![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I had some problems with the article mentioning world war II is the 'last' conflict in european history, and thought i'd put forward a revised draft of the following segment of the introduction:
"Paradoxically, while World War II was the last, and probably worst, conflict in European history, it has led to a desire for unification in order to avoid future conflicts, which has transformed the difficult process of reconstruction into an unprecedented opportunity for prosperity."
I also had a problem with the reference to the reconstruction process as seeming to be a current struggle, instead of one that has been considered part of history for some time.
Here's my suggested version:
"Paradoxically, while World War II was probably the worst conflict in European history, it contributed to the desire for unification in order to maintain peace. The creation of the United Nations following the war was based on the idea of finding peaceful solutions to the many problems that occur in the constantly changing international political struggles. This was one of many major changes that occurred during the the difficult process of reconstruction of an unprecedented conflict; from which Japan and western Europe emerged into a new era of wealth, while many eastern European countries and Russia dealt with the massive loss of life and less robust economic conditions, but all fearing another conflict." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.71.201 ( talk) 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Ok, I think we clearly agree that there have been wars in Europe since World War II. Hungary and Czechoslovakia are mentioned above, and there was a series of wars in the Balkans, the last of which took place in 1999. I am going to make a small edit to remove the reference to WWII being the last war in Europe. NoIdeaNick 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In the list of Axis members we have "Vlasov Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
I have 2 problems with it.
1) How Vlasov Army was able to join Axis in 1941 if it was not formed until 1944? 2) How Vlasov Army can be part of Axis if it did not represent a state (it was just a military formation headed by defector)?
So, my suggestion is to exclude this from the list - it does not make any sense.
Wikisib
19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
One clarification - how it is possible to put a military formation which never even been in action (on the axis side) in the same row as, say, Japan or Romania.
Wikisib
19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is something to reiterate regarding the edits I just made. While the bulk of the Soviet army was made up of Slavic troops, it's completely erroneous to refer to the troops as "Russians" and not the more correct "Soviet" because the USSR consisted of several republics that weren't made up of Russians or Ukranians or Bylorussians. These included Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, troops from Central Asia, and even some from the occupied Baltic republics so it is a disservice to refer to the troops, generals, or even political leadership throughout the article as "Russians". Thanks.-- MarshallBagramyan 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if there is anywhere in the article we should fix that. -- LtWinters 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea, i think this is one of those tihngs you cant debate, If any fixes it its cool with me( Esskater11 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
Hello, I have added a link to Europe's National Library Resources. Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There are to many battles that can be considered "critical" to omit. Plus, the Battle of Britain was a campaign, not a singular battle. Oberiko 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Operation Market Garden was incredibly important, as it stalled the entire allied advance to scrounge supplies for it, even though it failed. All we have mentioned is "Allied paratroopers and armor attempted a war-winning advance through the Netherlands and across the Rhine River with Operation Market Garden in September, but they were repulsed." I'm thinking we need a bit more than that heesham. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -- LtWinters 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
yea, it sounds alot better, i ain't not good in grammer -- LtWinters 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep the total casualties as it is now, 62 mill +. However, take a look at World War II Casualties. I've been trying to correlate their figures with ours, but they won't budge to the numbers we have. Take a look, see if you can get them to agree with us. -- LtWinters 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking through old newspapers back in 1945-1950 suggest that World War II ended sometime in 1946, please confirm this. -- Duskrider 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ( talk • contribs)
I dont have any sources but ive heard the 1946 thing is becuase we delcared a end to all hostiities which i think means that there is no more threat for anything( Esskater11 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
i think it should be moved to the second world war as that is the more offical and common titel. could you please give me your opinions on this and rember just because its a common internet speeling doesnt mean its correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I disagree. Who says second world war? Although it is a name for it, it is most often referred to as World War II. Google gives 136,000,000 results for World War II, while it gives 120,000,000 results for Second WOrld War. And plus, the World War II article is redirected from Second World War and WWII. -- LtWinters 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Also i was wondering why google resulyts are used as offical "name deciders" google reapts alot of stuff and other radom things un realted to the war, and The second world war is the more offical title, its used by most of the world why shouldnt it be the title, i dont get why common names are used not the offical or oprorate names, its like the AK articl it says AK47 whixh refers to 1 model only while the page refers to many dirffernt models
Although this is a small operation, it could be considered the 4th most important event/operation (after D-day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge) (I know some of you are thinking this or that is more important, so I'll say its in the top ten western front events/operations). There is no mention of Operation Varisty, and I feel a sentence should be included so at least to give a link to the operation and to give the main objective of it. Do any of you object? -- LtWinters 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This wants looking at. Says '12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps',
'The Holocaust was the killing of approximately six million European Jews, as part of a program of |||deliberate||| extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist government in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.'
Did the rest die through mishaps, faulty German plumbing, or other work-related accidents like being shot by a camp guard. I find the statements in the article presume authority, but do not address the subject area with any kind of grace. It would only take a line or two to replace the arrogant statement, dismissing the suffering of those who died at the hands of the Nazis inside the camps is not on. 86.149.209.189 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you asking what happened to the other 6 million people? Because the deal with that was they were the other minorities. And 12 million sounds a bit higher, I've usually heard 11 million.-- 24.225.156.40 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that this low intensity edit war there some users add combatants to infobox and others remove them is totally ridiculous as it has been going on for some time already. Saddest part of dispute is the fact that it is completely matter of taste, as there is no accurate way to measure which is actualy better.-- Staberinde 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't get how some people don't see the 5 v 3 list. Everyone knows it, people are just being stubborn because they don't want to cooperate. It makes no sense to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.205.199.7 ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we should definantly stop basing major countries off of how many people died. For example, in the USSR, a sensible general would have surrounded Berlin and bombarded it until it gave up. But Stalin ordered a direct assault on it, resulting in I believe 100,000 casualties, mainly from gurilla warfare. So it took Berlin, but it could have done that with a significant lower number of casualties. Doesn't make too much sense that they should be credited for that because they did something stupid. -- SurfingMaui540 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's annoying to go have to edit this and that. We voted, I have no idea what's wrong with it. The majority voted to have no countries in the infobox. Some of us may not have voted for that, but it was chosen. If your candidate doesn't win the election you don't leave the country, you deal with it. I don't get what's so hard about that. It doesn't really matter if the 5x3 one is "right" and the allies & axis one is "wrong". Bottom line is we voted. Allies & Axis won.
Xaxafrad just made the most sense out of anything I've read about this, though. There are three undisputible major combatants, and if we have to put any countries in the infobox listing those three would probably be the only way to keep people from arguing. The whole stem of this debate is "If China is a major combatant, who's to say Canada or Poland isn't?". If we go and have countries outside of the big three, I think it'll just bring questions on why X is included and Y isn't. Even having the Big Three would probably bring those up, actually... Until we all can come up with some kind of compromise - whether it be no countries, 3x3, or all countries like the War on Terrorism - it should just stay like it is now.
