenbild mit Dame", makes one of his characters die in an American concentration camp like the one the writer himself had been kept for a few months after the end of the war. I know some accounts of Italian POW in Texas who had lived very well there until the spring of 1945 (I do mean "very well", it's not irony - the prisoners were better-fed and freer than they had been while serving in the Italian Army), but had been given insufficient rations from then on and resorted to eating snakes, earthworms and mice.

I guess those accounts wouldn't make much of a killing if they were translated into English and marketed in the US... just as the Hollywood-made, Khaddafi-financed feature film "The Desert Lion" about Libyan anti-Italian resistance hero Omar al-Mukhtar couldn't enjoy much of an audience in Italy, despite being based on historical fact.

Of course, you'd have to understand German or Italian to gain access to such documentation, which you dismiss as "false" to begin with. Pan Brerus (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to capitol punishment in the sidebar?
I noticed in the sidebar, in the "Axis Leaders" section, there is a skull and crossbones beneath Mussolini's name that acts as a link to this article. Is there any special reason for this? TheNewKarl (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not able to see it on the page. The reason may be due to the fact he was exucuted near the end of the war Mdann52 (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have posted here. I removed the marking. From memory, previous discussions decided against including symbols to mark the death of Hitler (and possibly FDR?), so there seems to be no grounds for including it. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Capitol punishment??? Also, I'm not sure Old Baldy Ill Duce's death qualifies as standard "capital punishment" - more like a bloody coup (as opposed to the bloodless kind). As is well-known, he was then hung out to dry. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * SpellCheck doesn't catch everything. Although, somehow I got the link right. Go figure. TheNewKarl (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 May 2012
Hello,

Please remove the Philippines as a puppet state subcategory of the Allies. It is demeaning and hurtful to the filipino people who fought as bravely as any man against the axis japanese.

In a general query, why should there be a puppet state subcategory?

Joelvalencia (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is a historical fact that the Philippines was under the control of the United States at the time of the US entry into World War II. (Officially it was a "Commonwealth" territory of the United States) This means it does belong in the category of Client States. Stating this fact in no way demeans the bravery of the Filipino army and resistance fighters. Mediatech492 (talk) 06:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Mdann52 (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Sub-headings
I feel that we need to insert sub-headings in each section, to denote events which occured during the same time period but in different hemispheres. I feel that we need to add this in order to refine the overall treatment of the events.

I feel it is a bit difficult problematic to try to create a single narrative which encompasses events in both the Pacific and the European theaters in a single section, without further sub-headings.

The link below displays the revisions which I would like to propose. I feel this would improve our encyclopedic approach to this topic. lots of people may read this entry. we should provide a treatment which reflects a more realistic reflection of the wide-ranging nature of these events. thanks.

comparison showing proposed revisions which were reverted for discussion.

thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:29, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What problems do you see with current narrative?
 * In my opinion, it is extremely important to show interconnection between the events in different theatres. Thus, German invasion of France forced (or, according to other sources, created an opportunity for) occupation of the Baltic states by the USSR, German deep involvement in the Eastern Front laid a ground for successes of British troops in Africa, invasion of Sicily probably was a straw that broke a camel's back at Kursk, operation Bagration deprived OKW of any opportunity to reinforce German troops in Western Europe; Japanese decision to seize Indonesia, which eventually lead to Pearl Harbor, was a consequence of German successes in Europe; in contrast, Japanese decision to refrain from attack of the USSR was a result of Soviet successes at Moscow and Stalingrad, and so on.
 * In addition, your editions are simply factually incorrect: you included Soviet annexation of the Baltic states in the "In Western Europe" section; the second paragraph of the "In Pacific Theater" subsection tells mostly about the USSR and Germany; the "Japan attacks Western Allies in Pacific Theater" subcestion contains information about the Eastern Front; "In Europe and Soviet Union" is simply wrong (the major part Eastern Front was situated in Europe, if we draw the Europe-Asia border along Caucasus), and so on. You should be more careful when you edit such a popular article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi I appreciate your corrections, and am happy to revise the sub-section boundaries. my point is that in terms of narrating history, it is difficult to actually group all events in both theaters into a single section for each phase of the war. I understand that there are patterns and similarities which draw them together. but in my opinion, we only strengthen and reinforce the nature of this treatment if we make clear that eg, the reason the war became global in two different sides of the Eurasian landmass is that Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and Japan later on launched a wide attack against Asian possessions of the European powers.


 * In short, I don't feel that events in the European theater and Pacific theaters need to be grouped together without any further sub-divisions. but obviously, they could still be grouped together within the same larger sections which pertain to the various historical phases of the war. Thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an international Wikipedia, and I believe it should present an international version of the WWII. For the British, the war started in 1939, consisted in French, African and Burman campaigns, the Battle of Britain, war of Atlantic, Ardennes, and ended in Reims. For the Russians, the real war started on 22th of June, 1941, and ended in Berlin. For the Americans, the wars started in Pearl harbour, continued in Midway, than in Normandy, and ended in Tokyo. However, the problem with nationally biased views is not only in undue weight given to certain theatre of war, but in a tendency to see own theatre separately from others. Yes, the article in its current form is hard to read, however, the Quantum entanglement article is hard to read too. By splitting the article onto different theatres we just mechanically combine several national versions together. That may create a visibility of simplicity, at cost of blurring of the actual picture.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sub-discussion on war start date
(NOTE: question; is this sub-section in the right section? may have been inadvertently placed in the wrong section. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC))

True but as Capra's Prelude to War pointed out the war was one in all but name long before 1939. In fact Capra's 1942 film expressly states and I quote "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun." Since it was produced by the United State government at the height of the conflict I have added this to the article noting that most sources put the beginning at September 1, 1939.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that a 70 year old wartime propaganda film is a reliable source on anything other than itself, and especially not modern historiography about the war. As such, I've removed this from the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What you think doesn't matter a hill of beans. Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government qualifying it as a reliable source (for the views of 1942-42) by wikipedia standards.  DEAL WITH IT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the aggression? It's clearly not a reliable source. Nick-D (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The aggression is because it is clearly a reliable source for the views of the US at the time (1942-1945). Furthemore, the Why We Fight series is being marketed as a documentary (since at least 2001 and even Internet Archive uses "documentary" (as well as propaganda) to describe it.  Also the overall accuracy of the Why We Fight series both in contemporary and modern terms is covered in Robert Niemi's History in the Media: Film And Television ABC-CLIO ISBN-13: 978-1576079522 which note and I quote "The 54-minute film won the 1943 Oscar for Best Documentary" (pg 71-73) and also note and I again quote "Countless millions of civilians in the United States and Allied nations also saw one or more of the films, making “Why We Fight” the most widely viewed documentary series of its time.


