Talk:Causes of World War II

message: What's with the mass strike out of the entire bottom 95% of this talk page?
83.250.66.213 (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass strikeout 

message: I think that naming "part" for Polish Upper Silesia after WW1 is unapropriate for 3204 km² out of 45 000 km². I proposed "scrap" but obviously it was not accepted. Please propose better name. Cautious 09:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Scrap of Silesia

message: *Improve anti-semitism section to everyone's satisfaction
*Expand causes of the war in Asia
Hi, I created this page because I felt that in no one place in Wikipedia were the causes of the war listed completely.  I also noticed in the discussion on the World War II page about adding a section on causes, as the section entitled, Preliminaries doesn't seem to do it justice.  Also, there ARE several articles with long titles i can't seem to remember that nobody who didn't know they were there could find anyway. Please feel free to make changes and to make additions! (That's what the site's for anyway!)  --naryathegreat 21:42, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
---------------------------------------------------------------
I think this needs to be linked into the series of articles on WW2. Secretlondon 01:32, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Thing to do/Goals

message: I changed several statements which were gramatically incorrect; Space Cadet and Irredenta please take the time to review your changes, especially ones as small as these, and do not make contributions if you are not fluent in standard written english.--naryathegreat 22:32, Jul 7, 2004 (UTC)
I modified one sentance talking about the strength of anti-semitism in modern Europe becuase the question of modern European Anti-semitism is the subject of debate currently. I felt that such a statement should take into account the debate. As it was written originally, it seemed to me to imply that anti-semitism is nearly as strong and prevalent in Europe as it was during Hitler's reign which is debatable. lalallaaaaa;a
--Cab88 23:11, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: I can't believe nacionalism, antisemitism etc. were causes of world war II. These were the attendant phenomena, ideological connivancers or rather excuse-to-hands for beginning war. These were very important, motivating people to involved in it, but they are maybe effects, conclusions; expressing these as causes is so vulnerable. The real causes are in the following part of that article.  Gubbubu 14:44, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes or blinds? 

message: What are the sources for the attributed causes for the war in the Pacific? All of the sources listed at the bottom of the page are about Europe. One major cause of the war in the Pacific that is absent is Western Imperialism. Not only was the Japanese westernization done to avoid becoming a colony but there own military and imperial adventures were directly modeled after European Empires. One source for this idea off the top of my head is Soldiers of the Sun : The Rise and Fall of the Imperial Japanese Army by Meirion and Susie Harries. If the article is to reflect a neutral view point and to be considered accurate it should at least source one book about the War in the Pacific. As I understand it things that are put on Wikipedia should have sources and right now there are none for the causes of the war in the Pacific.
*Very good point.  I added 4 books dealing with Pacific war. Rjensen 07:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be nice to have some summaries here in the article. --218.223.193.144 08:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes for War in the Pacific 

message: Austria was NOT expanded by the treaty of Versailles, and I am going to remove the part that says that.
Cameron Nedland 02:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Austria expanded? 

message: Shouldn't we work on adding a section in that details his own personal responsibility? I mean it was clear from Mein Kampf he was always pursuing territorial expansion, particularly in the East, his anti-semitism was rife and that he wanted a resurgent Germany to head a New Order. --Anti-establishment 15:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree and agree at the same time. If you can take it from his direct words that this is what he wanted to do, then why would we choose these words over those where he showed the opposite compulsion on numerous occasions? Either he was bipolar or as an incredible statesman, an incredible liar.--Hohns3 06:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler's Personal Responsibility? 

