Talk:World War II/Archive 27

These are the latest changes of mine (excluding some captions I fixed/rewrote):

• China/Japan: Image:Changde battle.jpg -> Image:Shanghai1937IJA streets.jpg. Battle of Shanghai was much larger than Battle of Changde.

• Pearl Harbor: Image:Burning ships at Pearl Harbor.jpg -> Image:USS California sinking-Pearl Harbor.jpg - a better pic IMO

• Yamamoto: Image:Yamamoto-Isoroku-improvedContrast.jpg removed. Pity, but I can't justify including him - we have neither Georgy Zhukov, Eisenhower nor Monty in the article, so I decided to drown Yamamoto.

• Coral Sea: Image:USS Lexington brennt.jpg replaced with land pic further down. I hate myself for it, since the Coral Sea pic is quite cool (a little unsharp though).

• Midway: Image:AkagiDeckApril42.jpg -> Image:Sinking of the USS Yorktown (CV-5) 01.jpg. I think it's better with a pic from the actual Battle of Midway itself. Furthermore, the pic I suggest is IMO the best pic I have ever seen from Midway on wiki! Not that it's perfect, but at least it shows two ships and not one.

• MacArthur: Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte.jpg - even though it's a cool pic, I can't justify mr. MacArthur either, for the same reasons as Yamamoto.

• Okinawa: Image:USS Franklin list-700px.jpg -> Image:OkinawaMarinesDeadJapanese.jpg. I really hate myself though - the USS Franklin pic is so good it deserves to be a Featured picture. In fact, I will nominate it! Yet I feel we do more justice to Okinawa if we use a land pic, and the pic I suggest is IMO quite good, and shows both US and Japanese.

• Bose: Image:Subhas Bose.jpg - removed. Subhas Chandra Bose removed for the same reason as Yamamoto and MacArthur, and 2 pics from India is a little bit overload, when the corresponding text is so short.

• Atom bomb: rewrote caption "The mushroom cloud resulting from the nuclear weapon known as Fat Man rises 18 km (11 mi, 60,000 ft) over Nagasaki from the nuclear explosion hypocenter." - is this a master's thesis on nuclear physics, or? :)

My new caption: "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the only nuclear attacks in history. Here, the mushroom cloud of the Fat Man rises 18 km over Nagasaki, August 9, 1945 - the war in Asia & the Pacific is practically over.".

• Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong toasts: Image:1945 chiang-mao.jpg removed for the same reasons as Yamamoto, MacArthur etc. Furthermore, no added value IMO, and too short text for 3 images.

• German Zones: (Image:Deutschland Besatzungszonen - 1945 1946.svg) rewrote caption; original: "German occupation zones in 1946 after Allied territorial annexations in the eastern part. The Saarland (in the French zone) is shown with stripes as it was removed from Germany by France in 1947 as a protectorate, and was not incorporated into the Federal Republic of Germany until 1957."

- "German occupation" - really funny, I always thought Germany lost World War II...:)

- Saarland details - isn't this a little overkill?

- Territorial annexations - overkill too, I think

My new caption: "Allied occupation zones in Germany 1946; The United States, United Kingdom, France and Soviet Union each occupied a zone in Germany as well as in the capital Berlin. These zones became the blueprint of the later division into West Germany & East Germany during the Cold War."

• Casualty piecharts: replaced 2 with 1, i.e. Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Allies-Piechart.png & Image:WorldWarII-MilitaryDeaths-Axis-Piechart.png -> Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png. This single piechart shows the impact of WW2 regarding Axis/Allies/Civilian/Military. Better with 1 "overall" than 2 "military", I think.

• Deportation map: Image:Massdeportations.PNG removed. It's a pity; it's a very informative map (yet somewhat ugly), and I am personally very interested in this. But I fear there's no place for it here - real photos speaks much louder than maps, and the section is too short, since I moved both the Auschwitz & Ebensee camp pics to the section Concentration camps and slave work.

• Warsaw survivor: Image:Warsaw siege3.jpg -> Image:Unit 731.jpg. The use of biological and chemical WMD:s is more notable in my opinion.

(Holy mother, I have now actually scrutinized every single pic and caption in this article...)

As always, these are my bold and personal suggestions. Feel free to attack them. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A little statistics

We started with 79 pics (14 Sep 2007), and after various revisions we now have 50 pics (3 Oct 2007), i.e. 29 have been removed.

Some statistics on #pics regarding sections:

Some subtotals:

I don't think these statistics are completely bad (even though a little heavy on the Eastern Front, and light on other, China, Burma). Overall, a decent geographic coverage of this world war is in my opinion paramount and priority 1, even though we perhaps should have more Germans & Japanese. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for doing all this work. My comments are on the Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities section:

• I think the massive bar graph has to go. It would be better placed in the main World War II casualties article. As it is, it overwhelms the section.
• We have two Holocaust pictures in one small section. I think the Mauthausen one can go; the Auschwitz picture has a visceral impact.
• For balance, and to cover the bombings, we could add a picture from one of the heavily criticized Allied bombing campaigns such as Dresden or Tokyo.

-Eron ^Talk 14:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for significant opinions again, Eron! You also mentioned war trials on your talk page, so I address this issue here as well:

• Massive bar graph: I like the idea & intention of that graph, but I agree it is massive to say the least, and I will most likely have a go at making a new, better one (?) myself, with figures from World War II casualties. In the meantime I have resized and right-aligned both charts (bar and piechart), so it is IMO a better layout now than before.
• 2 Holocaust pictures: I am a bit divided regarding this, but you make a strong point. At the moment I like the idea of two pics, simply because one shows dead and one shows living - IMO this adds significantly to the visual impact; the dead are irrevocably dead (and the viewers are not), but the living are living, and could have been "you or me". But I am not completely certain, yet at the moment, I think the concentration camp layout works. Any opinions from others on this?
• Bombings (for balance and coverage): Quite reasonable, but there's really little room. We could replace Unit 731 with a bombing though... anyway, there might be more room after a "rewrite". I have no strong opinion regarding this at the moment.
• War trials: I agree with you, the article would benefit from a photo from e.g. Nuremberg. But again, incredibly little room at the moment for this...

I am thankful for further opinions on these matters, and from others as well, please. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. Since I was totally blown away by the Image:Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945.jpg which I so mercilessly:) removed from this article, I have researched and obtained more info on it, and nominated it for featured picture here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates#Attack on carrier USS Franklin.2C March 19.2C 1945 and on commons here: Commons:Featured picture candidates#Image:Attack on carrier USS Franklin 19 March 1945.jpg. At the moment, it looks like it could become a FP in both instances, and I am not surprised. I've also contacted the National Archives for a better resolution of the pic. DS. --Dna-Dennis 21:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the Casualties section is really too short to support any more pictures (or, to be frank, the number we have there now). Perhaps there will be room for more after the restructuring discussed below. One issue about a bombing picture is the lack of suitable candidates; neither of the ones I linked to above is really high quality. This one is better, but it is also fairly generic - it could be any city after any bombing.

Looking further back to the Eastern Front, I know I have expressed the opinion elsewhere that the two operational maps in that section seem a bit out of place, being the only ones on the page. I believe they would be better used on the main pages for Operations Barbarossa and Bagration. I haven't been able to find a good replacement for the Barbarossa map, but for Operation Bagration I discovered this picture on the Commons. I think it does a good job of illustrating illustrate the scale of the German defeat. - Eron ^Talk 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Simply excellent, Eron! The German POW pic you suggest is simply excellent, and I will immediately replace the map with it, and write a caption. And I think I'm starting to lean towards a bombing pic as well; the Dresden pic is not too bad... I will think about it for a while, and see what I can find. About finding a Barbarossa pic, I'm not surprised that you failed - I tried very hard myself. I will check some other sources on the net, and see what I can find. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 01:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerning Barbarossa, I have located a picture in the US National Archives, and uploaded it to Commons (Image:GermanTroopsInRussia1941.jpg). NARA states that it is from Russia 1941. Since it appears to be summer/autumn it has to be from Barbarossa. Even though it's more than likely staged, maybe it's better than the present Barbarossa map? Any opinions? --Dna-Dennis 04:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on that picture. It looks stagey and isn't confirmed as Barbarossa. But it is better than a map. And skimming the article, I don't see any pictures - particularly Eastern Front ones - showing German soldiers doing anything other than losing. This one certainly gets across the idea of an active and victorious Wermacht - which, in 1941, they were. - Eron ^Talk 01:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you may understand why I did not enter it immediately. But if we enter it, how should we caption that little rascal? German soldiers in Russia 1941 ? German soldiers in Russia 1941, probably during Operation Barbarossa ? --Dna-Dennis 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All we can do is stick with what is verifiable: German soldiers in Russia, 1941. Explicitly labelling it as Barbarossa would be original research. - Eron ^Talk 01:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I am ca. 50% for, and you think it's better than a map even though stagey, and since it shows Germans not losing - good point - therefore I gather our common vote is ca. 80% for :) . So I enter it with the caption German soldiers in Russia, 1941. Thanks again for help! --Dna-Dennis 01:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Key events

• Japanese capture of eastern China (7 July 1937 - 27 October 1938 (Battle of Wuhan))
• Invasion of Poland (1 September 1939 - 6 October 1939)
• Germany invades the Soviet Union (22 June 1941)
• Japan attacks the United States and European colonies in Southeast Asia (7 December 1941)
• Battle of Midway (4 June 1942 - 7 June 1942)
• Battle of Stalingrad (21 August 1942 – 2 February 1943)
• Second Battle of El Alamein (23 October 1942 - 3 November 1942)
• Operation Torch (8 November 1942 - 11 November 1942)
• Battle of Kursk (4 July 1943 - 23 August 1943)
• Battle of the Dnieper (24 August 1943 — 23 December 1943)
• Operation Ichigo (19 April 1944 - late December 1944)
• Battle of Normandy (6 June 1944 - 25 August 1944)
• Operation Bagration (22 June 1944 - 19 August 1944)
• Battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944 – 25 January 1945)
• Vistula-Oder Offensive (12 January 1945 - 2 February 1945)
• VE Day (7 May 1945)
• VJ Day (15 August 1945) Oberiko 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft 1

• Summary text
• Background
  • Background in Asia
  • Background in Europe
• Course of the war
  • War breaks out in Asia and Europe (7 July 1937 - 21 June 1941)
  • The war expands and becomes global (22 June 1941 - June 3 1942)
  • The tide turns against the Axis (4 June 1942 - 23 August 1943)
  • Allies press on (24 August 1943 - 5 June 1944)
  • The beginning of the end (6 June 1944 - 25 January 1945)
  • The Axis crumble (26 January - 15 August 1945)
• Global consequences and aftermath
  • Casualties, civilian impact, resistance and atrocities
  • Science, technology and warfare advancements
  • Political developments
• See also
• External links

Comments
This is the first draft for what I think our new framework should be. The italicized dates are for our benefit only and won't be displayed to the users since we're not using hard break-points. Any suggestions or comments? Oberiko 13:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As I have said before, I believe this is a very good framework, and the dates are excellent guides. I believe this will be a great benefit to the article flow.

• War breaks out starting with the 2nd Sino-Japanese War and Poland respectively and moving on through various Axis expansions.
• The war expands starting with Barbarossa, moving on through Leningrad, Moscow, Pearl Harbor.
• The tide turns starting with Midway, moving on through Stalingrad, El Alamein, Kursk, Sicily.
• Allies press on starting with Invasion of Italy(?), Italian Campaign moving on through Operation Bagration, Battle of Leyte Gulf.
• Beginning of the end starting with Battle of Normandy, moving on through Romania, Market Garden, The Bulge.
• The Axis crumble starting with Vistula-Oder Offensive(?), moving on through Berlin, VE, Okinawa, Hiroshima/Nagasaki, VJ and Operation August Storm.

Please note that I only mention some key events ordered by date (hope I got it right) - this does not mean that this is a suggestion on how to address the contents flow within the sections. I just wanted to emphasize that the framework can provide us with rather nice yet varied cut-offs (e.g. the 1st starts in Asia, 2nd on the Eastern Front, 3rd in Pacific, 4th in Mediterranean, 5th on the Western Front and 6th on the Eastern Front. Interesting!

