Talk:World War II/Archive 8

message: In Romanian I took a class with insisted that they were wrongly considered part of the Axis, because they only fought on that side after being invaded, as several other Allied countries did, to some extent.  David R. Ingham 00:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the same subject with Finland. Even though we were attacked by an "ally" nation, Soviet Union, recieved military help from Germany and were formally on the Axis side, it is unfair to put us on the Evil side, because like anuone can read, Mannerheim never approved Hitlers way of thinking. Thank you to User:DirkvdM also for clearing things up. Arctic-Editor 11:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that Finland was part of the Axis because of the political situation forced upon it doesn't change the fact that it was part of that alliance. The Allies declared war on Finland when the Continuation War started. I'm not particularly familiar with the situation in Romania, but my understanding is that the regime allied itself to the Axis. Again, this isn't to say that Romania didn't have its hand forced, but it was allied to Germany. Look at the example of Yugoslavia to see what would have happened had they refusedLeithp 13:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The question is an important one, true. But you are missing some points: GB and Commonwealth declared war on Finland December 6, 1941, not when the Continuation War started. United States never did declare war. (BTW, did US declare war on Romania? I'm not sure.) Romania did sign Tripartite Pact, Finland didn't. --Whiskey 10:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romania? 

message: "The repatriation, pursuant to the terms of the Yalta Conference, of two million Russian soldiers who had come under the control of advancing American and British forces, resulted for the most part in their deaths." 
I am not sure what that means. Kingturtle 06:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, AFAIR the biggest part of returned POWs arrived in the later period, that is in late 1944 and in 1945. Also, I've read (where? I can't remember) that the repression rate among those who returned was significantly higher than the 9,1% quoted above (and even if it was "only" 10%...). For instance, I've read that the majority of those who returned to the Red Army were sent to the farthest areas of Siberia, with no chance of returning to some better posts. Could anyone confirm? Halibutt 22:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
* I have removed this debated entry since it seems we can not confirm it at this moment. The original entry remains however documented and saved here:
"
The repatriation of two million Russian soldiers previously serving under Germany (pursuant to the terms of the Yalta Conference), who had surrendered to advancing American and British forces, resulted for the most part in their deaths.
"
It would be good if more users with knowledge could assess this entry. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis 22:42, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Debated entry: The repatriation of Soviet soldiers

message: One of the criticisms of the WW2 page (why it failed as FA) was that it missed a section describing the "resistance". Since I could not find any (!) main article for resistance during WWII, I have created one: Resistance during World War II. I have added the introductory text to the WWII main article under a new section called "Resistance".
Please help by reviewing & expanding the main article Resistance during World War II and possibly the WWII main article section "Resistance"!
I am far from an expert on the resistance...
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 15:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance section 

message: I edited paragraph 4 and the statistics table to no longer refer 'total human loss' of life only to those of the allies. It was neccisary not to descriminate between axis and allies when refering to total loss of life concerning military and civilians casualties. see the casualties page for more information. User:203.217.68.136
* You have got sharp eyes, 203.217.68.136! I wonder how I and all the other NPOV-fanatics have failed to see this before. I will now also update the section called "Casualties", according to your edits. Thanks again, 203.217.68.136! Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 21:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edited deaths 

message: I have requested for the World War II article to be peer reviewed.
* Please see the reasons on Wikipedia:Peer review/World War II/archive2
* Post your opinions on Wikipedia:Peer_review#World_War_II
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: The article overviews the war in Europe in 1944 but doesn't mention the Pacific. It overlooks the Battle of Leyte Gulf, the largest naval battle in history, invasion of the Phillipines, and the capture of Marianas from which the Enola Gay dropped the first atom bomb.
:Good point. You can add it yourself. Be bold. (and you may want to sign your comments with a --~~~~ --Goodoldpolonius2 22:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it needs attention? --AI 01:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 1944 Pacific Overview 

message: I removed the pages needing attention notice and the limited geographic scope notice (the second one is just hogwash).  Unless someone mentions specifics (as in actual quotes or ideas) I don't think it appropriate to add such serious accusations.  Also, it would be nice if such an addition was noted here, since this is a very active page.--naryathegreat | (talk) 02:32, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know if it was added lately or if I just missed it but there appears to be a overview for the war in Asia 1943-1945 listed under 1943 yet a separate article is devoted exclusively to 1945. This is extremely confusing so I think we should delete the 43-45 overview.IndieJones 21:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notices

