Talk:World War II/Archive 9

Mass rape (victims:2 000 000) in Berlin and in Silesia and East Prussia during the expulsion of the German after World War II : Please read "BeFreier und Befreite", Krieg, Vergewaltigung (rape), Kinder (Helke Sander und Barbara Johr) with many sources. Other sources : G.Reichling, Die deutschen Vertriebenen in Zahlen, Bonn 1986, 1989. --172.183.5.233 21:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Any source that gives nice round numbers like 2000000 is questionable. The Sander-Johr book, which is probably the first book to mention this number, states quite clearly that the real number is not only unknown, its magnitude is uncertain. I have not read the Reichling book, but given its publication date, how do you think he could possibly obtain accurate data? Number 6 16:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Other sources for more than 100.000 victims of rape only in Berlin : Archiv der Charité and Landesarchiv Berlin. East Prussia, Silesia, Pommern :1 400 000 victims; SBZ (later GDR) : 500 000 victims. More than 200 000 died (10%). (Bundesarchiv Koblenz and Freiburg) --172.180.155.16 08:53, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Please clarify the source on the 1400K and 500K victims. If that is Bundesarchiv Koblenz and Freiburg, specify which documents have the numbers. Number 6 16:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Bundesarchiv Koblenz, Ostdokumentensammlung , Ost-Dok. 2 Nr. 8,13,14; Ost-Dok.2/51, 2/77,2/96 Bundesarchiv/Militärarchiv Freiburg, Akten Fremde Heere Ost, Bestand H3, Bd. 483, 657, 665, 667, 690 . See also Dokumentation der Vertreibung der Deutschen aus Ostmitteleuropa, 5 Bde, 3 Beihefte, Bonn 1953-1961. --172.179.158.118 18:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

You've forgotten the German bombing of Britain killing 43000 innocent civilians.

I will edit some more information.--89.50.221.144 07:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Surely at the top of the page a photo of a Nuremberg rally should not be posted, as it happened in 1936, three years before the start of WW2. brimstone brimstone1 19:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

While the picture of American troops landing on Omaha Beach on D-day is a dramatic and perfect picture for this article, don't you think having it three times is a little too much?

Yes, I do. :-) Drogo Underburrow 07:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

One pic has been posted twice. We should remove it Gala.martin 15:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Putting a picture more than once only distingushes it as important. so, no, I dont thing that it is over excessive, only proving a point. ya kno? -SLP

Disagree--images are important, but a variety of images more important.--Buckboard 09:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have added this in the intro. I knew this fact from one of my old high school History teachers, Mr. Charette, who was obsessed with World War II. A major source I have to cite on is History Channel. I would like to consider these two sources to be very reliable. See below for link:

http://www.historychannel.com/worldwartwo/?page=triumph5

My calculation for inflation from $1 trillion to about 10.5 trillion comes from "The inflation calculator"

http://www.westegg.com/inflation/

Thanks, Brendon

I added a figure of "as many as 25 million" for Soviet casualties at the beginning of participants. This contradicts the 18 million used later. This latter figure strikes me as very conservative. Anyhow, here are three sources citing 25 million or more. [1] [2][3]. Note if we do decide on the higher figure the apx. 50 million overall dead used on this page and elsewhere will have to be revised up to apx. 60 mil. Marskell 12:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

First a general comment that I sugest we more or less blindly delegate what casualty numbers to use to what the World War II casualties page states. This way we'll be more overall consistant, and we keep discussions and potentially revert wars over this to that page. That page also has more detailed numbers, should keep better and more references, and is more likely to be watched by people with knowledge on this in case of disputes. So when someone makes large changes to any number, we revert and point them to the casuality-page where they can argue for their number. And if it's being accepted there it can then be changed here as well. There are so much controversy and uncertainty over how many, who to count, and so on, that we can just as well leave all the arguing to that page. It's not like there aren't enough other stuff to debate here...

But regarding your change, it looks fine. The number you changed was previously including Germans, but someone had changed that sentence a few hours earlyer making it read like they weren't included anymore. So you adjusting it down to "as many as 25 million" looks ok to me. The World War II casualties page lists 15,000,000 "millitary deaths" and 6,700,000 civilian soviet deaths. That should give about 22 million, but the number has a footnote about "Figures do not include all death by the Soviets; Soviet casualty estimates vary widely". I assume they are not counting any killed in the purges, for instance, but whether to count how many of them as WW2 casualties or not at all is another debate... But, again, I sugest doing this and that on talk:World War II casualties. But debating whether this is a good policy (to delegate off the numbers) is of course fine and welcome here! Who am I to dictate anything ;-). Shanes 13:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed statement that 32 million casualities were "Russians." It can only be approximated by calling all the peoples of east Europe "Russians"; all the peoples of the former Soviet Union certainly were not "Russian."; Russia and the Soviet Union do not mean the same thing. I also question wether these were all war related deaths, or politically motivated deaths as a result of Stalin's polices. I ask that the source for this statement be provided if it is insisted that the claim that 32 million "Russians" died as a result of the war be stated in the intro. -- Drogo Underburrow 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a disclaimer added to the casualty section that the figures given are not all of equal reliability. The military casualty figures for the Western countries are much more reliable than the ones for the Soviet Union, and the figures for the civilian deaths are guesses, nobody was at a morgue counting each death. Further, and more importantly, the figures given for the Soviet civilian casualties reflect political deaths as a result of Stalinism, and not simply the war. While I agree with Shanes that this subject is a can of worms that we need not open, if the article is going to give causualty figures, then some explanation about the reliability of the numbers must also be given.Drogo Underburrow 01:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

We do include the disclaimer "... with estimates varying widely", but feel free to reword it if you can keep it short. Regarding the accuracy of the numbers and what they include, see the footnote on the ww2 casualties page.