message: This statement ignores the SU - its internal and external policy. Genocides, censorship, forced labour. Soviet crimes were 100-1000 times bigger till 1939 than the Nazi ones, comparable 1939-1941. The Germans lead since the Summer of 1941 (but only little, taking into account Soviet massacres of prisoners). 
Xx236 13:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western Anti-communism 

message: Current version: Germany lost territory after the war. Notably the Polish Corridor (see below), the Memel Territory (to Lithuania), the Sudetenland to Czechoslovakia...
Sudetenland was never part of Germany, the formulation is misleading.
General note 1: the article focuses too much on Germany. It was Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union who attacked Poland, it was the Soviet union and not Germany who attacked Finland etc.
General note 2: I guess an important aspect was the fact that the threatened countries were not able to cooperate (for example Czechoslovakia with Poland and Rumania, Norway with the UK) JanSuchy 21:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territorial Issues, Soviet goals

message: I think this section is factually incorrect and needs to be revised:
<Blockquote>
    * Raw materials: Other than a few coal and iron deposits, Japan lacks true natural resources. Japan, the only Asian country with a burgeoning industrial economy at that time, feared that a lack of raw materials might lead to an inability to grow. In the hopes of expanding its resources, Japan invaded Manchuria, with plans to conquer much more land through the Asian mainland and the entire western Pacific. The Imperial Navy eventually began to feel that it did not have enough fuel reserves. Therefore, they supported the idea of seizing islands in the Pacific with raw materials, including the Dutch East Indies and the Philippines. This would require the elimination of the US fleet in Pearl Harbor.
</Blockquote>
As I remember my history lessons, U.K. France and the Netherlands had occupied large parts of asia, particularly the oilfields in Indonesia. Since these resources were flowing directly to Europe, at no profit to the indigenous population, they were not open for Japan to purchase on the free market. As a result of this, Japan had to rely on U.S. oil for it's fleet. Then, when President Roosevelt chose to cut-off Japanese oil supplies (by freesing all japanese assets in the U.S.) as a reult of critisism against Japanese cruelty in China, the Japanese Navy found itself in a dilemma. Their oil supplies would only last 6 months. After that Japan would have no fleet and be defenceless. The option was, bow to U.S. pressure and get out of China, or obtain oil from somewhere else.
Japan chose the latter. The U.S. must have seriously known they were risking a mayor war, either that or they can't have been to clever...
As a happy coincidence Japan after the war had access to most of the disputed resources of Asia on the free capitalist market, since after the war the Europeans failed to resume their grip on the Asian nations they had previously occupied. 
The Netherlands made a very bloody attempt in Indonesia, which failed, France tried but failed in Vietnam, and the U.K. was pretty much to broke to try so they just gave up. 
--Stor stark7 21:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Netherlands is part of the Allied forces and Indonesia, which used to be called the Dutch East Indies as well as British Malaya(now Malaysia) ceased trading with Japan as sanction. Japan then was left with two options: withdraw from Manchuria to prevent economic collapse or attack the Southeast Asian colonies to gain control of the resources. Japan was forced to make war with the US because they thought, once they invade any South east Asian territory, the US will get involved. That time, the Philippines, located between Japan and Indonesia and Malaysia, was a US commonwealth, so in order to prevent reinforcements to the Philippines, they had to bomb Pearl Harbor. Pearl harbor was just the perfect target. A few hours after, they attacked the Philippines and eventually capturing Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Given the ultra-nationalism that was going on in Japan, they opted for military offense. Prior to the bombing of Pearl harbor, the US wasn't officially part of the war and hasn't declare war against Japan. And never forget the war atrocities by the Japanese throughout the Pacific region. it is well documented and sadly, Japanese government do not inform their citizens of the war. Their participation in the war is highly skewed in their history textbooks. That's why many Japanese youth have no idea about it.
The Netherlands, France, and the UK left not because they cannot 'capture' the resources in Southeast Asia but because it was part of the UN treaty -- that colonies be given independence. The Netherlands, France and UK would be violating the treaty had they remained in Southeast Asian land.
How do you explain that France tried to take Vietnam back after WW2?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2002:4C40:57BA:0:0:0:4C40:57BA (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes for War in Asia

