Talk:World War II/Archive 21

message: In the list of Axis members we have "Vlasov Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army
I have 2 problems with it.
1) How Vlasov Army was able to join Axis in 1941 if it was not formed until 1944?
2) How Vlasov Army can be part of Axis if it did not represent a state (it was just a military formation headed by defector)?
So, my suggestion is to exclude this from the list - it does not make any sense. Wikisib 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vlasov Army 

message: This is something to reiterate regarding the edits I just made. While the bulk of the Soviet army was made up of Slavic troops, it's completely erroneous to refer to the troops as "Russians" and not the more correct "Soviet" because the USSR consisted of several republics that weren't made up of Russians or Ukranians or Bylorussians. These included Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, troops from Central Asia, and even some from the occupied Baltic republics so it is a disservice to refer to the troops, generals, or even political leadership throughout the article as "Russians". Thanks.--MarshallBagramyan 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Russian --> Soviet

message: Hello, I have added a link to Europe's National Library Resources. Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That should be fine as long as there is a direct association to WWII and the events during its duration. I would assume the ENLR would already have that, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eiyuu Kou (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The European Library

message: There are to many battles that can be considered "critical" to omit.  Plus, the Battle of Britain was a campaign, not a singular battle. Oberiko 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted "three major battles"

message: Operation Market Garden was incredibly important, as it stalled the entire allied advance to scrounge supplies for it, even though it failed. All we have mentioned is "Allied paratroopers and armor attempted a war-winning advance through the Netherlands and across the Rhine River with Operation Market Garden in September, but they were repulsed." I'm thinking we need a bit more than that heesham. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --LtWinters 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ok.  I edited your contribution but feel free to edit it again if you still don't think it's perfect. Haber 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Market Garden

message: I think we should keep the total casualties as it is now, 62 mill +. However, take a look at World War II Casualties. I've been trying to correlate their figures with ours, but they won't budge to the numbers we have. Take a look, see if you can get them to agree with us. --LtWinters 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is more than just a should; we can't use another Wikipedia page as a reference (too unreliable!) and the references we do have do not support a figure of 72M+. - Eron Talk 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked, but my eyes blurred.  What a boring article! Haber 03:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Exactly my point. What they actually did, is take a bunch of sources and add them up, so all the ones that lied made it way over than the actual amount. It was like over 72 million, thats the highest I've ever heard. --LtWinters 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualties 

message: Looking through old newspapers back in 1945-1950 suggest that World War II ended sometime in 1946, please confirm this. -- Duskrider 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Every history I've read has WWII end on VJ Day.  After Japan surrendered, who was left to fight? Oberiko 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The only thing happening by 1946 was the Nuremburg trials, right?  All fighting (relating to the specific declarations of war) ended in Europe (VE day May 8, 1945) and in the Pacific (VJ day Sep 2, 1945 - although Japan signalled surrender on Aug 14). What's interesting is that I find a couple of websites that reference WWII as 1941-1946 which is wrong since 1941 refers to American / Pacific theatre involvement, but traditionally the start is listed as 1939.  Additionally, in the bodies of the articles there are no further mentions of any 1946 dates, just in the title.  Entirelybs 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well they're going to say that because of what entirelybs said and also a large majority of troops was not back in the states till '46.--24.225.156.40 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The Soviet Union denied the death of Hitler so they may have claimed the war to continue until Hitler's demise. Firthermoore there were fears that top ranking Nazis might have escaped so the "war" against them still continued in this respect.Tourskin 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II Ending?

message: i think it should be moved to the second world war as that is the more offical and common titel. could you please give me your opinions on this and rember just because its a common internet speeling doesnt mean its correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You've contradicted yourself there a bit Lt- I think 120 vs 136 million hits suggests that many, many people use the term "Second World War", and it is predominant outside of the US as I understand it. But as you say, with the redirects in place it doesn't matter, and the use of one or the other term is not going to significantly impact on reader understanding. Badgerpatrol 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to Second world war 

message: Although this is a small operation, it could be considered the 4th most important event/operation (after D-day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge) (I know some of you are thinking this or that is more important, so I'll say its in the top ten western front events/operations). There is no mention of Operation Varisty, and I feel a sentence should be included so at least to give a link to the operation and to give the main objective of it. Do any of you object? --LtWinters 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operation Varsity 