I'd just like to say, though, that while I'm against countries in the infobox, I'm not against commanders. Mabye that could have people from china and everything. It seems to be less controversial. I mean, who would argue that Hitler or Stalin had a bigger role in the war than Mackenzie King or others? -- Plasma Twa 2 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care whether there are 3 or 5 major. The principle of the matter to me is that we have somthing to give the public. So I am in support of the 5 v 3 and the 3 v 3 -- 72.79.124.78 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Cant we just put up a map and show the countries who were Allies and those that were Axis? Mercenary2k 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's put that. What's wrong with doing that?-- LtWinters 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to encourage anyone who is interested to read back into the former discussion a little bit. I will respond to newcomers if you have any questions. Haber 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would second that strongly, and I'm also happy to respond to any queries. Badgerpatrol 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I feel that we should be able to agree on something, even if it takes long arguements. We really should be able to supply something to the reader. -- SurfingMaui540 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar to surfer, I think something must be supplied- anyone see w hat 96T put, although Oberiko removed that? I thought it was an interesting proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters ( talk • contribs)
I'm in favour of the axis being Germany, Italy, and Japan, with the et al extension, becuase then people can just go find out for themselves the minor players. -- 64.205.199.7 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a few exceptions. China should definantly be 1937, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland should not be included, and where is Japan? It's not even listed. But I think with a few exceptions, a list of that sort wouldn't be too bad. -- LtWinters 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, its not that I'm saying Parsec, I'm saying they should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia. -- LtWinters 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
One thought I've had - the flag images do not help. They make it harder for people with vision problems to hear the article, and the pretty colors and emotions associated with flag images attract so much attention that the infobox becomes the focus of edit wars. Military infoboxes do not require flags. I'm not going to revert if people include them, but I'm going to ask that everyone think about it. Haber 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I like this, a lot. It's not perfect because I still think it would be best to include all or none at all, but we are clearly not going to get there and this current situation is somewhat rancorous and unsustainable. It could be tweaked and we can discuss that here, but this is a really good compromise. I have to disagree with Haber- the average reader is not an idiot, and if they are they are most unlikely to benefit from reading the article anyway. The fact is, alliances shifted as the war continued, and the situation was far, far more complex than a simple list can adequately encompass. That is a key point that is well worth transmitting to the casual, perhaps uninformed, reader. I don't actually find this format complex or confusing at all, but even if it is- those are the facts, that's the way it was. This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's picture book. The argument about edit warring is not really valid, because that's basically what we have now anyway, with no obvious end in sight. This is a potential solution. I strongly support this elegant compromise.
Badgerpatrol
11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
A few points on my proposal:
Haber: Too complicated. Likely to confuse new readers and cause edit wars among experienced ones. Too complicated, eh? Well, the thing about World War II is that it was complicated. It was not a war with UK/USA/USSR/France/China fought Germany/Italy/Japan. It was a war where dozens of nations fought the Axis. Yeah, the UK, the USA and the USSR were the main powers of the Allies, but why France and China and not Yugoslavia, Poland (which fought Germany virtually alone for the first months of the war), Greece (which resisted the Italian army alone for half a year), Australia, or Canada (which participated in far more operations than France did)? For lots of countries, especially European ones, WW2 was the largest conflict in their histories. Listing only a few countries on each side will be misleading, in my opinion.
Haber: The 5v3 is clear and direct, and gives enough useful information. Well, actually, it doesn't. It says nothing about the five million Poles or the one million Yugoslavs that died during the war.
LtWinters: I'm saying [Romania and Bulgaria] should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia. They certainly did, like Canada and Australia declared war to please the United Kingdom, and like Romania & co. had declared war to please Germany in the first place. Why they declared war is irrelevant, what is relevant is that what was left of their armies fought with heavy casualties in Eastern and Southeastern Europe for the final stages of the war.
The countries and years I included are the ones found in
the WW2 template, by the way. From what I know, these countries are the indepentent nations that actually participated in the war (in more than sending a few hundred soldiers or signing a paper to declare war or were simply annexed without resistance like Luxembourg and Denmark were). I don't find it necessary to add any other combatants unless there are some very important ones that the editors of the template have overlooked.
Sorry 'bout my English if it's bad.
96T
23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? It's aside the point the Canadiens declared war, there are several other reasons they did, which is that France was overrun and wanted to share in the spoils after the war. If Bulgaria was as important as them, then why did they not get a part of Germany to govern? But besides that, I mean it's absolutely rediculous to say they were on our side, I don't even believe they mobilized their troops against Germany. Italy didn't either, as they declared war in 1943. And I mean come on, let's not try to put the bad guys in a good light. They still fuoght the Russians, although without a decleration of war, for a good 3 years until things got sour for them. -- LtWinters 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign in there. But anyway, I see it acceptable to put it on the list of allies in ww2, but not as a major player in the ww2 page. You may have misunderstood that point of mine- that I'm saying it should not be a major player, yet should be kept as an ally on the allies page. And additionally, as you just said, I believe there are other nations who put troops foward ( http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140, scroll down to see list of nations who declared war and when), and many others who severed economic and political relations with axis nations, so regarding 96T's suggestion, I think he would be missing a few nations there. But must we continue this? Are we going to keep what we have now, so will it matter? -- LtWinters 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the date for the Victory over Japan be on August 15th, as the surrender was broadcastet that day local time, and the date August 14th is just used as the date it became known in the US, because of the time zone difference? In other word, shouldn't the date be given in the local time the event mainly took place? Alternativly, if we use GMT, it will still be August 14th, as the broadcast was made at noon that day local time. M4c 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed! M4c 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to edit this earlier as seen up there somewhere, but the time escaped me and I gave up on it. I dunno, I think could use some improvement and could use some editing. Any suggestions? -- LtWinters 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some stuff. Should be ok. -- LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention Operation Dragoon. Considering there were only 3 allied army groups and it consisted of the 6th army group, we should include it. All we have is
By August 1944, Allied forces stationed in Italy invaded the French Riviera on August 15 and linked up with forces from Normandy. The clandestine French Resistance in Paris rose against the Germans on August 19, and a French armored division under General Philippe Leclerc, pressing forward from Normandy, received the surrender of the German forces there and liberated the city on August 25.