Let me add that the World War II casualties page has gone through a large remake the last months with User:Woogie10w (aka Berndd) having done a tremendous job in collecting and citing sources for the various numbers and make them consistent. This is an extreamely complicated issue with numbers varrying in the literature for numerous reasons (borders have changed, Soviet numbers were intenionally kept low under Stalin (especially the millions of POW captured by the Nazis early on) and many Soviet military deaths were really paramilitary forces (partisan and police forces) that some books count as civilians instead, etc). But any further questions and discussions over these numbers belong on the casualties talk page where Berndd is watching and will explain. (But, please be extremely nice and polite in any conversations with him and edits there. Berndd can sometimes be a bit, uhm, easy to upset. He left at one point because of people who insisted on "their" number from some book without knowing the big picture and all the complications. I don't want him to leave again, because he is really very knowledgable on these matters, and rightfully proud of his work.) Shanes 02:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My biggest objection is when a huge number is given for "Russian" civilian deaths as a result of WWII. This over-simplified "fact" is then used in other circles to "prove" that the "Russians" bore the biggest brunt of the war and that the world therefore owes Russia a debt for saving it from Nazism. The facts that are glossed over in giving these huge civilian causalty figures are many, include the fact that its not the war that killed all these people, but that many were killed as a result of Stalin's policies. Further, these figures where not Russian deaths, but in fact include the deaths of various subject peoples of the former Soviet Union who were killed by Stalin. The result is we have WWII being blamed for what is really a separate subject....genocide by Stalin as well as Hitler. Finally, in regards to being nice in edits, I promise to in the future be even more vigilant regarding not being offensive in my posts. :-) Drogo Underburrow 02:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we should avoid the term "russians" and always use Soviet instead (though that term is also ambigous, as the borders changed, the numbers cited here are from the population within 1939 borders). If you are refering to the purges in the 30's, I believe we are keeping the millions who were killed there out of it. But, of course, being a Soviet soldier (or civilian) during the war wasn't a walk in the park then either with many being persecuted and killed by their own. We mention this briefely in the Soviet footnote on the casualties page. Whether people who starved to death (to some extent because of how Stalin prioritised suplies and army operations) or were persecuted/shot by their own, were killed by the war or not: I'd say that traitors (as that may be controversaly defined) shot or people starving in, say, Leningrad under the siege were indeed killed because of the war and should be included. To not include people who die because of what we decide was their Leaders own fault (own policies) will be a slippery slope indeed. Mistakes and/or more or less cynical priorities and sacrifises of civilian life were made all over the world in this war. As they are inn all wars, I believe. But the scale of this can of course be debated. And maybe we should say something about this somewhere. The problem is that this article is already way too long. We should make it shorter, not longer, if we can acomplish that without neglecting important facts. And you've not been offensive at all in your posts. It was just an extra plee from me in case you are to discuss the numbers with Berndd, as he might take vocal disagreements the wrong way. Shanes 03:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Woof! Now the contending start dates of WW2 are really beginning to clog up the intro and summary.This is in my opinion not good - the average reader is most likely not particularly interested in this primarily.Therefore I have created a new section called A debated starting datejust before the chronology and moved the contenders (except Poland invasion and Pacific War) there. I hope that new contenders are added here (if any really is essential) and nowhere else in the article. Generally speaking, there are very many dates which could be argued for - if we find it that interesting, maybe we should create a new article which just handles the subject of when the war started. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 05:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this section is silly. WWII started on 1 September 1939. The ther dates touted are no more part of WWII than the Balkans wars were part of WWI. In both cases there were conflicts which provoked regional fighting. But World War II clearly started with the invasion of Poland and the outbreak of war between Gwermany on one side and France and the Uk in alliance with Poland. The pother things cited are precursors to the war or symptoms of the stresses which caused it. [unsigned comment]

Unless there are verfiable sources for this speculation, this section should be removed. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If Wiki-pedia becomes a place where the loudest voice or the most persistent editor "changes history" to suit their own whims--or their ego--or their prejudices--then it will fail. Big time. The "unsigned comment" has it correct. As does P.B.S. the entire section AND debate is absurd and needs to be ditched. The world did not go to war until September 1, 1939.--Buckboard 09:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"The conflict began by most Western accounts on September 1, 1939 with the German invasion of Poland (the Pacific war is taken to have started on July 7, 1937 with the Japanese attack on China) and lasted until mid-1945, involving many of the world's countries. Virtually all countries that participated in World War I were involved in World War II. Britain and France declared war on Germany on September 3, 1939 and Canada followed on September 10, 1939. The United States entered the conflict in December of 1941 after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

Isn't it sort of necessary that a mention of the Soviet Union's entry into the war is made, seeing how most of the land battles of WWII were between Germany and the USSR and the USSR lost the most life in the war, and was largely responsible for defeating the Germans long before America went near Europe? That makes it seem sort of biased towards a western perspective, mentioning France, Britain, Canada, and America and not Russia.--GinAndTonic 23:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence beginning "Britain and France..." and the one after it should be removed altogether. The article covers that topic in exhaustive detail. See above... somewhere on this talk page. Wiki-Ed 01:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that there are some imperfections in the lists of the partecipants in the opening paragraph. Of course, this is a complex issue, but it should be improved, expecially if WWII has to become a featured article.

• First of all, "The war was fought between the Axis Powers and the Allies. The Axis initially consisted of an alliance between Germany and Italy, which later expanded...." is misleading, even if not uncorrect. Italy joined Germany only in 1940 (several months after the beginning), forming the Axis. So, the Axis was born on 1940, but the war started in 1939 (or whenever).