message: This wants looking at. Says '12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps', 
'The Holocaust was the killing of approximately six million European Jews, as part of a program of |||deliberate||| extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist government in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.'
Did the rest die through mishaps, faulty German plumbing, or other work-related accidents like being shot by a camp guard. I find the statements in the article presume authority, but do not address the subject area with any kind of grace. It would only take a line or two to replace the arrogant statement, dismissing the suffering of those who died at the hands of the Nazis inside the camps is not on. 86.149.209.189 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you think that section sounds arrogant, but somehow in all the editing the Holocaust had nearly disappeared from this article (the first statement and some images being the only parts that remained).  I copied the second statement from the Holocaust article intro, with some trimming to avoid redundancy.  I agree the treatment of the Holocaust in this article is rather graceless and could use more work, but I figured something was better than almost nothing.  You're welcome to edit it if you see room for improvement. Haber 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities

message: Shouldn't the date for the Victory over Japan be on August 15th, as the surrender was broadcastet that day local time, and the date August 14th is just used as the date it became known in the US, because of the time zone difference? In other word, shouldn't the date be given in the local time the event mainly took place? Alternativly, if we use GMT, it will still be August 14th, as the broadcast was made at noon that day local time.
M4c 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  VJ day on August 15 local time 

message: I wanted to edit this earlier as seen up there somewhere, but the time escaped me and I gave up on it. I dunno, I think could use some improvement and could use some editing. Any suggestions? --LtWinters 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resistance and Collaboration 

message: There is no mention Operation Dragoon. Considering there were only 3 allied army groups and it consisted of the 6th army group, we should include it. All we have is 
By August 1944, Allied forces stationed in Italy invaded the French Riviera on August 15 and linked up with forces from Normandy. The clandestine French Resistance in Paris rose against the Germans on August 19, and a French armored division under General Philippe Leclerc, pressing forward from Normandy, received the surrender of the German forces there and liberated the city on August 25.
--LtWinters 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Operation Dragoon

message: For those that would prefer a long list in the infobox, I am offering this as a compromise, provided that the order remain exactly the same as in the original document:
Declaration by United Nations
...A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.
Any Allies joining the war after this declaration would therefore be excluded from the infobox.  Using this document might make some sense because it was the formal agreement of the Allies to fight together and was consented to by all signatories. Haber 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That list doesnt qualify simply because it lists nations who contributed little or nothing like Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras and at same time does not include Brazil which in reality was only Latin American nation which contributed notable amount of troops.--Staberinde 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The signers thought enough of them to list them right alongside of Canada and Yugoslavia. Haber 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With this list, we have Luxembourg and Haiti, but not France. Very representative indeed. Rama 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama is correct, this list is ridiculous. Lots of Central American states who did nothing notable in the list, and some states that actualy contributed to war effort forgotten.--Staberinde 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  you'll notice that India is listed, while it was part of the British Empire at the time. I am tempted to fill in a complain against the British Empire for abuse of sockpuppets :) Rama 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we may be missing a few... seriousla...--LtWinters 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Declaration by United Nations 

message: Did WW2 really start in Asia in 1937? It's my basic understanding that Japan had been annexing Chinese territory since the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894. Japan went to war with no one else until 1941, when she went to war with everyone, thinking the UK was preoccupied by Germany and expecting the best planned surprise attack would knock the US out of the water. I'm going to move some text around reflect  7 Dec 1941 as the starting date of World War II in Asia, and push to accept this as the starting date of WW2 in general, given the historical military ventures in Europe and Asia. The First Sino-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the first Great War, the second Great War, all started by immoral opportunists. Xaxafrad 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sino-Japanese war II 

message: Italy, Hungary and Romania are defined as being allies at the bottom of the page. How can this be? My history tells me, they fought on the side of Germany. If you want to say they were allies, as they were defeated then all Axis powers eventually become allies. I would suggest that Australia could be considered an Ally, as you knew all along what side she was fighting on, but not Italy.  Wallie 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining Allies and Axis