Talk:World War II/Archive 19

message: The article contains a lot of dates for who declared war on whom, but not so for the US.  Did the US declare war?  on whom? when?
:Declaration of war by the United States Japan: Dec 8, 1941; Germany, Italy: Dec 11, 1941;  Bulgaria, Hungary Romania: June 5, 1942.  This was the last time the US declared war.  --NEMT 00:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, the United States declared war on Japan, but not on Germany and Italy. These two countries, Germany and Italy actually declared war on the United States!  Wallie 22:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: and then the US declared war on them on the dates specified above - what's your point? --NEMT 21:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have thought any historical account should have every detail that can be found.  Just because you do not need the information doesn't need someone else wouldn't or some future generation wouldn't need it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.105.137.157 (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the United States declare war?

message: 'Flying Tiger': Holocaust civilians who died were not allies. Most of the jews killed in the holocaust were native Germans, or living in axis controlled countries which makes them axis civilians. 
'NEMT' vandalism--- the infobox gives a useful brief summary of the major players and their respective leaders. One disadvantage of the 'axis powers' and 'allies powers' articles is that they don't list the leaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkpat2011 (talk • contribs) 
:Neither of these edits are vandalism, and have been discussed to death on this very talk page.  Additionally, please sign your comments and leave new comments on the bottom of talk pages in the future. --NEMT 23:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism By 'Flying Tiger' and 'NEMT'

message: The "Main Events" section of the World War II directory at the bottom of the article doesn't include the Battle of the Bulge. Why not, is it not considered significant enough? The article for the Battle has been featured, so it's certainly qualified in terms of quality. Mgold4me 02:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While significant in many ways (Largest battle of WW2 with Western Allies - almost half the scale of Stalingrad; last German operative/strategic offensive), it's impact was apparently not significant enough - many other events are also not included, from the 14 month Battle of Rzhev to Chinese battles. With respect, Ko Soi IX 07:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the Battle of the Bulge should be there. Wallie 22:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battle of the Bulge in not in "Main Events" Directory? 

message: This is how I propose we re-structure this article
*The War Begins in Europe (September 1939-May 1940)
*The War Begins in Asia (July 1937-December 1941)
*The Western Front (May 1940-June 1944)
*The Pacific (December 1941-October 1944)
*Mediterranean (April 1940-May 1943)
*China and South East Asia (December 1941-March 1944)
*The Eastern Front (June 1941-February 1943)
*Mediterranean (May 1943-May 1945)
*The Pacific (October 1944-September 1945)
*The Eastern Front (February 1943-January 1945)
*China and South East Asia (March 1944-September 1945)
*The Western Front (June 1944-May 1945)
*The Eastern Front (January 1945-May 1945)
*The End of the War in Europe
*The End of the War in Asia
Lemme know what you guys think Mercenary2k 19:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're chopping up the time periods out of order. Why should Europe come first if it was 2 years after the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War? That doesn't make sense. Neither does doing the Pacific until 1944, and then jumping backwards to 1940 Mediterranean. Also, doing the Pacific to september 1945, and then having another whole section for the end of the war in Asia seems to be totally redundant, the same for Europe. This list needs some major re-working to be viable. Parsecboy 19:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm Good points. Let me re-organize this list.
*The War Begins in Asia (July 1937-December 1941)
**Covers from Japanese invasion of China to Pearl Harbor
*The War Begins in Europe (September 1939-May 1940)
**Covers from German invasion of Poland up to the German invasion of France
*The Western Front (May 1940-June 1944)
**Covers from the German invasion of France, battle of Britain, occupation of Europe, battle of Atlantic, allied bombing of Germany and leading up to the Allied invasion of Normandy.
*The Eastern Front (June 1941-February 1943)
**Covers the German invasion of Russia up to the German defeat at Stalingrad
*Mediterranean (April 1940-May 1943)
**Covers the campaign in Greece, Balkans, Crete and North Africa up to the Axis defeat in Tunisia
*The Pacific (December 1941-October 1944)
**Covers from Pearl Harbor, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands and up to Battle of Philippine Sea.
*China and South East Asia (December 1941-March 1944)
**Covers from Pearl Harbor to Change De to Operation Ichigo and events leading up to the Japanese invasion of India.
*The Eastern Front (February 1943-January 1945)
**Covers from the German defeat at Stalingrad to Kursk to Bagration to the eve of the Soviet invasion of Germany
*Mediterranean (May 1943-March 1945)
**Covers the Campaign in Italy up to just before the Allies break through the Po Valley.
*China and South East Asia (March 1944-June 1945)
**Covers the Japanese invasion of India and their defeat and the allied liberation of Burma and the opening of the burma road.
*The Pacific (October 1944-July 1945)
**Covers from the liberation of the philippines, to iwo jima and up to Okinawa
*The Western Front (June 1944-January 1945)
**Covers from Normandy and the conclusion of the Battle of the bulge
*The Eastern Front (January 1945-April 1945)
**Covers the start of the Soviet invasion of Germany to the German defeat at Seelow heights just before the soviets begin the battle for berlin.
*The End of the War in Europe
**Covers the Western Front from January 1945 to May 1945, the Eastern front from April 1945 to May 1945, Mediterranean from March 1945 to May 1945
*The End of the War in Asia
**Covers the Pacific from July 1945 to September 1945 and China and South East Asia from June 1945 to September 1945
How about this? Mercenary2k 22:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Not bad, but what about the South West Pacific theatre: first Philippines campaign (very significant), Dutch East Indies (including the ill-fated ABDACOM), Malaya-Singapore, New Guinea ((very long and significant)? Grant | Talk 11:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Philippines Campaign and the rest will be covered in the China and South East Asia (December 1941-March 1944).Mercenary2k 17:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: That list looks pretty good, the only thing I would change is switch the first Eastern Front and Mediterranean sections, as the German invasions of Greece and the Balkans delayed Barbarrossa by a few critical weeks, and had great ramifications on the rest of the war, so it should come before the Eastern Front. That and just having a correct timeline. Grant, I would assume those things would be in the article, this is, after all, just a very bare bones outline. Parsecboy 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will move the Mediterranean ahead for Barbarossa. Mercenary2k 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: OK DONE. I DID THE CHANGES. Now what we need to do is to get proper sentence flow because the whole article is very dis-jointed.Mercenary2k 18:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations on all the work Mercenary2k, that must have been quite a task and is obviously much, much better than it was! Now I'm looking at it though, I do wonder if we are still too locked into a sequential "timetable of WW2" rather than by themes? Is there any support for the concept that this page should look briefly at key themes like "Hitler and the Nazis", "Imperial Japan", "the war in Europe", "the war in the Pacific", "genocide and cruelty", "technology of war", "the Allies and the Big Three", etc, etc, etc and maybe spin off the core of the existing page as a bunch of "World War 2 in depth" pages or some such? MarkThomas 18:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Talking about the big three is dangerous, you could end up falling awry of the many chinese, polish, and french nationalists afoot. --NEMT 21:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: This has been a rather large restructuring. Also many of the subsection headings have been removed. This means that there are rather large tracts of text to go through for your average reader. However, I will try to get used to it, and no doubt it will keeping changing (for the better I hope) into the future. Wallie 21:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: There needs to be a proper narritive in each of the sub-section. So far I just slapped them all together. One of you guys needs to go through each section and write a strong narritive that links the different parts together. Mercenary2k 23:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the excessive length of the sections, a major problem now is the so-called "main" articles in each section. In a lot of cases we only have a link to particular battles, rather than the relevant campaign articles. I have just fixed the "Pacific 1941-43" section but a lot more need fixing. Grant | Talk 14:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't know if you were paying attention a month ago or so, but I have been working on re-writing the article so it has improved flow and organization, and so it reads like a narrative. I have not been able to work on it for a few weeks, but now I can get back to it. Would you like to help, or would you like me to stop working on it? Heavy Metal Cellisttalkcontribs 22:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-Structuring of This Article 

message: Does anyone else here see how the "Commanders" box can be misleading? Away from the fact that both Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong are apparently commanders under the "Republic of China" flag, there is somewhat of a misunderstanding of that section. I think that if both of the "commanders" of the "Republic of China" are there, then shouldn't other "commanders" like Truman/Attlee (Allies)
and Fumimaro Konoe (Axis) be included? And I also think it would definitely help the quality of the article if the ACTUAL military leaders (Zhukov, Eisenhower, etc.) are included as well.
Swang 22:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Commander generally refers to the Commander in Chief of that state's forces, Mao does not belong. --NEMT 19:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders?