I have some problems with where to fit in Resistance/Intelligence, even though it probably could be handled by "Civilian impact". Oberiko, maybe we should consider another H2 under "Consequences/Aftermath", maybe "Homefronts", covering production, propaganda, resistance etc? I fear "Casualties, civilian impact and atrocities" will turn somewhat too extensive for covering all these issues. Thoughts on this?

But, overall, I sincerely think we are on the right track here! Great work! My regards, --Dna-Dennis 04:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to resistances and home-fronts, I think that can be handled, for this article, in the same section. I'm of the opinion that it simply reflects the state a nation was in. For example, some civilians in occupied nations formed underground movements; those in the U.K. changed their socio-industrial policies to allow women to take over jobs for men gone to war. If we have a main Civilian impact of World War II article we can break down, nation by nation, the social changes, death tolls, massacres and resistance movements that occurred within each nation. I've changed the heading to specifically include resistance though, as you're right in that it's not obvious from the outset that that's where the user could find that information.

Intelligence is a bit of a tricky one, as it was an influence on most military operations. I think we can omit covering most details about intelligence gathering and usage except for key intelligence operations such as Operation Mincemeat or Operation Bodyguard, and even then we can probably safely get away without them since the children articles talk about them in much more depth. In the science, technology and warfare advancements section we can briefly go over things like the Enigma machine, Ultra etc..

If we are relatively satisfied with this, then I would propose we can make a second draft which would include key topics/events for each section. Thoughts? Oberiko 05:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been considering what you said, and you could be right. Hmm, not sure though, there are benefits with a section "Home fronts". "Merging" all issues into "civilian impact" might be confusing/overload: Consider that that H2 will probably cover casualty statistics, various atrocities, Holocaust, camps, POW, slave work, bombings etc, and corresponding images. Wouldn't it be more logical to let a H2 "Home front" cover production, lend-lease, maybe some politics, propaganda, resistance etc? Yes, Intelligence is a tricky one. Considering Resistance/Intelligence: What I was thinking about was the issues of "setting Europe ablaze", partisans, uprisings, formation of SOE & OSS, black ops etc. I'm not sure though, but I don't mind leaving this issue for later. I pass the ball to you. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 06:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It probably could be pretty overloading actually. How about the following?

• Global consequences and aftermath
  • Casualties and atrocities
  • Home fronts and resistance movements (changes to civilian life, propaganda etc.)
  • Technology, production and warfare advancements (changing warfare (including special ops etc.), new science/technologies etc.)
  • Political developments

We'd probably have a bit of overlap between them all, but not enough to be noticeable at a summary level. Thoughts? Oberiko 11:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably even better. These sections seem and "feel" more logical to me at the moment, and they may be less vulnerable to initial & future overload. I'm ready to move on. --Dna-Dennis 14:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest that the Pacific and European theatres of war be kept seperate and not be lumped together. The two theatres didn't have a lot to do with each other so there's no compelling need to combine them. Doing so would confuse the article's narrative and shoe-horn events into a questionable chronology. For instance, while 4 June 1942 was the turning point of the war in the Pacific, either the German defeat at Moscow in December 1941 or the Soviet counter-attack at Stalingrad in late 1942 marked the turning point in Europe and there was almost no relationship between the battles of Midway, Moscow and Stalingrad. --Nick Dowling 05:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We already have the European Theatre of World War II and Pacific War articles though, which have them in isolation. While there might be quite a bit of segregation, most World War II historians I've read who are presenting the entire war, such as Basil Liddell Hart, put them in together and break by chronology.

Personally, I think it helps the user grasp the overall situation about the war more clearly, and this is the only place we can do that. If they want to learn about the Soviet-German War we have that covered, but we have no "World War II (1943)" page if they want to learn about phases of the war instead. Oberiko 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I really like the proposed new framework. I think it will work quite well; good job. - Eron ^Talk 15:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've started to put together a list of the items for the first phase on my user space here. Once I've figured out how to lump it together properly, I'll start the second draft, and put the main paragraphs in bullet-point notation. Oberiko 22:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Draft 2

• Summary text
• Background (X - 7 July 1937)
• Course of the war
  • War breaks out (7 July 1937 - 6 Oct 1939); Start of the Second-Sino Japanese War - Fall of Poland
  • Axis advances (7 Oct - 21 June 1941); Fall of Poland - Invasion of the Soviet Union
  • The war becomes global (22 June 1941 - June 3 1942); Invasion of the Soviet Union - Battle of Midway
  • The tide turns (4 June 1942 - 23 August 1943); Battle of Midway - Battle of Kursk
  • Allies gain momentum (24 August 1943 - 5 June 1944); Battle of Kursk - Operation Overlord
  • Allies close in (6 June 1944 - 11 January 1945); Operation Overlord - Vistula-Oder Offensive
  • Axis collapse, Allied victory (12 January - 15 August 1945); Vistula-Oder Offensive - Surrender of Japan
• Impact of the war
  • Casualties and atrocities
  • Home fronts (includes production figures, propaganda etc.)
  • War time occupation and resistance movements
  • Advances in technology and warfare (changing warfare (including special ops etc.), new science/technologies etc.)
• Aftermath
  • Post-war occupation and reconstruction (war crime trials, rebuilding the damage done)
  • The new world order (USA and USSR as superpowers, formation of UN, decolonization, start of the Cold War)
• See also
• External links

Comments
After doing a bit more research, I'm thinking it's going to be pretty difficult to separate the backgrounds and start of the wars in Asia and Europe due to the large amount of overlapping treaties and actions. I also think I'm going to need a section between the start of the wars and the invasion of the Soviet Union to cover all the early actions adequately.

As well, I'm now thinking that the aftermath and impact of the war should be two separate sections since one goes forward from the end and the other looks back from the end to the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) 17:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Generally very good. Some thoughts:

1. Some squirrel stuff: Background rather (X - 23 August 1939), including Munich agreement and up to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

2. New section The Axis strike out seems fine to me, I suspect there are good reasons due to the variety of events (e.g. Phoney War, Baltic states, Winter War, Denmark and Norway, France, Battle of Britain and Battle of Atlantic etc).

3. The Axis crumble: Not that it matters very much to me at the moment, but the Vistula-Oder Offensive was quite larger than the Ardennes Offensive (area & troops involved). I just want to point that out; I do not compare their significance in any way.

4. Aftermath, Impact: Two H1 instead of one does very much seem more logical to me as well - they are different in nature. Good thinking!

Overall, IMO draft 2 is much better than draft 1. Great work, again. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 20:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Structurally it looks fine. I have some suggestions for alternate wording on some of the titles. Do you want to wait until the structure is set before wordsmithing those? - Eron ^Talk 22:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, if you've got any ideas we're pretty eager to hear them, though keep in mind that the contents of the segments may shift slightly (I don't think we'll have any major revisions at this point)

Regarding DNA's suggestions:

1. I'd rather keep the background as X - July 1937 and the start of the start of war as July 1937 - October 1939 for a few reasons:

• The background already has to cover, basically, from World War I onwards, that's going to be a lot to cram in there
• Since the first heading is about the start of the war, I'd like to have both the Asian and European wars begin in that section
• If I make background X - August 1939, then I have to include unfolding events in the ongoing Asian War as, somewhat inaccurately, background
• The Soviet invasion of Poland was highly dependent on the Battle of Khalkhin Gol and the ensuing Soviet-Japanese Armistice, note that the Soviet's only attacked Poland after (and just one day after) they had made sure that their southern borders were safe.
• The events in Europe, with the whirlwind of alliances and pacts, culminated in the attack on Poland. Following the invasion, there was a brief lull in activities with the Phoney War in the west and the Soviet shift towards the Baltics in the east. To me, that makes an excellent breaking point.

3. You're quite right, good call. I'll change the headings so that the last one starts with the VOO. Oberiko 00:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the headings, I prefer titles a little shorter and punchier. I'd also like to avoid expressions that could be misinterpreted - "strike out" for example can mean two quite different things to a North American audience. Here are my suggestions:

• Course of the war
  • War breaks out
  • Axis advances
  • Global war
  • The tide turns
  • Allies press on
  • Axis on the defensive
  • Axis collapse, Allied victory
• Aftermath
  • Occupation and reconstruction
  • The new world order
• Impact of the war
  • Casualties and atrocities
  • Resistance movements
  • Home fronts
  • Advances in technology and warfare

The only structural change I would suggest is separating resistance from home fronts. It may be my western perspective, but to me these are quite different things.

- Eron ^Talk 14:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems mostly reasonable to me, but I do have few minor suggestions:

• Change "Occupation and reconstruction" to "Post-war occupation and reconstruction"
• Change "Resistance movements" to "War time occupation and resistance movements"
• Should atrocities be lumped in with casualties or with war-time occupation? Oberiko 16:01, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. I would leave atrocities with casualties, as it wasn't necessary to occupy a country to engage in actions that could be considered atrocities. I also think we should reverse the order to put "Impact" - which is still discussing events during the war - before "Aftermath". - Eron ^Talk 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate a little bit between "Allies press on" and "Axis on the defensive", it seems like each title would be appropriate for either section. Oberiko 17:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I had trouble with those two and I am still not completely satisifed. I felt the same way about "The beginning of the end" - that it could apply to either section - which is why I changed it. It seems to me that the distinction between these two phases is that in the first one - Kursk to Overlord - the Allies essentially recaptured most of the outlying territory captured by the Axis, while in the second - Overlord to Vistula-Oder - they attacked the centre of Axis power. (Either on land in Europe, or by air in the bombing campaign against Japan). Perhaps we can retain "Allies press on" (or perhaps "press forward" - for some reason I seem to object to "press on"!) and replace the second with "Striking the Axis centre" or something like that. (I'd offer "Closing the ring" as a suggestion, but it's been done.) - Eron ^Talk 17:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How about "Allies gain momentum" for the first and (borrowing from Mr. Churchill) "Allies close in" for the latter? Oberiko 17:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That works for me. - Eron ^Talk 18:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, changes made. Oberiko 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

One last nick-picky thing, I'd prefer to use "The war goes global" instead of "Global war". Any objection? Oberiko 18:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll nitpick your nitpick and ask for "becomes" vs. "goes". - Eron ^Talk 18:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Deal, but not a penny more! Oberiko 18:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph outlines

I think we're relatively content with the structure, so I'm going to start posting what I think our main content should be. This is in bullet-point notation, with the first levels being the overall subject and period of the paragraph, and each second level point dictating content. Feedback greatly appreciated!

Background

Draft 1

In the aftermath of World War I the world was considerably changed. The defeated German Empire, blamed by the victorious Allies for the war, was made to sign the Treaty of Versailles which, among other things, placed strong restrictions on the German military and territorial growth and had it pay massive war reparations. In Russia, a bitter civil war led to the creation of the communist Soviet Union which soon fell under the control of Joseph Stalin. In Italy, a member of the victorious Allies, dissatisfaction over their share of the spoils of war paved the road for Benito Mussolini to seize power as a fascist dictator who promised to create a "New Roman Empire". In China, the ruling Kuomintang party launched a unification campaign in the mid-1920s, however it then soon became embroiled in a civil war against Chinese communists. Japan, which had joined the Allies to gain territory in China, became increasingly militaristic and in 1931, using the Mukden Incident as justification, invaded the province of Manchuria and fought several relatively small conflicts with China until the signing of the Tanggu Truce in 1933.

In 1934, National Socialist Adolf Hitler became führer of the now Nazi-controlled Germany. Immediately he began massive rearmaments of the country, leading to concern among France and the United Kingdom, who had lost much in the previous war against Germany, as well as Italy, which considered German territorial ambition as potentially threatening to its own. In a bid to secure its alliance, the French made an agreement with Italy, giving the latter a free hand in dealing Ethiopia, which Italy desired to conquer. The situation was further aggravated in March of 1935 when Hitler openly repudiated the Treaty of Versailles and sped up remilitarization, including the introduction of conscription. Hoping to contain Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front in April and in May France further concluded a treaty of mutual assistance with the Soviet Union, which was also concerned due to Germany's public foreign policy goals of capturing vast areas of eastern Europe.