 * Claiming a film produced by the United State government that got and Oscar as a Documentary is not a reliable source for the views of the US at the time is IMHO boarderline delusional and my third party source shows just how delusional that position is.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"While some historians argue that the war started on 18 September 1931 when Japan occupied Manchuria..." Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116 Nuff said.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. That text then goes on to note that there are several other dates suggested . It's also a work on the fiction of Kazuo Ishiguro, and not a history of the war. But it is a better reference. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and you've edit warred this stuff back in despite the lack of support for it here or at WP:RSN. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are aware that Cheng is referencing Wernar Ghuhl's (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers the "Publisher of Record in International Social Science" for his September 18, 1931 date, right?--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:20, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would like to point out that in LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6 a letter to the editors states "You think World War II began in 1933, by Hitler's seizing power, but the Chinese people shall insist that World War II began on Sept. 18, 1931 by Japan's invasion of Manchuria." As demonstrated by Prelude to War the United states government of the time clearly agreed with that idea.


 * The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum's World War II: Timeline start with September 18, 1931 though it notes July 7, 1937 as when WWII started in the Pacific


 * "World War II began along a stretch of railroad track near the northeastern Chinese city of Mukden (now Shenyang). There, on Sept. 18, 1931,..." ( Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307


 * "He knew the story well, because it had been he who transmitted the orders for the Japanese troops to march that snowy September 18, 1931, which is actually the date when World War II started." Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific


 * The point of all this is the US was promoting the idea that WWII did indeed start on September 18, 1931 during the height of the war and the best document of that fact is Prelude to War and today a handful of historians support this view.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)



Thanks for the additional references, Moxy (you forgot to sign BTW). Of course given the distribution of Prelude to War one has to ask the question--is that the original source of the September 18, 1931 date? So far NONE of these source predate the movie--not even the letter to the editor in Life.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

World War 1 & 2 were one continuous war theory.
First of all, I think it is great that you say it was under way by end of 1939, but there is considerable academic debate about whether or not the 2 World Wars were separate conflicts or one continuous conflict that had rounds (similar to a boxing match, you would not call round two a completely separate match). To term it as World War II is certainly not a NPOV and I think that this article should at least acknowledge that WW1 and WW2 may be argued to be two rounds in the same match. I would suggest a new section like "Criticism of Terminology." Dmcl404 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Opposes - on the grounds they are clearly different conflicts with treaties and all that they imply.Moxy (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What sources state that these were one continuous conflict? ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  02:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The conventional wisdom is that the settlement of WW1 sowed the seeds for WW2, at least as far as Germany was concerned, and that in that sense the second war was a consequence at least partly of the first. But that is not the same thing as saying that the two conflicts were one and the same. In any case it is not plausible to argue that using the term WW2 is not NPOV. That is universally what it is called. -- Alarics (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Just because two wars have similar or related causes (arguable in this case) does not make them a single conflict. There are many wars in history that can only be truly understood as part of a greater conflict, (i.e. the Punic Wars, the Crusades, the Opium Wars, the Arab Israeli Wars etc.) however even in these cases each war does have its own unique origin, progress and resolution and should be studied in it's own context. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. Original research is not allowed. This would be like arguing that the American Revolution and the War of 1812 were somehow the same war. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose, Comment  While there are a handful of people that say WW2 and WW1 were effectively the same war they are a very small minority and so a name change fails under WP:Weight and WP:fringe.


 * For the editors crying WP:OR you are WRONG:


 * "It would be more accurate to say that the century had but one world war — with a 21-year intermission." (Richman, Sheldon (February 1995) The Roots of World War II)


 * "In this version, there is only one world war, though there was a long intermission while the players recovered from the exertions of the first act; and this war was in itself part of a longer-running drama" (McKercher, B. J. C.; Roch Legault (2001) Military planning and the origins of the Second World War in Europe Greenwood Publishing Group ISBN-13: 978-0275961589 Page 14)


 * The War of 1914 is going on. This is undoubtedly the most appalling similarity between then and now. And just as in the last decade of the fifth century BC, very few observers of our of our own times are aware that we are now in the 28th year of a World War, of one World War (Belgian Press Association, 1942 Belgium, Volume 3 pg 139


 * Yes the idea is fringe, yes the idea fails weight, but that does NOT mean it is OR. Learn what OR means before you use it!  Sheesh.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The USA practically dismantled its military after 1918. I guess they thought they could lull Hitler and Hirohito into a false sense of security. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering that neither Hitler or Hirohito were in power in 1918 this statement makes no blasted sense. The reasons for US military dismantlement in 1918 were that until the idiocy of the Zimmermann Telegram the US did not want to get involved.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the point! The war was over, the soldiers came home, the army shrank to a token force, and everyone returned to normalcy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * None of which addresses the fact while fringe the idea does have reliable source material for it and therefore canNOT be OR. Fringe is not OR especially when one of the sources supporting the idea is published by Greenwood Publishing Group--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * the problem with this theory is that World War II had its own causes, its own leaders, its own context and its own political realities and settings. it may have been caused by some of the inequities which resulted from World War I.