message: This article has No Pictures of Japanese Troops.
Can someone find some good pictures of Japanese troops and add them.
Thanks Mercenary2k 06:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Picture of Japanese Troops 

message: Could I suggest that we simply get rid of the To Do list? It clutters the top of the page and tends to be the place new editors put their comments instead of putting them in a new section here. I think it also discourages users from just making changes to the article - they put it on the To Do list when it should either be done or discussed here. --Habap 15:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nuke it. Haber 17:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do List 

message: How can a whole country murder anyone? Last time I checked only people can murder others.
Additionally you should not forget that people from both Germany's allies and from occupied terroritories did not hesitate to take part in those actions, too. Last but not least I don't think that it is the job of an encyclopedia to decide whether those people were murdered or killed, since this is a subjective assessment (a rather difficult one, btw, if you want to assess six million cases)--AchtungAchtung 21:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, they all met with unfortunate accidents by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nothing to do with the Germans at all, who must be held blameless. And nobody died through murder in the "extermination" camps. Plus I think I saw the moon in a balloon this morning. :-( MarkThomas 22:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to stick what I said, alright? I know it's a controversial topic, but don't get too emotional.--AchtungAchtung 22:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you could honestly call what happened in Auschwitz or Treblinka anything other than murder, unless you want to sound like a revisionist. Since it was the German government doing the killings, it is perfectly alright to say the state murdered them. Because it did. And sure, other Axis members participated in the slaughter, but Germany was the primary country behind the killings. If you want to change anything about that sentence, add "by Germany and its fellow Axis members" or something to that effect. Parsecboy 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't deny that they have been killed. I merely propose the word "killed" instead of "murdered", since that seems more neutral to me.--AchtungAchtung 23:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Watch your tone (as in above - "don't get emotional") - I am very calm. I am calmly informing you that your revisionist attempt to redefine pre-planned Nazi and German extermination and mass-murder as some kind of indeterminate "we don't know who did this or if it happened" "killing" will not wash. Any changes you make along those lines that don't meet Wikipedia's need to speak the facts will absolutely be reverted. MarkThomas 00:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Well said Mark, Parseq, and Dorvaq.  I'm glad we have such a good crew interested in this article. Haber 14:55, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You've picked a pretty strange one of the definitions to back up your case.  The humanity or lack thereof in the nazi death camps is rarely considered a major issue - would it still be "murder" in your eyes if the prisoners were euthanized?  Gassing and shooting are relatively humane and civil with respect to the history of mass killing.  The bottom line is murder contains a human, person element, and is not a NPOV term, nor is it appropriate when describing actions of the state.  Kill is much better suited in this case.  Many of those killed in the camps died from starvation and exhaustion, as well, which doesn't fit well with any definition of murder.  Would you say the soviets murdered those sent to the gulag?  --NEMT 03:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NEMT, you're actually comparing a prisoner convicted of a crime with the Jewish people sent to the Nazi concentration camps?  Fine... If you are so bent on taking out "murder" as the word contains too much of a human element, then I propose we use "slaughter" as a compromise.  I mean, the paragraph in question does deal with the Holocaust and if you look at the definition of Holocaust in most dictionaries, then you'll probably find something along the lines of, "the mass slaughter of people." — you know, that thing the UK did to its livestock during the foot-and-mouth crisis back in 2001. — Dorvaq (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how you can call the actions of the Einsatzgruppen "humane". Machine-gunning defenseless civilians in pits, leaving many of them wounded but still living, and then burying them alive is somehow "civil"? Yes, it would still be murder if they were euthanized, because it would still be a completely unjustified and illegitimate killing. Soldiers who die in combat are not "murdered" by the enemy, but unarmed civilians who are rounded up and are shot/gassed/etc. for being a certain race/religion/political party/etc. ARE. Dorvaq, I think "slaughtered" would be a good substitute for "murdered". Parsecboy 15:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slaughter is even less appropriate, as slaughter connotes killing for the purpose of consumption.  What, exactly, is the problem you guys have with "killed?"  "It doesn't make the nazis look evil enough" doesn't really count.  No one is denying the barbarism of the holocaust, but "murder" is not appropriate when describing actions of state, period.  Additionally, I have no idea where you got "you're actually comparing a prisoner convicted of a crime with the Jewish people sent to the Nazi concentration camps?" from, and I suggest you try to focus on what's actually been said rather than your own ridiculous strawman scenarios.  --NEMT 15:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Straw man scenarios?  Ok, now you're getting carried away.  I admit I misread your sentence on the euthanasia of prisoners, but my comment was not meant as a straw man argument.  My problem with replacing the word "murder" with "kill" is that the replacement trivializes the actions taken by the German state...  and where on earth are you getting that killing by the state does not constitute murder?  People sent to the camps were not sent there to survive.  If they weren't to die at the camps due to the horrible living conditions, they were to eventually die by other means. — Dorvaq (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The word "killed" is preferred by revisionists because it sounds like somehow it maybe was accidental, or maybe we don't know who did it. Murdered is used when we know who the murderer was. On a different subject, could some of the editors here look in please at Talk:Adolf Hitler where some fairly revisionist editors are currently seeking to claim that Hitler had no responsibility for World War 2. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MarkThomas, well put. NEMT, Slaughter as used in conjuction with food is only one definition or connotation. I present another definition, taken from the same online dictionary as above:
slaugh·ter 
–noun 1. the killing or butchering of cattle, sheep, etc., esp. for food.  
2. the brutal or violent killing of a person.  
3. the killing of great numbers of people or animals indiscriminately; carnage: the slaughter of war.  
–verb (used with object) 
4. to kill or butcher (animals), esp. for food.  
5. to kill in a brutal or violent manner.  
6. to slay in great numbers; massacre.  
7. Informal. to defeat thoroughly; trounce: They slaughtered our team.
Both #2 and #3 (#'s 5 and 6 are essentially the same) seem appropriate to this situation. Parsecboy 19:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to concur that either "murdered" or "slaughtered" are appropriate while "killed" is not. Soldiers get killed in battle, civilians who are rounded up and either gassed, shot, starved or worked to death are murdered or slaughtered. --Habap 20:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree more with simply using "murdered" as is currently used.  Despite slaughter being a fair representation of many of the deaths, I don't believe it's a proper general term for all of the deaths.  To me "slaughter" implies the direct physical involvement with the use of tool/weapon in the kill.  I apologize for the confusion, but I was being sarcastic when I first proposed the word. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I assumed as much, I was merely trying to prove a point with the definition. The sentence should remain as is - "murdered", not "killed". Parsecboy 20:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slaughtered is a much better word then murdered. Potaaatos 09:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, I don't see why the thread comment is even here.  Yes, Poland did fight the Germans, yes they did lose many people (22% as it says), but what is your point.  Also, Poland was an original ally because it was invaded and wanted to defend itself.  China did much more for the war than Poland did, because China actually provided a site where Americans could launch bombings raids on the Japanese homeland from and they fought the Japanese invasion since before the war.  Poland fell over almost immediately and fell into small skirmishes and resistances because they had no real military.  No offense meant, but Poland as a free nation didn't really do jack. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bendersgreat (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from the article: "six million Jews [...]were murdered by Germany" 

message: Are we no longer semi-protected despite the tag header? We seem to be getting attacks from recently registered users today... MarkThomas 19:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: sprotect