message: This article needs a SERIOUS SERIOUS rewrite, as it is a link off of several main pages and barely provides sufficient coverage of the topic. I think there is a lot more that can be talked about, such as financial matters, the looming conflict between the capitalist/communist worlds and competition for world power influence (i.e. New World Order) and territory, both of which would mean nothing if it weren't for the scattered and limited resources around the world. It is interesting that the article mentions anti-semitism...there was a call for a "christian crusade" in defense of the Jews against Germany's medieval "jew hunt", but this never was a motivating force on its own. Many influential Jews had a presence in British politics, if that means anything. However, I think our best bet is to examine the expansionist policies of several countries, military buildup that had been occuring around much of the globe for at least 4 years (increased arms production in Germany, Soviet Union and even the U.S., as far as the Navy is concerned), the economic situation (in especially Germany and Britain) and go from there. What I mean with the last point is the British economy sunk before the war and the Nazi economy may or may not have been in serious danger, as we will never know due to Germany invading Poland. Several thesis have been written regarding the state of the National Socialist economy but whatever. Hopefully this will help.--Hohns3 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: after rereading the section on anti-semitism, the comment on how it helped hitler rise to power was completely irrelevant to causes of world war II. My fact request was more along the lines of "prove to me that anti-semitism" caused the war. If anything, it would have been the reaction to exclusionist, anti-semitic policy that helped lobby in favor of going to war, and its effect on public opinion.--Hohns3 01:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: OK I have seriously rewritten, stealing bits and pieces from all over Wikipedia and adding some of my own thoughts.  I took the framework from Causes of World War I.  Additional contributions are welcome.  Haber 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Contributions Welcome

message: I think you are taking the title of this article a little too literally by deleting the Anschluss.  Sure, this act didn't literally push tanks across the Polish border, and the Allies weren't yelling "Remember the Anschluss" as they stormed the beaches at Normandy, but it serves as a good example for many of the themes that are discussed in the article.
Examples:
Nationalism - Germans vs. the World
Nazism - antidemocratic
Military significance - complicated the defense of Czechoslovakia
Psychological - excellent example of appeasement
Economic - lost trading partner for Britain and France
Treaty of Versailles - explicit breaking of the Treaty
Beyond its usefulness as an example, it needs to be in this article for completeness.  A person who studies the Causes of WWII and doesn't know what the Anschluss was would be missing something.  I get the sense maybe you think the existing text didn't describe it fairly... if so please try to make it NPOV as you see it and maybe we can work something out. Haber 23:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anschluss

message: This article is not meant to be a compilation of excuses for Germany's bad behavior.  Hohns3 is pushing a revisionist agenda in which every sequence of events is supplemented by a lengthy interpretation involving German views on the matter, which frequently corresponds to official Nazi propaganda.  Particularly slanted is the Invasion of Poland section, in which the Poles who refuse to hand over the keys to their country and slit their own throats are made out to be difficult, and Hitler had no idea that Great Britain would really help them.  This is an extreme position, not generally accepted, and constitutes original research at best.
::My version most certainly does not comform to a German point of view. A German point of view would not include the opposite point of view. There is no original research, nor is this "revisionist". Any other adjectives or descriptors you would like to misuse in an attempt to discredit a view that most historians do in fact support? I've said it before, I am quoting mostly Friedlaender, a VERY respectable source famous at UCLA, and most of this information can be found on legitimate sites within four seconds of googling. Check out some primary sources with the actual diplomatic proceedings sourced. Clearly you have some serious anti-German issues of your own. --Hohns3 05:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Please give me some time and I will address your points. You have a very strong point of view regarding the Czech and Polish situation, but hopefully I will be able to point you to some sources that will clarify the complexity of these issues. History is never a one-sided affair, sorry, and neither the Manchester Guardian - nor Streicher's publications - will bring you into the realm of the "Enlightened" singlehandedly. I think you have taken sources like the former (which I used symbolically) too seriously for your own good.--72.92.0.83 06:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haber, I thought you might like to know that I will be away on vacation for a while and unable to contribute to the article until I return. No tears please, I'm sure I will enjoy myself. However, that also means that we will be unable to reach a conclusion that fits both of our interpretations of history. Speaking of interpreting, I see you completely misunderstood my last statement - it was not meant to be hostile, nor do I claim to know all the answers regarding this topic (nor will I ever). Similarly, my "conclusions" regarding history are not static; no matter how exhaustive one's efforts are, there are always new stones to uncover. That being said, do what you would like with the article and we will confer at a later time.--Hohns3 19:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a nice trip! Haber 23:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: German excuses