 * Also, the belligerents were different. The Third Reich was not the German Empire. the Japanese were on the Allied side in World War I. Italy also entered the war on the Allied side in 1915. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mass rapes, only Soviet?
There's an inclined mention in "war crimes" about mass rapes by the red army in occupied germany, when most probably there were other allied mass rapes too, remember "copulation without conversation was not fraternization" was said among non-soviet allied soldiers, and furthermore the germans had widespread rape in the eastern front, documented in:

- Gertjejanssen, Wendy Jo. 2004. "Victims, Heroes, Survivors: Sexual Violence on the Eastern Front during World War II." PhD diss., University of Minnesota. - Alison, Miranda; Bergoffen, Debra; Bos, Pascale; du Toit, Louise; Mühlhäuser, Regina; Zipfel, Gaby (May 2010). ""My plight is not unique" Sexual violence in conflict zones: a roundtable discussion". Mittelweg 36. Eurozine. - Pascale R. Bos, Feminists Interpreting the Politics of Wartime Rape: Berlin, 1945; Yugoslavia, 1992–1993 Journal of Women in Culture and Society 2006, vol. 31, no. 4, p.996-1025) - Jews, Germans, and Allies: Close Encounters in Occupied Germany Atina Grossmann page 290 - http://www.gegenwind.info/175/sonderheft_wehrmacht.pdf

So such a strong call should be completed with a good context on the sexual crimes commited along the world war II otherwise it seems inclined to show as if the soviet soldiers were the only ones to perpetrate such action.

Here's another reference from the German brothels in the ussr

- War crimes against women: prosecution in international war crimes tribunals Kelly Dawn Askin page 72 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.215.75.98 (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. I changed the text accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

USA and USSR
During the war, even though the USSR mobilized more men, the United States was far more active and fought on multiple fronts, while the USSR only focused on the Eastern Front (later Manchuria). Therefore, I believe that the United States should be listed first and the USSR second on the belligerents. Does anyone else agree?


 * What is a measure of activity, in your opinion? You might also be interested to read this--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As an amusing note one could consider listing the USSR in both Allies and Axis. Note the dates of the USSR under Allies: 1941-45. One could add the USSR under Axis as: Soviet Union (1939-41). Why not? Personally the only change I would make is to elevate the British Empire to the top of the Allies list due to the fact that it fought the whole war against Germany and at one important point was the sole supper-power holding the line against Hitler. Just a few thoughts for everyone's consideration. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That has also been discussed at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox. Do you have any fresh arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Mabye list them according to join date? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael484 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with the above, all WWII contributors should be listed in order of join date, not military contribution. I don't know why Soviet Union is anywhere near first place considering the fact they were on the Axis side of the war for the beginning two years. Poland and France is below China which I see as unneeded and British Empire is below America despite their late join date. Yes, it is rather stupid to list countries that have contributed absolutely near-nothing in WWII just because they declared war on Axis/Allied two weeks after the war has started, and then leaving major contributors (America, SU) till last place, but we have to give the order in join dates, not contributions. Many people have different views on contributions, and there is no 'official' status, so one shouldn't judge by himself and add such to the list.PantherBF3 (talk) 18:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the British Empire should be listed first, followed by the USSR, then the USA. This is because the British Empire was the most important power in fighting Germany in its occupation of Europe. This is because Germany would still have lost if either of the two (USSR or USA) was not at war against it, while it would have won if the British Empire was not at war with them. Also taking in the effect of its empire against Germany and especially fighting in North Africa and the Middle East. Crzyclarks (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

USA should be above USSR
While i think this is controversial there is the fact that Lend lease aid to the soviet union was key to their victory, not to mention that while 2/3 of the German army was in the eastern front, 3/4 of their air force was in the western front, and that japan was in the perfect position to put the USSR into a "two front" war like the one the Germans were in and couldn't do so because of the pacific front.

and on another note china did NOT contribute to japan ignoring the USSR as china was steadily collapsing and was only a matter of time before their human wave tactics simply exhausted their population.

thus due to being key on every front, dealing the final blow in the war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) not to mention the largest military power involved the USA should be in the front of the list instead of the USSR. (Undeadplatypus (talk) 10:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC))
 * What reliable sources support those views? Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re " Lend lease aid to the soviet union was key to their victory " I would say, "instrumental". See, e.g., Roger Munting. Lend-Lease and the Soviet War Effort. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 495-510:
 * "First, and above all, was a vital margin of food supplies, second was the provision of specialist or deficit products such as aluminium and copper, specialized tools, high quality steels. In this respect lend-lease supplies overcame bottlenecks. However, it must be stressed that the major impact came after the Soviet counterattack and the beginning of German retreat. Such aid directly and indirectly helped defeat the German forces, and was in such a way a substitute for a second front, but it did little to defend the USSR from the initial onslaught. "
 * In other words, Lend-lease was instrumental during the last phase of the war, when it became clear that Germany would not win.
 * Re "not to mention that while 2/3 of the German army was in the eastern front, 3/4 of their air force was in the western front". Even the last Iraq war demonstrated that the war cannot be won just in air.
 * Re "japan was in the perfect position to put the USSR into a "two front"" Japan decided not to attack the USSR because the Khalkhin Gol lesson was duly learnt by her, and because the German troops were successfully repelled by the Red Army from Moscow. Both those event took place before Pearl harbour. In addition, please keep in mind that the USSR kept 700,000 troops in Far East, so Japan had to permanently station her best Kwantung Army there. You must agree that that army would be very useful, e.g., in Burma of Guadalcanal.
 * Re "...their human wave tactics simply exhausted their population " Do not equate China with the USSR. The latter lost 8.5 against ca 4.2 million Axis losses in the East.
 * Re "dealing the final blow in the war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki)" Exaggeration. See, e.g., Robert A. Pape. Why Japan Surrendered. International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201.
 * In summary, your post is a collection of some national stereotypes, which are not a worldwide mainstream views.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Since Stalin began the war as an aggressor partnered with Hitler, the USSR probably doesn't merit the lead position. There is scholarship to indicate that Stalin's preemptive invasion of his western neighbors was actually a tipping point in Hitler's subsequent invasion. Be that as it may, I suggest Allies be listed in the order they declared war on Germany/the Axis. That's an order devoid of any value judgements and personal lobbyings for who was more heroic, lost more combatants or civilians, etc., etc., etc. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:30, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not mind to regroup the list of participants in a neutral way. However, the same neutrality criteria would require us to re-write the article, because currently the space devoted to the different theatres of war does not reflect thir actual scale or strategic implications. If the USSR will not be at the first position then we will have to devote more space to the Eastern Front, because the actual scale of the events there is not fully clear from the current narrative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not really qualified to add my tuppence here, but - since any ranking will always be slightly opinionated - perhaps a simple, sensible and unopposable alphabetical order might solve a lot of problems? Wkerry (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Paul, I fail to see any reason why ordering Allies' combatants in order of declaration of war on Germany should create a POV issue of subsequently imbalanced content. The USSR was certainly not the first Ally. If the USSR is not listed first, there is no compelling requirement to balance the article by devoting more space to Hitler eventually turning on Stalin. If we devote more space to that, then we also need to devote more space to the Soviet annexations of Baltic and Romanian territory which Hitler cited in his announcement of the attack on the USSR as violating the intention of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and so on, and so on. The only item requiring change is that the order of the Allies reflect the order in which they formally acceded to the conflict.
 * Of course, this is only my editorial opinion. If you agree to change the order of the Allies to be historically (chronologically) accurate, I am happy to subsequently discuss proposed content changes and their necessity. There's no quid pro quo here. If you have changes which merit consideration, they neither gain nor lose merit relative to the order in which the Allies are specified. This isn't bargaining на местном блошином рынке. Apologies in advance for Russian as a rhetorical device. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Paul No offense but the soviet union DID use human wave tactics quite abit, although "tank wave" would be more accurate. There is also the part about lend lease which i find grossly understated, Those katsuhyas or however you spell em were, by majority, pulled by American trucks, and fueled with American propellants, Soviet tanks were almost always made with American metals, fueled by American lend-lease oils and so on. a debt which to this day is unpaid by the Russians (who i bet are saying they are the Russian Confederate not the soviet union to get out of it) not to mention that the UK was even more under US financial support. Further on i will argue that the UK despite being the frontline for longer than the other members of the big three has contributed the least, being mostly as Churchill would commonly act, overfocused on maintaining it's empire over winning the war. the US however funded by it's own, a massive naval war that dwarfed the land battles of the eastern front and the constant bombardment of the western front, a battle where monstrous battleships such as the Yamato faced what is, at that time, the worlds foremost naval air force. on the subject of casualties most of the soviet casaulties were civillians who, although quite sad, were not any contribution to the war effort.