The alliances, however, did not last long. The Franco-Soviet Pact was deliberately worded so it would have to go through the bureaucracy of the League of Nations before taking effect, rendering it toothless.^[1] In June, the United Kingdom sought to improve relations with Germany and made an independent naval agreement with them that eased part of Germany's prior restrictions. The United States, wishing to retain a policy of isolationism and concerned with events unfolding in Europe and Asia, passed the Neutrality Act in August. In October Italy began its invasion of Ethiopia, but soon found itself politically isolated with Germany the only major European nation supporting its aggression. Italy soon started to shift alliances and revoked its earlier objection to Germany potentially making Austria a satellite state.

In March of 1936, Hitler took a gamble and, in direct violation of the Versailles and Locarno treaties, remilitarized the Rhineland; he was encouraged after receiving little response from other European powers. When the Spanish Civil War broke out in July, Hitler and Mussolini supported Spanish fascist Generalísimo Francisco Franco in his coup d'état against the communist Spanish Republic, which was supported by the Soviet Union; both sides used the conflict as a means to test new weapons and methods of warfare.

With tensions mounting, several efforts to strengthen or consolidate power were made. In October, Germany and Italy formed the Rome-Berlin Axis and a month later Germany and Japan, having common cause in seeing communism, and the Soviet Union in particular, as a threat signed the Anti-Comintern Pact. In China, the Kuomintang and communist forces agreed to the formation of a united front to oppose Japan. In the Soviet Union, Stalin began the Great Purge of political and military ranks in order to secure his position.
Comments
Any thoughts? Oberiko 18:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems very thought through, Oberiko. I have no major concerns regarding this suggestion. Just some ballplay here on the section Hitler comes to power: You selected 2 Aug 1934 instead of 30 January 1933, and after consideration I also think 1934 is a better date (Führer rather than Chancellor). But the title comes to power is in this case a little misleading; the Nazi party was democratically elected into power (receiving 30-40% of the votes during 1932), and Hitler was appointed chancellor in early 1933. In 1934, he completes the Nazi "revolution" and assumes power as dictator. Therefore, the heading for 1934 maybe should be "assumes power", or "assumes full power", or something equivalent? (I have no perfect suggestion at the moment). A little squirrely, I know, but I just want to point it out. Mind you, I wouldn't kill myself if your heading remains! Good work, again. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 22:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Howdy DNA. The first levels aren't actually headers, they're for our purposes and just representative of what the paragraph will be about. I actually plan on avoiding breaking down the background into sections since there's a full Causes of World War II I'll be trying to skim to the bones. Oberiko 23:34, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Aha. Well then, completely ignore my previous post. Just continue, I think you are on the right track. --Dna-Dennis 23:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not at all! Actually, since you've been doing quite a bit of work with the pictures on the article, I wouldn't mind getting your top three picks (if I can fit that many) of what pictures to use. Also, did I leave any important events out? I'm not sure, for example, where to explain the failure of the Franco-Soviet Pact. Oberiko 00:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Oberiko, at the moment I don't see any problems here, it seems good. One note, maybe: Considering Stalin's great purge, even though it's significant and interesting, I fail to see any immediate important connection between it and the road to WW2. But my memory may fail me. Considering 3 top pics, I could live with the current Hitler/Musso only. A 2nd choice might be the Spanish Civil war, since it was a prelude sort of "training ground" for WW2, and a political test, if you see what I mean. A 3rd choice might be German rearmament or Hitler militarizing the Rhineland. Or Italy's invasion of Abyssinia. But, as you said, the number of pics will be determined by the text scope. No worries here, Oberiko - the background skeleton seems good to me. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 02:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the skeleton with a draft for the background. I'm not super attached to the Great Purge, but I'm not sure as of yet where would be the best place to bring it up, as some have cited it as being a motivating factor for Hitler to attack the USSR in 1941, if it doesn't mesh here, I'll remove it and add it to later section (if needed at all).

In regards to the pics, I wanted to use the Hitler / Mussolini photo, but it's dated after the end of the background and, in further consideration, this section has Italy siding with the Western Allies at first. I've got the Spanish Civil war (commented out) as well, but I just couldn't resist that picture of the Nuremberg Rally, IMO, it exemplifies the growing German threat. Thoughts? Oberiko 16:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Re the Great Purge, I can see leaving in a reference as it also helps explain the initial defeats suffered by Russia during Barbarossa. - Eron ^Talk 17:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a very good start. I'm trying to work through it paragraph by paragraph. As this is a summary article, my guiding principle is Strunk and White's admonish to "Omit needless words." If I think it can be clearly stated in four words instead of five, I have cut the fifth word. This will eliminate some nuances, but that is what the main article is for. That said, here's my revised version (wikilinks omitted):

In the aftermath of World War I, the defeated German Empire was made to sign the Treaty of Versailles. This restricted German military and territorial growth and required the payment of massive war reparations. Civil war in Russia led to the creation of the communist Soviet Union which soon fell under the control of Joseph Stalin. In Italy, Benito Mussolini seized power as a fascist dictator promising to create a "New Roman Empire". The ruling Kuomintang party in China launched a unification campaign against rebelling warlords in the mid-1920s, but was soon embroiled in a civil war against its former Chinese communist allies. In 1931, an increasingly militaristic Japan, which had long sought influence in China, used the Mukden Incident as justification to invade Manchuria; the two nations then fought several small conflicts until the Tanggu Truce in 1933.

In 1934, National Socialist Adolf Hitler took power in Germany and began a massive rearming campaign. This worried France and the United Kingdom, who had lost much in the previous war against Germany, as well as Italy, which saw its territorial ambitions threatened by those of Germany. To secure its alliance, the French allowed Italy a free hand in Ethiopia, which Italy desired to conquer. The situation was aggravated in early 1935 when the Saarland was legally reunited with Germany and Hitler repudiated the Treaty of Versailles, speeding up remilitarization and introducing conscription. Hoping to contain Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy formed the Stresa Front. The Soviet Union, also concerned due to Germany's goals of capturing vast areas of eastern Europe, concluded a treaty of mutual assistance with France.

These alliances did not amount to much. The Franco-Soviet Pact, required to go through the League of Nations bureaucracy before taking effect, was essentially toothless and in June of 1935, the United Kingdom made an independent naval agreement with Germany easing prior restrictions. The isolationist United States, concerned with events in Europe and Asia, passed the Neutrality Act in August. In October Italy invaded Ethiopia, but was soon politically isolated, with Germany the only major European nation supporting its aggression. Alliances shifted as a result, with Italy revoking its objections to Germany's goal of making Austria a satellite state.

In March of 1936, Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in direct violation of the Versailles and Locarno treaties, receiving little response from other European powers. When the Spanish Civil War broke out in July, Hitler and Mussolini supported fascist Generalísimo Francisco Franco in his coup against the Soviet-supported communist Spanish Republic. Both sides used the conflict to test new weapons and methods of warfare.

With tensions mounting, efforts to strengthen or consolidate power were made. In October, Germany and Italy formed the Rome-Berlin Axis and a month later Germany and Japan, each believing communism–and the Soviet Union in particular–to be a threat, signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, which Italy would join in the following year. In China, the Kuomintang and communist forces agreed on a ceasefire to present a united front to oppose Japan. In the Soviet Union, Stalin began the Great Purge to secure his position.

Quick note though is that the unification campaign was fought by the KMT and CPC against warlords, it was during the campaign that they had a falling out and turned on each other instead. Oberiko 17:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited that and added the rest. I cut the original draft by about 20% in length. (Hopefully I cut significantly less information!) - Eron ^Talk 17:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eron, I think it's looking pretty good now. Any one else? Oberiko 17:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, what can I say? Most impressive.

• Text draft: A very, very good draft. My "WW2-eye" has a hard time spotting any holes here. My only concern at the moment is regarding In Italy...dissatisfaction over their share of the spoils of war paved the road for Benito Mussolini to seize power as a fascist dictator.... As far as I know, the main reason for the rise of Italian fascism was to counter the threat of socialism and communism, and not primarily because of perceived failed spoils of WW1 (even though it surely helped). Benito Mussolini#Birth of Fascism and Italian fascism#Rise to power seems to confirm this. Otherwise, no alarm bells ring in my head. Very good, Oberiko!

• Pictures: I remember having seen that Nuremberg pic somewhere before, and I actually didn't think it existed/was left on Wiki. No doubt - it should definitely be used! Forgive my language; nuke the Spanish war - the Nuremberg pic is freakin empire strikes back, for chrissake! Rearmament en masse...what could better illustrate the growing threat? (the only downside is that as a thumb it is a little unrevealing, but who cares?) [[APPROVED!]]

• The Stalin Purge: I have no problems with mentioning it as suggested. But its connection with WW2 is to me "obscured by clouds". In my opinion, Hitler would have invaded SU anyway - (1) it was a long term plan for lebensraum and self-dependency already layed out in Mein Kampf (2) The Nazis couldn't accept Communism (as Stalinism) as a competing ideology (there were too many similarities...) and (3) since Hitler couldn't beat Britain, he had to turn his thirst for conquest somewhere else - eastwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dna-webmaster (talk • contribs) 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And a very good compression, Eron! --Dna-Dennis 19:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DNA, I think you're right. How about we change the sentence to be 'In Italy, Benito Mussolini exploited growing civil unrest to seize power as a fascist dictator, promising to create a "New Roman Empire"'? Not only shorter, but leaves the complexities of how he came to power out of it. In regards to the Great Purge, I guess we can leave it out entirely, at least on this article. There are counter-claims as to how much it actually did hinder the army, so we can leave it up to the Great Purge and Operation Barbarossa to explore the topic in more depth. Sound good? Oberiko 19:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of assistance. I reviewed the Birth of Fascism and I see your point re the reasons behind it; I've amended my draft accordingly. Agree on the value of the Nuremburg photo (though I'd say it was more Attack of the Clones.) For the Purge, Hitler would have invaded regardless but he might not have made it so far if so much of the Soviet military leadership hadn't been purged. - Eron ^Talk 19:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd leave the fears of communism out. The Italian Socialist Party was legitimate and fairly popular, albeit in conflict with Mussolini's fascists. The Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946) article points out that Victor Emmanuel III simply chose the fascists over the socialists since the latter were anti-monarchists. Oberiko 20:01, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. We don't detail the reasons for Hitler's rise; so be it for Mussolini. - Eron ^Talk 20:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I took out the bit about communist fears in Italy and removed Italy and Japan being former members of the Allies since we don't do the same for the U.K., France, Russia or the States, along with few other minor changes. If we're happy with this, I'll go ahead and start working on the next section. Oberiko 21:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a suggestion, not on the contents of the work here, but the location of it. I think it would be a lot easier to follow what's going on here (especially for editors who may arrive here after this was all started) to put this on a separate sandbox or subpage, and either keep the discussion here, or on the sandbox talk page. Thoughts? Parsecboy 19:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sandboxing the draft is probably a good idea. But if we do, the discussion needs to move as well. My oly concern would be maintaining the visibility of the work to others - I know they can get to the sandbox, but they will have to know it is there. I'm also wondering about migrating the work back to the actual page - should that happen all at once, or in stages? - Eron ^Talk 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking myself that if this project is moved to a sandbox, that visibility of said project here is of great importance. Perhaps could a message at the top of the page stating that significant work on the article body is being done at whatever sandbox we use? That way, it will be prominent, and will not be accidentally archived before the work is completed. I think either option (all at once, in stages) in regards to actually reworking the article is fine, and depends on the preferences of the editor who actually does it. It would probably be easier to do it by section, as well as easier to follow each individual change. Parsecboy 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The only issue with staging is in the meat of the article, where we are shifting from a geographic organization to a chronological one. There's no real way to stage that change. But I agree we should stage in the other major sections. (For the big change to the course of the war, maybe we can make a special announcement here once it is complete and request comments at the sandbox before porting it over.) - Eron ^Talk 21:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point; the main body of the article is going to have to be more or less all at once. I agree that it's a good idea to post an announcement here before making the changes, once work is done. Parsecboy 21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. To make coherence, how about we sandbox sections which have gone through the initial drafts on this talk page? For example, I don't foresee anything major happening to either the background or war breaks out sections (just tweaks, debates over images etc.), so we can probably go ahead and shelf them. It would also help keep the page clear if we only had one section up for heavy development at a time. Oberiko 22:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the sandbox at World War II/temp. I'm pleasantly surprised as it's a bit shorter then I had originally thought it would be at this point. Oberiko 23:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

War breaks out

In mid-1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan began a full-scale invasion of China. The Soviets were quick to lend support against Japan, though doing so effectively ended China's prior cooperation with Germany. Major battles were fought at Shanghai, Taiyuan and Xinkou before the Chinese capital, Nanjing, was captured in December. Chinese forces temporarily stalled the Japanese advance by flooding the Yellow River in order to prepare for their stand at Wuhan in June 1938.