message: === Expropriating & Compensations ===
Zákon č. 63/1935 Sb. z. a n., o vyvlastnění k účelům obrany státu
Law no. 63/1935 Digest of the Laws and Enactments, about expropriation for the purposes of state defense (my translation of the name)
Unfortunately, I don't have the law, just a chapter of a dissertation about this subject. The Ministry of Interior of the Czech republic offers only digests from 1945 on. I will try to find it somewhere if you want. --Marvin talk 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Zákon č. 63/1935 Sb. z. a n., o vyvlastnění k účelům obrany státu
Law no. 63/1935 Digest of the Laws and Enactments, about expropriation for the purposes of state defense (my translation of the name)
Unfortunately, I don't have the law, just a chapter of a dissertation about this subject. The Ministry of Interior of the Czech republic offers only digests from 1945 on. I will try to find it somewhere if you want. --Marvin talk 17:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expropriating & Compensations 

message: To the nice lady who just commented that this site was lacking some important information.  What do you need? Haber 01:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint 

message: To describe the Spanish Civil War thus: It was the first clash among the fascism and the freedom in the field of battle ignores the Ethiopian's resistance to Italy, just described in the previous sentence, and smacks faintly of eurocentric racism.  It's also grammatically weak ;-)
:Fair enough.  I like to think of the Battle of Marathon as the first clash.  Feel free to edit the article. Haber 04:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this probably needs changing. Coricus 10:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's long gone. Haber 11:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Minor Quibble 

message: Somebody just removed the section about the lingering German resentment over their defeat and the following Allied demands. I replaced it because this is obviously relevant and important, the period between the World Wars was an uneasy peace at best, and Hitler used his followers' resentment to gain power. Anybody disagree?  vlad§inger  tlk  12:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: World War I

message: I reverted recent addition by Matthead because of following reasons:
* he claimed land had been expropriated from the mainly Sudeten German owners but there is no reference for this. I restored it back to land had been expropriated from the owners because there were people of Czechoslovak Republic. 
* he removed maintain order from Czechoslovakian government declared martial law in parts of the Sudetenland to maintain order. which is POV, because there were conflicts between Germans and Czechs.
* he removed in Czechoslovakia from Citing the need to protect the Germans in Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland was not a part of Germany
I restored previous state. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Total revert rv POV by Tulkolahten of my edits, to the "previous state" he had created, by replacing "Sudeten Germans" by "owner", stating also czechoslovak people owned some land .... I can not see a reference that ethnic Czechs/Slovaks privately owned a significant share of the land that was expropriated for military reasons along the borders to Germany, an area which undoubtedly had been inhabited for generations by a majority of ethnic Germans. Let alone a share close to or over 50%. Removing "to maintain order" from "declared martial law" is POV? Was there a reference that they declared martial law "to maintain order"? Maybe martial law, and the prohibition of any public meeting, had the main purpose to prevent all Sudeten Germans from demonstrating their opinion to the world at large? And "Citing the need to protect the Germans in Czechoslovakia", where was that citation? Did Hitler consider the Sudetenland to be "in Czechoslovakia"? -- Matthead  DisOuß   21:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please remain civil. The area of sudetenland was of course inhabited also by Czechs and Slovaks, it was not purely german-speaking area. What Hitler considered is not relevant, why are you bringing it here? Martial law declared there was to maintain order, it is its purpose. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent addition, reverted 