message: It was actualy hitler who said that crete was the grave of the parachutist. He said it to student who disagreed.
Rich tea man.
:Is that from a dream that you had? Students who disagreed with Hitler rarely graduated.
Lestrade 23:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crete 

message: Brazil is listed under "neutral / ambivalent". Brazil sent hundreds of troops to Italy and, Brazilian soldiers died fighting Mussolini´s men. It is both historically innacurate and offensive to include Brazil under "neutral". We were the only South American country to send troops to World War II. Doidimais Brasil 00:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
: This regretful error has been corrected. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 10:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brazil 

message: I am quite unhappy with current description of the 1939. I think that the reader unfamiliar with the topic will assume, that Poland was defeated in 1939 and stopped participating in the war. I was thinking in adding at least one sentence reflecting the fact that Poland was still fighting and was part of the allies. The link to Polish governmen in  exile is ok, but it is linked from the sentence "Polish government escaped" which have no sense to me. Maybe another sentence: "within days, Polish government in-exile was formed in the west" or something similar? 
No
Szopen 10:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poland as ally 

message: I have removed the line about the Nazis hating Slavs as much as Jews as it strikes me as silly and throwaway. As I said in the summary "KKK members hate Jews and Blacks equally" would be a sort of senseless line. 
Further, however bizarre, there was a hierarchy to things and that Jews ranked at the bottom seems to me beyond question. Rough rank order: 
* Favoured: Germans, Scandinavians, Britons (remember, Hitler admired the British Empire)
* Acceptable: French Latins
* Debatable: Other Latins (eg., Spanish and Italians)
::For political reasons, the Nazis would often rank the Italians (their allies) above the French (their enemies).  Similarly, the Magyars, of eastern steppe origin, were given honorary Aryan status, as were, even more absurdly, the Japanese.  States allied to Nazi Germany somehow came off higher in the race hierarchy than those opposed. john k 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the Tripartiate alliance, I have read Mussolini actually actively opposed the Nazi racial hierarchy because it placed Italians in a middling position. I also recall "research" was conducted to prove a cognate link between the German and Japanese languages... Marskell 14:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jews were worthless in a different way than, say, Africans.  Africans were considered to be less evolved, primitive, and so forth.  The Jews were actively evil, and degenerate. Gypsy status was even weirder, as I recall. john k 05:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Ok, so my wording was too strong. But the hatred of Slavs is still relevant I'd say, right? DirkvdM 14:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slavs are mentioned quite clearly as targets of the Holocaust along with Jews in the relevant section, World War II#Genocide, other than that, the article does not talk about motivating factors of the Nazis, the Holocaust article and others go into that in more detail. --Goodoldpolonius2 14:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of line 

message: Is there something on the Soviet-Japanese neutrality? It effected the course of the Pacific War, but I am having trouble finding any background info on it at all. kaiser matias 22:43 7 October 2005 (UTC)
:Check out the Battle of Khalkin Gol. Oberiko 22:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet-Japanese Neutrality 

message: There should be a long list of the links within the article put at the end or bottom of the article.  There is no way I am going to comb through this.  The See also section should be a mega-link farm.  I can't find anything in this article.  Its perfectly useless.  There actually has to be a notice at the See also that says "Click on "Category:World War II to see all the articles".  --McDogm 01:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Visually, people often hate the links within sentences. Practically, they are unquestionably useful. You can't anywhere comb through WWII properly if that's what you were after here (certainly not within an hour). But here you can follow or not follow tangents as you please, and still get an overview. Perhaps a link to World War II links? Really, not a bad idea. But "perfectly useless?"—I suspect you overstate things. Marskell 01:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You're right. I changed the line. Marskell 04:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links, Links, Links 

message: : Some historians contend that The Italian ocupation of Ethiopia (The Second Italo-Abyssinian War) which lasted seven months in 1935-1936 was the actual start of World War II.
Are there any sources or citations for this?  Otherwise "some historians" is way too weasely, IMO, and it should be reverted out.  Wikibofh 03:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Some historians"... 