 * I might be spinning things but hey, it's all true.(Undeadplatypus (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Re "although "tank wave" would be more accurate" Correct. The Soviet tactics was to use large amount of cheap and mobile tanks, whereas Germany (during the second phase of war) had to use small amount of good quality low mobile tanks. The Soviet tactics appeared to be superior, because Soviet personnel attacked German positions was protected by armour (although that protection was not absolute), whereas most Germans fought unprotected at all. Therefore, good score achieved by few skilled German tank crews are impressive for non-professionals, but misleading.
 * Re "lend lease which i find grossly understated" Not "grossly". The USSR got almost no help during the pivotal (first) phase of German invasion (Moscow, Stalingrad).
 * Re "fueled with American propellants", "fueled by American lend-lease oils ". As far as I know, the USSR had more than enough of oil, so only some sorts of aviation kerosene was supplied by the US.
 * Re "Soviet tanks were almost always made with American metals" You seem to be wrong. You probably meant "Soviet planes were made with American aluminium".
 * Re "Further on i will argue that the UK despite being the frontline for longer than the other members of the big three has contributed the least" During the second half of the war.
 * Re "a massive naval war that dwarfed the land battles of the eastern front" Really? How did you come to this conclusion? Just compare Midway and Stalingrad. In addition, you should remember that Japan was a junior member of the Axis, and the focal point of WWII was Europe.
 * Re "constant bombardment of the western front" Just look at the American Strategic Bombing Survey: the effect of this bombing was not impressive until 1945.
 * Re "on the subject of casualties most of the soviet casaulties were civillians who". I have to repeat the same arguments, but you seem to be wrong: the USSR sustained ca 8 million military casualties (mostly at the initial phase of German invasion), and inflicted ca 4 million casualties on the European Axis. More than a half of all Axis losses were sustained in the Eastern Front.
 * Re "a battle where monstrous battleships such as the Yamato faced what is" If the US were so powerful, why did they put pressure on Stalin in Potsdam to force the USSR to join a was against Japan and to invade Manchuria?
 * --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Re "The USSR got almost no help during the pivotal" What im disagreeing with here is just what counts as pivotal, stalingrad was simply a case of the Soviets Putting their heels in and fighting until the winter saved them
 * Re" The USSR had enough of oil" Theres oil and theirs usable oil, also i meant propellant as in solid propellant, as soviet rockets had due to the tendency of their troops to crack missiles open to brew alcohol with
 * On the metal note i do believe the soviets took alot of lend lease in steel, just a guess where they went though
 * Re"more than half of of ''all axis losses were sustained in the Eatern front" Casaulties are not exactly the only thing that matters, B-27 Daytime raids and Lancaster Night raids basically left german industry in shambles, which i believe means they had many less of their tanks, not to mention over 10k tanks sent over to the USSR (mostly shermans with diesel engines specially built for soviet use)
 * Re"Midway and Stalingrad" The pacific front moved rapidly, was complex, had constant innovations, an unspoken agreement of "take no priosners" and your comparing a trap with a full out attack, The fact that we are talking about Naval warefare just means it dwarfs land battles by sheer size alone, and the US was building Warships at a breakneck pace
 * Re" Pressure Stalin in Potsdam" the estimated loses in a invasion of the japanese mainland meant that truman was trying to crush the japanese spirit in order to minimize casaulties, having the USSR, which left them alone for 5 years of war with the Allied nations suddenly attack is considered a "fear weapon" just like the Atom bombs, which some argue that actually caused japan to surender(despite the dating supporting the idea that the 2nd nuke did it).
 * We just gonna be at this until one of us runs out of Counterarguements arent we?(Undeadplatypus (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC))
 * Re "...Soviets Putting their heels in and fighting until the winter saved them..." Please, avoid frivolous arguments, and do not reproduce standard stereotypes. Defenders of Stalingrad occupied a thin stretch of land on the Volga bank, all supplies were being delivered by water, so by November, when the ice was thin, neither boats nor cars could be used. As a result, in November the situation became desperate (by contrast to the situation on the German side). In addition, the Soviet counter-offensive started in late November, which is the very beginning of winter in that climatic zone.
 * Re "Theres oil and theirs usable oil, also i meant propellant as in solid propellant, as soviet rockets had due to the tendency of their troops to crack missiles open to brew alcohol with" If you want your arguments to be treated seriously, please, avoid reproducing anecdotal evidences. BTW, total costs of US shipments of oil products to the USSR was just 42 million dollars versus 732 million to Britain.
 * Re "On the metal note i do believe the soviets took alot of lend lease in steel" We have a freedom of religion, so one's belief is his/her private business. You can believe in anything you want.
 * Re "having the USSR, which left them alone for 5 years of war with the Allied nations " Firstly, Roosevelt himself left the USSR alone during the most critical period of the WWII. Secondly, the main Japanese fighting force, her best and the most numerous Kwantung Army stayed near the Soviet border during whole war, and the USSR kept ca 750,000 troops there to neutralize this threat. Thirdly, as Churchill said in 1942, Soviet declaration of war on Japan would be extremely useful, provided, but only provided, that it would not negatively affect the Soviet war efforts in Europe. Therefore, neither Churchill nor Roosevelt tried to distract Soviet forces from the most important theatre of war, the Eastern Front.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment This is not a new discussion. The talk page archives are full of similar discussions. Yet nothing ever seems to come of them. Everyone always seems to have some formula to solve the "problem". First of all, I will only reiterate my previous position that the countries should be listed in order of "time spent" in the war. Therefore Britain would go on top, followed by USSR, and so on. A case could be made for China going on top, but they were divided throughout the conflict and were never fully engaged as a " nation". Only small pockets of military resistance.-- JOJ  Hutton  14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * At the first glance, the arguments about "time spent" in the war seem quite reasonable, as well as the reference to "small pockets of military resistance" in China. However, to avoid double standards, we need to expand this approach to all participants. For example, you cannot deny the fact that, starting from Sept 1 1939 till the start of the Battle of France the war Britain spent time in is called a Phoney war, i.e. the war with virtually no hostilities. Moreover, neither US nor British leadership never denied the fact that no full scale Second Front existed in Europe until the D-day. Therefore, for "time spent in the war" to be a good criterion, the intensity of hostilities should also be taken into account.
 * Of course, it is hard to compare naval, air and land battles, however, it is quite possible to compare land theatres between each other, and the amount of troops and losses sustained by both sides are a good indicator. In connection to that, a single Operation Bagration (ca 3 million troops from both sides, about 900,000 total casualties, one third of whom from German side) outweighs Invasion of Normandy (ca 1.7 million troops, ~250,000 casualties, 120,000 from the German side). However, whereas Normandy landing was the only major Allied operation in the West, Operation Bagration was followed by two equally massive (and even more devastating for the Germans) offencives: Lvov-Sandomierz offensive and Yassy-Kishivev offensive. Similarly, a single Battle of Stalingrad involved more troops then in all other (not EF) 1942 theatres of WWII taken together, and the losses (both Allied and Axis) exceeded all other 1942 losses. Moreover, Soviet casualties at Stalingrad (478,741 killed or missing, which in that situation usually meant the same) exceeded the American casualties during the WWII (416,800, both in Europe and Pacific); the amount of Axis losses at Stalingrad only (750,000 killed, missing or wounded) exceeded their losses in the West in 1941-45(80,820 killed, 490,260 missing, and 265,526 wounded).
 * Taking into account all said above, the considerations about "time formally spent in the war" look unconvincing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems to me theres exactly 3 arguements here
 * USA had a effect on all 3 major fronts and should be put first
 * USSR lost the most people
 * UK was first!
 * that one in particular sounds like a sad "runt of the litter" type of thing to say considering the first combatants in WWII were actually japan and china, followed by germany and polland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Undeadplatypus (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Re USA, you probably meant "theatres"?
 * Re USSR, you are missing the point: not only USSR lost the most people, it inflicted more losses on the Axis then all other Allies taken together.
 * Re Britain, that is untrue. The first was Poland.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