-- LtWinters 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I added some stuff. Should be ok. -- LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this 'good' article, the word 'paradoxically' is used to describe the ever-burgeoning desire for some form of greater European integration in the aftermath of a second, devastating world war on that great, complex continent. I can tell whoever wrote this nonsense now that not only is this an illogical statement, in that it does not in any way recognise that such a desire/ideal for harmony is perfectly reasonable and rational after such appalling conflicts, the origins of which date back another 1000 years or so, it is quite understandable in the general sense of human nature. Either way, the sentence is woolly and ahistorical and needs either urgent attention from someone who really does know their history (and not just of the 20th Century) or complete omission. Post-war European cooperation and success is one of the greatest achievements of our time. It should not be dismissed so thoughtlessly. I would also recommend that people who are coming to the subject of the Second World War, its origins and aftermath, for the first time try reading some of the major studies of this period (books) rather than starting with 'Wikipedia'. Look them up (in your local library). JL 19/5/07
Anything goes within these parameters:
Haber 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm fluent in German if any of you don't know what that means, it means yes, my leader. -- LtWinters 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
World War II | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies: |
Axis: |
I just want to throw something out- some kid changed the Japanese combatent to Tojo instead of Hirohito. I changed it back, anyone with a problem with that?-- LtWinters 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I oppose adding France. France was considered to be major power only 1939-1940 and majority of that time was Phoney War. I am not even sure if China deserves spot but considering its huge losses it may have it.-- Staberinde 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What does everybody think of 2vs2: Soviet Union and United States vs Germany and Japan? I excluded the UK due to disunity in the British Empire, while Italy's military needed German backup throughout most phases of World War II. If some umbrella designation like UK/Commonwealth can be used to refer to the dominions, then I can see that added to the 2vs2 list. The fact is, the remainder of Poland and France's political leaders and military resources retreated to one of the few places the Nazis could invade: the island of Great Britain. Meanwhile, China was square in the middle of the 23-year long Chinese Civil War, itself the last vestiges of the infighting resulting from the gradual decades long collapse of the Qing Dynasty during the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, can hardly qualify it for "major" power status.
Or 8vs6: Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, China, France, Poland, Canada, Australia vs Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria? Those Allied countries keep popping up a lot, but nobody cares to argue over the expansion or contraction of the list of Axis countries. I wonder why that is.
To respond to Haber's suggestion: I find 5vs3 acceptable, in alphabetical order. Given the hierarchical nature of Japanese society, I'd put the emperor, Hirohito as the leader over his top general, Tojo. UK is the country, GB is the island. Extra leaders Chamberlain and Truman should be listed. "Et al" means "and others", and using Latin makes us sound smarter. Flags are better than no flags, just look at all the other infoboxes. The Allied powers got together in contrast to the Axis powers, but everybody was an ally of somebody; grammatical harmony points to "Allied powers vs Axis powers" instead of "Allies vs Axis powers". Or, if Allies and Axis are well established nouns, then why not just "Allies vs Axis"? Xaxafrad 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Of all the proposals ive seen that list any nations at all the infobox in this section at the current time is the most acceptable ive seen so far. Demerphq 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when do we cite Wikipedia? Moreover, your quote from the article is irrelevant. It doesn't state "the 5 major powers" or anything like that, just that they were victorious parties. They could've included Cuba instead of the UK and said the same thing. Parsecboy 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, let's not forget France did not only fight for itself, but the Free French drove with us to Germany. The French Resistance also lost a lot of people too. Petain did screw the Free French over a bit, but he was condemned by De Gaulle. So perhaps we should say the Free French were major players. -- LtWinters 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Badger. Before we argue about France (and I'm sure probably China and Poland in the future) let's see everybody's feelings about the infobox being allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players. After that, we can go from there and say ok, I want US, Britatin, and USSR as allies, or france and china in addition to that, and etc. We should choose on one of those (allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players) and then go from there. -- LtWinters 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The box is looking good right now [3]. Haber 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Haber: I'm curious why most of the combatants from the Western Hemisphere were excluded from your list. Why only the US, Canada, and Brazil? Seems rather oldworldcentric. The countries I added weren't selected by me, they are the ones found in this template (as of whatever date I edited the infobox). US & Canada are quite obvious choices, eh? Brazil sent 25 000 soldiers to fight in Europe. Mexico sent 25 fighters with a personell of 300 to the Battle of Luzon, not a major contribution in my book. As for the other countries, I can't find anything in Wikipedia naming any active contribution from these countries (of course, if you've got more reliable sources naming military contributions from any of them, please inform about it), and they aren't listed at the casualties article. Like I said, my idea of a long list wouldn't list all the combatans, just those that actually were at war. 96T 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see we've reverted back to the lame 5v3 list ordered presumably by number of troops. Which is sad given two of them werent even in the war for a healthy chunk of it even if their contribution in the end was significant. Ive never touched the infobox and I probably never will, but I'll just repeat my earlier position of all or none. And frankly the unilateralism of certain editors on this matter seems to me to be quite out of order. And Haber, I'm trying to figure out what definition of "compromise" you are using. What exactly have you compromised on? Demerphq 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think that if combatants are listed then 3v2 is best, that way disputable cases like Italy, France and China can be removed and only states who's importance in big picture simply can not be disputed would stay.-- Staberinde 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't: influnece at 1945 =/= importance and influence during war. Analogy: Same way we can not use criteria of who got permanent membership in League of Nations council for deciding World War I infobox because that would mean including Japan and forgetting Russia which would be ridiculous. So post-war influence can not be used for measuring importance during war.-- Staberinde 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, d'accord. I am perfectly fine with the infobox as it is now too. -- LtWinters 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for a change from the lengthy debate over the relative importance of France vs Poland, I'm going to renew my claim that the UK was not a major participant in World War II. The UK would've starved without the support of her increasingly independent colonial dominions and the US. And let's not forget the pacifistic attitude of both the UK and France that allowed Hitler to achieve so much, and so easily, in those early days. Was it really a war before the last half of 1941? Was it really a world war before the last half of 1941? No, not technically. Imagine if Japan and Germany actually worked together, and the Luftwaffe had flown Zeros in the Battle of Britain. If Italy should be downplayed because it needed Germany's support, so should the UK be downplayed because it needed the support of the US (see North African campaign). Xaxafrad 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Xaxafrad, where are you? It appears as though 6 of us 7 want the UK to be included. Why aren't you responding if you feel how you do?-- LtWinters 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actualy I remember that for quite long time combatants(at that time there was 3v3 and later 4v3 after adding china) in infobox were listed in order of their joining the war. And in my opinion it is best solution espcially considering the fact that some states joined years after start of war.-- Staberinde 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
About a week ago, we had a different organization for this article. You can see if yuo go to the history of the article, it would be like the Atlantic june 1944-may 1945 or the Eastern Front June 1941-February 1942. This was changed twice since then, and is much different now, although with the same content. Personally, I liked it the old way. Any thoughts?-- LtWinters 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay personally, dont use Lt.Winters as a username, its disrespectful. Second of all, this orginization of the article is fine the way it is, and I will revert what ever you do, even if I have to get banned-------Dan
For those that would prefer a long list in the infobox, I am offering this as a compromise, provided that the order remain exactly the same as in the original document:
Declaration by United Nations ...A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.