message: are there sources for the following statements? perhaps the phrases "Stalin was happy to" and "Soviet partisans" can be changed to a more "encyclopediac" terms. 
 The Soviet Union, due to its treaty relationship with Nazi Germany was satisfied not to fight the fascists, as Stalin was happy to have those he felt were his natural and true enemies—the capitalist West and Nazi Germany—fight each other. For example, the Soviets had their partisans in the U.S. press for the U.S. to remain neutral in the war, and those partisans would continue to do so until the German invasion of the USSR. 
Doldrums 03:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  what stalin "felt" & soviet "partisans" in US press 

message: The europe overview map seems to use the same colour for axis-conquered territories as neutral ones, resulting in a near heart-attack for me as I came to the shocking revelation that germany had conquered Ireland! Save us!-- Revolutionary Left |  Che y Marijuana 09:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Europe Map 

message: BBC quiz show QI just stated that the war officially ended in 1990 with the unification of Germany, though admitted that was a technical oddity.  An interesting fact, if true.  violet/riga (t) 21:25, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. Like the 18th century ended at Waterloo in 1815 and the 20th century began in 1914. It's "catchy history speak." The war, as a war, ended in 1945. It's reprecussions still continue. But we must state the obvious and acceptable here. Marskell 23:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The war ended in 1990? 

message: Here's an interresting little tidbit from QI. The end of WWII was made official through the Paris Peace Treaties in 1947. But that was about Germany, which didn't exist anymore at the time. It only came back into existence at the reunification in 1990, so, technically, that's when WWII ended. Not sure if this should go into the article, though. :) DirkvdM 12:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was mentioned above. However a quick check of the facts finds that the DDR did not come into existence until 1949, so at the time of the Paris Treaties it was still one country (albeit divided into occupation zones).  Furthermore since both East and West Germany would consider themselves the legitimate heirs of Germany, they would consider that the Paris Treaties would apply to them ,and so would be no longer at war. If for some reason one country did not consider itself the legitimate heir of Germany, then it was never at war at all. DJ Clayworth 14:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It's also worthwhile pointing out that QI is a comedy quiz show. Such shows do no usually spend a lot of time on getting their facts right, since correct facts are not always funny. DJ Clayworth 14:49, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of WWII 

message: The Soviets called it the Great Patriotic War, which exists as a wikipedia redirect Great patriotic war linking to Eastern Front (World War II).  This needs to be included in this article, but I didn't see an obvious place to locate it.  Any thoughts?  JJackson8 22:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Patriotic War 

message: On September 1, 1939 when the Germans began shelling Westerplatte near Danzig the moon was full. On December 7, 1941 when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor at Honolulu the moon was full. Is this a coincidence or does a full moon give an advantage to a pre-dawn attack? ref: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vphasepost.sn
Musicwriter 03:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think so. Remember, night vision technology in 1939 pretty much consisted of a technique known as 'squinting'. :) Guapovia 08:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onslaught of WWII 

message: Regarding the reverts over causes, "intensely fanatical nationalism" sort of whacks the reader over the head ("non-intense fanaticism" is an oxymoron methinks). Nationalism is mentioned twice in the intro and the third reference here as I had it seems sufficient.
Finally, applying this as a fundamental motivation to the allies is largely incorrect. The war brought about a nationalist surge in the U.S.S.R., U.S., UK etc. but nationalism did not propel them into the conflict. Marskell 19:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Marskell. →Raul654 20:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with Marskell. Dna-Dennis 23:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes 

message: Hi wikipedians!
Finally I have added the reconstructions I made in 2004 of the two bunkers (Führerbunker & Vorbunker) and their location to wikimedia.
These maps certainly don't earn a place in this article, so therefore I have not added any (they have been added to the article Führerbunker, Hitler's death and Reich Chancellory). Nevertheless, I wanted to inform you of their existence, since I believe they are of interest to some of you. Instead of repeating the information about my reconstruction here, I refer the descriptions
I have made on the actual image pages:
# Fuehrerbunker.jpg
# Vorbunker.jpg
# BunkerLocations.jpg
I hope you enjoy the maps.
Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 14:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction of the bunker(s) 

message: Hi wikipedians! Due to opinions from various places (e.g. Talk:World_War_II#Lead_pic_problems), I have changed the lead pictures for the WWI & WWII page, so that they now are without the top title text ("World War I" & "World War II" (remember to hit "refresh" in your browser). I believe this is what the majority desires, but if you object, please say so here. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 23:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Great job Dennis. And may I say again that those pictures are superb. Major kudos for producing them. DJ Clayworth 14:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New lead picture(s)  - without text 