In Europe, Italy, which had joined the Anti-Comintern Pact in November of 1937, and Germany were becoming bolder in their ambitions. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers. Encouraged by this, Hitler began making claims on Sudetenland, which France and Britain conceded to him provided Germany make no further territorial demands. Germany soon reneged its agreement and in March 1939 fully occupied Czechoslovakia. Alarmed by this disregard, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain made a guarantee to Poland at the end of March for their support in maintaining its independence. Italy, seeing itself becoming a second-rate member of the Axis after Germany's gains, conquered Albania in April, provoking France and Britain to extend the same guarantee to Romania and Greece. The Soviet Union also attempted to form an alliance with France and Britain, but were rebuffed due to Poland's concern over Soviet intentions.

In May of 1939, Japan and the Soviet Union, which had been having previous skirmishes, became involved in a border war. Germany and Italy formalized their alliance with the Pact of Steel and, in a move which shocked the remainder of Europe, Germany concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviets in August; a secret part of this pact was the agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between German and Soviet spheres of influence. Britain attempted to counter this by strengthening the terms of their commitment to Poland, but it only achieved a marginal delay of the attack.

On September 1st, Germany invaded Poland. France and the United Kingdom, along with its Commonwealth, soon declared war on Germany, but lent little support other then a small French attack into the Saarland. On the 16th of September the Soviets and Japanese signed a ceasefire, freeing the Soviets to launch their own invasion on Poland and the Japanese to commence an attack on Changsha. On September 28th, the Soviets and Germans announced a boundary and friendship treaty, just a week before the defeat of Poland on October 6th.

Comments
Any thoughts? Oberiko 16:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. And then I took out my trusty word-trimmer:

In mid-1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan began full invasion of China. The Soviets quickly lent support to China, effectively ending China's prior cooperation with Germany. After several major battles, the Chinese capital Nanjing was captured in December. Chinese forces stalled the Japanese advance by flooding the Yellow River and prepared for a stand at Wuhan in June 1938.

In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming bolder. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers. Encouraged, Hitler began making claims on the Sudetenland, which France and Britain conceded in exchange for a promise of no further territorial demands. Germany soon reneged, and in March 1939 fully occupied Czechoslovakia. Alarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence. When Italy conquered Albania in April, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece. The Soviet Union attempted to ally with France and Britain, but was rebuffed due to Polish concerns over Soviet intentions.

In May of 1939, Japan and the Soviet Union, became involved in a border war. Germany and Italy formalized their alliance with the Pact of Steel. Shocking Europe, Germany concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviets in August, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between the German and Soviet spheres. Britain attempted to counter this pact by strengthening their commitment to Poland.

On September 1st, Germany invaded Poland. France and Britain, along with the Commonwealth, declared war on Germany but lent little support other then a small French attack into the Saarland. On the September 16th, following a ceasefire with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland. The Japanese commenced an attack on Changsha. On September 28th, the Soviets and Germans announced a boundary and friendship treaty, one week before the defeat of Poland on October 6th

I removed the note about Italy joining the anti-Comintern; while it fits in this time period, thematically I think it would be better placed in the previous section. - Eron ^Talk 16:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking that about the Anti-Comintern myself. I do think we should keep something about Shanghai though, it's among the most important battles of the entire SSJW. So, I have a few suggestions for the revision:

• "After several major battles, the Chinese capital Nanjing was captured in December." --> Starting at Shanghai, the Japanese pushed Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanjing in December.
• "Shocking Europe, Germany concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviets in August, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between the German and Soviet spheres." --> Shocking Europe, Germany concluded a non-aggression pact with the Soviets in August, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between them.
• "On the September 16th, following a ceasefire with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland. The Japanese commenced an attack on Changsha." --> On September 16th, following a ceasefire, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland while the Japanese commenced an attack on Changsha. Oberiko 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the first two suggestions. I am concerned that the third makes it unclear who was involved in the ceasefire. It's my understanding that the ceasefire allowed both the USSR and Japan to make their respective attacks without worrying about the other. - Eron ^Talk 18:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last point, I'm probably going to need some help on it. There were actually multiple reasons for what was going on. Stalin invaded Poland when he did not only because of the situation with Japan (which the Soviets had essentially won at the end of August, though with significant casualties), but he also wanted to gauge the reactions of the Western Allies over Poland and needed the time to mobilize the Red Army (which was taking longer then expected due to the Great Purge). Another of the big prompting factors for him was that the Germans had begun to operate east of the agreed demarcation line. The ceasefire, from a Soviet perspective was mostly to ensure that they would only fight on one front. Rapid developments in Poland is speculated to be the reason why they didn't actually press further or make territorial demands, they basically needed it wrapped up quickly.

For the Japanese, the aforementioned Soviet victory was, of course, a very large factor, but another was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Not only did the agreement violate the Anti-Comintern Pact, but it also led to concern that the Soviets might focus on Asia since they were seemingly at peace with Germany. Their loss to the Soviet's also made them believe that they should focus on the "strike south" policy of acquiring British and Dutch colonies in Asia instead of the "strike north" policy of attacking the Soviet Union. Changsha actually seems to have little to do with their reasons for an armistice, I just put it in since it seemed like a good place for it.

How about we use the following:

"By the end of August, the Soviets had routed Japanese forces at Nomonhan. On September 1st, Germany invaded Poland, prompting France and Britain, along with the Commonwealth, to declare war. They lent little support, however, other then a small French attack into the Saarland. On September 16th, following an official armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland. On September 28th, the Soviets and Germans announced a boundary and friendship treaty, one week before the defeat of Poland on October 6th."

And alter "Shocking Europe" to "Shocking both its allies and enemies", as Italy and Japan were both angered by the pact, which was made without their consultation or knowledge. Oberiko 20:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. - Eron ^Talk 20:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hate to do this, but I think have to put Changsha back in. It was nagging me, so a bit of checking shows that the Japanese launched the attack not only for strategic reasons, but also to restore moral after their loss at Nomonhan and Germany's breaking of the Anti-Comintern Pact. It's also a pretty important battle, as it was the first major one that the Chinese won. I'd like to make the following change:

"On September 16th, following an official armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland. On September 28th, the Soviets and Germans announced a boundary and friendship treaty, one week before the defeat of Poland on October 6th." --> "On September 16th, following an official armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland. The Japanese, now focusing on their Chinese operations, attacked the city of Changsha. By October 8th, Poland had been conquered, though the attack on Changsha was repulsed." Oberiko 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

War breaks out - very good again. Compressed and informative, the essentials are covered. At the moment I see no major thing ignored (but I must admit I am a little rusty on the Asian side). Nice going, Oberiko! --Dna-Dennis 07:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There are tables and articles about the number of casualties suffered by the various combatants, along with the number of forces each combatant lost by virtue of their being captured by an enemy.I think a table or article showing the number of casualties INFLICTED by each combantant, and the number of forces captured by each combatant, would be very interesting.I have read extensively on WW II, and have searched the Internet, but I have not found any compilation of statistics in this regard. So, while we know how many Soviets were killed and/or captured, and we can infer that virtually all were killed and/or captured by by the European members of the Axis, it wold be interesting to know how many casualties separate Hungarian and Romanian forces inflicted on the Soviet Union.Then there are the German and other Axis casualties. For example, we know that about 5,000,000 German military men were killed. But who killed how many of them? And we know that several hundred thousand, if not over a million, Axis forces were captured. Who captured how many of them?Thanks.69.238.75.88 17:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

Best place to discuss that would be over at Casualties of World War II. Oberiko 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I repeated the comment there.69.239.85.204 18:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

I know it's not directly related to this article, but we're having a discussion on a header image for the Iraq war article and I thought it might be helpful to hear some perspectives on how the WWII editors came to their header image. It would be particularly interesting to hear what general rationales or guidelines you used to find your image, especially since your excellent header image is one of our guides. Cheers. Publicus 21:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft 1

Following the invasion of Poland, neither Germany or the Western Allies launched any direct attacks on the other. In China, the Japanese failure to capture Changsha led the Chinese to attempt a counter attack on November 1st. On November 4th, the United States amended its Neutrality Act to assist the Western Allies by allowing Cash-and-Carry purchases. The Soviets encountered resistance in the Baltics from Finland, leading to a war on November 30th. In March 1940, the Finns signed a peace agreement with the Soviets and the Chinese offensive had ended in failure. In April Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Despite Allied support, they were conquered two moths later. Discontent over the early handling of the campaign led to the replacement of Chamberlain with Winston Churchill.

On May 10th, the same day as Churchill's appointment, Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. The Germans made rapid gains due to blitzkrieg tactics, though British forces managed to evacuate before being captured at the end of May. In early June, with France nearly beaten, Italy invaded as well. France surrendered at the end of June and was divided into German and Italian occupation zones, along with an unoccupied rump state under the Vichy Regime. During this period the Soviet Union completed their own occupation of the Baltics, installing pro-Soviet governments. On July 3rd, the British attacked a French fleet in Algeria to prevent their seizure by Germany. In early July, Germany began an air-superiority campaign over Britain to allow an invasion and the Royal Navy fought an inconclusive battle with the Italian navy near Calabria. Germans u-boats were enjoying success in the Atlantic, as the Royal Navy was stretched thin with commitments to protect British interests; this was somewhat alleviated by an Anglo-American agreement in September which provided the Royal Navy with more ships.

In August, Italian forces in Africa conquered British Somaliland and Chinese Communists launched an attack against Japanese forces. A month later Italy made a small incursion into British-held Egypt and Japan curbed Chinese supplies by setting up bases in French Indochina. At the end of September, the Axis Powers were formalized with a military alliance pact between Japan, Italy and Germany. The pact stipulated that, barring the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked an Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three; this was ostensibly a warning to the United States to remain neutral. In October, Italy began an offensive against Greece. Rising tensions between Chinese communist and nationalist forces eventually led to the New Fourth Army Incident in January 1941, which effectively ended cooperation between the two.

Starting in mid-November, Italian fortunes started to reverse. On the 12th, at Taranto, the British put three Italian battleships out of commission via carrier attack and on the 15th, the Greeks began their counter-attack. On December 8th, the British Army launched a major offensive from Egypt and in the middle of January, 1941, the British launched an attack into Italian East Africa. By February 8th, the British had pushed the Italians well into Libya, while the Greeks had pushed Italian forces back into Albania. In early March, Churchill ordered a significant number of British troops out of Africa to bolster the Greeks and at the end of the month the Royal Navy dealt the Regia Marina a crippling blow at the Battle of Cape Matapan. The United Kingdom, rapidly going bankrupt, was assisted by the American Lend-Lease policy passed in early March.

The Germans soon intervened to assist their Italian allies. To bolster the Italian forces, Hitler sent a contingent of German forces to Libya in February, which by the end of March launched an offensive against the now diminished British forces. In early April the Germans invaded Greece and Yugoslavia. By the end of April, the Germans had pushed the British back into Egypt, with the exception of the now besieged port of Tobruk, and had conquered Yugoslavia and mainland Greece. The Germans further supported a rebellion in Iraq from bases within Vichy controlled Syria and Lebanon. Germany's ally Japan though, signed a neutrality agreement with the Soviets in April.

By the end of May, the British had quelled the Iraqi rebellion and scored a propaganda victory by sinking the German flagship Bismark; the Germans however had repelled a British attempt to relieve Tobruk and conquered the Greek island of Crete. In June, the British launched a successful invasion of French Syria and Lebanon, but failed in a second operation against Axis forces in Libya.