• If we cite also the english colonies as partecipating to the war, then why do not do the same with italian and german colonies?

• I think that the sentence "For almost two years, from August 1939 to June 1941, the Soviet Union (USSR) was an active partner with Germany in dividing up Eastern Europe" is false. There was not friendship between USSR and Germany, and also the Molotov pact reflects tension. USSR was not a partner for Germany. From the article, it looks like USSR to switch from one side to another. That is not what happened. Even the Poland invasion by USSR army, was (officially) explained as an action to stop german aggression... (ok, the real role of USSR is hard to explain)

• I think that when we say "armies of Russians and Ukrainians under the command of the general Andrey Vlasov" joined Germany forces, we are just referring to a few thousand people. So it makes no sense to cite that in the very beginning of the article (otherwise we should cite many other small groups joining Axis or Allies). From the article, it looks like Ukrainian army to join the german one, but an ukrainian army was not "well defined" at all. I think we are just referring to the Russian Liberation Army.

Probably, I was not so clear in explaining my views, but we can talk about that.gala.martin

I do not understand what the final clause of this sentence, "while others joined the Allies" taken from the intro, means: "Some of the nations that Germany conquered also sent military forces, particularly to the Eastern front, while others joined the Allies."

Does it refer to nations that Germany didn't conquer, and state that they joined the Allies? Or is it saying that some nations were conquered, contributed military forces to help the Germans, and then switched sides? -- Drogo Underburrow 20:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess nobody talks here...or at least nobody is friendly enough to answer a newcomer's question. I guess I won't bother to discuss first, and will just edit. --Drogo Underburrow 10:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I presume that sentence refers to German occupied territories contributing Hiwis and troops to the Axis forces but, as you say, it's not clear. The other part must refer to Polish, Norwegian etc troops escaping to join the western Allies armies, but it's also as clear as mud. Be bold and change it! Leithp 11:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Will do...just wanted to see if the editors who must know what it meant since they had left it like that for so long, would explain it to me, so I wouldn't change the meaning in editing it. Thank you for the response! :-) --Drogo Underburrow 23:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted "Some of the nations that Germany conquered also sent military forces, particularly to the Eastern front, while others joined the Allies. The Soviet Union had enabled German attack on Poland by signing a non-aggression treaty with Germany,"

Whoever wants this material in the article, please write it in proper English, and put it into the body of the article in the appropriate place, not in the introductory first paragraph. Drogo Underburrow 10:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro in its current state is terrible, going in too many details, sometimes giving half-true info (as the note about the Soviets being Germany's active partners for two years). The intro should be concise and mention the main combattants (and not list entire alliances, sometimes incorrectly), the conflicts and waht made this war notable (atrocities, A-bombs, military "achievements"). Str1977 20:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Allright, I have edited the first paragraph to remedy some of these complaints. If there are any linguistical deficencies, please point them out to me or fix them. Str1977 19:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have re-written the intro. Anyone want to comment? Drogo Underburrow 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At the top of the article, it states that World War II was a "military conflict which took place from 1939 to 1945". Would it be worth it to include something to the effect of "...1939 to 1945, although the actual year in which the war began is somewhat debateable, due to varying criteria." Maybe not those exact words, but something similar. It's just that some people would say it began on July 7, 1937, when the Japanese and Chinese battled in Manchuria, and if, for example, you were Hiroo Onoda, you might think the war ended in 1974.

Plese have a look at the section above where we are trying to work out how to cut down the article's size. The trouble is that to be absolutely exact about all matters would pad the article's size to an unreasonable degree. The only way we can do this is to be inexact about things in the intro, and then give more detailed explanation in the sebsequent sections and then even more detail in the individual articles. I know this sounds like heresy, but it's going to be the only way to do it. DJ Clayworth 00:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I concur. For Russia and the USA, WW2 began in 1941. How can WW2 said to be *World* War prior to the involvement of Russia and the USA? Toby Douglass 14:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Look at the amount of countries involved prior to US and Russian involvement. Countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, North America and Australasia were at war. Sounds like a World War to me. Leithp 15:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

By the end of 1940 fighting had already taken place in Europe, Africa, the Americas and the Middle East. DJ Clayworth 15:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The fighting outside of Europe prior to 1941 was almost entirely naval, barring some one-sided engagements in the Middle East (Iraq et al); I would argue up till the involvement of the two superpowers, this was a European War, much as had gone before, except for the magnitude of the German victory, which of course doesn't transform the conflict into a World War. Arguing that the war was global because the Commonwealth was involved is I think spurious; those countries were essentially political extensions of the UK as far as war-making went. Moreover, I would aver it is not the number of countries per se which is so important but their military and economic potential; and bearing in mind the USA could possibly have taken on the rest of the world single handed, it is to me hard to claim a World War without the Soviet Union and USA. Toby Douglass 21:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to think again about that. You will find, for example, that the population of the nations at war with Germany before 1941 was much higher than the population of the US. I would be very surprised if the US had more troops in 1941 than were already fighting the war in 1940. Three out of six continents saw land fighting before the end of 1940, and only one extra was added to that list before the end of the war, and that was only if you count the Japanese invasion of the Alaskan islands as being in North America. You should also read a bit more history if you think that Australia, Canada and New Zealand were 'essentially political extensions of the UK'. By then all were independent countries who decalred war on their own behalf.

