Talk:World War II/Archive 12

message: In the intro every word counts and should be justified. Here we have: "The war was fought in response to the expansionist and racist policies of Nazi Germany". I don't think "racist" belongs here. Not that think that the Nazi policies weren't racist, but I don't think it was their racist element that prompted the war. Rather the war was fought in response to German expansionism and military agression. Any disagreements? DJ Clayworth 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was racism that led to the genocide of Jews, so racism is an appropriate word. The beginnnings of World War II are very important, and Hitler's attempt for world domination. Oyo321 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but my point is that the Allied powers didn't go to war over the genocide of the Jews. The genocide wasn't well-known in 1939. Genocide later turned out of have been a reason why fighting the war was a good thing, but not a reason why the Allies went to war. Hitler's agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes. DJ Clayworth 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DJ Clayworth. The "race reasons" for the war were extremely insignificant compared to the "expansionism reasons". Of course, there were foreign worries about the "Jewish question" (sadly minor), but it is beyond any doubt that it was Hitler's methodical annexation of country after country that triggered the war in Europe - one has just to study the diplomacy that went on prior to the outbreak. The plans of genocide were not known at that point, and it is not even certain there were any firm German plans at that point, but that is an entirely different question. Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  I originally wrote that sentence.  An intro to WWII must emphasize Adolf Hitler and Nazism.  Without the racism reference, one could easily read the whole article, with the exception of the casualties section, and completely miss that the Germans had fallen for a really bad idea.  Saying Hitler was a militarist and aggressive and wanted to conquer other lands just isn't enough.  There is no way that he could have gotten the Germans to kill that many Slavs without racism.  That this kind of thing can happen in a modern civilization is the take-home lesson of WWII.  If we tell the story of the war in dry, completely inoffensive "he wanted all the land and power, and the Allies didn't want to give it to him, and now let's talk about Army Group B", then we're only giving a one-dimensional view of the war. Haber 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you feel that more can be written about the Nazi's racist policies then fine, there are other places in the article it can go. And nobody disagrees with pointing out that such racism existed. But the sentence as it stood was a falsehood - the Allies did not primarily go to war for reasons of racism. We are not helping at all if we start making false statements. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True America did not go to war against racist policies in Nazi Germany. I don't agree that Hitler's "agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes" were the reasons that U.S. went to war. Pearl Harbor was one thing, and the fact that Churchill was wailing for help as the last sole fighter in Europe would have had absolutely no chance of keeping the U.S. neutral. Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements above refer to why the war happened, not why the US decided to join in. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  DJ you're right.  I'll work it in somewhere else.  Haber 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: In the first paragraph: ...roots in earlier conflicts such as the Second Sino-Japanese War..."
Isn't that a little bit exclusive of the European theatre?  Would anyone object to adding, say, WWI to that?
-ChunkySoup 11:29pm 7/16/2006
:Yes I would. The intro is too long on the causes already. However I have removed the specific reference to the Sino-Japanese war. DJ Clayworth 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't. If WW1 had not happened, it is unlikely WW2 would have in that way. Many historians state that WW2 was a follow on from WW1. Wallie 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roots of the war 

message: Once again i think the intro has got out of balance. I propose a new one. Essentially I've added:
The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; and also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific. 
DJ Clayworth 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm. ...and in and around Asia (Japan, China, Burma, India, Soviet Union)... and in and around Australia (Coral Sea, New Guinea, Darwin, Midway)... and in and around Africa (Lybia, Sudan, Egypt)... Wallie 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of those are in/around the Pacific or Europe. And it does say majority of the fighting. We're looking for a brief summary here, not an exhaustive list. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: In the intro, it should be mentioned that the Soviet Union had aggressive expansionist plans. Stalin had explicitly mentioned even in his public speeches that the modern army is an attacking army. He also partitioned Europe with Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. Partitioning territory of sovereign state is an act of war especially when the plans were implemented with the Baltic states and Poland. His plans were partly realized in the later stages of the war, when the Soviets invaded half of Europe. I already added Stalin's aggressive expansionist policy to the "causes of war" paragraph in the intro, but it was removed as a "minor cause". Care to explain? When the largest state in Europe mobilized five million men, that's hardly minor. --Vuo 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll gladly explain. It wasn't a major cause because war wasn't declared in response to it. If Soviet expansionism had been a major cause the Allies would have declared war on the Soviet Union. If Stalin had sat at home and not been expansionist the war would still have happened. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is the naive view that Stalin was entirely passive. I wonder when people will start seeing past official Communist propaganda. Whether war was declared on which grounds, or what would have happened in a given scenario, is irrelevant. Stalin first partitioned Europe with Germany, and was planning to attack west. One of the first wars in the Second World War was Winter War, where Stalin attacked Finland. Germany wasn't involved in this war. The pattern you can see here is that both Germany and the Soviet Union planned an attack towards each other. --Vuo 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet Union also on the offensive 

message: Is it just me or is the lead for this article extremely short? Shouldn't it be just a bit longer given the size of this article as WP:LEAD states? Periklis* 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody permanently deletes the intro.--Nixer 11:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted your addition because inaccurate and non-neutral. See section above here.Opiner 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The lead