Comments
Thoughts? Oberiko 15:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• In April, invading German forces came into combat with the Western Allies in Norway. =>In April Germany invaded Denmark and Norway, despite Allied support campaign ended as German victory two moths later.
  
• The same day as Churchill's appointment, Germany invaded France. =>The same day as Churchill's appointment, Germany invaded France and Low Countries.
  
• On July 3rd, the British sank French ships in Algeria to prevent their seizure by Germany. => On July 3rd, the British attacked French fleet in Algeria to prevent their seizure by Germany.
  
• A month later Italy made a small incursion into British-held Egypt and Japan curbed Chinese supplies by setting up bases in French Indochina. => A month later Italy made a small incursion into British-held Egypt and Japan curbed Chinese supplies by setting up bases in French Indochina, which was followed by French-Thai War.
  
• In June, the British launched a successful invasion of Syria and Lebanon, but failed in a second operation against German forces in Libya. => In June, the British launched a successful invasion of French Syria and Lebanon, but failed in a second operation against Axis forces in Libya.
  

Also I think that somewhere should be mentioned that in June 1940, USSR occupied baltic states and bessarabia.--Staberinde 16:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Annexed is a more accurate term, than occupied, in regards to Soviet territorial gains in this period. With repsect, Ko Soi IX 17:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think occupation is more commonly used, though the installation of pro-Soviet governments should be mentioned. Regarding the French-Thai war, I'm not sure if that's important enough to warrant mention, especially as it didn't involve either Allied or Axis powers and less then a year later Japan captured it anyway. Oberiko 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

This time it's mostly some language notes from me:

• Chamberlain & Churchill is mentioned without any "British" qualifier - is this too demanding on the reader? Maybe inserting British discontent over the early handling... etc solves this problem.
• Dunkirk: the text managed to evacuate before being captured is to me somewhat inconclusive; did they escape and then got captured? Maybe managed to evacuate, escaping capture or something like it solves it.
• Vichy: rump state - never heard that expression, might fit, English is not my native language. Is puppet state too harsh here?
• Battle of Britain - Germany began an air-superiority campaign over Britain to allow an invasion - it is not clear from the text that Germany lost this campaign. Maybe just inserting unsuccessful air-superiority campaign solves it.
• (From my talk) Dakar, Gabon, the French-Thai War feels ok to omit. On Thailand, after reading French-Thai_War#Aftermath, The Japanese won from Phibun a secret verbal promise to support them in an attack on Malaya and Burma. However, the Thai Prime Minister was fickle and he was quite ready to forget this promise if circumstances changed. His government also asked both the British and Americans for guarantees of effective support if Thailand were invaded by Japan., Thailand doesn't sound very much Axis in 1941 :). No reason to omit/include, just an interesting note.
• Invasion of French Indochina is worth mentioning as you did. A little interesting, since it is Axis puppet vs very soon Axis...
• Battle of Taranto - is it worth mentioning the torpedo aspect perhaps? I don't know. Maybe not. I know some say this might have been an inspiration for Pearl Harbor, and some don't. Battle_of_Taranto#Aftermath claims it was. Never mind.
• Am I totally off here, or have you mentioned Hundred Regiments Offensive? Since it started August 1940, maybe it should be under War breaks out? I don't know how you thought, and I am rusty on the Asian side...

Overall, you managed to squeeze in the important events into a small text, along with a lot of action; there is France, Churchill, Scandinavia, Dunkirk, Axis formation, Mediterranean, Africa, Tobruk, Bismarck, Crete etc. Very good, again! Regards, --Dna-Dennis 19:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a quickie here, before I'm off to a friend...didn't Germany sink an American ship here somewhere, resulting in a "shoot on sight" policy during the convoys? Or maybe this was later? Haven't time to check now, just mentioning it. I'm off, see you tomorrow! --Dna-Dennis 19:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to take a look at the above draft and, as with the previous ones, see if I can tweak the sentences to trim it back a bit more. I'm uncertain where to post the results; are we going to continue working on the new drafts here or at World War II/temp? I'd rather go to the temp page just to keep this clear of too many versions. - Eron ^Talk 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we can keep it here, for maximum visibility, until it goes through a "once-over", then we can transfer to the other page. Oberiko 11:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft 2

Following the invasion of Poland, neither Germany or the Western Allies launched any direct attacks on the other. In November, the United States amended its Neutrality Act to assist the Western Allies by allowing Cash-and-Carry purchases. In April, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Despite Allied support, the nations were conquered two moths later. Discontent over the early handling of the campaign led to the replacement of British Prime Minister Chamberlain with Winston Churchill on May 10th.

The same day as Churchill's appointment, Germany invaded France and the Low Countries. The Germans made rapid progress due to blitzkrieg tactics. Near the end of May, British forces managed to evacuate before being captured, though they had to abandon their heavy equipment. In early June, with France nearly beaten, Italy invaded as well, declaring war on both France and the United Kingdom. France then surrendered at the end of June and was divided into German and Italian occupation zones, along with an unoccupied rump state under the Vichy Regime. In early July, the British attacked a French fleet in Algeria to prevent their seizure by Germany.

In the Baltics, the began placing troops but encountered resistance from Finland in late November 1939. This led to a four month war which ended with Finnish land concessions. In mid-1940, the Soviet Union completed their occupation of the Baltics, installing pro-Soviet governments.

With the neutralization of France, Germany, Italy and Japan were emboldened. The Germans concentrated their efforts on the United Kingdom, conducting an air-superiority campaign over Britain to facilitate invasion and, exploiting the Royal Navy's overcommitment in protecting the Atlantic, Mediterranean and the English Channel; enjoyed success utilizing u-boats against British shipping in the Atlantic. Italy began its operations in the Mediterranean, fighting an inconclusive naval battle with the Royal Navy near Calabria in early July, then conquering British Somaliland in August and making a small incursion into British-held Egypt in early September. Japan was able to increase its blockade on China by seizing several military bases in September from the now isolated French Indochina.

To assist the United Kingdom, the United States agreed to a trade of American destroyers for British bases in early September.

At the end of September, the Axis Powers were formalized with the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy and Germany. The pact stipulated that, barring the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked an Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three; this was ostensibly a warning to the United States to remain neutral.

Soon after the signing of the pact, Italy's fortunes began to change. In October, Italy invaded Greece, but by the middle of November, was being pushed back. Around this time, the British put three Italian battleships out of commission via carrier attack at Taranto. Starting in early December, the British Army first launched a major offensive into Libya from Egypt and another into Italian East Africa. By early February, 1940, the British had pushed the Italians well into Libya, while the Greeks had pushed Italian forces back into Albania. In early March, Churchill ordered a significant number of British troops out of Africa to bolster the Greeks. At the end of March the Royal Navy dealt the Regia Marina a crippling blow at the Battle of Cape Matapan.

The United Kingdom, rapidly going bankrupt, was assisted by the American Lend-Lease policy passed in early March.

Witnessing Italian losses, the Germans soon intervened to assist their allies. To bolster the Italian forces, Hitler sent a contingent of German forces to Libya in February, which by the end of March launched an offensive against the now diminished British forces. In early April the Germans invaded Greece and Yugoslavia. By the end of April, the Germans had pushed the British back into Egypt, with the exception of the now besieged port of Tobruk, and had conquered Yugoslavia and mainland Greece. The Germans further supported a rebellion in Iraq from bases within Vichy controlled Syria and Lebanon.

By the end of May, the British had quelled the Iraqi rebellion and scored a propaganda victory by sinking the German flagship Bismark; the Germans however had repelled a British attempt to relieve Tobruk and conquered the Greek island of Crete. In June, the British launched a successful invasion of French Syria and Lebanon, but failed in a second operation against Axis forces in Libya.

In Asia, alliances were changing. In January 1941, cooperation between Chinese communist and nationalist forces effectively ended. In April, the Japanese, in preparation for war against the United Kingdom and the United States, signed a neutrality agreement with the Soviets in April.

Comments
I've changed it in a way that I think is easier to read (not so strictly chronological). Thoughts on if it's an improvement or not? Oberiko 00:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• I've removed the Winter Offensive and Hundred Regiments Offensive. Neither really had a large or lasting impact (with the exception that the HRO was the basis for Japan's Three Alls Policy), so I think I can safely leave them out. Oberiko 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• A few more minor changes. If it looks alright then, I'll put it on the temp page. Oberiko 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the not-strictly-chronological approach is better, though I wonder if this version is short-changing the Asian theatre. Even if the two offensives were inconclusive, we may want to mention them to prevent this period looking like an Asian Phoney War. Here's my edited version; I did my usual word-trimming, and added some detail to Asia. - Eron ^Talk 16:31, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Following the invasion of Poland, the Soviets began moving troops into the Baltics. Finnish resistance in late November led to a four-month war, ending with Finnish land concessions. By mid-1940, the Soviet Union's occupation of the Baltics was completed with the installation of pro-Soviet governments.

In western Europe, British troops deployed to the Continent but neither Germany nor the Allies launched direct attacks on the other. In April, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway. Denmark immediately capitulated, and despite Allied support Norway was conquered within two months. British discontent over the Norwegian campaign led to the replacement of Prime Minister Chamberlain by Winston Churchill on May 10th.

On that same day, Germany invaded France and the Low Countries, making rapid progress using blitzkrieg tactics. By the end of the month the Netherlands and Belgium had been overrun and British troops were forced to evacuate the continent, abandoning their heavy equipment. In early June Italy invaded, declaring war on both France and the United Kingdom. Paris fell to the Germans on June 14; on June 22 France surrendered and was divided into German and Italian occupation zones, and an unoccupied rump state under the Vichy Regime. In early July, the British attacked the French fleet in Algeria to prevent their seizure by Germany.

With the France neutralized, the Axis was emboldened. Germany began an air superiority campaign over Britain to prepare for an invasion and enjoyed success against an over-extended Royal Navy, using U-boats against British shipping in the Atlantic. Italy began operations in the Mediterranean, fighting an inconclusive naval battle with the Royal Navy near Calabria in early July, conquering British Somaliland in August, and making an incursion into British-held Egypt in early September. Japan increased its blockade of China in September by seizing several bases from the now-isolated French Indochina.

Throughout this period, the neutral United States took measures to assist the Allies. In November 1939, the American Neutrality Act was amended to allow Cash-and-Carry purchases by the Allies. In September 1940, the United States agreed to a trade of American destroyers for British bases, while further American assistance to Britain came with the Lend-Lease policy in March 1941.

At the end of September 1940, the Tripartite Pact between Japan, Italy and Germany formalized the Axis Powers. As a warning to the United States, the pact stipulated that, with the exception of the Soviet Union, any country not currently in the war which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three.

Soon after the pact, Italy's fortunes changed. In October, Italy invaded Greece but was halted by the end of November. The British put three Italian battleships out of commission via carrier attack at Taranto, and then launched offensives against Libya and Italian East Africa. By early February 1941 Italian forces had been pushed back into Libya, by the British, and into Albania, by the Greeks. In March, Churchill ordered a number of British troops from Africa to bolster the Greeks and the Royal Navy dealt the Regia Marina a crippling blow at the Battle of Cape Matapan.

The Germans soon intervened to assist Italy. Hitler sent German forces to Libya in February; by the end of March they had launched an offensive against the diminished British forces. In early April the Germans invaded Greece and Yugoslavia. By the end of April, the Germans had pushed the British back into Egypt, with the exception of besieged port of Tobruk, and had conquered Yugoslavia and mainland Greece. The Germans also supported a rebellion in Iraq from bases within Vichy-controlled Syria and Lebanon.

By the end of May, the British had quelled the Iraqi rebellion and scored a propaganda victory by sinking the German flagship Bismark; the Germans had repelled a British attempt to relieve Tobruk and conquered the Greek island of Crete. In June, the British successfully invaded French Syria and Lebanon, but failed in a second operation against Axis forces in Libya.

In Asia, in spite of several offensives by both sides, the Sino-Japanese War was stalemated by 1940. Tensions between Chinese communist and nationalist forces culminated in the New Fourth Army incident, effectively ending their co-operation by January 1941.