Any Allies joining the war after this declaration would therefore be excluded from the infobox. Using this document might make some sense because it was the formal agreement of the Allies to fight together and was consented to by all signatories. Haber 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea, fix the title if there's a word for that thing at the bottom of the WWII page, because there are ronly 29 nations listed under axis and allies, and I believe we say over 61 nations participated. Why is that? -- LtWinters 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not the title, it's just we said there are 61 nations involved who sent troops. THen why is there only 29 nations? -- LtWinters 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Did WW2 really start in Asia in 1937? It's my basic understanding that Japan had been annexing Chinese territory since the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894. Japan went to war with no one else until 1941, when she went to war with everyone, thinking the UK was preoccupied by Germany and expecting the best planned surprise attack would knock the US out of the water. I'm going to move some text around reflect 7 Dec 1941 as the starting date of World War II in Asia, and push to accept this as the starting date of WW2 in general, given the historical military ventures in Europe and Asia. The First Sino-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the first Great War, the second Great War, all started by immoral opportunists. Xaxafrad 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if your analysis is historically correct, I'm not sure such creative perspective is a good thing in an article meant for beginners and general public like this one. I suggest you refrain from making drastic changes to the actual consensus. The Japanese invasion of summer 1937 was made in a much more larger scale than the precedent ones. As for the official beginning of WWII, this decision made by occidental historians is now a general worlwide rule. -- Flying tiger 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought this article well written. As a Japanese-American , I would like to bring attention to a few minor questionable statements within the context of this article. Use of propaganda is not described accurately enough. I am not trying to guess your intentions nor do I want to pursue that endeaver. However, use of propaganda in describing Japanese media may be perceived as the unstated assumption being that because Japan lost or were the "bad guys" according to western "propaganda", then all of their films or media were all propaganda. I'm assuming this assumption also is that the U.S. was incapable of such. What specific definition of "propaganda" are you refferring to and please state if you are going to use this word because "propaganda" is not used commonly and carries with it a perception of dishonesty. Probably be best to take your time and state your definiton and explain why it sounds as if you are stating that anything pertaining to the forwarding of the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea is propaganda. Was it certain material you are referring to that is considered propaganda or are you making the assumption that all World War II Japanese materials are propaganda. I don't want to go into a comparitive analysis of Cold War and World War II propaganda. In addition, you are not implying that brutality in the process of achieving goals eliminates the validity of a self-proclaimed intended goal of a country, are you? Simon Bolivar and Abraham Lincoln had ideas of unification or nationalism which were perceived as indivisible. These preceding men are admirable individuals for making a United States for European-Americans and a Latin America for Latin Americans. Asian Co-Prospeity has equitable merit as those and many other forms of mytholo.. excuse me, nationalisms that have and still exist. Nationalism is an instrument used by every country for obtaining goals regardless if those goals pertain to an extension of aggression outside one nation's borders. Brutality has no bearance on the intended goals of a country, it should be looked down upon and emphasized when necessary, but brutality are acts of a military in the process of obtaining political goals. The responsibile Party is the military and political system which allowed this to occur. Blaming the Japanese people for these acts by attacking the ideology they adhered to equates into stating religion and those whom believed in the civilizing missions of western culture during imperialism when taking colonies by force and setting up uncountable puppet governments were culpable of the genocide of the Native Americans and numerous innocent people across the world. It also equates into all Americans responsible for the dead in the Viet-Nam, Korean, and Iraqi War. Or frightengly, all American whites were responsible for slavery and the following negro holocaust leading up to the 70s. If it has in fact stopped because it seems the modern method is discrete discrimination. Japan, like the U.S. in Viet-Nam, made the mistake of seperating military and politics. In both circumstances, both countries' military forces used undescribable genocidal acts of horror to obtain a political goal which could not be achieved by that methodology :)Therefore, make a distinction as to why brutality of a military allowed by intentional negligence by the political system in control at the time of these acts is equitable to the assertion that each and every individual or "Japan" if we really want to emphasize nationalism, are responsible for the attempts of genocide in China, Phillippines, and elsewhere. Here is a shocker, many Japanese could have imagined an Asia for Asians that could effectively compete with western interests in both economic and political aspects. unfortunately , we see Japan-bashing or anti-Japanese hatred expressed perhaps unintentionally because of the effects of this bias taught in the western educational system post World War II. This propaganda has blinded the U.S. from acknowledging real problems it has had in the past in its policies. The U.S. emphasizes Pearl Harbor in the history of World War II to create a continuity of Pearl Harbor to WW II. In western classes this is also taught to little kids. Granted, an initial act of aggression is and should be cause for retaliation (not excessive force (beginning of nuclear war)). Nevertheless, we see that by emphasizing Pearl Harbour, western historiography has succeeded in creating an image of continuity of WW II history beginning at Japanese and Nazi take-overs of colonies, Pearl Harbour, then the rest of the war and aftermath. Antes de WW II or before WW II is purposely neglected because if one looks at western aggression in Asia, one might ask, well did anyone think that Japan may feel like being that they were the foremost national power in that hemisphere, they felt they deserved the right to defend and unite the interests of all asians against western imperialsm? What countries were taken over by Western powers in Asia? What countries were in a position to force the "white man" out? Because western propaganda emphasizes the "evil" acts of the Japanese during Pearl Harbour, the U.S. and specifically Americans have failed to recognize a problem with U.S. foreign policy which has come back to bite us in the buttocks today. The real interesting question is would the U.S. have tolerated an Asian power taking over Mexico and implacing a puppet government on the U.S.'s southern border during thses times? Why did we expect Japan to tolerate it? Worse, even today we cant seem to understand why an independent and nationalistic organization such as Al Quaeda will not tolerate it. Now is the western or eastern version of WW II propaganda correct and why?
[edit] OOOpps
Thought to mention that Luis Taruc and Ho Chi Minh have mentioned that their treatment during World War II was harsher from the collaborators of the west and Japan than the actual Japanese or westerners. That leaves China and where else as premises as treatment by Japanese being harsher than western governments. I thought it was collaboraters that Thomas Babington Macalauy made popular as an instrument of imperialism and the very model the U.S. and other countries copied. Let's break western propaganda here, asians wanted neither westerners nor other easterners running their countries. They wanted independence for themselves, sorry to shock american hubris :)
Italy, Hungary and Romania are defined as being allies at the bottom of the page. How can this be? My history tells me, they fought on the side of Germany. If you want to say they were allies, as they were defeated then all Axis powers eventually become allies. I would suggest that Australia could be considered an Ally, as you knew all along what side she was fighting on, but not Italy. Wallie 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
I had some problems with the article mentioning world war II is the 'last' conflict in european history, and thought i'd put forward a revised draft of the following segment of the introduction:
"Paradoxically, while World War II was the last, and probably worst, conflict in European history, it has led to a desire for unification in order to avoid future conflicts, which has transformed the difficult process of reconstruction into an unprecedented opportunity for prosperity."