It's good that this article is so perfect that all that's left to worry about is the order of participants in the infobox! Anyway, I think that Australia should go first as a) it's first in the alphabet and b) I'm Australian ;) Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, Nick ;-)
 * Frankly speaking, the article still needs in some improvement (btw, what about A-class article? What do we need to do for that, in your opinion?)--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The main barriers to A class are removing surplus material and improving the references. I've gotten side tracked with the project to get the article up to scratch, but I'll try to restart in a couple of weeks (unless someone beats me to this!) Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prelude to war (when the war started)
Content issue aside, the sentence:
 * "Although during the war itself Prelude to War and some later historians stated 18 September 1931 was the date the world war started,[2][3] Japan was already at war with China in 1937,[4] the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany, and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth."

is grammatically embarrassing on multiple levels. Please fix it if it's still there after the edit wars. --  Despayre  tête-à-tête 07:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The wording could be better but the point is that during the war 18 September 1931 was presented as the date WWII started by the US government and that view is still held by a minority of scholars today.


 * I'll have to digging around to where I saw it but there was a show on PBS where the surviving makers of the Why We Fight series were interviewed. One stated that they were told to tell the truth as best they knew it 'because if we lie to them (the troops) we're dead'  I think it was "Right in der Fuehrer’s Face" episode of America Goes To War: The Homefront but I have to go and double check.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

In the mean while here a possible reworking:


 * "While the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany and Italy by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth,(ref) there have been other dates presented. For example, during the war the United States Government in Prelude to War (released May 27, 1942) presented 18 September 1931 as the stating date (Prelude to War) a date repeated in some contemporary works by civilians and military alike (Liang-Mo) (Clark (1943)) and accepted by handful of modern scholars (Cheng, Ghuhl, Polmar, Tucker Wright).  Other sources point to 1937 while accepting September 18, 1931 as the lead in to the conflict. (Holocaust Memorial Museum)"

References

Liu Liang-Mo, Letter to the editor LIFE - Sep 21, 1942 - Page 6

Lee, Clark (1943) They Call It Pacific pg 45

Cheng, Chu-chueh (2010) The Margin Without Centre: Kazuo Ishiguro Peter Lang Page 116