With the situation in Europe and Asia relatively stable, Germany and Japan began to individually plan their next moves. In April, 1941, the Japanese, preparing for war against Britain and the United States, signed a neutrality agreement with the Soviet Union. By contrast, in May the Germans began tapering off their campaign over Britain in order to concentrate forces for an attack on the Soviet Union.

As usual Eron, much improved. I made a few small tweaks and added a bit about the end of the Battle of Britain and the preparation for Barbarossa. Oberiko 17:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Athough Spain was having their own civil war at the time, I believe that there isn't enough about their sympathy towards Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.87.83 (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Spain may have been something of an economic supporter, but was far from an active participant (I think the Blue Division was their only significant contribution). Most historians I've read claim that Franco explicitly wanted to remain out of the war, which is why his demands on Germany for Spanish involvement were unreasonably high. In terms of Portugal, I think the most active combat they were in revolved around the Japanese invasion of Portuguese Timor. Oberiko 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of October 8, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The article was awarded GA status back in 2006 and since then the GA criteria has changed significantly. I realize that this article has gone through several FACs and a GA review, and most of these point out the issue of a lack of inline citations. Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources. The best way to improve the article is to go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability. A few examples of the many statements that need sources include:

1. "In January, 1943, the British developed the H2S radar system which was undetectable by Metox."
2. "They had assembled around 120 Divisions,consisting of over 2 million men, of which 1.3 million were Americans, 600,000 were British and the rest Canadian, Free French and Polish."
3. "Soviet soldiers numbering 135,000 were killed or wounded, 290,000 were captured, while another 250,000 managed to escape."
4. "The siege lasted for a total of 900 days, from September 8 1941 until January 27 1944." (Also, full dates should be wikilinked)
5. "The subsequent battle resulted in the destruction of German Army Group Centre and over 800,000 German casualties, the greatest defeat for the Wehrmacht during the war."
6. Additionally there are several other statements that have "citation needed" tags after them, these should also be addressed.

If necessary, include more online sources if you need to for finding citations for the information. There are also a lot of grammar problems throughout the article, including many sentences that are lacking periods or that do not have inline citations directly following the punctuation. I'd recommend that before nominating the article again that several outside editors who have not contributed to the article look it over and give it a good copyedit. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad, NPOV, and image requirements. Although the length is long, this event is one of the most detailed in history and needs a good representation of all sides of the conflict, which this article does. I didn't see any NPOV statements that stand out, but make sure to go through the article again before nominating to make sure it isn't quick-failed over that. The article has a large number of images, and it's great that they're free. Again, if you address the issues above and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN and let me know and I'll look it over again (so you can avoid the current month+ backlog). If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 22:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the infobox list the main countries involved in World War II? Currently it is confusing as there is no mention of the main combatants and the link under the combatants section in the infobox only gives a link to another page which is equally confusing in that it lists every singal country involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.231.58 (talk) 00:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check the infobox page for that discussion (link at top of this page) for that discussion. Oberiko 00:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't like these terms used in the title for sections. These are used for much smaller units, as companies to regiments, not armygroups. Regrouping is purposly falling back and well regrouping and gathering more supplies and men. This is not being pushed back by the enemy without a choice. Counterattack is also similar, it should be used with a small unit from company to regiment. A counter attack is not done by an armygroup, a counteroffensive is done by an army group. Look at the Battle of the Bulge, it was a German counteroffensive, not a German counterattack. --64.205.199.7 17:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the old infobox image at the top of the article (the one that showed the multiple images together). Now it's just a map. 69.40.247.27 20:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Check Template talk:WW2InfoBox. We decided to use a map due to neutrality concerns. Oberiko 20:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft 1

On June 22nd, Germany, along with other European Axis members and Finland, invaded the Soviet Union. Axis forces made significant gains into Soviet territory and inflicted large numbers of casualties until the offensive began to stall as winter approached. In September, the siege of Leningrad began, and in October a renewed offensive was made against Moscow, the Soviet capital. After the halt of the German offensive, the Soviet's launched a winter counter-offensive using reserve troops brought up from the border near Japanese Manchuria.

Following the German attack on the Soviets, the United Kingdom began to regroup. In August, they jointly issued the Atlantic Charter with the United States and then, along with the Soviet Union, invaded Iran to secure the Persian Corridor and Iran's oilfields. In December, they launched a counter-offensive in the desert, reclaiming all gains the Germans and Italians had made.

In Asia, Japan was preparing for war. The Japanese plan was to create a large perimeter stretching into the western-central Pacific in order to facilitate a defensive war while exploiting the resources of Southeast Asia; as a further precaution, the Japanese also planned to neutralize the United States Pacific Fleet. In preparation, Japan seized military control of southern Indochina in July, 1941; an action the United States, United Kingdom and other western governments responded to by freezing all Japanese assets. On December 7th, the Japanese struck, launching near simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific, including an attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbor.

These actions prompted the United States, United Kingdom, China, and other Western Allies to declare war on Japan. Italy, Germany, and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States. In January, the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China issued the Declaration by United Nations, formalizing their alliance against the Axis Powers with the exception that the Soviet Union maintained its neutrality agreement with Japan.

The Axis Powers, however, were able to continue their offensives. Japan had almost fully conquered Southeast Asia with minimal losses by the end of April, 1942. They took large numbers of prisoners in the Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies and Singapore, as well as sinking significant Allied warships not only at Pearl Harbor, but also in the Java and South China seas. The only real successes against Japan were a repulsion of their renewed attack on Changsha in late December and a psychological strike from a bombing raid on Japan's capital Tokyo in April.

Germany was able to regain the initiative as well. Exploiting American inexperience with submarine warfare, they sunk significant resources near the American Atlantic coast. In the desert, they launched an offensive in January, pushing the British back to positions at the Gazala Line by early February. In the Soviet Union, the Soviet's winter counter-offensive had tapered off by March. In both the desert and the Soviet Union, there followed a temporary lull in combat which Germany used to prepare for their spring offensives.

Comments
Thoughts? Oberiko 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I would refer to the "bombing raid on Honshū" as the "bombing raid on Japan's capital, Tokyo, and other Japanese cities." The psychological boost from bombing Japan's CAPITAL was spectacular on the American side. 69.230.175.70 21:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

Changed, thanks. I've left out the other cities, as Tokyo, being hit by close to 2/3 of the raids, was clearly the primary target and the one that caused the most impact. Oberiko 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work, some suggestions : In the third paragraph, I would refer to the Greater East Asia co-prosperity Sphere in internal link. The US embargo was announced on 26 July, maybe "july" would be better than "late july" to described the seizure of Indochina. Paragraph 5, I would add to "the only success" "apart from some chinese victories" such as the third battle of Changsha Battle_of_Changsha_(1942) --Flying tiger 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Changsha was a good addition. I'd rather not include the GEACS though, it's better explained in the article on the expansion itself. Oberiko 12:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work again, Oberiko! I really like your variations between politics and military maneuvers - it's quite refreshing, and even more important, enlightening to the reader. I particularly liked your descriptions of the unfolding of events in the Pacific; very, very nice; Japan intentions->US/UK responses->SE Asia invasions/Pearl Harbor->Declarations of war. Quite important, as it is here (as the heading implies) the war becomes truly global. I will scrutinize the section more carefully soon, and try to find holes :). In the meantime, I have only some minor notes, concerning Barbarossa; maybe it would be wise to underline the dramatics a little further here. What I mean, you know, "When Barbarossa commences, the world will hold its breath and make no comment." (Adolf Hitler) - and he was quite correct. And maybe underline the German "surprise" breach of agreements (I know it wasn't a complete surprise, but to Stalin it certainly seems it was). And maybe also mention that the Germans also suffered heavy casualties during Barbarossa. A quick-and-dirty suggestion:

"On June 22nd, Germany breached the previous non-agression pact and, along with other European Axis members and Finland, launched a massive (surprise?) invasion of the (western?) Soviet Union. Axis forces made significant gains into Soviet territory and inflicted as well as received large numbers of casualties until the offensive began to stall as winter approached. In September, the Siege of Leningrad began, and in October a renewed offensive was made against the Soviet capital Moscow, which failed."

Just a suggestion. I will check out the section more soon, and get back here. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 15:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dna-Dennis. I think you're right in that Barbarossa needs a bit more attention to highlight its importance. I'm going to leave out the surprise bit, as while Stalin was seemingly surprised, there are historians who argue that he was anticipating it and was actually in preparation for on offensive of his own against Germany; overall, a situation a bit to complex and requiring to much explanation (and counter-explanation) for this article. I'm also not sure about putting in the German casualties, as they suffered roughly 1/3 those of the Soviets; bear also in mind that the Soviet figure we have includes KIA and POW/MIA, while the Germans include KIA, POW/MIA and injured. A pretty good ratio by any account. Oberiko 17:25, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Draft 2

On June 22nd, Germany, along with other European Axis members and Finland, invaded the Soviet Union. Axis forces made significant gains into Soviet territory and inflicted large numbers of casualties until the offensive began to stall as winter approached. In September, the siege of Leningrad began, and in October Sevastopol was sieged and a renewed offensive was made against Moscow, the Soviet capital. After the halt of the German offensive, the Soviet's launched a winter counter-offensive using reserve troops brought up from the border near Japanese Manchuria.

Following the German attack on the Soviets, the United Kingdom began to regroup. In August, they jointly issued the Atlantic Charter with the United States and then, along with the Soviet Union, invaded Iran to secure the Persian Corridor and Iran's oilfields. In December, they launched a counter-offensive in the desert, reclaiming all gains the Germans and Italians had made.

In Asia, Japan was preparing for war. The Japanese plan was to create a large perimeter stretching into the western-central Pacific in order to facilitate a defensive war while exploiting the resources of Southeast Asia; as a further precaution, the Japanese also planned to neutralize the United States Pacific Fleet. In preparation, Japan seized military control of southern Indochina in July, 1941; an action the United States, United Kingdom and other western governments responded to by freezing all Japanese assets. On December 7th, the Japanese struck, launching near simultaneous offensives against Southeast Asia and the Central Pacific, including an attack on the American naval base of Pearl Harbor.

These actions prompted the United States, United Kingdom, China, and other Western Allies to declare war on Japan. Italy, Germany, and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States. In January, the United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union and China issued the Declaration by United Nations, formalizing their alliance against the Axis Powers with the exception that the Soviet Union maintained its neutrality agreement with Japan.

The Axis Powers, however, were able to continue their offensives. Japan had almost fully conquered Southeast Asia with minimal losses by the end of April, 1942, chasing the Allies out of Burma and taking large numbers of prisoners in the Philippines, Malaya, Dutch East Indies and Singapore. They further bombed Australia's main naval base at Darwin and sunk significant Allied warships not only at Pearl Harbor, but also in the Java Sea, South China Sea and Indian Ocean. The only real successes against Japan were a repulsion of their renewed attack on Changsha in late December and a psychological strike from a bombing raid on Japan's capital Tokyo in April.

Germany was able to regain the initiative as well. Exploiting American inexperience with submarine warfare, the German Navy sunk significant resources near the American Atlantic coast. In the desert, they launched an offensive in January, pushing the British back to positions at the Gazala Line by early February. In the Soviet Union, the Soviet's winter counter-offensive had tapered off by March. In both the desert and the Soviet Union, there followed a temporary lull in combat which Germany used to prepare for their spring offensives.

Comments
Almost the same, but with the removal of Coral Sea and the German spring offensives. I was thinking about putting more emphasis on Barbarossa, but it's actually about the same number of combatants as the Battle of France, which I didn't emphasis in terms of scale. Oberiko 20:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the bombing of Darwin. Oberiko 02:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the St. Nazaire Raid. I'm not sure if it's noteworthy enough though.Oberiko 14:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the Indian Ocean Raid and removed St. Nazaire, the latter only really affected the German surface fleet, which was mostly out of use by this point anyway. Oberiko 17:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to report a factual error in section 1.2.2 (Germany’s war against the Western Allies), subsection "Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East".