I also had a problem with the reference to the reconstruction process as seeming to be a current struggle, instead of one that has been considered part of history for some time.
Here's my suggested version:
"Paradoxically, while World War II was probably the worst conflict in European history, it contributed to the desire for unification in order to maintain peace. The creation of the United Nations following the war was based on the idea of finding peaceful solutions to the many problems that occur in the constantly changing international political struggles. This was one of many major changes that occurred during the the difficult process of reconstruction of an unprecedented conflict; from which Japan and western Europe emerged into a new era of wealth, while many eastern European countries and Russia dealt with the massive loss of life and less robust economic conditions, but all fearing another conflict." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.71.201 ( talk) 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
Ok, I think we clearly agree that there have been wars in Europe since World War II. Hungary and Czechoslovakia are mentioned above, and there was a series of wars in the Balkans, the last of which took place in 1999. I am going to make a small edit to remove the reference to WWII being the last war in Europe. NoIdeaNick 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
In the list of Axis members we have "Vlasov Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
I have 2 problems with it.
1) How Vlasov Army was able to join Axis in 1941 if it was not formed until 1944? 2) How Vlasov Army can be part of Axis if it did not represent a state (it was just a military formation headed by defector)?
So, my suggestion is to exclude this from the list - it does not make any sense.
Wikisib
19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
One clarification - how it is possible to put a military formation which never even been in action (on the axis side) in the same row as, say, Japan or Romania.
Wikisib
19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
This is something to reiterate regarding the edits I just made. While the bulk of the Soviet army was made up of Slavic troops, it's completely erroneous to refer to the troops as "Russians" and not the more correct "Soviet" because the USSR consisted of several republics that weren't made up of Russians or Ukranians or Bylorussians. These included Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, troops from Central Asia, and even some from the occupied Baltic republics so it is a disservice to refer to the troops, generals, or even political leadership throughout the article as "Russians". Thanks.-- MarshallBagramyan 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree, if there is anywhere in the article we should fix that. -- LtWinters 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea, i think this is one of those tihngs you cant debate, If any fixes it its cool with me( Esskater11 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC))
Hello, I have added a link to Europe's National Library Resources. Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
There are to many battles that can be considered "critical" to omit. Plus, the Battle of Britain was a campaign, not a singular battle. Oberiko 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Operation Market Garden was incredibly important, as it stalled the entire allied advance to scrounge supplies for it, even though it failed. All we have mentioned is "Allied paratroopers and armor attempted a war-winning advance through the Netherlands and across the Rhine River with Operation Market Garden in September, but they were repulsed." I'm thinking we need a bit more than that heesham. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by -- LtWinters 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
yea, it sounds alot better, i ain't not good in grammer -- LtWinters 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we should keep the total casualties as it is now, 62 mill +. However, take a look at World War II Casualties. I've been trying to correlate their figures with ours, but they won't budge to the numbers we have. Take a look, see if you can get them to agree with us. -- LtWinters 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking through old newspapers back in 1945-1950 suggest that World War II ended sometime in 1946, please confirm this. -- Duskrider 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) ( talk • contribs)
I dont have any sources but ive heard the 1946 thing is becuase we delcared a end to all hostiities which i think means that there is no more threat for anything( Esskater11 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC))
i think it should be moved to the second world war as that is the more offical and common titel. could you please give me your opinions on this and rember just because its a common internet speeling doesnt mean its correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I disagree. Who says second world war? Although it is a name for it, it is most often referred to as World War II. Google gives 136,000,000 results for World War II, while it gives 120,000,000 results for Second WOrld War. And plus, the World War II article is redirected from Second World War and WWII. -- LtWinters 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
Also i was wondering why google resulyts are used as offical "name deciders" google reapts alot of stuff and other radom things un realted to the war, and The second world war is the more offical title, its used by most of the world why shouldnt it be the title, i dont get why common names are used not the offical or oprorate names, its like the AK articl it says AK47 whixh refers to 1 model only while the page refers to many dirffernt models
Although this is a small operation, it could be considered the 4th most important event/operation (after D-day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge) (I know some of you are thinking this or that is more important, so I'll say its in the top ten western front events/operations). There is no mention of Operation Varisty, and I feel a sentence should be included so at least to give a link to the operation and to give the main objective of it. Do any of you object? -- LtWinters 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
This wants looking at. Says '12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps',
'The Holocaust was the killing of approximately six million European Jews, as part of a program of |||deliberate||| extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist government in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.'
Did the rest die through mishaps, faulty German plumbing, or other work-related accidents like being shot by a camp guard. I find the statements in the article presume authority, but do not address the subject area with any kind of grace. It would only take a line or two to replace the arrogant statement, dismissing the suffering of those who died at the hands of the Nazis inside the camps is not on. 86.149.209.189 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you asking what happened to the other 6 million people? Because the deal with that was they were the other minorities. And 12 million sounds a bit higher, I've usually heard 11 million.-- 24.225.156.40 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to point out that this low intensity edit war there some users add combatants to infobox and others remove them is totally ridiculous as it has been going on for some time already. Saddest part of dispute is the fact that it is completely matter of taste, as there is no accurate way to measure which is actualy better.-- Staberinde 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't get how some people don't see the 5 v 3 list. Everyone knows it, people are just being stubborn because they don't want to cooperate. It makes no sense to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.205.199.7 ( talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, we should definantly stop basing major countries off of how many people died. For example, in the USSR, a sensible general would have surrounded Berlin and bombarded it until it gave up. But Stalin ordered a direct assault on it, resulting in I believe 100,000 casualties, mainly from gurilla warfare. So it took Berlin, but it could have done that with a significant lower number of casualties. Doesn't make too much sense that they should be credited for that because they did something stupid. -- SurfingMaui540 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
It's annoying to go have to edit this and that. We voted, I have no idea what's wrong with it. The majority voted to have no countries in the infobox. Some of us may not have voted for that, but it was chosen. If your candidate doesn't win the election you don't leave the country, you deal with it. I don't get what's so hard about that. It doesn't really matter if the 5x3 one is "right" and the allies & axis one is "wrong". Bottom line is we voted. Allies & Axis won.
Xaxafrad just made the most sense out of anything I've read about this, though. There are three undisputible major combatants, and if we have to put any countries in the infobox listing those three would probably be the only way to keep people from arguing. The whole stem of this debate is "If China is a major combatant, who's to say Canada or Poland isn't?". If we go and have countries outside of the big three, I think it'll just bring questions on why X is included and Y isn't. Even having the Big Three would probably bring those up, actually... Until we all can come up with some kind of compromise - whether it be no countries, 3x3, or all countries like the War on Terrorism - it should just stay like it is now.