I aver the terms you are arguing in are necessarily broad to obscure their insubstantiality. The USA at that point was by itself responsible for something like 50% of the world GDP. One could even stretch the point a little to argue that if the rest of the world fought and the USA remained aloof, the conflict STILL would not be a world war, since half of the global economic (and so to a first approximation military) power was not involved. Arguing the number of people involved by 1940 was greater than the population of the USA - what of it? it is *a* factor, and to be sure, arguing in favour of asserting a World War, but I would say there are many other factors which argue against. Likewise, I aver mentioning the number of continents involved in the fighting is spurious, since the European powers all had considerable overseas interests; any European war would naturally involve fighting on many continents, but that fighting was tertiary at best and so does not, IMO, validate a claim to a World War. Finally, regarding the Commonwealth, it would have been unthinkable in the circumstances of the day for them not to have declared war in support of the UK. That is my point; I'm not arguing that their Governments were political extensions of the UK Government. Toby Douglass 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Common usage calls WWI a 'World War', yet its fighting was even more restricted to Europe than the 1939-1941 period of WWII. Or are you going to campaign for a change of name there too? DJ Clayworth 21:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

WW1 involved both the USA and Russia (and indeed Japan, of course). I don't see that my view in this matter requires me to argue WW1 was a European conflict. Toby Douglass 22:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You just said it. "Your view." When wiki-pedia becomes a reference source of people's "views" it's a dead duck. The WORLD went to war when the Nazi's kicked it off. One of the great lessons of the war is that so many delayed their entry far too long.--Buckboard 10:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that the Polish September Campaign, or even the Japanese campaign in Manchuria, didn't start World War II, or are you just trolling? Leithp 23:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I am asserting neither of these ideas. The Polish campaign marked the beginning of the European aspect of the war, in that England and France aligned against Germany. Russia was nominally aligned with Germany but played no active part in the Western theatre. If the war had stopped at this point, would it have been called a World War? previous wars where England and France aligned against Germany were not called World Wars. Regarding the Japanese military adventures in China, what of them? they certainly did not precipitate or contribute to the initiation or root causes of WW2, which was essentially the failure of the treaty of Versailles - a European error. Toby Douglass 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What comparable war with the British Empire, Germany and France fighting are you thinking of? The Napoleonic wars? They didn't feature fighting on four continents as mentioned above. Your dismissal of these conflicts as "tertiary at best" is utterly disingenuous. And the "a European error" comment just clarifies this in my mind, you are trolling. Find something better to do. Leithp 16:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Kindly look at my edit history and retract your trolling accusation. Toby Douglass 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, it has occured to me there may be a misunderstanding regarding my comment upon the conflicts outside of the Europen continent being tertiary - I am refering to conflicts *prior* to the admission of the USA to the war. The only major extra-European conflict induced by the conflict between England combined with France against Germany, that I am aware of, prior to December 1941, was in North Africa. I am attempting to make the point that until 1941, the conflict caused by England combined with France against Germany was primarily in the European theatre. Japan's entry into WW2 was essentially opportunistic. They were not part of the cause of the European conflict that was the genesis of the global conflict. Toby Douglass 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So the fact that the rest of the world, including America [4], called this conflict World War II prior to direct USA or Soviet involvement is irrelevant? We should rename this article because you think this is technically inaccurate? I still don't understand what you're proposing, which is why I think you're trolling. You aren't suggesting any improvements to the article. Leithp 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think he's just trolling. DJ Clayworth 04:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Easier to dismiss than consider, no? Toby Douglass 15:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that the intro is inaccurate in stating 1939-1945, as these are the dates of World War II. Some might dispute this and this should be covered further down, but we shouldn't dress up a horse from its tail. The enddate 1974 indicates the problematic nature of that alternative view which is, if I may say so, sino-centric. The Sino-Japanese conflict is another conflict - WWII started with Germany vs. Poland-UK-France, widening to Germany vs. USSR, and from Japan vs. USA to Germany vs. USA and also to Japan vs. China (but it was the US-American conflict starting in 1941 that incorporated the Asian theatre into WWII). Again, the alternative view should be discussed, as it provides some insight, but it shouldn't be made the norm in the intro. Str1977 08:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the following paragraph from the article because it has gross factual errors:

Also following the offensive on the American held sea base of Pearl Harbor, Sigapore was attacked by an aerial raid three days later. At the time, the British had stationed the capital ships Repulse and Duke of York stationed in the harbor of Singapore. Both ships were sunk as a result of aircraft carriers and showed that aircraft carriers were capable of dealing more damage from air rather than by sea, ending the importance of the battleship as a major force.

First of all, the Duke of York was not sunk at Singapore; in fact it was not even stationed in the area at the time. In 1943 the Duke of York sank the German battleship Scharnhorst, a pretty good accomplishment for a ship that was supposedly already sunk.

Secondly, the Repulse was not sunk by carrier aircraft, but by land based aircraft operating from an airfield in Saigon. Also, the ship was sunk at sea, not in the harbor of Singapore as implied by the deleted text.

Finally, battleships still had importance in the war, and nations spent a lot of money building them, and they served throughout the war in roles such as shore bombardment, escort and AA defense, and surface attack. --Drogo Underburrow 02:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. Indeed, it was not the Duke of York, but the Prince of Wales that was sunk along with the Repulse. You could of course fix these errors, but I support a removal anyway based on this paragraph being too much detail for this overall ww2 article. A short mention with a link to the article on the Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse should be enough here. Shanes 02:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; :-) --Drogo Underburrow 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This article, is horribly biased towards a Allied point of view.

Brushing aside major titanic battles of Stalingrad, Kursk, destruction of Army group Center in July 1944 and instead gives lots of detail coverage to minor events such as the mediterranean, etc.

I am gonna fix all this

The big problem is that this article is always large and can't cover everything in detail. I would suggest reviewing the archvies of this talk page for extensive discussions of what should go into the article. I've been told that it cycles up and down in size, changing focus again and again as new editors visit the article. So, while you are welcome to revise, I would suspect a lot of the revisions will get revised. Perhaps you could post specific proposed changes here on the talk page before posting them to the article itself?