The next to last paragraph reads "From October until mid-1944, the Allies fought through a series of defensive lines and fortifications designed to slow down their progress. On April 25, a little over a year and half after its creation, the Italian Social Republic was overthrown by Italian partisans; Mussolini, his mistress and several of his ministers were captured by the partisans while attempting to flee and executed. Shortly after [emphasis added], one of strongest of the German defensive lines, the Winter Line, was breached nearly simultaneously in May at Monte Cassino by British-led forces and at Anzio by the Americans..." but the dates here are all mixed up.

The Italian Social Republic was indeed overthrown "a little over a year and half after its creation", but in April 1945, Mussolini being killed on the 28th of that month. Thus certainly not before the Battle of Monte Cassino, which was fought from February to May 1944.

You just need to check the Battle of Monte Cassino and Italian Social Republic articles here on Wikipedia to confirm the dates.

I would change it myself but the page is locked and I'm a newbie.

Cheers,

Piotre 13:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's an error. The RSI was overthrown in April and the Winter Line was breached in May. We're using the end-date of the battle instead of the start date in February. Oberiko 13:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko, the point is the RSI was overthrown in April 1945, and the Winter Line breached in May 1944. See what I mean now? Piotre 15:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've reviewed the main articles on the RSI and the Winter Line. There was definitely a chronological error in there; I've edited that section to correct it, and added the year 1945 to the date of the RSI overthrow to make it clear. - Eron ^Talk 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, only looked at the month (both when writing that section and here on review). My apologies Piotre. Oberiko 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

No apology needed, really. And thanks Eron for fixing it. Piotre 18:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to change our accepted new framework to as follows:

• Background (X - 6 July 1937)
• War breaks out (7 July 1937 - 6 Oct 1939)
• Axis advance (6 October 1940 - 21 June 1941)
• The war becomes global (22 June 1941 - May 2 1942)
• The balance shifts (3 May 1942 - 14 May 1943)
  • Pushed back to include the Battle of the Coral Sea and the German Spring offensives, which flow quite naturally to the Battle of Midway and the German Summer offensives respectively
  • Ends with the conclusion of the Tunisia Campaign and Second Soviet Winter offensive, but before the renewed German Summer offensive
• Allies gain momentum (15 May 1943 - 5 June 1944)
  • Now contains the entirety of Operation Cartwheel
  • Keeps the Italian Campaign much more intact, from the invasion of Sicily up to the capture of Rome. Includes the downfall of Mussolini, his rescue, and the establishment of the RSI
• Allies close in (6 June 1944 - 15 December 1944)
• Axis collapse, Allied victory (16 December 1944 - 15 August 1945)
  • Pushed back to include the Battle of the Bulge (which was part of the reason for the Vistula-Order Offensive) and Battle of Luzon

From my chart, it presents a cleaner break system as well, with fewer events crossing over. I'm also thinking that there's a chance I may merge the last two sections together, depending on how the write up goes. Any thoughts? Oberiko 18:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think the last two sections should remain distinct; the opening of the second front on D-Day may have been the beginning of the end, but I'm not sure that total collapse and defeat in Europe was inevitable until the failure of the Ardennes counter-offensive. - Eron ^Talk 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice analysis, Oberiko. You will have Allies Gain Momentum covering a period with Germany's failed Operation Citadel near its beginning and Axis Collapse covering a period with Germany's failed Operation Watch on the Rhine (aka Battle of the Bulge) at its beginning. While both battles were probably tactical draws, they were draws Germany could ill afford and thus both were strategic defeats for Germany. An excellent way to start each period from an analytical point of view. So, I agree with Eron and your initial intention: Keep the Allies Close In and Axis Collapse separate. For the Background, I think you can begin with the end of WW I. In summary form, many countries harbored simmering disappointments with the territorial status quo which had existed from the mid-1920s through the late 1930s. Japan certainly wasn't happy with merely its island holdings; the USSR was upset that its territory was not at least coextensive with Tsarist Russia's territory; Hungary thought it was entitled to part of Czechoslovakia; and Germany, of course, was dismayed that it had lost even a relatively small amount of territory as a result of its WW I adventures. As an aside, I disagree with Eron's use of the common term "Second Front" to describe the sub-theater opened on D-Day. The term "Second Front" was a propaganda term used by the USSR, and while we can acknowledge its prior use, there is no reason for us to buy into it now. As described in my comments above, D-Day opened up what was at least the REAL FIFTH FRONT of the European Theater.69.238.217.25 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

Er, whatever. It's a handy shorthand to describe a fairly common concept. - Eron ^Talk 00:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Befuddler 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)Oct25,2007

I spent hours re-writing one of my lectures here, then decided it was too long for anyone to bother reading.

I'm of various European ancestry, grew up in the US and Canada, though gone to school and lived and worked and taught in different countries. One of the reasons I went back to teaching from consulting is I got tired of defending our propaganda, especially recently now that the world really no longer believes what we say or our motives.

Oh right, I've also been paid to research ww2 history in particular. So here it goes.

I ask that Wikipedia delete all existing articles claiming Japan was part of some 'Axis Pact' and/or military allies of Nazi Germany. Neither can be documented and proved because they aren't true. Believe me, I spent decades trying to prove such under various employments.

Even just by using one historically respected encyclopedia, "The Oxford Companion to WWII", Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, 1995, I can prove that Japan was not part of any active military alliance title 'Axis' or otherwise, with Germany/Italy rather 'pretty much already nullified' mutual defense pacts at best that were all cancelled.

Yet none of the authors represented on Wikipedia here can prove the existing claims of Japan being part of any 'Axis' nor that Japan was actively militarily allied to Germany and Italy as constantly inferred.

I've posted evidence in 'discussions' under 'Axis' and 'Tripartite Pact' proving what I wrote, yet Wikipedia continues to delete my substantiated edits(complete with word-for-word quotes and page number) while leaving the historically innaccurate statements up.

As a teacher, I again have to get used to the students needing to believe that I'm 'spouting' facts, not 'propaganda' anymore.

We used to say the first profession dictatorships go after are the media/journalists, then the educators/teachers.

Comon wikipedia, be a 'teacher', not a 'propagandist'.

Please,

and thanks

CheersBefuddler 00:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that. Putting aside military co-operation, it's not deniable that they were all members of the Tripartite Pact, which many sources refer to as the Axis Powers, also, in Germany and Italy's declarations of war on the United States, they specifically specified that they were doing so in support of Japan.

Basically, you're going up against pretty much every author out there. Even FDR himself refers to Germany, Japan and Italy as the "Axis Powers". (The Fireside Chats of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, pg. 144). Oberiko 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and of course you have Churchill referring to the Tripartite Pact as the Axis Pact, and stating it was a mistake for Japan to join. Oberiko 01:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Befuddler 01:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Well then argue with proof please.

Then prove that they(Germany, Italy AND Japan), not us, agreed to rename their Pact.

Then prove that
by refusing to attack the Allies upon signing the Tripartite Pact in September 1940,
and by refusing to attack the Soviets upon German-led invasion of the USSR in June 1941,
and by refusing to attack the Soviets after German declaration of war on America,
that that is a sign of military cooperation instead of neutrality.

Only the members of an agreement can rename the title of their agreement.Just because I say your name is Feng Shui and your company name is Djao Duang, doesn't make it true. Even if I convince everyone I know it is true, that only makes it my propaganda, not historical truth.

Remember, for alot longer our history books said the Spanish started the Spanish-American war, 'Remember the Maine', rather than the other way around. Our books still say Christopher Columbus was the first European to discover the Americas when we can now prove it was the Vikings instead.

I used to get paid to 'cherry-pick' history and international facts to convince even the other side of something that may have been completely opposite from the truth.In my experience, it is the people who think only other 'lesser' societies are vulnerable to 'propaganda' who are in reality, the most vulnerable.Now that I'm not paid to do any such thing anymore, I'd just like to see us do the right thing and admit where we've been conveniently 'fudging the facts' and 'cherry picking

It is only common sense.

If it were true that the Tripartite Pact was an active military alliance between Germany, Italy and Japan, and that they were actively cooperating militarily; then while we were on the edge fighting the Battle of Britain trying to get replacements to defend England herself, as well as North Africa, Suez and Middle-east, we'd be losing everything from Hong Kong to Singapore, from Oil/rubber rich Dutch East Indies to India to the Japanese instead.Then the best equipped armies we had left in the Soviet military under Zhukov in Siberia wouldn't have arrived in time to save Moscow, Stalingrad and the Russian front; but would be tangling with the Japanese in Manchukuo instead.All BEFORE Pearl Harbour and America's entry when we and Stalin were already on the verge of considering terms.

Today, more than ever, the world sees us as out-right liars and promoters of propaganda, in the same way we are admitting we were wrong about how we defined and reported the Spanish American war, we should be big enough to do the same about Japan and ww2. I just want us to prove to the world we are trying to be better than that. That we are worthy of their trust and respect again.

So unless someone can actually prove the aforementioned by actual German, Italian and Japanese documented admission, let's stop 'cherry-picking' our own self-interested editing of history and stand up to the propagandists, whether they be those encouraging us to hate others without just cause, or others to hate us without just cause.

That's like saying we shouldn't use the word "Japan" since they call themselves Nippon. Axis Powers is a common and well established term for them, regardless of who came up with it.

And, for a historian, you should probably read up on the Tripartite Pact again. It was an alliance against any nation (except, specifically, the Soviet Union) who attacked an Axis Power that was not already at war with one, not a nation which an Axis Power attacked. Therefore Japan was under no obligation to go to war with Britain (who was at war prior to the signing) or, say, Greece (who Italy attacked after the signing). Just as Germany and Italy were under no obligation to declare war on the States, even though they did.

In any case, this really isn't the right page to be arguing this and is starting to look like WP:OR. If find some reputable sources that refute everyone else out there, feel free to bring it up at the Axis Powers page.Oberiko 02:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

That's hardly an appropriate analogy. Leaders don't justify war over what language a piece of geography is described by. It is infinitely more dangerous to mis-use political and military affiliations.

As for origin of 'Axis', in fact it was the Italians who came up with it in that reference. The earliest source I have for the origin and meaning of the term is "The Rome-Berlin Axis"(London, 1949) by Wiskemmann. E. Told how superstitious Hitler was, Mussolini pointed out that Rome and Berlin coincidentally lay on the same(roughly 13 East) Global Longitudinal 'Axis' as if 'fated to be tied in destiny'. He used it in reference to the 'unique relationship shared by Rome and Berlin' in the May 1939 "Pact of Steel" mutual defense pact that Japan REFUSED to join.

As the 'Pact of Steel' and 'Tripartite Pact' are 2 distinct, different treaties, Mussolini only used it in reference to the Rome-Berlin domination of Europe.

As for reading up on Tripartite Pact, you should have already noticed and read my sourced piece in the 'discussion' section behind that very Wikipedia link with the main Tripartite Pact terms. Why do you think I was writing in complaint here?

I wrote it complete with titled encyclopedia and historian book titles, publishers, date, page number even word for word start to finish(no convenient omissions) quotes to make my point. My source even includes secret protocol notes not as widely known.

Thank you for mentioning why Japan was not at war with Britain despite being a member of what you call the 'Axis', you just made my point, and high-lighted the hypocrisy of using the phrase of 'Axis at war with the Allies' whilst including the terms Japan and the Soviet Union.

When faced with the choice between Tripartite Pact(German led) and Soviet Non-Aggresssion Friendship Pact, Japan chose the Soviet and renounced the Tripartite Pact. PM Konoe Fumimaro had to resign and bring down his own cabinet to do so just to get rid of Foreign Minister Matsuoka Yosuke who led the minority members of the gov't who wanted to keep the Tripartite Pact. But Konoe and Kiso had been betrayed by Germany twice now and were determined to concentrate on peace negotiations with the USA. I can quote all this from encyclopedias and it all clearly contradicts the implications we use here that Japan was part of the Tripartite Pact Alliance at war with we Allies.

As one of my students once put it, our history books seem to work so hard in implying a Japanese-German military alliance to hide in its shadow the fact that even after the US declared war on Japan, it refused to declare war on Germany.
Another student went on to mention the analogy of how our history focuses and minimizes in the same way all our news media incredibly changed focus from Bin Ladin to Saddam Hussein.

