Talk:World War II/Archive 9

message: 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)
thread_title: Mass rape

message: 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)
thread_title: German war crimes bombing Britain

message: 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)
thread_title: Nuremberg Pic?

message: 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)
replies: text: One pic has been posted twice. We should remove it Gala.martin 15:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive Pic Use?

message: 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 date
just 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A multitude of start dates 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thank you; :-)  --Drogo Underburrow 02:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singapore 1941 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Main casualties 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Whose English? 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chronology: 1939: War breaks out in Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Europe in ruins

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Collaboration 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Were Hitler's Generals going to dispose him? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Deaths due to German bombing.

message: 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)
thread_title:  see also 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Limit the Intro to listing only the major powers