I'd just like to say, though, that while I'm against countries in the infobox, I'm not against commanders. Mabye that could have people from china and everything. It seems to be less controversial. I mean, who would argue that Hitler or Stalin had a bigger role in the war than Mackenzie King or others? -- Plasma Twa 2 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care whether there are 3 or 5 major. The principle of the matter to me is that we have somthing to give the public. So I am in support of the 5 v 3 and the 3 v 3 -- 72.79.124.78 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Cant we just put up a map and show the countries who were Allies and those that were Axis? Mercenary2k 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's put that. What's wrong with doing that?-- LtWinters 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to encourage anyone who is interested to read back into the former discussion a little bit. I will respond to newcomers if you have any questions. Haber 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I would second that strongly, and I'm also happy to respond to any queries. Badgerpatrol 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. I feel that we should be able to agree on something, even if it takes long arguements. We really should be able to supply something to the reader. -- SurfingMaui540 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Similar to surfer, I think something must be supplied- anyone see w hat 96T put, although Oberiko removed that? I thought it was an interesting proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters ( talk • contribs)
I'm in favour of the axis being Germany, Italy, and Japan, with the et al extension, becuase then people can just go find out for themselves the minor players. -- 64.205.199.7 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a few exceptions. China should definantly be 1937, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland should not be included, and where is Japan? It's not even listed. But I think with a few exceptions, a list of that sort wouldn't be too bad. -- LtWinters 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
No, its not that I'm saying Parsec, I'm saying they should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia. -- LtWinters 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
One thought I've had - the flag images do not help. They make it harder for people with vision problems to hear the article, and the pretty colors and emotions associated with flag images attract so much attention that the infobox becomes the focus of edit wars. Military infoboxes do not require flags. I'm not going to revert if people include them, but I'm going to ask that everyone think about it. Haber 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I like this, a lot. It's not perfect because I still think it would be best to include all or none at all, but we are clearly not going to get there and this current situation is somewhat rancorous and unsustainable. It could be tweaked and we can discuss that here, but this is a really good compromise. I have to disagree with Haber- the average reader is not an idiot, and if they are they are most unlikely to benefit from reading the article anyway. The fact is, alliances shifted as the war continued, and the situation was far, far more complex than a simple list can adequately encompass. That is a key point that is well worth transmitting to the casual, perhaps uninformed, reader. I don't actually find this format complex or confusing at all, but even if it is- those are the facts, that's the way it was. This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's picture book. The argument about edit warring is not really valid, because that's basically what we have now anyway, with no obvious end in sight. This is a potential solution. I strongly support this elegant compromise.
Badgerpatrol
11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
A few points on my proposal:
Haber: Too complicated. Likely to confuse new readers and cause edit wars among experienced ones. Too complicated, eh? Well, the thing about World War II is that it was complicated. It was not a war with UK/USA/USSR/France/China fought Germany/Italy/Japan. It was a war where dozens of nations fought the Axis. Yeah, the UK, the USA and the USSR were the main powers of the Allies, but why France and China and not Yugoslavia, Poland (which fought Germany virtually alone for the first months of the war), Greece (which resisted the Italian army alone for half a year), Australia, or Canada (which participated in far more operations than France did)? For lots of countries, especially European ones, WW2 was the largest conflict in their histories. Listing only a few countries on each side will be misleading, in my opinion.
Haber: The 5v3 is clear and direct, and gives enough useful information. Well, actually, it doesn't. It says nothing about the five million Poles or the one million Yugoslavs that died during the war.
LtWinters: I'm saying [Romania and Bulgaria] should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia. They certainly did, like Canada and Australia declared war to please the United Kingdom, and like Romania & co. had declared war to please Germany in the first place. Why they declared war is irrelevant, what is relevant is that what was left of their armies fought with heavy casualties in Eastern and Southeastern Europe for the final stages of the war.
The countries and years I included are the ones found in
the WW2 template, by the way. From what I know, these countries are the indepentent nations that actually participated in the war (in more than sending a few hundred soldiers or signing a paper to declare war or were simply annexed without resistance like Luxembourg and Denmark were). I don't find it necessary to add any other combatants unless there are some very important ones that the editors of the template have overlooked.
Sorry 'bout my English if it's bad.
96T
23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you kidding? It's aside the point the Canadiens declared war, there are several other reasons they did, which is that France was overrun and wanted to share in the spoils after the war. If Bulgaria was as important as them, then why did they not get a part of Germany to govern? But besides that, I mean it's absolutely rediculous to say they were on our side, I don't even believe they mobilized their troops against Germany. Italy didn't either, as they declared war in 1943. And I mean come on, let's not try to put the bad guys in a good light. They still fuoght the Russians, although without a decleration of war, for a good 3 years until things got sour for them. -- LtWinters 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign in there. But anyway, I see it acceptable to put it on the list of allies in ww2, but not as a major player in the ww2 page. You may have misunderstood that point of mine- that I'm saying it should not be a major player, yet should be kept as an ally on the allies page. And additionally, as you just said, I believe there are other nations who put troops foward ( http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140, scroll down to see list of nations who declared war and when), and many others who severed economic and political relations with axis nations, so regarding 96T's suggestion, I think he would be missing a few nations there. But must we continue this? Are we going to keep what we have now, so will it matter? -- LtWinters 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the date for the Victory over Japan be on August 15th, as the surrender was broadcastet that day local time, and the date August 14th is just used as the date it became known in the US, because of the time zone difference? In other word, shouldn't the date be given in the local time the event mainly took place? Alternativly, if we use GMT, it will still be August 14th, as the broadcast was made at noon that day local time. M4c 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed! M4c 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I wanted to edit this earlier as seen up there somewhere, but the time escaped me and I gave up on it. I dunno, I think could use some improvement and could use some editing. Any suggestions? -- LtWinters 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Added some stuff. Should be ok. -- LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
There is no mention Operation Dragoon. Considering there were only 3 allied army groups and it consisted of the 6th army group, we should include it. All we have is
By August 1944, Allied forces stationed in Italy invaded the French Riviera on August 15 and linked up with forces from Normandy. The clandestine French Resistance in Paris rose against the Germans on August 19, and a French armored division under General Philippe Leclerc, pressing forward from Normandy, received the surrender of the German forces there and liberated the city on August 25.