message: Many consider World War II to be the only true world war due to the overwhelming number of nations involved and the extraordinary number of theatres—from Europe and the Soviet Union to North Africa, China, South East Asia and the Pacific. In World War I non-European theatres had seen quick and short colonial battles, but in World War II these theatres demanded far more resources and human sacrifice. 
Can we have a source for this? Who are the "many"? I can think of wars other than those in the 20th century which have spread across the globe. Obviously none were quite as intensive as WW2, but I don't think this statement belongs in the intro unless there is a very convincing source. Wiki-Ed 14:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. That's way too detailed for the intro paragraph. Even if it was sourced it would be much better somewhere else. DJ Clayworth 14:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro paragraph source 

message: There are no battles of the Eastern front listed in the bottom.--Nixer 16:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the "See also" section? Because there are some listed there, Kursk & Stalingrad as well as articles giving an overview of the campaign. Leithp (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battles of the Eastern front 

message: Hi guys, good news! The WW2 article has been nominated for an Improvement drive. There are now 6 votes, but someone has voted twice (not good). It needs at least 9 votes by December 13, so please vote for the improvement drive on this page: Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive (go down to section "World War II"). My regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement Drive 

message: Quote:
:Australia and New Zealand declared war the same day, although through the quirk of the international date line, New Zealand then Australia were the first to declare war on Germany.
The International Date Line doesn't have any effect on which country or countries declared war first. It only affects how the times are reported. (And I think the logic is backwards here anyway; the reported time in Australia or New Zealand at any point is later, not earlier, than the reported time in Europe.) This sentence (and maybe the whole paragraph it came from) should be reworded to remove this confusion, and present the chronology of war declarations in the order that they actually occurred, not in the order that the local dates and times would suggest if time zones are ignored. —Bkell 17:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Date Line 

message: How come there's no mention of this military technology anywhere in this article, or on the Technology during World War II article? This was one of the most important aspects of the early success of the Wehrmacht. - eykanal, 3:20 PM EST, 12/14/05
:It's mentioned twice; once at the top as one of the 'tactics that changed the face of warfare', and once in the section on the invasion of Poland. As for your second point Blitzkrieg is a methodology, not a technology, which is why it probably isn't mentioned in the technology article. But you should really ask at Talk:Technology during World War II. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blitzkreig 

message: :Image:Ww2summarymapeurope.gif needs to be corrected, it currently says Sweeden. This has been noted on the image talk page, but no-one has done anything about it. Can someone proficient with image editing software correct this please? Leithp (talk) 11:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've added a World map with the participants (:Image:WWII.png). If you want to suggest a correction just tell me and I'll do it. Thanks. - Gameiro 18:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Map 

message: Where the hell has this gone?
I love how the war box is now part of the main picture, but it seems like the new one was aiming for a much less informative representation....
The other one was superior in both design and the avliable information. It also included links that one could find very useful such as the casualties link, and links to parties involved.
I suggest with community approval that the information contained in the old warbox (in this post) be intergrated into the newly designed warbox.
The new one aims for a cleaner interface, but only acts to dumb down, or remove helpful and vital information.
Bmgoau 14:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, more info here is better. Merecat 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War Box 

message: I put this in the featured article poll, hopfully there can be some dialogue here, I want to hear comments before I start editing!
        
Introduction -- The far east shouldn't be given such a background position. The fascist expeditionary forces should not be listed in the intro, way too much detail (and somewhat misleading). Calling the Commonwealth the Allies is misleading too, the term only applys after the invasion of Poland. China goes to China as a civiliazation. Rape of Nanking (sp?) needed in the casualty section. "Fundemental shift of power" needs to be somewhat explained.
       
Causes -- Such a minute section for what is the most important! Some things needed include failures of the League of Nations, (lack of US, and USSR involvment in the League), The economic depression outside of Russia... In Germany the desperate economic climate was what saved the Nazi party. Japan is almost a characterised... like Germany the liberal democratic government there was percieved to be failing, and the militants came in with popular support. I don't think de-facto is the proper choice of words.
        