message: Hi Guys, I have been re-structuring this article for a while now. It looks very good. All we have to do now is fix up the choppy narrative of the sections and this article is ready.
In my opinion the following sections flow nicely and have a good prose and do not require major re-structuring are:
*War breaks out in Europe (September 1939 – May 1940)
*Western Front (September 1939 – May 1940) 
*Western Front (May 1940 – September 1940)
*Pacific (June 1943 – July 1945) 
*Eastern Front (February 1943 – January 1945) 
*Eastern Front (January 1945 – April 1945) 
These ones require major re-structuring as they are totally choppy and lacking major information are:
*War breaks out in Asia (July 1937 – September 1939)
*Western Front (September 1940 – June 1944) -->This one needs MAJOR HELP!
*Mediterranean (April 1940 – May 1943)
*Eastern Front (April 1941 – February 1943) -->I am gonna personally fix this up, so don't worry about this one.
*Pacific (April 1941 – June 1943)
*China and South East Asia (September 1941 – March 1944)
*Mediterranean (May 1943 – March 1945)
*China and South East Asia (March 1944 – June 1945)
*War ends in Europe -->Gonna personally fix this up, so don't worry about it.
*War ends in Asia -->Gonna personally fix this up, so don't worry about it.
So there you guys go.  I need help with the above mentioned sections. Especially with the Western Front (September 1940 - June 1940). Thanks all help is appreciated.
Mercenary2k 03:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Help with this Article 

message: This is a great article, but to me it looks like there a few to many images scattered around. I think it would be a good idea if some of them are extracted from the article and put into an image gallery at the bottom. This will help the article look a little more organised and 
structured.--Chickenfeed9 14:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  images

message: This is something that google has not come up with an answer for and I cant find it in this article. Was it Churchill? - Thanks, H4eafy
:lol. it was chamberlain Mercenary2k 22:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err...I can see that it was incorrect, but why's it insulting? Badgerpatrol 13:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it's not really the same. but obviously feel free to change any typos you see, providing you don't alter the meaning. All the best, Badgerpatrol 13:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What British politicain declared war on germany? 

message: are german jews part of axis casualties? BlueShirts 23:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try World War II casualties, which is well-referenced and has a very knowledgeable main author/editor. Grant | Talk 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the chart on that page, you can see that 3 million were Polish, another million were Russian, and a large chunk of the rest came from other conquered countries like France, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, etc., so if anything, they should count on the Allied side. Parsecboy 16:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jews counted as Axis casualties?

message: The issue doesn't get solved with any reasonable discussion on this talk page and is in fact a clash of differing POV on assessment. Let's vote on the subject (feels like kindergarten once again).
Who thinks that the major allies were: UK, USA, Soviet Union, China and France
Support:
# Wandalstouring 15:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The next one who makes a personal attack gets reported. Understood Albrecht? Wandalstouring 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means, report any personal attacks you see. But before we begin to riot, bear in mind that I made reference above to "this website," not "this page." You need look no further than Talk:French military history to see what I'm talking about. Albrecht 05:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Back to the topic at hand: list British Commonwealth, China, France, US, USSR for the Allies. I'm also a proponent of China having two listed leaders: Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong. --Petercorless 07:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ROC leader was Chiang Kai-shek, not Mao. BlueShirts 08:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Mao only controlled the CCP faction, and never really ammounted to much during the war; the KMT did most of the hard fighting against the Japanese.Parsecboy 13:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please no more reporting people. It's actually refreshing to have have some discussion for a change, and the last thing we need is for the hall monitors to come charging in. Haber 13:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *(To clarify any possible confusion, I mean by this links direct to Allies of World War II and Axis Powers of World War II, piped as Allies and Axis) Badgerpatrol 01:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think the options are not mutually exclusive. There are those who would include/exclude China or France but wish to have the Big 3 listed. I voted in favor of 5 v 3 because I feel we need to list the major combatants for someone who comes here knowing nothing at all about WWII. If we insist that they follow a link if they want to know who the Allies were and who the Axis was, we are denying them the value of an infobox. --Habap 21:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I set up the vote, but not the axis and allies option. I think it is nonsense because we do list the participating countries in all other modern conflicts except for important alliances such as the Commonwealth or the NATO. Wandalstouring 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the "no countries" option. The initial set-up completely mischaracterised the issue- a large majority (a consensus majority?) of those originally involved actually stated a preference for the "no countries" option , then this vote comes along, ignores that, and jumps straight to choosing who is "major" and who isn't- by means of a poll! Wikipedia content is not decided by individual preference- if we have to vote on who should go in the infobox, then ipso facto no-one should go in at all. Any poll (and I do not think a poll is appropriate in this case, since it's fairly obvious that including a list of "major" combatants is going to be inherently POV, against Wikipedia policy and therefore a definite no-no anyway) should should include the option of straight links to Axis and Allies, since that is a) the only option that is in line with policy; b) the option seemingly favoured by a majority of respondents. The initial construction of the vote was inherently biased, and I don't want to come across as harsh to Wandalstouring, but I think he makes this clear with his statement above. Badgerpatrol 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that was enough voting (the language is getting rather nasty, especially Albrecht's). It is clear that the issue will remain a heated and rather France focused deadlock if we try to keep the usual list of major participants. Big problem here is lots of text gets produced, but hardly anybody cares to read it. However, I can't fully suppot the alternative proposal because it gives the reader too little information and is rather uncommon for military infoboxes (just because some people can't agree whether or not to include one participant), so I made my own proposal. Wandalstouring 17:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been reading everything people say, if it means anything :) I firmly believe listing just the Allied/Axis links is the only way to go. If anything these discussions has shown us, it's that listing any country beyond the Big 3 for the Allies is inherently POV. Leave it at the articles, and if they need work, let's expand or rewrite them, not spend our time arguing over who did what and the significance of it. We all need to cool off a little here. Parsecboy 20:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: WT, you seem to be fixated on France for some reason. You won't have to look very far to find similar debates regarding China and Canada. If the deadlock is currently France-focused it is perhaps in the main part because of the way you constructed your poll. This is not an "anti-France" issue (I'll leave aside for the moment the point about whether there actually is any unreasonable Francophobia evident) it is simply a result of differing, non-standard and non-standardisable criteria for what is and isn't a "major" country. In short, there can't be any NPOV criterion because the whole issue is inherently POV. It cannot be resolved from discussion, or at least it is very unlikely to be. The only viable solution is to ditch the "major" and link direct to e.g. "WWII Allies/WWIIAxis" Badgerpatrol 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * Strongly Oppose. This is a fairly obvious rehash of the above. Badgerpatrol 02:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * LOL...how nice of Churchill to "lobby" for seats at the UN, to which the Dominions were perfectly entitled as independent countries, alongside Mongolia, Ethiopia and Paraguay. I am still not comfortable with the grouping of the Dominions and UK as "British Commonwealth". For one, it feeds the widespread misconception that the Dominions'foreign policy was controlled by the UK duing WW2. As I'm sure you know, this was neither the case in law or in fact; Churchill tried to prevent the return of the Australian I Corps from North Africa/Middle East to fight the Japanese. (A compromise was reached whereby one division came back immediately, one garrrisoned Ceylon for six months and one remained in Egypt until Alamein.) The political relationship between Australia and the US was far more significant in 1942-45, as shown by what Australian PM John Curtin's said in January 1942: "a routine article for the Melbourne Herald ... enraged ... Churchill. It included the famous words: 'Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom'. Curtin was merely stating the obvious, though it might have been worded more tactfully."  Grant | Talk 02:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You just proved the point. You are correct. The UK often did interfere with or outrightly override the placement or withdrawal of other Dominion's troops. There was a New Zealand Brigade (with two cruiser tank battalions) at Dover which the UK refused to leave during September 1940 even though it was requested to move the force elsewhere (Churchill, The Second World War, Volume II, pg. 410). Churchill finally acquiesed to send them towards Egypt in November, once the threat of an invasion of Britain had passed (ibid, pg. 445). There were repeated contentions regarding the independence of operations by the Dominions. Did Churchill (and the rest of the UK) want his (their) cake and to eat it to? Of course. This was a time of Britain in transition. We can either list the war as being fought by the UK, the British Commonwealth, or the British Empire, all of which are legally true and valid ways to discuss the matter. To describe it as the "British Empire" would imply, I think, too much control of the UK over its Dominions, and to simply say "the UK" ignores the significant contributions of the Dominions to the UK's and Commonwealth's collective security. Hence, I believe "British Commonwealth" is the most appropriate way to describe the major power that fought for the Allies to be listed in the infobox. However, having made my point, and further clarified your own, I yield to the collective thoughts of all. --Petercorless 19:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on who was a major ally (for lack of any progress in the argumentation)

