Talk:World War II/Archive 23

message: Is it necessary to say always "Nazi Germany" instead of just Germany? We aren't saying Churchill's UK or French IV (or whatever it is) Republic. The country's official name wasn't "Nazi Germany". --Taraborn 15:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think its necessary either, some people think every German was a Nazi or something. They mostly fought as Germans not as Nazi's. It should be Nazi Germany only in the intro section to show the regime but after that its pointless. Wiki1609 13:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so long as the first instance is internally linked as "Nazi Germany", we can call it just "Germany" everywhere else, including the first link.  We don't use "Kingdom of Italy", "Empire of Japan" or "French Third Republic" every time we need to reference the country. Oberiko 13:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Germany 

message: Wikipedia sister project Wikijunior has just launched a book for children between 8-10 on World War II. Anyone interested is welcome to contribute. --Xixtas 21:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[b:Wikijunior:World War II|Wikijunior World War II]] 

message: Any reason why everything on the invasion of Yugoslavia was removed? 96T 13:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to add Yugoslavia to the sections dealing with the Soviet-German War.  As is, the top section is Germany vs the Western Allies, while the latter is for Germany vs. the Soviets (and their allies).  You're right that I should add something on their initial invasion and conquering of the state in the section though. Oberiko 14:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do. 96T 21:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the intro and the conclusion is in the final section on the Soviet-German War. Oberiko 22:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm supportive of adding it. --LtWinters 14:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Okay, lets calm down here.  I would suggest trying to find some consensus.  Perhaps both Hirohito and Tôjô could be listed in the infobox?  List one as Emperor and the other as PM?  --myselfalso 15:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally would prefer to either list several commanders for each country, or not list any commanders at all. It's far too complex a situation to list one person who was in charge for each country. Sure, Churchill was the PM of England, but Montgomery, for example, was pretty important too. Parsecboy 16:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interestingly, the editors on WWI were able to agree on that. --LtWinters 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Against that here.  Far to much room for personal bias.  How many people would we list for each?  What would be the criteria?  All figureheads, de facto heads of state and high military officials?  Potentially we could have dozens of valid entries.  I should state I'm still against listing any nations and commanders.  Oberiko 20:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oberiko does have a point; the infobox already is grotesquely huge, we don't need to add more stuff to it. Parsecboy 20:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying the ww1 people agreed on it. But I'd prefer 1 for each country. Why don't we continue this on Oberiko's page for the infobox?--LtWinters 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I came here from Rfc, always put the emperor's name & then explain how that general was much more influential in the decision makings of the war. Also, I just don't think that Tojo was that influential either. I thought that there was a cabinet in the war department that made all the decisions. (Wikimachine 12:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary Section Break 1

message: what about a link to www.freedomhistory.com
my book Our Hallowed Ground:  World War Two Veterans of Fort Snelling National Cemetery (University of Minnesota Press)
*While I'm sure your book is a worthy one it is far too obscure to list in the main article about WWII. Lisiate 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to a book

message: It seems like well over 50% of the edits on this page are about quibbles with the infobox.  I'm going to make a new template for our infobox so that edits and discussions over it can be kept off of this page Oberiko 13:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it?--LtWinters 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's at Template:WW2InfoBox Oberiko 20:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried doing that with  3½ months ago, but it was nominated for deletion after about three days, and since this Wikipedian doesn't feel worthy of arguing with Kirill Lokshin, I gave up on fighting for the template's survival (Oberiko seems worthy, however). For what it's worth, Oberiko's got my support. Xaxafrad 03:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Making a template of the infobox