-- LtWinters 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I added some stuff. Should be ok. -- LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
In the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this 'good' article, the word 'paradoxically' is used to describe the ever-burgeoning desire for some form of greater European integration in the aftermath of a second, devastating world war on that great, complex continent. I can tell whoever wrote this nonsense now that not only is this an illogical statement, in that it does not in any way recognise that such a desire/ideal for harmony is perfectly reasonable and rational after such appalling conflicts, the origins of which date back another 1000 years or so, it is quite understandable in the general sense of human nature. Either way, the sentence is woolly and ahistorical and needs either urgent attention from someone who really does know their history (and not just of the 20th Century) or complete omission. Post-war European cooperation and success is one of the greatest achievements of our time. It should not be dismissed so thoughtlessly. I would also recommend that people who are coming to the subject of the Second World War, its origins and aftermath, for the first time try reading some of the major studies of this period (books) rather than starting with 'Wikipedia'. Look them up (in your local library). JL 19/5/07
Anything goes within these parameters:
Haber 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm fluent in German if any of you don't know what that means, it means yes, my leader. -- LtWinters 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
World War II | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies: |
Axis: |
I just want to throw something out- some kid changed the Japanese combatent to Tojo instead of Hirohito. I changed it back, anyone with a problem with that?-- LtWinters 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I oppose adding France. France was considered to be major power only 1939-1940 and majority of that time was Phoney War. I am not even sure if China deserves spot but considering its huge losses it may have it.-- Staberinde 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What does everybody think of 2vs2: Soviet Union and United States vs Germany and Japan? I excluded the UK due to disunity in the British Empire, while Italy's military needed German backup throughout most phases of World War II. If some umbrella designation like UK/Commonwealth can be used to refer to the dominions, then I can see that added to the 2vs2 list. The fact is, the remainder of Poland and France's political leaders and military resources retreated to one of the few places the Nazis could invade: the island of Great Britain. Meanwhile, China was square in the middle of the 23-year long Chinese Civil War, itself the last vestiges of the infighting resulting from the gradual decades long collapse of the Qing Dynasty during the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, can hardly qualify it for "major" power status.
Or 8vs6: Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, China, France, Poland, Canada, Australia vs Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria? Those Allied countries keep popping up a lot, but nobody cares to argue over the expansion or contraction of the list of Axis countries. I wonder why that is.
To respond to Haber's suggestion: I find 5vs3 acceptable, in alphabetical order. Given the hierarchical nature of Japanese society, I'd put the emperor, Hirohito as the leader over his top general, Tojo. UK is the country, GB is the island. Extra leaders Chamberlain and Truman should be listed. "Et al" means "and others", and using Latin makes us sound smarter. Flags are better than no flags, just look at all the other infoboxes. The Allied powers got together in contrast to the Axis powers, but everybody was an ally of somebody; grammatical harmony points to "Allied powers vs Axis powers" instead of "Allies vs Axis powers". Or, if Allies and Axis are well established nouns, then why not just "Allies vs Axis"? Xaxafrad 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Of all the proposals ive seen that list any nations at all the infobox in this section at the current time is the most acceptable ive seen so far. Demerphq 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Since when do we cite Wikipedia? Moreover, your quote from the article is irrelevant. It doesn't state "the 5 major powers" or anything like that, just that they were victorious parties. They could've included Cuba instead of the UK and said the same thing. Parsecboy 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Now, let's not forget France did not only fight for itself, but the Free French drove with us to Germany. The French Resistance also lost a lot of people too. Petain did screw the Free French over a bit, but he was condemned by De Gaulle. So perhaps we should say the Free French were major players. -- LtWinters 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Badger. Before we argue about France (and I'm sure probably China and Poland in the future) let's see everybody's feelings about the infobox being allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players. After that, we can go from there and say ok, I want US, Britatin, and USSR as allies, or france and china in addition to that, and etc. We should choose on one of those (allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players) and then go from there. -- LtWinters 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
The box is looking good right now [3]. Haber 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Haber: I'm curious why most of the combatants from the Western Hemisphere were excluded from your list. Why only the US, Canada, and Brazil? Seems rather oldworldcentric. The countries I added weren't selected by me, they are the ones found in this template (as of whatever date I edited the infobox). US & Canada are quite obvious choices, eh? Brazil sent 25 000 soldiers to fight in Europe. Mexico sent 25 fighters with a personell of 300 to the Battle of Luzon, not a major contribution in my book. As for the other countries, I can't find anything in Wikipedia naming any active contribution from these countries (of course, if you've got more reliable sources naming military contributions from any of them, please inform about it), and they aren't listed at the casualties article. Like I said, my idea of a long list wouldn't list all the combatans, just those that actually were at war. 96T 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I see we've reverted back to the lame 5v3 list ordered presumably by number of troops. Which is sad given two of them werent even in the war for a healthy chunk of it even if their contribution in the end was significant. Ive never touched the infobox and I probably never will, but I'll just repeat my earlier position of all or none. And frankly the unilateralism of certain editors on this matter seems to me to be quite out of order. And Haber, I'm trying to figure out what definition of "compromise" you are using. What exactly have you compromised on? Demerphq 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I still think that if combatants are listed then 3v2 is best, that way disputable cases like Italy, France and China can be removed and only states who's importance in big picture simply can not be disputed would stay.-- Staberinde 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't: influnece at 1945 =/= importance and influence during war. Analogy: Same way we can not use criteria of who got permanent membership in League of Nations council for deciding World War I infobox because that would mean including Japan and forgetting Russia which would be ridiculous. So post-war influence can not be used for measuring importance during war.-- Staberinde 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, d'accord. I am perfectly fine with the infobox as it is now too. -- LtWinters 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Just for a change from the lengthy debate over the relative importance of France vs Poland, I'm going to renew my claim that the UK was not a major participant in World War II. The UK would've starved without the support of her increasingly independent colonial dominions and the US. And let's not forget the pacifistic attitude of both the UK and France that allowed Hitler to achieve so much, and so easily, in those early days. Was it really a war before the last half of 1941? Was it really a world war before the last half of 1941? No, not technically. Imagine if Japan and Germany actually worked together, and the Luftwaffe had flown Zeros in the Battle of Britain. If Italy should be downplayed because it needed Germany's support, so should the UK be downplayed because it needed the support of the US (see North African campaign). Xaxafrad 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Xaxafrad, where are you? It appears as though 6 of us 7 want the UK to be included. Why aren't you responding if you feel how you do?-- LtWinters 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actualy I remember that for quite long time combatants(at that time there was 3v3 and later 4v3 after adding china) in infobox were listed in order of their joining the war. And in my opinion it is best solution espcially considering the fact that some states joined years after start of war.-- Staberinde 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
About a week ago, we had a different organization for this article. You can see if yuo go to the history of the article, it would be like the Atlantic june 1944-may 1945 or the Eastern Front June 1941-February 1942. This was changed twice since then, and is much different now, although with the same content. Personally, I liked it the old way. Any thoughts?-- LtWinters 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay personally, dont use Lt.Winters as a username, its disrespectful. Second of all, this orginization of the article is fine the way it is, and I will revert what ever you do, even if I have to get banned-------Dan
For those that would prefer a long list in the infobox, I am offering this as a compromise, provided that the order remain exactly the same as in the original document:
Declaration by United Nations ...A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.