Additionally, I am confused by "biased toward the Allies" when your complaint is that it doesn't cover the Eastern front extensively enough, which (as all parts of the war) featured one member of the Allies (the Soviets). Also, brushing off "minor events such as the mediterranean" is decidedly odd, as many will argue that the campaign in Africa was at least as important. --Habap 15:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well africa was a small thing I have some nummbers to give a better idea of what happened also "the final battles" are soviet made also dont forget about the axis hungaria, romania and italy who togheter lost about 700k dead towards the Soviets

German Losses per Rűdiger Overmans Africa 16,066; Balkans 103,693; North 30,165; West 339,957; Italy 150,660; Eastfront until 12/31/44- 2,742,909; Final battles 1945- 1,230,045; other( including Germany & at sea ) 245,561; POWs 459,475- Grand Total 5.318 million. ( 3.068 declared dead during war and 2.251 missing & declared dead after war)

Rűdiger Overmans. Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg. Oldenbourg 2000. ISBN 3-486-56531-1

The article is great but adding more information is never bad and with my posting I want to show is that Africa was a samll side show compared to everything else. Maybe adding more information about the eastern front wouldnt be all that bad. I said MAYBE ;) Also dont get angry with the numbers they are only numbers (Deng 18:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Actually, adding more information can be bad if the article is already very long. And this one is very long, more than twice the size of the recomended article size on wikipedia. So we should make it shorter, not longer. Shanes 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there's is a strong bias towards the western allies in coverage, some sections have ridiculous amount of detail and should see extensive cuts.

Perhaps the most obvious examples is the Battle of Crete which receives the same level of attention as Barbarossa:

On 20 May 1941, the Battle of Crete began when elite German Fallschirmjäger and glider-borne mountain troops and some 539 aeroplanes launched a massive airborne invasion of the Greek island of Crete. Crete was defended by a group of about 43,000 Greek, New Zealand, Australian and British troops, not all of them fully equipped. The Germans attacked the island simultaneously on the three airfields. Their invasion on two of the airfields failed, but they successfully captured one, which allowed them to reinforce their position by landing reinforcements. After a week Allied leadership concluded that so many German troops had been flown in that there was no way to defeat them, and about 17,000 Commonwealth soldiers were evacuated. However, over 10,000 Greek and 500 Commonwealth troops remained at large and caused problems for the German occupiers. The German invasion troops suffered 6,200 casualties (with almost 4,000 dead) out of 14,000 used. So heavy were the losses that Hitler decided never to launch an airborne invasion again. General Kurt Student would later say, "Crete was the grave of the German parachutists". The Allies, on the other hand, came to the conclusion that every major invasion should be supported by paratroopers.

Operation Torch do not deserve more space than entire eastern front in 1942.1943 I think comes closest to the ideal length and balanceRoughly 3/4s of the section about 1944 is about the western front, so the remark that:

By this time the Soviet steamroller had become so powerful that some historians argue that the D-Day invasion was more to prevent a coast-to-coast Soviet bloc than to fight Germany. Most, however, point out that Stalin had repeatedly called on the U.S. to open up a second front. Throughout the war, the Soviet Union engaged roughly 80% of all Germany's forces.

would be rather surprising for the uninformed reader.I'm a bit surprised there's no "medium-level" articles like World War II (1942) or similar. I think it would be usefull to have subarticles offering a global overview and not just covering specific theaters and battles Fornadan (t) 20:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have shortened some of the sections you mention and then some and shaved off 4k. We're still at 82k which is too long. But I've deleted enough for one day. Maybe people have objections... The problem with making a long story short is that it tends to give boring prose. It takes a special skill to do that right, a skill I atleast don't have. This article is a good challenge for anyone who sees themselves as a good copy editor. Shanes 22:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

When you delete stuff do you make smaller articles that have that information that you removed or do you remove it forever so that information is lost for all time? (Deng 23:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

The sub-articles are already there with the information (and lots more) in them. This article is really just an overview article over WW2. For details on each battle and arena, etc, the reader is in each section pointed to sub-articles where more information can be found. This is a perfect example of an article that should be written in Summary style. The summary style article actually uses this ww2 article as the example. Shanes 23:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In the sentence in the introduction "Approximately 62 million people died as a result of the war, almost half of whom were Russians" the bit about the Russians keeps on being removed. Is there a good reason for this or is this vandalism? Or does someone not want to acknowledge the fact? If dozens of countries participate in a war and almost half the death toll is in one country (not even on the losing side), then that certainly seems like a relevant fact for the intro. DirkvdM 07:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I keep removing it, and its not vandalism, see the section on causalties if you want an explanation. Drogo Underburrow 07:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I had heard on a BBC documentary that the USSR death toll was around 28 million. If it's 23 million then it's not really 'almost half'. But still it's by far the greatest death toll, with the 'runner up' being China with 10 million (less than half that) and Germany suffering 'only' 7 1/2 million (my god these figures are staggering, aren't they?). So a mention of that in the intro still makes sense. Also, I should have said 'USSR', not 'Russia'. So what about this: "more than a third of whom from the USSR"? Or maybe "over half of whom from the USSR and China". That makes more sense because it points out that it was not mostly a European thing, which may be a common misconception. DirkvdM 08:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is too long and needs pruning; it is mentioned in the casualty section now, but if you feel it has to be stated in the intro as well please keep it short and accurate, and I'll stop removing it. Drogo Underburrow 06:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already done some pruning and I see others have too in the meantime. I'll do a little more and add the second version, which is shortest. However, there is now relatively too much on the post-war period (last two paragraphs of the intro), and that is focused too much on Europe and the cold war. Decolonisation was arguably the most important result of the war, so that would deserve more attention, but then the balance would be even worse. And I don't want to totally rewrite it (that would be too prone to a total revert anyway). DirkvdM 05:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My spellchecker is set at EE and detects only a few AE 'errors', mostly the spelling of harbor (vs harbour) in one paragraph. Considering the size of the article I suspect that those are deviations and that the article is mostly written in EE. Can someone check this with a spellchecker that is set at AE? If it is a mix, which should we choose? The event took place mostly in Europe (?) so in that respect EE would make more sense, although 'mostly' is not a very strong argument. DirkvdM 08:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess RJN wants to play edit war, reverting without comment?