message: I have not been involved in this debate at all, and am responding to the request for comment. It seems to me that the main bone of contention is whether countries involved in WWII should be listed in the infobox. There are several things to consider:
# Does listing some countries and not others in the infobox violate NPOV policies?
# If there are countries listed, in which manner should they be listed?
## Alphabetical Order
## By number of troops
## In one list or Axis vs Allies
# On what criteria do we determine which countries deserve mention?
## Number if troops in the battle
## Percentage of total population involved in battle
As such, I would like to propose a vote in the hope of achieving some sort of consensus. Feel free to add more sections if you feel the need. Bensmith53 10:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have summed up the situation pretty well Ben, and thanks for your input. However, there has already been (at least) one vote on this issue (see e.g.  elsewhere on this page). This resulted in some meatpuppetry but overall a strong 11-5 majority in favour of excluding individual nations from the infobox, in line with NPOV policy. Unfortunately, some parties were not prepared to accept this and continued to edit war over the issue, which has led to the current mediation case. Feel free to comment on the mediation talk page at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/World War II. Badgerpatrol 10:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My opinion

message: Yes
No
# Bensmith53
# Juru 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the selective listing of countries violate NPOV policies?

message: #:::The numbers speak for themselves Ko Soi. Total number of troops at their peak:
#:::France: 5,000,000
#:::Poland: 950,000
#:::Canada: 780,000
#:::Godefroy 17:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  · Can you specify what you mean by co-belligerent?  When did Vichy fight the Allies at Hitler's behest rather than as an act of defense against various Allied operations designed to force a particular area of the French Empire into the Allied camp?  What was this "substantial" military contribution other than acts of defense?  I have the impression that you are equating anyone who fought with the Allies as a true member of the Axis -- kind of odd since it would be possible to have been in conflict with the Allies and yet not be truly on board with Hitler's plans for Europe.  Further, if this logic is followed to its conclusion, then Italy should be moved to the Allied camp given its contributions post-1943 (many more Italian troops supported the Allies in 1944-45 then Frenchmen who voluntarily served in German units during the entire war) and the U.S.S.R. should be considered for movement into the Axis camp for its attack on Poland and the large numbers of Soviet citizens who served in the hundred+ (at least) Ostbataillone of the Wehrmacht.  Yet nowhere does anyone in this debate wish to move either Italy or the U.S.S.R. into the opposite camp -- why? W. B. Wilson 16:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By co-belligerents, I mean they were fighting the same people. No-one is saying that it was at Hitler's behest, but do you imagine that Hitler was dismayed by the Vichy reaction to Operation Exporter, Operation Ironclad or Operation Torch? Why did some Vichy colonial regimes feel the needed to "defend" themselves against the Allies, including their own countrymen, while others did not? As for Italy, well there are similarities with France, but no one is saying that Italy they were a major ally. That would be absurd... Likewise the "hundred+ (at least) Ostbataillone" were a miniscule force, compared to the 35 million who served in the Soviet armed forces during WW2. Grant | Talk 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  · Grant, if "fighting the same people" is the definition, that implies the U.S.S.R. was an Axis co-belligerent when they invaded Poland on September 17, 1939.  The problem with this definition is that it attempts to impose reasoning that is far too simplified to represent a vast spectrum of possible national behavior ranging from being firmly in the Axis camp to being firmly in the Allied camp. The nations, all of them, did what they thought was best for themselves -- and the only reason that some of them operated more or less in concert with others was that they shared some mutual goals.  This explanation of national behavior is much more useful, if only because it can easily explain the behavior of Vichy France (goal = survival), the U.S.S.R. in 1939 (goal = removal of Polish state), and the U.S.S.R. in 1941 (goal = survival, therefore, the nation with which they were once partnered [Germany] is now an enemy to be fought to the death).  I don't see why one should question the consideration of Ostbataillone if one wishes to be taken seriously when one raises the question of the far more miniscule French voluntary contribution to the Wehrmacht as qualifying for co-belligerent status.  I also find the notion of constant participation in the war as a qualification for "major ally" questionable -- neither the U.S.S.R. nor the U.S.A. rushed to join the war in Europe until events forced the war on them.  Thus, the U.S.A. was "out of the war", "doing nothing", from September 1939 until December 1941, two years later.  As you well know, the dates are similar for the U.S.S.R., except its case is even worse, since it actively participated in the dismantling of eastern European states and territory grabs.  But it would be absurd to use their lack of constant participation as a reason for denying them "major ally" status.  If the group opts to use a set of rules to determine who is "major" or not, then the rules should be applied with the same force to every nation. W. B. Wilson 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ·No apologies for collaborationists here, Parsecboy, and it is poor form for you to assume so.  No offense meant, but I'd really like to hear from user Grant in reply -- I am honestly trying to follow his logic on Vichy being a co-belligerent and wish to determine which military operations they initiated in concert with the Germans as a member of the Axis -- because from what I've read, the apparent top goal of Vichy France was survival until such a time that the international situation would allow France to have a greater say in its destiny.  Finland was another state that swapped sides during the war in addition to having had a private war with the U.S.S.R. -- so what?  They both actively fought with German troops (allowed into Finland to attack the U.S.S.R.) and fought against German troops when the only other option was being overrun by the U.S.S.R.  The Finns were never occupied by Germany and had no reason to really fear a serious German attempt at invasion -- so one must conclude there was some willingness to host German troops and allow them to use Finland as a springboard for at least some German military operations.  Finally, aiding the Holocaust was a despicable act by the Vichy authorities -- but it does not make them co-belligerents -- unless one claims that acts of political oppression and murder are equivalent to states initiating wars. W. B. Wilson 16:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French anti-Allied combatants

message: ... "Alsace-Lorraine was given to France, which also separated the Saar area from Germany."
A.L. was not given to France in the aftermath of WW 2 but WW 1 and doesn't seperate the (eastwards lying) Saar area from Germany
(which is pictured correctly in the map). The Saar area was temporarily removed from Germany in the aftermath of WW 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.7.1 (talk • contribs) 
:Only if one wishes to be highly selective about which point in history to determine as the "terrain ownership starting point in time".  Alsace and Lorraine had been part of France for quite a while before 1870, when Germany absorbed these regions as spoils of their victory in the Franco-Prussian War.  1918 was not the start of the vicious reparations cycle; it was a continuation of that which had started after the Franco-Prussian War. W. B. Wilson 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One could take it back even further, to the early 920s, when the region was part of Eastern Francia, which corresponds to Germany. A-L was annexed by France in the treaty of Westphalia in 1648, so it's obvious the land was changing hands between the French and Germans long before 1871. Parsecboy 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: · No argument about the land changing hands over time, although the dynamics of regional politics were quite a bit different when the region that eventually became Germany was a patchwork of medium- and small-scale states that had varying relationships with France.  A bald comment, however, that Alsace and Lorraine were "given" to France after World War One, without some historical perspective on the situation, is misleading -- thus my comment. W. B. Wilson 16:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also the Holy Roman Empire that was just sort of stuck there, and didn't necessarily correspond with the smaller states within it. Well, were German troops still occupying the territory at the end of the war? If that is the case, then "given" would be a fair way to describe it, because the French had not reconquered it during the war. That's just my two cents though. Parsecboy 02:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ·Whatever.  IMO, the original comment was simply incomplete. W. B. Wilson 16:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction

message: Emphasis mine: "the Emperor did not mention the entry of the Soviet Union into the war, but in his "Rescript to the soldiers and sailors" of August 17, ordering them to cease fire and lay down arms, he stressed the relationship between Soviet entrance into the war and his decision to surrender"
This can't be right, can it? - Hux 17:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the reason for the inclusion of the USSR in the message to the troops was to reaffirm the order to stop fighting applied to the Soviet Union too; to stop die-hard Japanese officers from continuing fighting the Soviets. I don't know if that makes any sense. It's just a wild guess... Parsecboy 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Glaring inconsistency

message: Considering that the RfC started on 2/18, does anyone object to reopening the combatants/commanders portion of the infobox for editing on 2/25? Haber 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem like we have a clear path forward quite yet. --Petercorless 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it'd be a good idea...it'll just end up in a revert war. Lets give Obeirko's vote system a try. Parsecboy 19:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If a consensus does not emerge, when do you think it is fair to lift the freeze? Haber 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we'll get consensus with my proposal, albeit one that is far from unanimous.  Unless we tie in Round 1 (which I think has only a slight possibility) we will end up with a majority vote one way or the other. Oberiko 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, a far from unanimous vote is not really what I had in mind when I was thinking of a consensus. Haber 04:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I suppose you're correct, as a "7 vs 6" can't really be considered consensus.  None-the-less, while consensus is ideal, democracy is practical. Oberiko 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: March 1? Haber 15:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no point in ending the infobox freeze until we actually have some consensus on how to move forward, whether that's March 1st or whenever. Anything else is just a recipe for an edit war. We should implement the improved poll as suggested and then see what happens. I agree that this is dragging on however. Badgerpatrol 15:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not as good as it can be, and keeping it this way indefinitely is not part of normal process.  Oberiko's poll is ending March 2.  I will wait until March 3.  There is plenty of time before then for everyone's opinion to be heard. Haber 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endpoint on infobox freeze 

message: I'd like to create one specific sub-heading to group all the "Nation X should be considered a major player" discussions (they would each be a sub-section).  Any objections? Oberiko 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, let's get this started. The debate here is otherwise going to take longer than the war itself. --Petercorless 19:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalities debates

message: I'm pretty sure that I've seen debates like the ones above before.  I'm also going to advocate (in advance) that any decisions that are made (the starting date of the war etc.) be recorded on a specific policies sub-page (with links to the debates that lead to the resolutions) for this article.  It might seem like a bit much, but it would certainly help avoid a lot of the rehashing that's going on.  Oberiko 22:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the direction this is going.  The point of the RfC was to get some fresh opinions in here.  I went along with the vote too for the same reason, and it seems to have worked.  A lot of new people are here and are giving some new perspectives.  We're just talking.  Maybe a consensus will emerge, maybe it won't.  If I understand correctly, now you want to corral us into a flowchart-driven decision-making process with majority rule, and preserve those results on a special page so that they will be binding for posterity.  This isn't really the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. Haber 23:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not binding, but available.  Right now, I haven't seen any references to previous discussions, causing us to reinvent the wheel each time.  I'd just like to have support material available (such as rationales etc.). Oberiko 00:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agree with Oberiko- seems like a sensible idea. There certainly is a lot of debate here, and similar issues have arisen time and time again. I think the time spent on this ("major") issue could be far, far better spent elsewhere. Some sort of guidelines, whether binding or non-dinding, are appropriate to prevent the same thing occurring again in the far, far, distant future (i.e. next week :-) Badgerpatrol 02:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War II policies

message: Guys. To improve this article. We need citations. Every Date, size of Armies, casualties, and any opinionated statements like, for example in the Battle of Kursk area, it states that Germany assembled the greatest concentration of firepower in World War II, that needs to be cited. Other like Operation Bagration was the greatest defeat of the Wehrmacht in WWII, that needs to be cited.
We need to get citations in this article heavily.  Need help if we are to get this article to featured article status.
Mercenary2k 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to help provide citations, but may I ask that  be placed at all statements that folks feel need to be cited? This will at least jump-start the process of finding citations. A similar thing happened in the U2 article I worked on, for example see:  for the progress that was made in less than 5 months on that article. I think we can easily get up to 200 references for this article if the "citation needed" tags are added. Wikipedia brown 03:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need CITATIONS 

message: Below is a vote on whether to use "Allies" and "Axis" or listing of the major participants in the "combatants" section of the war info box.  The first option will be that the only listed combatants will be the "Allies" and the "Axis" with links to the appropriate articles.  The second option will indicate a preference for major participants instead of only Allies and Axis.
Each Wikipedian is allowed one vote in each poll.  For the sake of clarity, discussion and opinions beyond simple name-tagging are requested to not to be added to the voting section, but instead to an attached "comments" section.
Each poll will have a duration of one week unless otherwise specified.
The following applies if, and only if, the nationalities option wins in the vote
Should the second option win in the first round, it is suggested that discussions commence to attempt consensus on three (with possibly more added later) issues prior to discussion the metrics of individual nations:
* The upper limit of combatants per side to list (not which combatants, but how many) 
* If Axis and Allies should still be listed in addition to the major powers (ie: Allies: Nation X, Nation Y; Axis: Nation A, Nation B).  
* Discussions on how nation "groupings" should be handled (ie: France vs. French Third Republic, Free French, Vichy; British Commonwealth vs. U.K., Canada, Australia etc.)
Should consensus not be achievable in the discussions, additional votes may be taken to settle the matters.
Once the above matters are settled, Wikipedian's are free to add mini-polls for any nationality they believe warrants consideration as a "major" power.  Each nation will have only two options, inclusion or exclusion and will follow the same outline as above.  Voting on each mini-poll will not begin until all contestable nationalities are listed, the period of time to be allocated for nation suggestion is currently to be determined. 
Note
WP:!VOTE states that polling is not an alternative to consensus.  This poll is initiated by myself (Oberiko) as it appears to me that consensus is not a possibility in the matter.  The results are, therefore, not binding, but it is requested that Wikipedian's respect the outcome.
===Allies/Axis or Nationality listings poll (Started: February 23, 2007 - Ends: March 2nd, 2007)===
Support Allies / Axis
# Oberiko 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request for check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. BlueShirts 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is extremely suspect that now four accounts have been created, seemingly for the sole purpose of voting in this poll.  I will move to discount your vote. Asides, an IP check isn't worth all that much, anyone can go to their local library or a friends computer.  I'll wait until the end of the voting before taking it up for arbitration though.  Oberiko 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, either 11-5 or 11-6 (if we count the one who claims to be a lurker). So I guess remove the countries and leaders from the infobox and replace with a simple link to Axis and Allies. The way the Allies article is now (more equitable) I have no objection either.--Caranorn 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.  Oberiko 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote on Allies/Axis vs. Nationality in the infobox

message: Support Allies / Axis
# Oberiko 17:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request for check user Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. BlueShirts 02:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it is extremely suspect that now four accounts have been created, seemingly for the sole purpose of voting in this poll.  I will move to discount your vote. Asides, an IP check isn't worth all that much, anyone can go to their local library or a friends computer.  I'll wait until the end of the voting before taking it up for arbitration though.  Oberiko 13:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Agreed, either 11-5 or 11-6 (if we count the one who claims to be a lurker). So I guess remove the countries and leaders from the infobox and replace with a simple link to Axis and Allies. The way the Allies article is now (more equitable) I have no objection either.--Caranorn 21:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I'm going to go ahead and make the change.  Oberiko 02:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allies/Axis or Nationality listings poll (Started: February 23, 2007 - Ends: March 2nd, 2007)

message: * From German perspective: "In this article, I will concentrate on the relationship between the Luftwaffe with its major allies (Italy, Finland, Hungary and Rumania) to include the an  overview of the battle performance of allied air forces, German assistance to its major allies and the Luftwaffe's policy towards the aviation industries of its allies." 
::When you use the capital A Allies, it is commonly accepted that you mean the forces opposing the Axis. Using small a allies is typically used for any other set of countries and their relationships. So, I don't see a problem with it. --Habap 13:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Major ''allies'' of the Axis