Ghuhl, Wernar (2007) Imperial Japan's World War Two Transaction Publishers pg 7

Polmar, Norman; Thomas B. Allen (1991) World War II: America at war, 1941-1945 ISBN-13: 978-0394585307

The United State Holocaust Memorial Museum's World War II: Timeline starts with September 18, 1931 though it notes July 7, 1937 as when WWII started in the Pacific

That at least this would address the September 18, 1931 starting date issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding some recent reliable sources, and thanks also for stopping the all-caps shouting. However, I see no need to give any prominence to an ancient propaganda film (not a RS, and this clearly violates WP:UNDUE) or letters to the editor. Material on this topic belongs in the 'Chronology' section rather than the lead. Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Reliable source establishing the impact (both force and scope) as well factual reliability of Prelude To War:


 * Dick, Bernard F. (1996) in The star-spangled screen: the American World War II film University Press of Kentucky -- It (Prelude To War) claims to provide "factual information of events leading up to World War II" — a valid enough aim."


 * Rollins Peter C.; John E. O'Connor's Why We Fought: America's Wars in Film and History University Press of Kentucky - "It's (Prelude to war's) aim was to provide factual information of events leading up to the war"


 * Alpers, Benjamin Leontief (2003) Dictators, Democracy, and American Public Culture by University of North Carolina Press pg 178-179 - "Capra defend the film's style, maintaining that it was simply the most effective way to package fact."


 * Thomas Patrick Doherty's (1999) Projections of war: Hollywood, American culture, and World War II Columbia University Press Page 72


 * Gordon Martel's The World War Two Reader (reprinting much of Benjamin Leontief Alpers work) Psychology Press (ie Routledge) pg 167-168


 * Let's see four modern University Press book and a modern work published "publisher of quality academic books, journals & online reference" in my favor. What more do you need?--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion at WP:RSN in which there was no support for this being a RS? Also, why do you think that this propaganda film deserves such prominent treatment in the highest-level article on World War II? The subject of when the war was presented as having begun in individual countries' propaganda is a rather arcane one to cover in this article. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No support? Hardly.  Albert14nx05y fully supported its use and GabeMc supported its use with provisions.  In fact, later on Albert14nx05y stated  "It seems to me that the issue is whether or not WW2 started in 1931 with the invasion of China. Most academic sources say "yes"" to which you asked "What academic sources say World War II started in 1931?"  and I did a major info dump on such sources.  Furthermore, an involved editor tried to archive the thread after only three hours which IMHO comes off as an attempt to WP:GAME the results.  Sorry but that is NOT how the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard works as otherwise it would allow editors simply close threads when they had enough editors agree with whatever position they wanted.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I should remind Nick-D that I said "He clearly don't understand what reliable source as Prelude to War is being presented as the views the US had at the time of the conflict so can we rule this is a reliable source for the US views of 1942-1945 and end this nonsense?"

Now admittedly "US views" can be read as general populous or as I had in mind when writing the blasted thing United States Government. Nick-D explain to use how in that context Prelude to War is NOT reliable (ie how a movie made by the United States Government during the height of WWII and one would assume fully controlled by said Government is NOT a reliable source for views held by United States Government between 1942-1945.) You keep claiming this please explain it to me.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at here to be honest. If we want to discuss the views of the US Government at the time on the origins of the war (and I don't think that we should in this article given that it's written at a very high level and tries to cover all the main countries involved in the war), we'd consult one of the many books published on the Roosevelt Administration's foreign policies or similar, and not try to figure this out from what was included in a propaganda film. In regards to the above, thanks again for providing reliable sources on the view that the war is sometimes seen to have started in 1931. However, I'm still not seeing any reason to highlight this film. Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Sigh. The reason the film should be highlighted is our earliest widely known record (May 27, 1942) of the September 18, 1931 date (there one in 1941 but it is obscure as all get out).  Dick, Rollins, Alpers, Doherty, and Martel all document the power of the film on the soldiers and civilians of WWII.  I might add that the book I found by Rollins is more detailed regarding the film then the one referenced as a reliable source for the Prelude to War article itself.


 * Jowett, Garth S.; Garth Jowett, Victoria O'Donnell (2006) SAGE Propaganda And Persuasion ISBN-13: 978-1412908979 pg 244 noted the Why We fight series was mandatory viewing by military personal and back on page 168 we are told the recrutes "accepted the information in them as accurate" Now there was roughly 12 million people that were classified as "military personal" in WWII.  That is nearly 1 in 10 Americans (based on the 1940 census) and that is ignoring the fact that Why We fight was also put out for general public consumption.


 * I should note that Kurash, J. "A Prelude to War" (1 March 2009) U. S. Army Military History Institute quotes the exact words of the citation on the 1942 Oscar plague Prelude to War: "A special award to Prelude to War for its trenchant conception and authentic and stirring dramatization of the events which forced our nation into the war and of the ideals for which we fight." Key word there is "authentic".


 * It terms of scope and effect on WWII personal Prelude to War is well documented. Its mandatory viewing by military personal from May 27, 1942 to the end of the war is also well documented.  If there are one film someone in the military during most of WII would see and believe is was Prelude to War.


 * For the 1941 source:


 * "Although we didn't realize it at the time, World War II started sn the night of Sept. 18,' 1931, when a small clique of Japanese officers secretly issued orders for Japanese toops to move from their barracks in Manchuria and Korea,..." (The China monthly review: Volume 98 1941:SEP-NOV pg 353)


 * Like I said obscure as all get out. I'm not even sure if it would even qualify as reliable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We should not use the film series as a reliable source because it is not; it is a propaganda film. For discussion of when the war started, there is no need to determine the earliest reference saying 1931 was the start. We are free to use established and recent sources, whatever best serves the reader. Of course, those sources will generally be tertiary tomes and scholarly secondary sources. Not films. Binksternet (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Binksternet, you seem to have a misunderstanding of what WP:RS is. "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." Scholarly works are preferred not mandatory; as long as reliability can be established we are fine.

The Zapruder Film is consider reliable for the Kennedy assassination is is not?