I reverted your change of "Possibly" back to "At least" because it sounds more neutral. "Possibly" sounds like a guess. No, I do not want to engage in an edit war with you. I can see that you want to engage in an edit war with me by your tone of edit summary and reverted back to your "possibly" wording after I reverted yours. I don't have time to "play" an edit war with you, grow up! RJN 08:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I'm sorry that I missed the "possibly" edit when reverting. I intended to revert to your previous edit but missed it by one. My apologies to the viewers and watchers of this article.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-13 09:12Z

"Possibly" does indeed make it sound like a guess. That was my intention, to state as briefly as possible that the figure given of 60 (or 62) million war dead was nothing but an educated guess, which is what it is, to my knowledge. The edit was not done out of the blue, but after discussion on the talk page. See Shanes' recommendation that I do such an edit, made in the talk page section dealing with casualties.

I feel that reverting my change without discussion was rude and treated my edit in the same way that vandalism is treated. Further, telling me on this talk page to "grow up" is also rude, and a violation of what talk pages are for. Drogo Underburrow 09:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Australia and New Zealand declared war the same day, and through the quirk of the international date line became the first to declare war on Germany."

I'm not a historian, but this sounds highly dubious.

1) The calendar date is irrelavant to which country was actually first to declare war. In other words, if California declares war at 5 p.m. PST and New York declares war at 6 p.m. EST, New York is still first.

2) One would think that Australia and New Zealand would declare war in conjunction with England, so those two countries beating England to the punch seems unlikely.

Does someone with more expertise have any thoughts?

According my sources, Britain declared war at 1100, 3 Sep, France at 1500, 3 Sep and India, Australia, New Zealand on 3 Sep (no time given)

If I understand the time zones correctly, 1100 GMT would be 2100 Eastern Australia time and 2300 New Zealand time. This is of course rather circumstancial, but I don't think it's that implausible for Australia declare war first Fornadan (t) 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself and was close to deleting it when I just copy-edited that section. But if it's true it's an interesting fact so I let it stay. But I'd also like to see a source for that. I agree that it looks strange. It could be that the wording of the war declarations were with a local date and time of day given ("as of September 3 a state of war exist" or somesuch) that one could see as Australia and NZ actually being in a state of war first if their local times were used. But that's not the same as actually declearing war first as we state. We need a source for this, or it will have to go. Shanes 22:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I propose deleting the entire section on the 1937 Sino-Japanese war. We must be consistent in the article, either the war started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, or it didn't. Right now, we have that it did, but there's this section on the Sino-Japanese war stuck in without explanation, leading the reader to assume its the beginning of the war. I say get rid of it. The material will still be in Wikipedia, remember that the WWII page is only a pointer to the articles about the Sino-Japanese conflict. Drogo Underburrow 16:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to mention this war with some words somewhere in this article. It was a war that later became an integral part of WW2, and even if the start of it is outside the time interval normaly cited as the span of WW2, the oubrake and early years of the war is worthy of stating. But we don't have to mention it there.

That this article has a very chronological flow makes for some challenges like this. A year ago some people started on a rewrite of this article, focusing more on keeping the chronology within the various arenas, and not cover the whole world on a year for year basis like we do here. See World War II/temp for the rewrite as it now stands (mostly not progressing anymore). A complete rewrite like that might have been to much and too ambisious, but the way it is written might give some good ideas for improvements on the current live one. Shanes 17:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest moving and merging it with the 41 China section. The Sino-Japanese war is important since the outbreak of the Pacific war makes little sense without it and deserve it's own section. Fornadan (t) 20:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both for the feedback. I'll go ahead and implement your suggestions soon unless someone objects here in talk first. Drogo Underburrow 23:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

World War II broke out in 1937 not 1939, but as wikipedia is not a real unbiased website this truth of course cannot survive in the long run. It is better just to admit the inevitable. 18.251.5.238 04:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

True, it is very biased towards what the vast majority of historians and related experts view as the most significant start of WW2.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-17 05:12Z

You mean historians that you have read. 18.251.5.238 05:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as the most significant start of WW2, not that there weren't other contributing factors. If all were included, yes, I do agree we could introduce decades of events before what is widely considered to be the significant start of WW2.