message: Have there been any other names for WWII, or is that what it's always been?  --myselfalso 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was originally called European Fun Fest '39 but then when people started getting shot they figured the name didn't work. --NEMT 05:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Avoid the snarkiness. It's a legitimate question. Here are a few terms used in association with it. --Petercorless 07:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Couldn't resist.  Anyway, I think the original question was more based on the first world war having been initially called the great war by many. --NEMT 07:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It still is often so referred, at least in the UK anyway. Badgerpatrol 13:11, 26 February 2007
The U.S. called a one of the first parts of WWII the phony war, but take note that they didn't mean the WHOLE WWII, even from the begining. Lotrtkdchic 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of WWII

message: Question:
Why declared the UK and France war on Germany, but not on Russia after it attacked Poland aswell? (sic)
Answer:
As per Winston S. Churchill: "I was still convinced of the profound, and as I believed, quenchless antagonism between Russia and Germany, and I clung to the hope that the Soviets would be drawn to our side by the force of events. I did not therefore give way to the indignation I felt and which surged around me in our Cabinet at their callous, brutal policy." (The Gathering Storm pg. 399.)
:You could also say that it would have added an ally to the Germans, making them much more likely to win. Wandalstouring 00:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If Germany and Russia joined together, they would have been unbeatable. Mercenary2k 01:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line [dividing Poland] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." (Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, radio speech on October 1, 1939) Grant | Talk 02:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, privately the British and French governments were disgusted but not surprised at Soviet opportunism, especially considering how the Communists had designs on Poland ever since the Battle of Warsaw (1920). They were in a way somewhat relieved the resources of eastern Poland were not added to the German war machine, and they hoped that some day the Soviet Union would enter the war against Germany. It indeed would have been catastrophic had Britain and France declared war on the Soviet Union, forcing it to side with the Axis. --Petercorless 02:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Polish communists certainly had designs on Poland in 1920. Grant | Talk 03:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume you are being facetious? For those not familiar, the Soviet Red Army certainly was part of the battle in 1920. --Petercorless 03:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Communists" had designs on everywhere, Leon Trotsky was Red Army commander in 1920 and believed in Permanent Revolution; it has seven-tenths of SFA to do with 1939. Grant | Talk 04:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: It's an interesting idea that the USSR could have sided with the Axis powers in a longer war but I'm not sure that would have been possible. I quote from the Operation Barbarossa page: Mein Kampf makes clear Hitler's "belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to attack, deport, or enslave the Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples." It seems likely that sooner or later the Russians would have been betrayed. Coricus 10:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, only a matter of time as history actually demonstrates as Stalin seemed to be shocked when he learned of the German attack on June 22 1941. Though it is rather odd that he wasn't expecting it (maybe not in a two front war, then again the other fronts required limited German resources in mid 1941) as Mein Kampf was well known. For the other comments, in 1920 the war was waged between the Polish 2nd Republic and the Soviets (german Räte) of Russia, Ukraine and Poland (certainly volunteers from other countries as well). So the Soviets or the Red Army of 1920 was not the Soviet Union or the Red Army of 1939. Neverless there definitelly was bad blood between the Soviet Union and Poland (alose Czechoslovakia for the participation of the Czech Coprs in the Revolution) because of the war of 1920, but also because Poland had refused (essentially nulifying the possibilities of the French-Polish and French-Soviet treaties) to sign a defensive pact with the Soviet Union (to prepare against the very war that occured in 1939). Lastly it should be noted that the 1939 separation line of Poland was based on the Curzon Line proposed as the eastern border of Poland after WWI.--Caranorn 13:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Curzon Line was an armistice line proposed by british at the time then Poland was on full retreat. Russian SFSR did not accept it.--Staberinde 13:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let's avoid baiting comments, please. --Petercorless 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just sayin' --NEMT 22:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that French and British gov-ts were disgusted, after all, not like they were white fluffy virgins who never annexed nearly half the world into their empires. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The hypocrisy of their position in regards to their own government's history does not prohibit them from being disgusted. After all, adults of every generation always bemoan the lack of morals among teenagers, forgetting that they acted pretty much the same when they were teens. --Habap 20:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While we certainly can't get into the heads of men long gone, I find it strange that some cynical gangsters would be disgusted by the actions of other cynical gangsters. But than, of course, the traditional European double standarts come to play, and, depending on how deep they were rooted, it is not impossible that they were in fact disgusted. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Cynical gangsters"? "Traditional European double standarts (sic)"? "With respect"? Can we please keep the comments more reasonable and less likely to incite? Coricus 04:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, why not. But than again, with me being the merit for my own comments, please don't expect too much. Ko Soi IX 05:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why did the UK and France not declare war on the USSR

message: I just added back a reflist tag at the bottom. Somehow it got removed? --Petercorless 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References fell off?

message: There is now a section covering East Africa and Madagascar. I'd be interested in feedback and corrections. I left the end of the campaign as September 1943, with the surrender of Italy and the end of the guerrilla movement, but I could see how dates earlier with the end of major hostilities might be used instead. I'd appreciate constructive feedback. --Petercorless 22:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think East Africa and Madagascar is important enough to warrant its own section. I think we should merge it with the Mediterranean section. Mercenary2k 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone poofed the header, meaning it is still a separate section without a logical section break. It just plows into the subject above. Hence, I will add the header back in for clarifying purposes. --Petercorless 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not yet written a section on the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, but if someone wanted to also add a section on Dakar and the west African French territories, then I would not be adverse to putting them all under "Sub-Saharan Africa" or some such. However, it is over 2,000 km between Addis Ababa and Cairo. That's far more than the distance between London to Rome, and I don't hear anyone arguing to make the "Battle of Britain" part of the Mediterranean campaign. --Petercorless 04:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True but in the great scheme of World War II, this episode is not really that relevant. I think we might re-title the Mediterranean to Mediterranean and Africa or something like that. Mercenary2k 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See a relevant discussion at Template_talk:WWIITheatre#Africa.2C_Middle_East_and_Indian_Ocean Grant | Talk 05:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most ironically, folks are trying to shoehorn the Horn of Africa. While I can definitely see linkage to the campaigns of East and North Africa, prior to my additions, Sub-Saharan African activities were entirely lacking in mention. Now, basically, they are being asked to sit in the back of the bus. Give it a few days before you make hasty edits merging the sections. I want to add west Africa. I'd prefer to rename the section "Sub-Saharan Africa," and hopefully, we'll have a nice section on the "missing" parts of the African aspects of the conflict. --Petercorless 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wondering if textbooks call these theaters sub-saharan africa or "east africa." I've always thought sub-saharan africa means places like the congo. BlueShirts 07:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See map: Sub-Saharan Africa. You can see that the Horn of Africa, including all of the relevant area of Sudan and Eritrea covered in the article is part of the Sub-Saharan area. --Petercorless 07:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay, so it's a more encompassing term, thanks. BlueShirts 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Added East Africa and Madagascar

message: Any interested editors please comment on the naming/nomenclature discussion at: Talk:Pacific_War#China.2FRepublic_of_China_.26_Taiwan.2FFormosa. Grant | Talk 13:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: China/Republic of China & Taiwan/Formosa

message: Were any ground operations conducted on the island during WW2?  I know axis air and naval units bombarded french positions.  I'm having a very difficult time finding any detailed information on action in Corsica, in any language.  --NEMT 22:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just corrected my entry for Corsica under Military history of France during World War II#French contribution to the Italian Campaign, there was some regular and irregular fighting on Corsica (for the city of Bastia mostly) during the liberation. In addition to the listed forces the Corsican resistance also played a mayor role (rising up in arms after the Italian surrender, cooperating with the Italian troops that had changed sides and finally working in concert with the commandos). Unfortunately I have no detailed information on the role of the Italians (whether all defected, or just part of the Bastia garrison, also how much they actually participated in the fighting).--Caranorn 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If the only information they provide is that single sentence it's not of much use here. Not to speak of the fact that the History Channel is of very limited scientific use. Thanks though for looking it up.--Caranorn 13:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Corsica in WW2