Participants -- The many other countries list needs to be fixed up, "considered important allies" is weasily, perhaps "fought under their own banners" or somthing as the such --India was an important member, but fought under Britian. How does the neutral situation create hotbeds of espionage?
        
Starting Date -- That is the most common date used in the west. Saying it is the most common in the world, is controversial, probabaly wrong.
        
1937 -- Which "Chinese government?"
      
1939 -- The charactarisation of Stalin in the second paragraph is written conversationally, and probabaly compleatly misleading, if not false. "Indeed, the Soviets had their agents in the U.S., working alongside Nazi sympathizers."
:::I'll try to look at the rest as well.--sansvoix 21:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: the link near the end of the article leads to a search page and no actual page on wikiquote. It should probably be changed/removed unless a World War II page is created on wikiquote with quotes about the war placed there. I have no specific idea about what actually to do about it so I won't do anything. 70.49.40.39 03:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiquote link

message: Why is the current article improvement drive template at the top of the article? It hasnt been the AID for some time. Whats really strange is I cant find where it is so I can remove it? -- Astrokey44|talk 08:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  article improvement drive 

message: Is there any book on the animal history aspect of WWII? I mean millions of horses, dogs, oxen, etc. were used and killed in combat, logistics. There must have been courier pigeons. Also, it is said the USSR slaughtered about 80% of its northern wild animal population to harvest precious fur as a gold-parity method of payment for US Lend-Lease supplies. The best snipers allegedly fought not in Stalingrad, but on skis in the tundra, trying to shoot arctic foxen exactly between the eyes so the fur is not wasted. One Liberty ship alone bought 60 metric tons of fur to USA and there were many dozens of such occasions between 1942-1945. 195.70.32.136 14:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal World War II 

message: The Great World War 1914-1945 view readded with a reference as per WP:NPOVUW. It would not be allocating undue weight to mention this theory once, in an article of this size. Bobby1011 17:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought the size of this article is a good reason to take things out rather than add them. Leithp 17:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taken from WP:NPOVUW: If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. Bobby1011 18:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've read the NPOV policy before, though possibly not today's iteration. But this viewpoint just doesn't have wide currency. I can't think of any books I've read on WWII, and I've read quite a few, that espouse that view. It just isn't important. The link between the two world wars is clear enough without showing a theory held by a tiny minority of historians. Leithp 18:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd also say that this article failed to get featured status mainly because it was so bloated. It still needs major trimming. Leithp 18:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I Have quoted a book source and I'm sure we can dig up about a million semi-credible internet ones. That being said I see your point that the article is too big anyway, so maybe an article just can't become big enough for this point of view to be significant. Revert it if you feel so inclined. Bobby1011 18:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Interesting theory, Str1977, but I'm afraid your drawing of comparisons falls under Original Research. I removed the entry myself. Bobby1011 00:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Bobby, please read the actual Original research policy. Of course this is my own comparison, but it is not original research according to the policy, as I never suggested including it into the article. Also, it is not a interesting theory but just a comparison. I don't want to change the article and quite frankly don't see a real valid debate on the starting date. It is quite clearly 1 September 1939, at least as far as the European theatre is concerned. Str1977 01:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A debated starting date 

message: The USS Tennessee (BB-43) article was broken (which is over 96kb combined) into five seperate parts.  I think this should be done to this article.  It would have the advantage of being quicker to load and more managable.--KrossTalk 20:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This gets done every year or so, spawning a new set of articles - and the main article slowly rebuilds to this length. Rmhermen 21:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible solution to article size problem 

message: User:Fisenko recently added one million to the Axis war dead. See history for the reasoning. This is a suspiciously round figure. Is this change valid? Rmhermen 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Axis dead

message: I have restored this box 66.98.130.224 05:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  info box restored 

message: Can someone figure out how to fix the infobox's formatting?  If you look at the current revision, there's an extra margin or section on the right side that stretches the infobox too far beyond the rightmost border of the included picture.  I don't know enough about formatting to figure it out myself, so the best I can do is call attention to it.  Thanks in advance.  TKarrde 05:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; that's got to be the ugliest infobox I've ever seen.--naryathegreat | (talk) 05:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I fixed it for you. So it's not so ugly now.--naryathegreat | (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!! It looks a billion times better now :)  teh TK 10:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: I found this page that should be included here: Campaigns of World War II
SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 21:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II Campaigns