Talk:World War II/Archive 2

Should we keep Finland in the "minor Axis power" ? The Finland had a terrible choice between Stalin and Hitler. They had a war with the Soviet when they where allied to Hitler. When Hilter broke his alliance with Stalin they helped the Nazi to fight the Soviets and then fighted the Nazis themselve, they had no other choice than realpolitik IMO.

Ericd 21:28 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

A good point, Eric. On the face of things, I agree with you. The only worry I have about it is that it might open a whole can of worms. Are there other countries that the same could apply to? Where would we draw the line? Tannin 23:22 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

The comment about realpolitik has not to be in the article, but I insist about removing Finland from Axis powers.The case of Finland is very special :- Finland wasn't at war during all the WWII and was never at war with all the Allies.- They had help from the Allies during the first war against USSR.- The agreement with the German was not a full aliance Finland only let German troops cross it's teritory, this caused war with the UK but not with the USA.

Ericd 23:45 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)

OK, I guess we can deal with any flow-on effect to other countries if and when we have to. Tannin

Hmmm... Tannin I would insist about removing France from minor allied powers simply because who were the major allied power in 1939 : France and UK.More seriously we should do something else : removing minor and major and adding a comment for special cases like Finland, France, USSR, USA and certainly others.Ericd 00:10 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

Sure, France had a lot of troops and ships and aircraft, but they played a very minor role in the war just the same - and, indeed, fought on the Axis side as Vichy France, whicch was nominally neutral but try telling that to (for example) the 7th Div AIF soldiers who died. Tannin

I have a question. End of the first paragraph; Why is the United States listed alongside Japan and Germany as having partaken in the "genocidal killings". Also, you may want to add that the Soviets refer to World War II as The Great Patriotic War.
Theamer 12:09 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Good question, Theamer. It all depends on the defenition of "genocide". Here on the Wikipedia, it seems to be the done thing to take a very narrow view of what is meant by "genocide". The majority view appears to be that it doesn't matter how many people you kill, just so long as you don't actually claim to be doing it on the basis of race. Or something - I did read an extensive talk page on that subject but I have got a bit vague about it already - probably because I couldn't quite escape the nagging feeling that the ultra-narrow definition was primarily chosen to make damn sure that the word "genocide" would never be used when talking about our side.

This makes the mention of the United States in the WW2 article contra SWV (Standard Wiki View). I guess someone snuck it in and no-one noticed it till now. Myself, I'm inclined to take a broad view of "genocide" and regard it as simply "the thing you call it when you kill a hell of a lot of more-or-less defenceless people". In which case, of course, the US listing should most certainly stay: not so much for the obvious and hackneyed examples of Hiroshma and Nagasaki, as for the less obvious but more deadly ones of Tokyo and Dresden. This, in turn, requires that the United Kingdom also be included, as there is not the slightest doubt that the night bombing campaign over Germany killed a lot more people than the USAAF's day campaign did - after all, a Lanacster or a Halifax carried somewhere between two and five times the bomb load of a B-17 or even a B-24. (At night, you don't have to carry such an enormous weight of defensive armament.) And, since we are trying to be logical about things, you had better include the British Commonwealth too—the Commonwealth nations contributed mightily to the British bombing campaign. And, no doubt, any of the other serious belligerants we haven't mentioned yet.

But I'll be howled down if I dare intrude such a rational view into the entry, no doubt. So you might as well take out the words "United States" and save everyone the trouble.

Better yet, maybe you can think of a less loaded phrase to use instead of that word "genocide". Then, with the meaning of the phrase more clear and (one hopes) uncontroversial, it should be a simple matter to include those countries that should properly be included under it, and exclude the others. Tannin

Oh. Your other point. If it was up to me, I'd rename the whole darn entry to Great Patriotic War. The Soviets did most of the fighting, after all, seems to me they earned the right to name it whatever they please; earned it the hard way. But no-one else would agree with me on that one either, so perhaps we'd better just add Great Patriotic War somewhere in the body text. Tannin 12:49 Apr 3, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Well put. With Anti-American sentiment being sold on the cheap throughout the world right now, I found it disconcerting that an educational tool would be so politically biased (but then I guess it's the people who wrote it that were biased, rather than encyclopedia itself).

On top of being insulted as an American, I also think it is very demeaning to those who actually suffered under genocide. Whatever people may think about what has been done in the name of war, it can in no way be seriously compared to the systematic extermination of races of people. Large groups of Jews were forced to walk into purpose built death chambers and their corpses were then burned in furnaces - like some sort of death assembly line (...even in murder, the Germans had to find the most efficient way to do things). Undefended Chinese villages saw their women and children burned alive in the streets. They weren't asked to surrender; or to leave. They were simply being removed - as one might cut down trees to clear a path for a road; no diplomacy.