message: All: Clearly, the RFC did not work - while it did stimulate further discussion, we do not seem to have made any actual progress, and are back to a near-edit-war situation.  I just want to let everyone know that I am in the process of writing up a request for mediation, as the next step in dispute resolution.  I will post notices to the parties and here on the talk page once the request is filed.  If anyone thinks this should go directly to the binding forum of ArbCom rather than trying mediation first, please make your opinion known here. —Krellis (Talk) 21:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring on the mediation, though I doubt anything short of binding action will end this. --NEMT 21:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I suspect you are correct, but thought it prudent to at least try. —Krellis (Talk) 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I dont know why you guys are wasting so much energy on such a pointless issue. This article still needs a lot of work like more citations and some missing info that needs filling and you guys are so engrossed on the allied and axis battlebox Mercenary2k 22:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had sixty-three years, you'd think we'd have been able to finish writing about the events of the war by now. --NEMT 15:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Bring on the mediation, although I agree that it is a real shame that so much time has been spent on this issue unecessarily. Badgerpatrol 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting mediation on allies/axis issue 

message: The video near the start of the article does not state who is green, red or blue. If someone could please do so that'd be great —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.213.248 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm all over it. Parsecboy 22:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video 

message: I think that the Molotov-Ribbentrop picture would go nicely with this or this. With respect, Ko Soi IX 05:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd prefer the 2nd one, as Chamberlain is more easily recognizable. Parsecboy 16:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in the Cause of War in Europe 

message: Hi, I mentioned this above but I'm sure no one read it. I'd like to help provide citations, but may I ask that  be placed at all statements that folks feel need to be cited? This will at least jump-start the process of finding citations. A similar thing happened in the U2 article I worked on, for example see:  for the progress that was made in less than 5 months on that article. I think we can easily get up to 200 references for this article if the "citation needed" tags are added. The only risk is that the tags are not very pleasing to the eye and may make the article a little bit more difficult to read. Thanks. Wikipedia brown 00:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, as long as they aren't excessive - have a look at the guidelines at WP:CITE. RHB Talk - Edits 00:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we add "citation needed" tags? 

message: In the first paragraph of this section: War breaks out in Europe (September 1939 – May 1940) it fails to mention that Nepal also declared war on Sept 4th.. I would change this myself but some petty issue over flags stops me from contributing to this article it seems.. why not just add all nations who contributed troops.. they all contributed in some small way or another.. I hope the mediation works out soon.. Basser g 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one is barred from editing this article. I think the consensus is that it would be best if the infobox (particularly the combatants and commanders sections) was to remain as it is until the mediation is resolved. Every other part of the article is fair game- the only caveat being that anon users and very new accounts may have to post any suggested additions to this page to be added by another party. From what I can see, you should be able to edit the page directly anyway. Badgerpatrol 16:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the "Infobox minimalists" are continuing to whack away. The leaders are now shunted off to another page. This is becoming and increasingly non-informative page. While I have no problem with keeping the infobox clean, there had been discussions above about what constituted worthy mention in the infobox. Depending on what criteria we were (supposedly collectively) to determine, we'd figure whether the list of nations stayed, and if so, which remained as "major combatants" and which became "see also" in a longer list elsewhere. I've not taken to edit the box during the mediation phase, and in fact, I did what was recommended and walked away from the article for a bit. However, I must say that the trend to simply shove the issue onto other pages does not really solve the contentions and certainly doesn't clarify the issue for people who look to get an 'at-a-glance' view of the war from the infobox. Personally, Nepal could go either way for me. It depends on where we set the bar in terms of numbers of troops to be considered "major," and whether we deal with the collective "British Empire" which would include Nepal, or would list them separately. They certainly did not fight any less fiercely than other combatants involved and many Gurkhas were highly decorated. --Petercorless 12:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussing this under the wrong topic, but I guess I should reply here. Someone decided to add the leaders links after the individual leaders were deleted following the Poll about Axis and Allies (as logically no leaders would be cited if no countries are cited). The links might have been better places in the Axis and Allies articles, which would also not have broken the current agreement to freeze the infobox until mediation is accepted... In any case, there is insufficient space to add every relevant leader, even if we restrict ourselves to political leaders.--Caranorn 13:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to add "every relevant leader." That is hyperbolic and reductio ad absurdum. We could add some set of 4-10 per side. --Petercorless 12:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nepal missing 

message: Note 1 says, "Ibid." Looks like the reference tags got mixed up somehow...Chubbles 21:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Small note

message: I've created this article, as the main page link was blank.  It is by no means comprehensive. --NEMT 21:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet why are the major World War II leaders missing from this page? This seems to be simply shoveling the problem elsewhere, and degrades the effectiveness of the Infobox. --Petercorless 11:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you tell us who the major leaders were, please? Badgerpatrol 12:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, and then start fighting over the leaders all over again;-). But on a more serious note, I fear the Allied Leaders of World War II and Axis Leaders of World War II will be a partial (major difference is inclusion of political leaders) duplication of the Commanders of World War II article. Maybe the Commanders article could be split up into the two new articles, or alternatively the Commanders article expanded to include political leaders.--Caranorn 13:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree with splitting them up and including political leaders.  As is, some nations (such as the US) already have their head of state as direct Commander-in-Chief.  Even when not "officially" part of the military system, most political leaders have significant influence anyway. Oberiko 16:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They're not missing from the page.  All major WW2 leaders are discussed in detail in the article, even some less well known ones.  Where they're "missing" is the infobox, which is not supposed to be an all-inclusive list, or a battleground for nationalists and misguided patriots of minor belligerents.  The infobox is more effective as it is now - WW2 was a conflict between the Axis and the Allies, with the sides led by the appropriate allied/cooperating leaders.  The broad nature of the war precludes your ideal, as nearly all editors involved in the dispute claim. --153.104.64.72 16:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Axis leaders of World War II]]

message: I see that the WW1 article has no problems about defining Combatants and Commanders. So what is the problem about coming up with a similar list in WW2? Russia was only in WW1 for part of the war, and also became the Soviet Union during that time. But there does not seem to be the endless agonizing and nit-picking there. C'mon guys. Lets use our common sense. Wallie 19:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea - common sense tells us a global conflict involving hundreds of belligerents should not and could not be exhaustively summarized in a wiki infobox.  What's so special about WW2?  It actually was a "world" war.  --153.104.64.72 19:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problems is the POVs and personal assertions people are bringing to the article. People, rather than cite souces (what does the US War College call the major Allied or Axis powers? What did Churchill or Roosevelt or Stalin or Hitler declare them to be?), they are wallowing in their own Mad Hatter's Tea Party. "No room! No room in the infobox!" declared the Mad Hatter. "But there's plenty of room," said Alice. --Petercorless 12:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For every source that you can find that says one thing, someone else can find a source that says something different. That is the crux of the problem- but I encourage everyone to find reliable sources on this issue (in a variety of languages and from a variety of sources) and bring them to the table. It is not and never has been, a question of "no room at the in (-fobox)", except in the sense that there really isn't sufficient room to list all the beligerents. It is a question of the apparent impossibility of arriving at a stable NPOV list of "major" combatants (and even more difficult, a list of "major" leaders). Badgerpatrol 14:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So why is POV a problem?? The authors of the WW1 article did not appear to have this problem. I would have thought there were just as many, probably more complications, when you look at WW1. The problem seems to be whether or not to include Canada in the list. Well, it was not in the WW1 list...  Wallie 23:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, with respect, that is emphatically not a good analysis of the problem. Have a look at the discussion elsewhere on this page (and in the archives...I realise there is a lot of comment to get through) for some information on why POV is a problem here, and see also WP:NPOV. If there's a similar problem with First World War then I suppose someone will get to that eventually and perhaps the solution to this may act as a precedent, that can be discussed at the relevent forum. Badgerpatrol 02:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is so special about WW2?