Prelude to War was produced by the Special Service Division Army Services Forces with cooperation with the US Army Signal Corps by the United States Government so even though it is a film and propaganda (as I said before all Documentaries have some propaganda elements to them") it is also effectively a United States Government document with all that implies.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two questions - 1) whether it is a reliable source for an assertion of fact. It is not. 2) whether it is a reliable source to assert the US government's view in 1943. There is no reason to assume that every single statement made by the voice-over represents the official view of the government. There is no reason to interpret the assertion that the US joined an existing war, which no-one would deny, as a claim that "World War II" began when the earlier war did. The film does not even make that assertion. SYN. SYN. SYN. p.s. The Zapruder film is evidence, not a source of opinion. It is not "considered reliable" in this sense. The comparision is pure equivocation. It does not have a voice-over interpreting events. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Imho, the whole thread is a re-iteration of old arguments presented here. In addition, the article already has a "Chronology" section that discusses this issue. I am not sure more detailed discussion of this issue is needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @Paul B: I don't understand how you came to that conclusion.  You claim the film does not even make the assertion that WWII began on Sept 18, 1931?  What about "remember that date: Sept 18, 1931 a date you should remember as well as Dec 7, 1941. For on that date in 1931 the war we are now fighting begun" which is taken straight from the film?  The film even cites the then believed to be authentic Tanaka Memorial as evidence for which step 1 was presented as "Conquest of Manchuria" a point reiterated in Battle of China.


 * @Paul Siebert: The "Chronology" section doesn't even mention the idea that the Japanese invasion of Manchuria is one of the suggested points for WWII beginning something we have ample evidence both contemporary and modern for.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen the film. The contention of the film is that the war is one between "free peoples" and militaristic dictatorships (Soviet Russia is rather unconvincingly included among the "free peoples". Of course we also learn from the series that the "German mind" cannot understand why "free people fight on against overwhelming odds".). It is the whole purpose of the propaganda film to portray the Bad Guys as having a global masterplan which includes domination of America itself, to achieve the final obliteration of "free people". The war that began in 1931, according to the film is the war against freedom. That is the "war we are now fighting". The point is that what they mean by this, is not a specific war in the normal sense, but a global struggle for "freedom" against "dictatorship". It's completely different from the definition of "World War II" as a specific war with a beginning and end. Indeed it's really a concept that later extended to the Cold War. All this, however, is moot. We can debate the intentions of the film makers on the page for Why We Fight. The films are not reliable sources for this article. Now I'd like to see you go to the German people article and explain to them that these films are clearly highly reliable sources, and so we should add all their assertions about the way the "German mind" works. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A pure example of projection of our present views on the past. Taking into account that major fighting occurred between Fascist/Nazi and Communists (just compare scales of French or Italian resistance with that of Yugoslavian partisans war), it is hard to tell which side fought for freedom. That becomes especially funny if we remember that Britain of France were great colonial powers, who, by no means, advocated freedom of self-determination of their own colonies. Every time has its own moral standards, and "freedom" was not among the values that were accepted by all Allies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Oceania?
In the "locations" box, it states everywhere even North America except Oceania? Oceania comprises New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand and many island nations. In Oceania there was some significant conflict such as the Battle for Australia, Battle of Kokoda, Battle of Milne Bay, Battle of the Coral Sea, Battle of Guadalcanal as well as many air raids and attacks on the shipping lanes. I do not see why Oceania is not included whereas North America is, to my knowledge North America was not even attacked in WW2. In my opinion this is an attempt to airbrush these battles out of WW2 history by refusing to acknowledge the conflicts in Oceania in WW2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are links to the articles on the various theatres of the war. Oceania is part of the Pacific Theatre, which is linked. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pacific is an OCEAN, OCEANIA is a region. There are seven regions in this world. North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Middle-East, Africa, and Oceania. Each region comprises many countries or continents. So I ask again why has there been this deliberate attempt to cover up the battles in Oceania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 04:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There hasn't been, and why are you making such a sweeping assumption of bad faith? What specific change to you think should be made to the infobox? Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The so called "Pacific Theatre" covers an area from North America, to Asia and to Oceania. BUT if you are going to label other places by their regional names than why not name Oceania? You have to remember that the Pacific is just an Ocean, I would want to see Oceania added into the list of locations but not to replace the pacific itself as there were conflicts in the pacific ocean too.--Collingwood26 (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The second World War is a huge topic to cover, this article is only intended to give an overall perspective, it is not intended to cover the minutia of every aspect of the war. A single article with that much information would be far too large to be usable. Further details on Theatres of Operation, Campaigns, and individual battles are all available on separate linked pages. If you feel the pages covering a specific topic need to be improved then use the talk page for those articles to suggest them. Mediatech492 (talk) 04:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, your making it out like I'm trying to get every single WW2 battle mentioned in the infobox? WHICH I"M NOT!!! All I'm saying is if North America is worth mentioning then why not Oceania?--Collingwood26 (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

As I recall, the only action in North America was the bombing of Pearl Harbour. The events in Oceania is a lot more important that that of North America. Crzyclarks (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your recall is faulty; you have forgotten the Aleutian Islands campaign. Also, Hawaii is in Oceania. . Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your geography is also faulty, Pearl Harbour is not in North America, it is in Hawaii. Furthermore North America was the source of the vast majority of troops and equipment that fought against Japan, and several western ports (Anchorage, Vancouver, Seattle, Los Angles, San Diego, Panama) were heavily used as as operational bases against Japan. Mediatech492 (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Japan only had 8500 troops in the Aleutian Islands campaign. Since Hawaii is in Oceania, then maybe that's more reason in support of Collingwood. Also I'm thinking more along the lines of battles and campaigns, rather than where the tanks were produced. Crzyclarks (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So MediaTech, just because America had more troops and equipment you think that reinforces North America over Oceania? I'm with Crzyclarks on this, it isn't about the contribution but the conflicts in those regions and Oceania had a hell of a lot more fighting than North America.--Collingwood26 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Collingwood: I'm not arguing for or against anything, I'm merely point out the flaws in his (and your) logic. Geography is important in a war, but not nearly as much as logistics. Mediatech492 (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you've pointed out any flaws. Crzyclarks (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Continuing the above, arbitrary break
Well, I certainly congratulate you on maintaining your unwavering, if misguided, position that Latvians all happily volunteered to be Nazis. I don't see any material difference between your contentions here and the documents the Russian Federation has filed with the United Nations contending that the Baltic Waffen SS were Nazi war criminals through and through.