Any Allies joining the war after this declaration would therefore be excluded from the infobox. Using this document might make some sense because it was the formal agreement of the Allies to fight together and was consented to by all signatories. Haber 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Yea, fix the title if there's a word for that thing at the bottom of the WWII page, because there are ronly 29 nations listed under axis and allies, and I believe we say over 61 nations participated. Why is that? -- LtWinters 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Not the title, it's just we said there are 61 nations involved who sent troops. THen why is there only 29 nations? -- LtWinters 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Did WW2 really start in Asia in 1937? It's my basic understanding that Japan had been annexing Chinese territory since the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894. Japan went to war with no one else until 1941, when she went to war with everyone, thinking the UK was preoccupied by Germany and expecting the best planned surprise attack would knock the US out of the water. I'm going to move some text around reflect 7 Dec 1941 as the starting date of World War II in Asia, and push to accept this as the starting date of WW2 in general, given the historical military ventures in Europe and Asia. The First Sino-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the first Great War, the second Great War, all started by immoral opportunists. Xaxafrad 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if your analysis is historically correct, I'm not sure such creative perspective is a good thing in an article meant for beginners and general public like this one. I suggest you refrain from making drastic changes to the actual consensus. The Japanese invasion of summer 1937 was made in a much more larger scale than the precedent ones. As for the official beginning of WWII, this decision made by occidental historians is now a general worlwide rule. -- Flying tiger 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought this article well written. As a Japanese-American , I would like to bring attention to a few minor questionable statements within the context of this article. Use of propaganda is not described accurately enough. I am not trying to guess your intentions nor do I want to pursue that endeaver. However, use of propaganda in describing Japanese media may be perceived as the unstated assumption being that because Japan lost or were the "bad guys" according to western "propaganda", then all of their films or media were all propaganda. I'm assuming this assumption also is that the U.S. was incapable of such. What specific definition of "propaganda" are you refferring to and please state if you are going to use this word because "propaganda" is not used commonly and carries with it a perception of dishonesty. Probably be best to take your time and state your definiton and explain why it sounds as if you are stating that anything pertaining to the forwarding of the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea is propaganda. Was it certain material you are referring to that is considered propaganda or are you making the assumption that all World War II Japanese materials are propaganda. I don't want to go into a comparitive analysis of Cold War and World War II propaganda. In addition, you are not implying that brutality in the process of achieving goals eliminates the validity of a self-proclaimed intended goal of a country, are you? Simon Bolivar and Abraham Lincoln had ideas of unification or nationalism which were perceived as indivisible. These preceding men are admirable individuals for making a United States for European-Americans and a Latin America for Latin Americans. Asian Co-Prospeity has equitable merit as those and many other forms of mytholo.. excuse me, nationalisms that have and still exist. Nationalism is an instrument used by every country for obtaining goals regardless if those goals pertain to an extension of aggression outside one nation's borders. Brutality has no bearance on the intended goals of a country, it should be looked down upon and emphasized when necessary, but brutality are acts of a military in the process of obtaining political goals. The responsibile Party is the military and political system which allowed this to occur. Blaming the Japanese people for these acts by attacking the ideology they adhered to equates into stating religion and those whom believed in the civilizing missions of western culture during imperialism when taking colonies by force and setting up uncountable puppet governments were culpable of the genocide of the Native Americans and numerous innocent people across the world. It also equates into all Americans responsible for the dead in the Viet-Nam, Korean, and Iraqi War. Or frightengly, all American whites were responsible for slavery and the following negro holocaust leading up to the 70s. If it has in fact stopped because it seems the modern method is discrete discrimination. Japan, like the U.S. in Viet-Nam, made the mistake of seperating military and politics. In both circumstances, both countries' military forces used undescribable genocidal acts of horror to obtain a political goal which could not be achieved by that methodology :)Therefore, make a distinction as to why brutality of a military allowed by intentional negligence by the political system in control at the time of these acts is equitable to the assertion that each and every individual or "Japan" if we really want to emphasize nationalism, are responsible for the attempts of genocide in China, Phillippines, and elsewhere. Here is a shocker, many Japanese could have imagined an Asia for Asians that could effectively compete with western interests in both economic and political aspects. unfortunately , we see Japan-bashing or anti-Japanese hatred expressed perhaps unintentionally because of the effects of this bias taught in the western educational system post World War II. This propaganda has blinded the U.S. from acknowledging real problems it has had in the past in its policies. The U.S. emphasizes Pearl Harbor in the history of World War II to create a continuity of Pearl Harbor to WW II. In western classes this is also taught to little kids. Granted, an initial act of aggression is and should be cause for retaliation (not excessive force (beginning of nuclear war)). Nevertheless, we see that by emphasizing Pearl Harbour, western historiography has succeeded in creating an image of continuity of WW II history beginning at Japanese and Nazi take-overs of colonies, Pearl Harbour, then the rest of the war and aftermath. Antes de WW II or before WW II is purposely neglected because if one looks at western aggression in Asia, one might ask, well did anyone think that Japan may feel like being that they were the foremost national power in that hemisphere, they felt they deserved the right to defend and unite the interests of all asians against western imperialsm? What countries were taken over by Western powers in Asia? What countries were in a position to force the "white man" out? Because western propaganda emphasizes the "evil" acts of the Japanese during Pearl Harbour, the U.S. and specifically Americans have failed to recognize a problem with U.S. foreign policy which has come back to bite us in the buttocks today. The real interesting question is would the U.S. have tolerated an Asian power taking over Mexico and implacing a puppet government on the U.S.'s southern border during thses times? Why did we expect Japan to tolerate it? Worse, even today we cant seem to understand why an independent and nationalistic organization such as Al Quaeda will not tolerate it. Now is the western or eastern version of WW II propaganda correct and why?
[edit] OOOpps
Thought to mention that Luis Taruc and Ho Chi Minh have mentioned that their treatment during World War II was harsher from the collaborators of the west and Japan than the actual Japanese or westerners. That leaves China and where else as premises as treatment by Japanese being harsher than western governments. I thought it was collaboraters that Thomas Babington Macalauy made popular as an instrument of imperialism and the very model the U.S. and other countries copied. Let's break western propaganda here, asians wanted neither westerners nor other easterners running their countries. They wanted independence for themselves, sorry to shock american hubris :)
Italy, Hungary and Romania are defined as being allies at the bottom of the page. How can this be? My history tells me, they fought on the side of Germany. If you want to say they were allies, as they were defeated then all Axis powers eventually become allies. I would suggest that Australia could be considered an Ally, as you knew all along what side she was fighting on, but not Italy. Wallie 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)