message: Why is the lead so short? Is it that hard to write a lead? Quadzilla99 07:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could read the article and write one that's of satisfactory length if the editors here are having problems. It's really not that difficult. The lead right now is unacceptbale. Quadzilla99 07:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It used to be longer, but it wasn't working too well.  We split it to a lead/overview layout and it seems to be more stable. Haber 11:42, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that will cause an immediate fail during any FAC. Quadzilla99 08:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would like to see what Quadzilla has in mind (even if only on the talk page). Xaxafrad 23:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  I'm not thrilled with the current version either. Haber 20:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, sounds good... If you look at the introduction to WWI, it's about 3 times longer... so yea it definantly should be longer. --LtWinters 16:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: Well the page formatting was really askew — it bled right off the left edge of the text area and into the left sidebar area — but then a tag team edit of some  tags made it better... but on my monitor, which is smal but not ridiculously so, the word "on" appears between  and the image to the left.. and there is a gap of several inches before you can find the next word.. suggest moving  above the "Overview" section.. in fact, I'm just gonna do it 'cause it looks so unsightly as is.. (in fact, if I were a regular editor of this article, I would argue for taking the  completely off the article.. but...) --Ling.Nut 17:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think i just fixed it. Please post again if it's still a problem. Ahudson 17:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, much better... I moved it up, then you moved it up even further. :-) Your version and mine look about the same, but both versions (including the way it stands now) look much much much better than about 20 minutes ago! :-) --Ling.Nut 17:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't the  box be more appropriate at the bottom of the article, in the "see also" section? I'd point out the location listing in the regular infobox, which almost stands in for the other infobox. Xaxafrad 23:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting probs <nowiki>{{WWIITheatre}}</nowiki> 

message: It says that the Greeks quickly repulsed the Italian invasion with details of troops pinned down, etc , but then it just has one sentence for the Greek defeat by the Germans, and also says the Greek Army was "eventually" defeated by the Germans.  Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "quickly defeated" as it says in the earlier case with Greeks V.S. Italians, as I think the German invasion and victory was stunningly quick (especially with regard to the rugged terrain that had to be trevassed).  Also, I really think someone should "beef" up that section up some more.  I would myself, but the article is locked.  thanks!  JohnHistory 03:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are absolutely correct, the German invasion was much quicker than the Italian one. The Italian offensive on Greece(which failed) took 4 months, while the German offensive(which worked) took only 2 months. Eisenhower 01:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greece 

message: Germany was not after colonies. Just change it to "Axis territorial ambitions". --Kurt Leyman 11:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe if you define a colony as being across a body of water, but in either case, Hitler wanted to make build German cities all over Russian land. Actually, it would've been easier to take over the pre-built Russian cities, but what's the real hair we're splitting here? Xaxafrad 00:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although listing only Germany and Japan excludes the Italian element.... Xaxafrad 00:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

text: A colony is defined as being geographically distant from the parent country. Furthermore, the other countries weren't settled by the Germans; I think they would be described as occupied territories in this case, so the proposed wording would be more appropriate. Ahudson 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems to be a problem with prescribing ambitions to others: the other countries weren't settled yet; if Hitler's war machine had won, they would've been repopulated (colonized?)...The current casus say "territorial." Xaxafrad 04:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Colonial ambitions" 

message: Does anyone else think the Greece/Yugoslavia/Albania/Bulgaria stuff might be better put in a Balkans section rather than scattered in Eastern Front/Mediterranean like it is currently? Haber 02:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: there is nothing wrong with that but the only problem is going to add more sub-sections and make the article very dis-jointed. Mercenary2k 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is how those areas are interconnected. That is how the Balkans campaign(s) of 1941 affected the beginning of Barbarossa for the Germans, on the other hand for the Allies it's clearly closely connected to operations in the Mediterranean. Though I guess that's actually an argument for a separate section as it's hard to include it in either East Front or Med.--Caranorn 11:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section - Balkans? 

message: The main intro says that 73 million people were killed. The table at the side said 62 million. That's a difference of 11 million!!! Like New York City has disappeared somewhere??? I clicked on the 73 million link, and it went to a comprehensive list of stats, with lots of pretty pie charts. It said There were 26 million military and 46 million civilians killed. OK. And it says there were 61 million allies and 11 million Axis killed. Still OK! The chart said 50 percent were Allied Civilians, thats 36 million. Great! I took that away from the total of 46 million Civilians, leaving 10 million Axis Civilians killed. Good. Then I took this figure away from the 11 miilion total Axis Killed, and that leaves 1 million Axis Military killed. OK. Actually, (nope).
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! NO WAY !!! 
Not OK. I reckon there were that many killed in one battle, let alone the whole war. It all looks very pretty. Probably collated by the Census Department, and as usual is not checked. Wallie 17:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick Google search for "total deaths ww2" and in the first 20 results, I got totals ranging from 46-65 million, but mostly in the 50-60 range. Xaxafrad 19:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Been discussed lots of time before, usually to little avail. :-) There are lots of ways of counting, lots of problems in the figures (difficulties in analysing census records, poor records during the war, history of lies and distortion by some states, etc) and lots of difficulties such as defining who was a "civilian" and who was "military". Evidently it needs some detailed research to put it all right. That would presumably take several hundred hours of diligent work. Which presumably then would be vandalised out of all recognition by fools in the time honoured Wikipedian way. :-) MarkThomas 20:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've got basically five "primary" casualty figures: Allied military, Allied civilian, Axis military, Axis civilian and Holocaust figures.  Perhaps we should put a range instead of an approximation? Oberiko 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, my book i have right now (which so far is pretty accurate) says that an amount of just over 56 million deaths were resulted by the Second World War. I also went on the Chinese Wikipedia and got the result of 71Mill. On the French site, it said 62 (Oh, My, God). on the German site(lol), it said 55-60 Mill. So I say its about just over 60 mill. Eisenhower 01:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The amount of people killed in WW2 is obviously going to be confusing, and 73 million is the highest I've ever heard. The lowest I've ever heard of is 52 million. The majority of sources I've heard from say it was from 55-60 million, so wouldn't is just be smart to say that more than 55 million people died??? And we must remember, during WW2 the majority of figures based on how much is cost economically, militarily, and through the number of lives lost, is just an estimate, so no one source really can be right.
--24.225.156.40 18:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm really confused 

message: The article starts saying the war started in 1939. Then it says Japan invaded China in 1937 (from Manchuria which had been invaded before) Isn't it confusing?--200.125.49.213 02:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be confusion. The are arguments to say the war started on all sorts of dates. You could argue that the Chinese/Japanese war in 1937 was a precursor. Or you could say it was the real thing. The same applies to the other key dates, 01.09.1939, 03.09.1939, 22.06.1941 or 07.12.1941. Wallie 22:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The Chinese/Japanese war was another war, it is only included in many WWII articles, only because the US had joined in fighting the Japanese for another reason, also because the US had fought with Chinese forces - which is because the US was in war with Japan - but the Chinese/Japanese war was not part of WWII until the US had joined the war. Eisenhower 00:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beginning of the war 

message: Just thinking... overlooking this article... there's alot of topics that have either been resolved or nobody's left a comment on them in over a month... Shouldn't we delete them because they are just taking up space and making this page more confusing?
--LtWinters 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extra Stuff

message: Just to explain my edits of Xaxafrad's additions based on the french article.
1) I removed the reparations issue as this was not a faithful translation and is prone to be misunderstood. The French article essentially talks about unsatisfactory resolution of WWI, which does not just involve German misunderstanding of the reason for reparations...
2) I removed the Spanish Civil War as I don't believe this is generally seen as a part of WWII (it's a precursor war).
3) Added a short explanation for the urge for European Unification, maybe a link to Euro Federalism might have been more appropriate then the EU link I used, but I'm not sure these motivations are fully explained in any article.
4) Added political dissidents/opposition persecution to Atrocities, this is actually how many concentration camps such as Dachau started. Note that other political currents should probably be added (Christian Social(ists) for instance, I'm not entirely neutral in this case).
5) According removal of murder of dissidents... as that's now covered under atrocities.
6) Removal of Napalm as that doesn't seem to have seen much use in World War II. What's really meant is fire bombing, and probably White Phosphorus.
Otherwise just minor changes and corrections.
One question, which language standard is used for this article? I'd assume international, but I find many sentences in later parts of the article using american spelling. I was wondering because of the term labor/labour.--Caranorn 12:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xaxafrad's additions and my edits