—-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-19 09:56Z

Let's face it. World War II was a compound war - it was the merging of several smaller wars by several belligerent factions. The Chaco War, having fizzled out independently between two South American countries in the 1930s, doesn't make the cut, and neither does the Spanish Civil War (for similar reasons, except it was in Spain), but Japan was warring continuously from the mid-30s to 1945 - which means that it was already fighting when its alliance with Germany drew America into BOTH theaters of WWII (and, more to the point, Japan was on the same expansionist streak it had been on since the mid-30s). To say that World War II began in 1939, as "most historians" assert, is to deny that Japan had been continuously warring from the mid-30s on. Hitler, at the time, was trying to get as much as he could without a fight before going on his rampage. A third "smaller war", besides the fracas started by Hitler (and the one usually labeled "WWII" from the beginning due to Eurocentric media) and the brawl going on over northeastern China and eventually the Pacific, was the Russian-Finnish Border War. (That's how Finland wound up on the side of the Axis.) Because this was a belligerency that occurred in connection with the main fighting, this should also be included as part of WWII. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The point for Wikipedia, is to present the war in accordance with how most sources do. Most sources say that WWII started in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. Whether its true or not, is beside the point. NPOV requires us to tell it the way the sources do. Your analysis maybe correct, but its "original reseach", its your own opinion, and cannot be put into the article. If however, you find a bunch of major historians who write the same thing, then the article will be forced to include their views, too. Drogo Underburrow 08:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV requires us to present multiple sides of a debate, as well, IF there is a debate. Right now, there are several articles on Wikipedia relying on relatively few sources. World War II does not have this handicap. What it has the handicap of, however, is historians relying on Eurocentric sources to classify world wars. What's to say that World Wars I and II deserve those names, anyway? Even in the 20th century, global war was nothing new. Look at the Seven Years' War, for example, or other great colonial wars of the eighteenth century, and how countries were forced to be bogged down in colonial disputes into the 19th century. (Fortunately, after Napoleon, they appear mostly to have negotiated on how to exploit colonies rather than resorting to guns and artillery. However, there was still intense competition going on, as the partition of Africa shows). It's not NPOV that's to blame here, it's the no original research policy which relies on parroting others rather than weaving others' work into a skillful analysis. But, then again, a LOT of articles here on Wikipedia are rather analytical, because otherwise they wouldn't have been coherent. If they hadn't used a little dash of original research, they wouldn't have been palatable articles. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

OTOH, No Original Research is useful for keeping out the WP:Vandalism. — Rickyrab | Talk 13:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

World War II began in 1937 no more than the War of the Austrian Succession began in 1739, when Jenkins' ear got presented in parliament and England declared war on Spain. Of course Japan was fighting a war continuously from 1937 to 1945. But the war it was fighting from 1937 to December 7, 1941, was not World War II. It was a separate war, which later became merged into World War II. In 1938, nobody thought World War II was going on, because World War II is a war which began with the German invasion of Poland. This is not to say that the Sino-Japanese War was not important, just that it is bizarre to say World War II began in 1937. Think about it - in 1939, England and France go to war with Germany. From 1939-1941 there are two, completely separate, wars going on - one in Europe (eurocentrically called "World War II") between Germany and various countries; and one in Asia (called the "Sino-Japanese War") between Japan and China. There are no common participants between these two wars - they are not the same war. Later, Japan joins World War II by attacking Britain, the United States, and the Netherlands in Southeast Asia and Hawaii, and the war with China becomes submerged in the larger war. But that doesn't mean that the initial war with China was part of World War II.

We need to have some discussion of the Sino-Japanese War, but it should be essentially as an explanation of the origins of the Pacific part of World War II, and should be relatively short. As to the issue of the name, sure "World War II" is named totally eurocentrically, as is "World War I," which was considerably less worldwide than the Seven Years War or the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. (Speaking of which, note that we don't include the War of 1812 as part of the Napoleonic Wars.) But, well, that's the way things go. Not much to be done about it. Again, I don't think we can have an article without some discussion of the Sino-Japanese War. But it should be discussed as one of the causes of World War II, not as itself a part of World War II. john k 18:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But the war WAS going on in 1937 in the Orient - nobody had thought to call it WWII because nobody thought that a)Japan would band up with Germany and b)the two would do something stupid together. Besides, the media were focused on Europe because WWI was essentially an European war. The causes of the Sino-Japanese War ought to be counted among the causes of WWII, but the Sino-Japanese war combined with the European war to form the larger war. — Rickyrab | Talk 01:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I agree that WWII was a compound war. The choice of beginning and ending dates are arbitrary; they are simply tags put on to over-simplify complex reality for the convienience of western historians. That said, the article should stay with saying that WWII began in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, and ended with the defeat of Japan, cause that is what most books in English say. Drogo Underburrow 07:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I found this GIF animation at the top of the German WW2 page. Maybe a candidate for insertion in the english article, unless it is too unserious.. :-)Stor stark7 20:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Second_world_war_europe_animation_small.gif

That is really cool. A neat addition would be a calendar in sync with the animation showing when everything happens. Lisiate 05:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

That is GREAT. However, we need to remake it...

• A larger view encompassing all of the North African theater would not be too difficult. Essentially crop it a bit at the top and expand it a bit in the bottom (the extreme north of Norway & Russia played little part in the war as opposed to North Africa).
• Date-calendar with general dates i.e. "Operation Barbarossa June 1 - Dec. 1"

This section is too long. The material here belongs in the main article. I propose to cut it in half. I also propose to remove the graphic on the Morgenthau plan. We are devoting a whole bunch of space and attention to a plan that didn't even happen. Drogo Underburrow 02:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about the section being to long (please go ahead and prune as you se fit), and you are definitively right on it belonging in the main article. As to the graphic I guess I just felt the need to share my art work... But seriously, the purpose of the map was to show that the western powers were thinking real hard about splitting up germany into a "east" and "south/west" germany, as well as on terrirorial amputations (east prussia etc) well before the potsdam conference. Since the political thinking of the U.S.A./U.K doesnt seem to fit anywhere in the flow of the rest of the article it ended up here.

In addition, I think the immediate post surrender allied occupation of Germany might merit a slightly longer than usual section. I've repeatedly comme accross this myth in various articles in wikipedia, that says basically "The west didnt want to repeat the mistakes of the versailles treaty which bred German revansionism, so they decided to treat the Germans nice". I guess people think and write this because it is what they want to believe. Reality was much more complex, this might need to be "hammered" in.