message: I agree with the wording, so Oberiko, why is it such a problem for you? Do you feel like this is *YOUR* article or something? Both Germany and USSR attacked Poland, not just Germany, and Poland had invaded Czech in 1938. TheGoodSon 23:33, 9 July 2007
:I agree with Oberiko to an extent; Matthead's edit was poorly worded and had grammatical errors in it. Perhaps the better action would've been to copyedit it and do some rephrasing to bring it up to snuff. Thegoodson, remember to assume good faith. Parsecboy 21:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your assertion. The fact that you're ignoring/forgetting is that France and the UK declared war by the 3rd or so of September, and the USSR didn't invade Poland until the 16th, if memory serves me. Sure, Germany and the USSR agreed to divide up Poland, and that may have greased the wheels towards Germany's invasion, but Hitler had his eye on Poland for quite a while before that; a German attack on Poland was inevitable. Parsecboy 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I admit that my own personal feelings are getting in the way here, but I still feel like certain parts of the article are slightly anti-German. However, I will agree with what Oberiko wants, but maybe slightly different wording can help make things a little more levelled. TheGoodSon 21:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There were also some content issues. For the invasion of Poland there is the question of timing, the German and Soviet attacks were not simultaneous, rather a clear case of a German attack followed some days later by a Soviet attack/occupation. Another problem with the additions is/was how Poland was also essentially accused of warmongering prior to WWII, that kind of accusation would definitely require a source. Then comes Germany supposedly conducting a preventive invasion of Norway and Denmark (the first has some merit, the second is news to me). Again the claim that the SU was an ally of Germany which definitely doesn't have consensus here. So a number of controversial changes. Lastly I agree that the language was not an improvement over the current version.--Caranorn 21:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've got to say, I agree with Matt's edits. --LtWinters 23:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Poland took "Czech town" not by force, but after issuing ultimatum to Czechs to which Czechs agreed. This was not because "warmongering" but because of politics. The issue was that for 20 years Poland was constantly playing to avoid being considered the pawn in European politics - and Munich was one of many similar steps in which Poland was always reduced to the role of the pawn. Polish politicians were also affraid, that after Munich, Germany would propose something like: you give us Danzig, and in turn you will get the Zaolzie. Getting Zaolzie was therefore with two purposes: to show that Poland is refusing to recognise some special role of "great powers" and to prevent future Munichs. Szopen 07:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To summarize, it's about space.  If you look at the section immediately afterwards (which is where we have more details), we have almost all of those items you listed. We can't show everything at the very top; heck, we only list one battle, indirectly, from the seven year Sino-Japanese War which killed over a dozen million people. Oberiko 13:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Matthead's reverts 

message: HyperWar Project provides a very large library of WW2 documents in the public domain.  Could we consider adding the link http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ to External links/Directories 07/19/07
:Seems like a good idea, it's one of the best sources of WW2 information available on the Web. Oberiko 15:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HyperWar Project in external links 

message: Does anyone else think the way it's set up now is really confusing? The way it's organized now doesn't present a logical progression of events. It goes from 1944-45 Philipines to 1942 Dutch East Indies. I plan on a major rewrite of the section to make it flow better, chronologically wise, but I won't have time to do it until tomorrow or perhaps Sunday. I wanted to post here beforehand, to let others weigh in before I make any changes. Thanks for any and all comments. Parsecboy 12:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sectioning was taken from my rough redo of the WWII article, but I'll willingly admit that beyond what I think the first level headings should be (China, Southeast Asia, Western Pacific, Pacific Ocean), I have very little knowledge of the Asia-Pacific theatre of the war.  I'd personally welcome a major rewrite by someone more versed in the topic. Oberiko 12:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I don't plan on changing the headings, just the text within them, so it flows better. Parsecboy 14:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still say it was best when we had it a few months ago, splitting it up like the western fron may 1940-may1944, the eastern fron september 1939-may1941. --LtWinters 18:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed my mind as I was doing the reorganization, and decided that the section headings were unteneble if it were going to be chronologically based. Take a look and tell me what you think. Or just edit it mercilessly :) I think it makes a lot more sense and is easier to read this way than having to continually go forwards and backwards in time. Parsecboy 20:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific War section 

message: Some one need to fix the list of leaders, on the right, where it says "Commanders". I'm in history class, and we're talking about World War II. On the article, it saids Hirohito leads Japan. The 3 leaders are Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo, not Hirohito.
Hirohito is the Emperor. Tojo is the Prime Minister, The Prime Minister controls the Japanese military, not the Emperor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.78.67.40 (talk) 
:That may be true now, but according to this, under the Imperial Constitution of Japan adopted by Emperor Meiji the Emperor had supreme command of the military before and during World War II. Some Allied generals and leaders wanted him tried for war crimes because of a perceived personal involvement. RHB - Talk 22:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the section above, you'll see the arguments about this and why we're keeping it as Hirohito. Oberiko 22:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Wrong Guy

message: The caption says "clockwise from top" and then precedes to to start at the bottom, skip to the top right photo, go to the top left, middle right, and middle left. Anyone want to correct this? 69.246.150.153 17:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Parsecboy 18:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montage photo's caption 

message: The pictures on the right-hand side of the WWII page are out of order.  The top left picture and the bottom picture have the wrong captions.  They are backwards.  The bottom picture should be the landing at Normanday, and the top left should be the police invading.76.187.7.138 22:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWII picture captions are wrong