In his self-professed disillusionment regarding the "myths" inculcated into him by his parents in the diaspora, Lumans appears (per your citation and contention) to make the same connection as all those who stand in judgement of the "apologists for the Latvian Legion," that the Holocaust collaborators, police units, later Legion, were all one and the same (words in quotes here are his words). If you read more of Lumans, however, you see that this is not the case.

What is the case is that inevitably some who welcomed the Nazi liberation—given given Stalin's mass deportations of a week earlier, the term fits—took the opportunity for revenge. That aspect of transition from Soviet to Nazi occupation has been, quite frankly, ignored by both sides in the polarization over Latvian collaboration in the Holocaust:


 * Nazi-hunters and Shoah activists unequivocally maintain that there is no such thing as events leading up to the Holcaust. The only explanation acceptable for the Holocaust is centuries-old virulent anti-Semitism, which takes the root of Holocaust collaboration in Western Europe and applies it to Eastern Europe and the Baltics in particular. Latvia was arguably far less anti-Semitic than any pre-war Western country of the time, including the United States.


 * "Apologists" (using Lumans' word) for the Latvian Legion focus on the choice offered of being conscripted (in 1943) and (a) being given a uniform and rifle and to fight against the re-invading Soviets and perhaps surviving to another day or (b) being given fatigues and a shovel and being sent to a sure death digging trenches on the front. While completely true, this ignores (hence Lumans' use of "apologists") the issue of the small number of those who had collaborated with the Nazis earlier and wound up in the Legion but who, by their presence in the Legion, create an uncomfortable continuum which has not been addressed objectively, as I indicate, by either "side", as neither “all” Nazi sympathizers nor “no” Nazi sympathizers among the ranks of the Legion is the case. (Lumans does explicitly state that neither side is entirely right or wrong.)

Your position implies that once the Nazis invaded, Latvians collaborated for no other reason than being sympathetic to the Nazis. You completely misapply what Lumans writes about Latvians coming to terms with true Nazi collaboration (with reference to my latter bullet above) to describe the entire structure and nature of the Legion as Nazi volunteers, and falsely contend that since the Legion was titled “voluntary” it was, indeed, voluntary.
 * 1) Volunteers after the Nazi invasion
 * 2) We all know about Arajs Commando; the actual number of Latvian collaborators in the Holocaust is in the hundreds, not thousands or tens of thousands.
 * 3) During the occupation Stalin had placed Jews squarely in the crosshairs as Communist collaborators, replacing Latvians who disappeared from their municipal jobs with Jews. (Clearly, everyone was only trying to survive with Red Army rifles pointed at their heads from the back of the room, on a personal note, one of those replacements saved my mother and father from Siberia.) The lesson is that whatever crimes against humanity Latvians committed against the Jews, they were the result of a process kindled by Stalin, not Hitler, not the result of centuries of anti-Semitism as was far more the case in Western Europe, France in particular.
 * 4) As for those who "volunteered" to go off and root out any remaining Soviet troops and their supporters in an act of revenge a week after Stalin's mass deportations—an act which directly or indirectly touched every citizen owing to its sheer scale—I suggest that if the Devil himself were to show up and offer you the opportunity to do so, you would welcome the opportunity to take vengeance. You mistake the proverbial "enemy of my enemy is my friend" as true friendship; nothing could be further from the actual case.
 * 5) Latvian Legion
 * 6) Your "exception proves the rule" contention that because there were inevitably Latvians involved prior with the Germans at some level who later wound up in the, per you, per title, "volunteer" Legion, the Legion were merely another point along a continuum of Nazi collaboration, is disingenuous at best. (That is not Lumans' contention.)
 * 7) When the Legion was conscripted in 1943, the first 300 so-called volunteers were forced to swear an oath to Germany, none thereafter. As already mentioned, the choice offered was serve in the Legion or be placed in a work detail on the front—from which no one returned alive.

And speaking of returning, I must circle back to your earlier contention of Hitler viewing the Baltic peoples as “semi-Aryan.” While some individuals in the Nazi hierarchy differed on the topic, Latvians were officially non-Aryans. And regardless of designation, once the Baltics were occupied, they were to be eradicated in the Germanization of the Baltics.

We will obviously be discussing this again, hopefully not to your chagrin, but this is not the forum for it. Please feel free to suggest an alternate venue to continue the conversation if you wish. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Peters, you write: "I certainly congratulate you on maintaining your unwavering, if misguided, position that Latvians all happily volunteered to be Nazis. " That is a lie. I wrote: "Anticipating the arguments that only some representatives of Latvian population participated in the Holocaust (which is totally correct), let me remind you that not all German participated in the Holocaust either. However, a support of Nazi collaborators was widespread in Latvia and Lithuania (and then I add the quote that directly supports this my assertion)". Any good faith user would conclude from this my post that I do not blame neither Latvians nor Lithuanians (the nations as whole) in happily volunteering to be Nazis. Moreover, I explicitly blame just some representatives of those nations in killing 100,000 Jews (and, in addition to that, in execution of Communists, Red Army stragglers, etc). I have no desire to continue a discussion with a user who misinterprets my words so blatantly. In any event, since this discussion has no relation to the thread's subject (order of belligerents), I see no value in its continuation. The dispute with you is closed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Your statement here would appear to clearly contradict your prior
 * "More on Latvian voluntary co-belligerence. I noticed that the article VI SS Army Corps (Latvian) has a German Wikipedia twin named VI. SS-Freiwilligen-Armeekorps (lettisches). The word 'Freiwilligen' means 'volunteer'.".
 * And so I do not believe I have misinterpreted your intent or words in any way. Regardless, I trust your somewhat more measured response here portends well for our future dialog. I regret that as long as there are those who contend the USSR never occupied Latvia in the first place and that opposition to the USSR, an Ally, was ipso facto an alliance with Nazis, the wider dispute will continue. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)