Now that is genocide. You know? You can't compare that to a severe bombing campaign, even when considering the horribly slow deaths that thousands suffered in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were legitimate military targets. Millions of leaflets had been dropped over their cities urging them to surrender before hand. And when they ultimately did surrender, the killing stopped; there was diplomacy. The use of atomic bombs was a tactical decision designed to destroy important military targets as well as to instill a sense of (yeah, I'm gonna say it...) shock & awe in order to bring the final stage of the war to an end quickly. It worked.

And, if I recall correctly (once more in defense of my country), the United States was morally opposed to bombing civilian targets and was the LAST country to begin doing so. I don't mean to contradict your view of the war, as you appear to be well versed on the subject (more so than myself, anyway); but, I think it is horribly unfair to put a negative tilt on what the U.S. did in World War II. Especially considering that it wasn't even a war the U.S. signed up for. Saying that America committed atrocities in WW2 is just the type of misinformation that is used to spread the flames of Anti-American hatred.

Overall, I think it is important to mention the genocide in a description of WW2. It was a big motivating factor for the Germans; extermination of the Jews was part of the Nazi justification of the war (at least to themselves). And the Japanese extermination of the Chinese is important in that it ended up being a big motivating factor for the Chinese shift to communism - which, consequently, has shaped much of our current world politics. But those incidents of true genocide should not be confused with massive amounts of collateral damage the resulted from the war.

Oh, and, just to get technical, hehe, the Soviet's didn't exactly do most of the fighting - they just did most of the dying. Have you seen Enemy at the Gates (2001)? That's got a great opening scene showing a Soviet's view of the war.

Theamer 03:22 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, don't base your opinion of the Soviet role in WWII on a movie; check out Albert Seaton's book or something else reputable. The scale was gigantic, makes Overlord look like a beach party. Our boys had a lot of trouble with the remnants of the German army that could be spared for the western front; it's disconcerting to speculate on we might have fared if so many German units hadn't been chewed up by three years of fighting in Russia. Stan 04:13 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, genocide for justice is not genocide. Pinko

A small fraction of the German forces was engaged on the Western Front, and that fraction was almost entirely the lower quality part of their army. If Germany had not attacked Russia, and Russia had not attacked Germany, then Germany would have had an overwhelming victory over all of Europe and Africa and the Middle East. Its a shame that the American education system is so biased that it barely even mentions to students that Russia was in the war, let alone describing its role in the war. Dietary Fiber

What makes you think that the American education system is so inferior? Is it necessary to turn every damn article in the Wikipedia into something anti-American? -- Zoe

Yeah, I'm sure some of those folks are unhappy about Iraq, and frustrated by their personal inability to make events go the way they want, take it out on Wikipedia. Immature, true, but fortunately it's faster to delete the garbage than it is to write it. Stan 07:03 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

As for genocide, the Allies were clearly guilty of warcrimes and committed such crimes as apartheid, intentional targeting of noncombatants, forced deportation, inhumane acts, and indiscriminate attack. I believe the Allied bombing campaigns were genocidal because they showed no concern for civilian lives of targeted enemy racial/ethnic/national groups. Dietary Fiber

As always, for claims like this you're expected to produce unbiased references. Many of the standards by which Allied and Axis actions are judged today were developed after the war and in reaction to it, so it's inaccurate to call something a war crime before the concept existed. It's like attacking ancient Athenians for being evil slaveowners. Stan 07:03 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

As for Zoe, the American education system is inferior. Americans are, on average, some of the most uneducated people. This is not surprising from an anti-capitalism perspective where one realizes that the goal of American policies is to make money and that it does not behoov and enrich the American aristocracy to teach their people truth. Oil company executives do not get rich when gas station attendants know the history of oil. Wal-Mart and Gap do not get rich when commoners know the history of the "free market". Television stations do not get rich when people know the history of propaganda. It is also not surprising that American education is so inferior when one considers the emphasis that America places on educational funding...Dietary Fiber

Guess I'll have to keep a special eye on you to make sure you don't commit any particular grammar or historical errors. -- Zoe

Yeah, looks like Dietary Fiber is more concerned with promoting a biased point of view than coming up with objective facts. For instance, graphs comparing educational funding with test scores, by state, are comically lacking in correlation, and socialistically-inclined teachers (remember they're all unionized!) do plenty of anti-capitalist teaching, so much so that the capitalists fume about it regularly. Usually Canadians have at least a minimal understanding that US society is not a monolith, but I guess the bell curve has outliers on both sides. Stan 07:03 Apr 4, 2003 (UTC)

Just to fix the ideas about the contribution of the USSR to the war :

Allied kills (excluding civilians)

USSR 13.700.000 victimsUSA 400.000UK 320.000France 250.000

USSR had also 7.700.000 civilans killed...

Interresting statistics (in French) at http://hsgm.free.fr/statistiques.htm

Ericd

So who's denying that the USSR had the most suffering? -- Zoe

Theamer was downplaying the signifance of Russia's role in World War II. Dietary Fiber

I knew USSR had by far the most victims but I didn't knew the number. It's an astronmical figure.

Ericd 01:09 Apr 7, 2003 (UTC)

Removed the following from the article. Without any explanation or context, it's useless.

As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war.