This is what the main article says right now, which in my opinion is plain wrong:In contrast to World War I, the Western victors in the Second World War did not demand compensation from the defeated nations. On the contrary, a plan created by U. S. Secretary of State George Marshall, the "European Recovery Program", better known as the Marshall Plan, called for the U.S. Congress to allocate billions of dollars for the reconstruction of Western Europe. Similar measures and policies helped put Japan on the path of economic recovery as well.

As for the situation in japan I'm far more ignorant, but at the back of my head I think that it wasnt until the Korea war that they started to get their economy going again.

Finally, I'm real conflicted about how much mention of the morgenthau plan there should be. Yes, the media made a fuss making it politically sensitive to keep backing it in public, and then Morgenthaus friend President Roosevelt goes and dies so there was no champion left to implement it (not that it is by any means certain that Roosevelt would have continued to suport Morgenthau, had he not died). But... all I've so far read consistently points to the morgenthau plans basic filosofy being deeply ingrained into the U.S. goverment, influensing all the occupation policies they eventually implemented, such as the JCS 1067 (which was basically authored by Morgenthau), etc. To understand the occupation policies you need to understand the plan.

To learn more on the imediate (ca 2 years) post surrender situation you might read these two reports, authored by former U.S. President Herbert Hoover on a commission by President Truman (as I understand it). [5][6]

And to get a feeling for the conflicting wills in action, have a look at snippets of interviews with government officials

Ok, I guess I'm getting a bit long winded. To end I would just like to note that I'm really surprised that the entire article has had no mention of the border revisions and resulting ethnic cleansing until I put in what basically is a stub (not exactly sure about the numbers by the way, the sudeten article claims only 3 million out of 3.2 were cleansed, but I read elsewhere that the pre war population was 3.5).Is it that noone editing this article knew about what hapened, or just didnt feel that it was important enough to mention? Terrible school history education/censureship or no empathy, scary either way.

To end this monologue, prune away, but do it gently please. Stor stark7 23:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you have an interest in the subject, why don't you do the pruning? Move the material to the main page, and summarize it as briefly as possible here on the WWII page? Drogo Underburrow 06:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok Stor stark7 17:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at it now. The "aftermath" article was a mess, I've made a half hearted attempt to clean it up. Stor stark7 21:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good job :-) Its not easy condensing material. Drogo Underburrow 00:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Are there any articles yet on the religious-fundamentalist veneration of this war by Americans, or their historico-revision of same? GJK 02:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an article on the Greatest Generation but it says nothing about why this generation is called the "greatest". Drogo Underburrow 01:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent when it comes to expanding an already large article... but I think this warrants a paragraph for the sake of NPOV.

• French Vichy government
• Collaboration of the Danish government - sorta unique I believe...
• International divisions fighting for Germany on the East front i.e. Wiking Division
• Finnish winter wars already included although a bit messy
• I'm sure there are many other examples :P

I realize that resistance to German occupation was more widespread than collaboration to it - but there are some significance to the impact of some of the collaborative efforts. For instance, the bombing of the French Vichy governments fleet in the Mediterranean (3rd largest in the world and of great interest to Germany and a worry to the allies) and worries about the reaction of Vichy controlled French forces to a British invasion in French colonies in Africa. The heavy Danish export of agricultural products to Germany and enlistment of occupied countries civilians to the German army and/or work force. I'm wondering if all of this shouldn't be but beneath the "Resistance" paragraph in a "Collaboration" paragraph? I'm not terribly informed on the subject but it would seem that we always hear a whole lot about the glorious resistance fighters while the factual somewhat less-glorious cooperative efforts are largely ignored. I realize that paragraph will be trolled something awful which is why I haven't put anything in the article - but what do you think? Does it warrant mention? Celcius 00:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

How about putting mention of this topic along with the material on the Resistance, and changing the name of the section to refer to both? Further, simply summarize ALL the material, and put the details on the main page(s) for each topic.? This would accomplish both the goals of including the material, and helping the article by making it smaller, not larger? Drogo Underburrow 05:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Today it is known that had Hitler not been appeased in the Munich Conference by being given the Sudetenland (a portion of Czechoslovakia which had mostly native Germans), his generals were planning to depose him.

I removed this statement for two reasons. One, I question that the Generals had moved beyond the wishful thinking stage, and had actually put into place a serious plan to dispose Hitler that would have been likely to succeed. What is the source for the statement? Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable, and any editor can remove any content that is not verifiable. Secondly, I question inclusion of the statement, even if it is supported by a source, on the grounds that its speculation on what would have happened IF something else had happened, and such speculation belongs in the main article, not this page, as it is detail. Drogo Underburrow 03:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

German bombing of Poland, the United Kingdom, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union was responsible for over 600,000 civilian deaths. - What is the source for this statement? Drogo Underburrow 04:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

how do i add the article Non-German cooperation with nazis during World War 2 in the "see also" section ?

As well, please improve that article as now it is too short for such an interesting subject. Kaiser 747 09:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro should only list the major powers. If every country that participated on the Axis side is listed, then fairness dictates that every country on the Allied side be listed as well....but that would be a list of around 50 countries or more. Do we really need this sort of nit-picky detail in what is supposed to be a brief introduction to the article, not a complete exposition? Lets remember what the page is supposed to be, which is a pointer to the main articles on WWII, not a complete discussion of everything about WWII. Drogo Underburrow 01:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with this. We need to bite the bullet, realise that we can't say everything that we would like to say in an intro and then defend that position. DJ Clayworth 20:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)