You may not think it is important, but this is how we went from Bin Laden/Alqueda/Taliban and Afghanistan to Hussein/Sunni/Shiite and Iraq instead. So yes, I do think it is dangerous to use words and terms and hypocritically vague definitions in historical sites. This is how CNN can report that even today 70% of Americans polled are still sold on the idea that Iraq was behind 9/11.

That's how political and military re-defining of words, phrases and agreements accepted under changing circumstances were mutated and corrupted to justify Japanese aggressions in the Far East, Italian in the Balkans and Africa and German in Europe. These are the tools of the propagandists who take us to war with eachother unnecessarily.

All I'm asking from Wikipedia is to weed out the propaganda, regardless of how widely and long-accepted, and stick with unbiased documented historical accounts.

We presently like to encourage students to use Wikipedia and Google etc in Computer, Social Studies/history et al classes but they do pick up on hypocrisy when they see it. Please and thanks.Befuddler 06:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree very strongly with the suggestion to delete reference to Japan as being part of Axis pact. First off, it's the way it's referenced in by far the majority of textbooks. Wikipedia isn't here to rewrite history. Second, calling Japan Axis is a simple convenience that can be easily nuanced within the surrounding text. Japan was a shitty Axis partner who didn't take enough advantage of German technical progress and failed to punch through Asia to connect with Germany and Italy in the Middle East. As unwilling to join completely as Japan was, she still sent a few fingers of communication out to the Italian/German part of tripartite. Ambassadors and military advisors were posted back and forth. At least one submarine was sent to share information, gold and opium and collect uranium oxide for atomic research. What I see is that Japan was truly an Axis partner but kept the connection at arm's length. Tripartite, yes. Axis, yes. All we need do is make sure the reader is aware of the riptide currents underneath.

Also, why hold the Axis of Steel connection between Germany and Italy as a shining example of Axis-hood? It was weak from the start due to the partners not really wanting the same things and the Italian soldier not sharing the same warlike fervor. Why weren't Italian factories making more German 88s, Tigers and jet engines? Why wasn't Italy pushing harder to conquer oil-producing areas so as to help fuel the Nazi machine? The two-partner Axis you speak of has many of the same problems as the three-partner Axis. They weren't pulling together! Again, a patient and thorough explanation in the text will be sufficient to underscore these truths for the student. Binksternet 09:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok Bink....First off, just because the vast majority of textbooks state that Columbus was the first European to discover America doesn't stop Wikipedia from pointing out it was in fact the Vikings.Just because the vast majority of American textbooks state that the Spanish started the Spanish-American War by torpedoing the American battleshio Maine doesn't stop Wikipedia from clarifying that mis-representation too.Just because the vast majority of media repeated the same mis-information that Saddam/Iraq was behing 9/11, Iraq had WMDs and Iraq was part of the 'Axis' military alliance with North Korea, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan does not stop Wikipedia from pointing out that was historically untrue as well.

Granted, Wikipedia isn't here to 'rewrite' history in the sense of saying geologists agree the world is only 6000 years old, but it does literally ask contributors to help correct existing postings with sourced material that can be checked.

That is why I am writing here.The same way those others point out the present representations of 'Axis' is incomplete, misleading and outright wrong about Bulgaria, the same goes for Japan.

Just like those authors who conveniently omitted certain details regarding Iraq and WMDs, these present postings regarding the terms related to 'Axis' or even 'Tripartite Pact' are deliberately incomplete and misleading.

To keep my documentary evidence as simple and easy to access and confirm all at once, I will use quotes from the following reputable historical encyclopedic source.

Anti-Comintern Pact, an agreement between Germany and Japan , signed in November 1936, to exchange information on the activities of the Soviet-backed international communist parties (see COMINTERN). Hitler wanted a stronger anti-Soviet commitment from Japan, which was traditionally opposed to Russia expansion in Asia. But Japan had no desire to be drawn into a European war and was only encouraged to sign after the USSR had made ay of mutual assistance with Outer Mongolia the previous April which Japan saw as threatening its interests. A secret protocal pledged the signatories to neutrality if one fo them was at war with the USSR, but the pact was not a military alliance and the protocol did not apply to Italy when it joined in November 1937—by which time the pact appeared more anti-British than anti-Soviet. Two years later Hungary, Manchukuo, and Spain joined, and in November 1941 Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Romania, *Wang Ching-wei’s government in Nanking (see CHINA,), and Slovakia also signed.

Pact of Steel, Mussolini’s name for a military alliance between Italy and Germany which was signed in Berlin on 22 May 1939 by the two countries’ foreign ministers, *Ciano and *Ribbentrop. It declared that either country would come to the aid of the other if it were attacked and the Italians signed it on the verbal understanding that neither power would provoke war before 1943. Ciano recorded in his diary that Hitler was well satisfied with the Pact, and confirmed that Mediterranean policy would be directed by Italy. However, the Pact’s political effect was much reduced by Japan’s refusal to join it.

Tripartite Pact, negotiated in Tokyo and signed in Berlin on 27 September 1940 by Germany, Italy and Japan. It was primarily intended to forestall US intervention in the war, for the terms included promise of mutual aid if any one of the signatories was attacked by a power not already involved in the war in the *China Incident. However, secret clauses added at Japan’s request more or less nullified these terms as Japan wanted to obtain concession from the USA, using its withdrawal from the pact as a bargaining point. But Washington was not intimidated by the pact; on the contrary, the USA intensified its help to China, which made any negotiations impossible for the Japanese. One of the pact’s articles specifically guaranteed the existing German-Soviet relationship, and in November 1940 the USSR was asked to join. However, the conditions Stalin proposed for doing so did not suit Hitler and negotiations ceased, but Romania, Hungary, and Slovakia signed the same month. Bulgaria and Yugoslavia(which repudiated it almost immediately) signed in March 1941, and the Nazi puppet state of Croatia signed on June 1941. Unlike the *Grand Alliance, the Axis coalition formed by the fact had no agreed upon strategy for fighting the war.

Non-Aggression Pact/Friendship-Treaty proposed by Japanese envoy Matsuoka and signed by Molotov in Moscow on April 13, 1941 was to last to Autumn 1946. When Germany shocked the Japanese no less than the Soviets by invading the Soviet Union only a few weeks later, Japan was forced to choose between the 2 conflicting pacts. In the same way the Soviet Union cancelled its previous pact with China in favour of the new pact with Japan, Japan cancelled its previous pact with Germany in favour of the new pact with the USSR.
(Page 656)."The contradictions between these various policies(Tripartite Pact with Germany and Friendship Pact with USSR) led to divisions within the cabinet and to its resignation in July in order to GET RID OF MATSUOKA.(who led the minority opinion to keep the Tripartite Pact). Konoe's third cabinent was then formed with a new foreign minister and this CONCENTRATED ON PEACE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE USA."

By deliberately and consciously omitting 'the rest of the story' as literally sourced above, Wikipedia's existing material posted is deliberately misleading no less than if it continued to post descriptions of Saddan Hussein's Iraq being behind 9/11 or part of the Alquaeda/Taliban/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Iran/North Korea 'Axis' alliance.

To the guys making the same point regarding the lie here about Bulgaria, I agree, it is totally hypocritical for Wikipedia to ask for sourced proof of corrections then refuse to address them.

You ask that we show where a historical statement is untrue or mis-leading by historically documented reference, we have. So why don't you act on it?

Draft 5.1

In early May, Japan initiated operations to capture Port Moresby, the last major Allied stronghold in south-east Asia, via amphibious assault; the Allies, however, intercepted and turned back Japanese naval forces, preventing the invasion. Japan's next plan, motivated by the earlier bombing on Tokyo, was to seize the Midway Atoll as this would seal a gap in their perimeter defenses, provide a forward base for further operations, and lure American carriers into battle to be eliminated; as a diversion, Japan would also send forces to occupy the Aleutian Islands. In early June, Japan put their operations into action but the American's, having broken Japanese naval codes in late May, were fully aware of the Japanese plans and force dispositions and used this knowledge to achieve a decisive victory over the Imperial Japanese Navy. With their capacity for amphibious assault greatly diminished as a result of the Midway battle, Japan chose to focus on an overland campaign on the Territory of Papua in another attempt to capture Port Moresby. For the Americans, they planned their next move against Japanese positions in the southern Solomon Islands, primarily against the island of Guadalcanal, as a first step towards capturing Rabaul, the primary Japanese base in southeast Asia. Both plans started in mid-summer, but by mid-September the battle for Guadalcanal took priority for the Japanese, and troops in New Guinea were ordered to withdraw until its conclusion. Guadalcanal soon became the focal point for both sides with heavy commitments of troops and ships in a battle of attrition. By the start of 1943, the Japanese were defeated on the island and withdrew their troops.

In Burma, Commonwealth forces mounted two operations. The first, an offensive into the Arakan region in late 1942 went disastrously, forcing a retreat back to India by the spring of 1943. The second was the insertion of irregular forces behind Japanese front-lines in February which, by the end of April, had achieved dubious results.

In the west, concerns that the Japanese might occupy bases in Vichy-held Madagascar caused the British to invade the island in early May, 1942. At the end of May, the Axis defeated Allied positions in Libya and pushed the Allies back into Egypt until they were stopped at El Alamein. In mid-August, with public discontent over defeats in the desert and the need to satiate Stalin's demands for a second front in Europe, British and Canadian forces staged an unsuccessful amphibious assault on the German held port of Dieppe. In August, Axis forces attempted a second attack against Allied forces at El Alamein, but again were turned back. In late October, the Allies commenced an attack of their own, dislodging the Axis forces and beginning a drive east across Libya. In November, Anglo-American forces invaded French North Africa, which quickly aligned itself to the Allies; Hitler responded to this by ordering the occupation of Vichy France, though the Vichy Admiralty managed to scuttle their fleet to prevent its capture by German forces. Axis forces in Africa withdrew into Tunisia, where they were pincered by offensives from both the east and west. By May, the Western Allies had conquered Tunisia and taken a great number of Axis prisoners.

On the German's eastern front, they launched their main summer offensive against southern Russia in June, 1942, after defeating Soviet offensives in the Kerch Peninsula and at Kharkov in the previous month. By mid-November the Germans had nearly taken Stalingrad in bitter street fighting when the Soviet's launched their counter-attack, encircling a large number of German troops. The Germans attempted to relieve these forces in December, but the Soviet's repelled the operation and in January, 1943, launched their general counter-offensive in the south and in the north. By early February, the German Army had taken tremendous losses; their troops at Stalingrad had been forced to surrender and the front-line had been pushed back roughly to its position prior to their offensives. In mid-February, after the Soviet push had tapered off, the German's launched another attack on Kharkov, creating a salient in their front-line around the Russian city of Kursk.

Comments
As always, thoughts and trimmings welcome. 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, Oberiko. I would change "however, intercepted and turned back Japanese naval forces, preventing the invasion," to "however, intercepted the Japanese naval forces in the Battle of the Coral Sea. While some might claim that that battle was a tactical victory for Japan with Japan appearing to have suffered less loss of materiel than the Americans, history shows that at the very least the Battle of the Coral Sea was a strategic victory for the Allies. Among other things, Japan's intended naval invasion of Port Morseby was turned away and Japan's loss of materiel affected its assembly of forces for its next plan." Note that I propose actually using the name of the sea battle.69.238.167.136 22:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

I disagree; I think the section is fine as it is. The goal of this reorganization is to provide an overview of the war, and not get bogged down into too much detail. That's for the sub-articles to do (and in this case, it's really for the sub-sub-sub-articles to get down into the mud). Parsecboy 22:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need to point out that Kharkov was "the last German operational victory on the Eastern Front". I think it potentially opens us up to having other operations labeled as "the Dodecanese Campaign was the last German victory of the war" or "The Ardennes operation was last major German offensive of the war", or "Operation Crusader was the first great British victory" etc. Oberiko 13:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Revert it if you like. Parsecboy 14:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I also added British operations in Burma. Oberiko 15:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Changed a bit of the German attack in the east, Kharkov and Kerch were actually counter attacks against Soviet offensives. Oberiko 15:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)