Dachshund 18:51 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

For one the article states "can" explain.

I'm going to reinsert that reference, but clarify it. I'll introduce the idea of the "buffer zone."

172

Did 172 just delete the Holocaust? Dietary Fiber

He also deleted :

"Prior to the invasion, the Germans had sealed a non-agression pact with the Soviet Union, and had begun secretly colluding with the Soviets over the fate of Eastern Europe."

Ericd 11:08 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

All I can say is "Outrageous" -- 172, did you realize that that para was the only para that even mentioned the Holocaust in this article? I'm aghast and speechless over your deletion. --mav

Interesting changes. Thanks for putting them back, Mav. Actually, what I am going to be concentrating on today at work is an exhibition on the Isolationist/Interventionist debate prior to America's entering the war. One interesting feature is the official response of the communists: decidedly Interventionist up to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, Isolationist from the agreement up to the invasion of the Soviet Union, and back to Interventionist with the invasion. Just some context ... Danny

You people believe Lir/Vera/Dietary Fiber/Susan/Adam?

All I did was clarify this sentence pointed out by Dachshund: “As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war.”

I added content. I did not delete content. Maybe some user prior do me deleted some content, but who knows. I wasn’t following the rest of the article, just this sentence pointed out by Dachshund.

My parents were Holocaust survivors and my entire family apart from the two of them was eradicated. I demand an apology for all you users who believe that slander coming from that lunatic user who has been banned repeatedly.

I replaced "As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war."with "As mentioned, the Soviets bore the heaviest casualties of World War II. These war causalities can explain much of Russia's behavior after the war. The Soviet Union defended its occupation of Eastern Europe as "buffer zone" to protect Russia from another invasion from the West. Russia had been invaded three times past 150 years before the Cold War during the Napoleonic Wars, World War I, and World War II, suffering tens of millions of causalities." due to suggestions by Dachshund. That's all I did.

I think that Lir/Susan/Vera/Laxative was setting me up.

172

Hum.

I was going through the older versions and the Holocaust paragraph did disappear after my edit.

This is making me physically ill. I did not even go through a word of the content of the article not pertaining to “historical significance”, which I had come to edit after seeing the comment on the talk page.

I’m utterly confused, but I do remember getting into an edit conflict yesterday, not being able to make a revision because someone had edited the page after I had started to edit the older version. Could this be an explanation? Did someone delete that paragraph and did I just accept this person’s edits while only paying attention to add new content?

This is pretty strange. I don’t know how the hell that paragraph managed to disappear on my watch. But this is really embarrassing.

172

(Written prior to reading your last post and here via an edit conflict.)

Ahh, 172, the page history does not bear you out. However, I for one am quite certain that your removal of that para was accidental. It is not your way at all to take plain, factual stuff like that out without good reason—and if you were serious about wanting to remove it, you would be defending the deletion for all you are worth! It's a long and complex entry and in moving stuff around and editing, it is all too easy to take stuff out without meaning to. (Or, my own particular backwards variation of this, which is to wind up putting the exact same para in twice running!)

No matter: it's a Wiki: the para is back in (as it should be) and no harm has been done. Let's all go back to the coalface and move on. Tannin 16:01 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

And a PS after reading - yes, edit conflicts can be hell! We believe you, 172. No harm done. Tannin

I agree with Tannin. I may disagree with 172 on occasion but he is a well read, serious historian who does not secretly remove paragraphs. I too have been caught in edit conflicts where somehow between all the people caught in the conflict, the saved version lost something unintentionally. So I believe 172 100%. STÓD/ÉÍRE 17:08 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

Like I said, I was speechless (sic I couldn't believe what I saw). This edit was uncharacteristic so I'll bite that this was accidental and apologize for any emotional heartache I may have contributed to 172's well being. --mav 17:30 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I too will apologize here (as well as on 172's page). Danny

Thanks to all for your understanding. I'll be a bit more careful when I see that "edit conflict" page pop up.

172

Lir/Vera/Dietary Fiber/Susan/Adam ?? Why is my name always being put in / next to other names? Dietary Fiber

Well, Adam, if you didn't use so many phoney names and pretend to be so many people we wouldn't have to do it, would we? ÉÍREman

Hi 172, I also believe it was accidental. I had the feeling it was not your style.

Ericd 21:03 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

I copyedited the article before 172 touched it, and was thorougly shocked that there was no mention of the Holocaust. Looking at older revisions it seems that the omission was long-standing, so we all bear some blame. I added the paragraph we're arguing about (and as Mav has noted I got the numbers wrong :)

172 almost certainly got into an edit conflict with me and accidentally wiped out my paragraph. No big deal... I'm far more concerned that the Wiki community managed to write several pages on WWII over a period of months without once noting the absence of that little detail! Dachshund 22:35 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is a serious problem the number allied soldiers killed seems underestimated while the number of allied soldiers killed seems overestimated. Who can verify ?Ericd 23:23 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

The statistics come from [1] which lists numbers from a variety of reliable sources.Efghij 08:40 May 8, 2003 (UTC)