message: deleted text refering the Polish foreign ministers welcoming of the war and his belief that the Poles would be in Berlin within 3 weeks. It is my opinion that this complete irationality on the Polish side is relevant to include. The U.S. diplomat he was talking to though the Polish foreign minister was crazy--Stor stark7 Talk 22:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How is a random stupid comment by a politician relevant to the cause of the war? The comment did not contribute to the war, hence it should not be in causes (many people commented on the 'war to come', so what?).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The only problem is that this crazy person (the U.S. diplomats words) was not just a "stupid politisian" he was the Polish foreign minister, and thus had direct influence on relations with Germany. You dont think that makes his state of mind relevant?--Stor stark7 Talk 23:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if the US diplomat believed defending a country from Nazi Germany genocidal regime that already murdrdered Czechs and Jews in its plans of racial crusade was crazy, it only speaks about the diplomat in question. The claim needs better sources the boastfull German weekly, and a context too in which those words were spoken. In the end however it doesn't seem to have any relevance, we write a encyclopedia here, not a tabloid. I would be more interested in explaining how German racism and genocide made in Africa by Germany laid causes to WW2, as this information is not detailed enough.--Molobo (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about Der Spiegel being boastful, please clarify, but the article does mention it being "Europe's biggest and most influential weekly magazine". And the author seems quite sane and balanced, hardly someone to pull those words out of context. But you are right we should also find the source, should be fun, perhaps there is more fun stuff there. But please  I really don't understand what you suddenly have against weekly or daily magazines, since you in so many other instances insert information extracted from exactly that type of source? I wish you luck with your new Africa articles, should be fun to review them. --Stor stark7 Talk 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conscerning the latest deletion

message: The opening suggests a much too simplistic cause of the war and only emphasises the fault of Germany and Japan.  All nations involved were at fault to some degree.  I think it should be rewritten to better reflect the complexity of the issuses as presented in the article. To suggest that there was an immediated cause detracts from the discussion. An introduction should draw a reader into an investigation of the cause of the war rather than making any conclusion.
Mike 172.168.13.182 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the simplicity appropriate in the lead. The reader came here to read the rest of the article and will explore the complexities with each new section encountered. Fault will be seen to fall in a number of directions. Binksternet (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is somewhat of bias so perhaps it should read.....The culmination of events that led to World War II are generally understood to be the invasion of Poland by Germany and of China by the Empire of Japan.  These military aggressions were the decisions made by authoritarian ruling elites in Germany and Japan. World War II started after these aggressive actions were met with an official declaration of war and/or armed resistance.172.162.67.210 (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, not bad... You are proposing to change "The immediate causes of" to "The culmination of events that led to" in the opening sentence. I think this is helpful direction. Binksternet (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias in opening text

message: This article looks like a list; it is awfully unfocused. Obviously, the key "immediate" causes were: (a) German invasion of Poland, (b) the German attack on the USSR, and (c) the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor. So, this article should try to answer three major questions: (a) why did Germany invade Poland?; (b)why did Germany attack the USSR?, and (c) why did Japan attack US? These questions are poorly debated in this article, although they were debated in literature. After reading this article, a reader has absolutely no idea what was actually the reason(s) of this war. Another serious shortcoming is lack of in-line citations.Biophys (talk) 04:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also why did Britain and France declare war on Germany when Germany attacked Poland. The reason (public pressure on the british and french governments) is also not given. 218.186.12.10 (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is easier to answer, but yes, the reasons behind moves by all sides should be explained. This suppose to be a very interesting article. Just needs some work, and the in-line citation should be provided of course.Biophys (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The questions raised by Biophys are quite correct and reasonable. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A comment

message: "Contributing to this, the Allies did not occupy any part of Germany, with the Western front having been in France for years. Only the German colonies were taken during the war, and Italy took South Tyrol after an armistice had been agreed upon."
O my goodness... South Tyrol was NOT a part of Germany, but a part of Austria-Hungary. --Mike F (German wikipedia)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.115.20 (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Tyrol 

message: reader comment -- The Resource Competition section is what I was most interested in.  It gave the story for Japan but not for Europe.  I consulted Wikipedia because I was interested in both stories.  Anyone know the resource competition story for Europe? --Bmarmie (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition for Resources 

message: "For example, Yugoslavia (originally the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes) had 5 major ethnic groups (the Serbs, Croats, Macedons, Montenegrins, and the Slovenes),"
THERE WAS NO "MACEDONS" ETHNIC GROUP IN YUGOSLAVIA BEFORE WORLD WAR II  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feta (talk • contribs) 03:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedons?? 

message: Per WP:ASF, "in attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." The section in its previous form payed more attention to the fringe Suvorov's theory than to the majority's views. The last para created a false impression of parity between Suvorov's critics and (partial) supporters. Fixed. References added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, Suvorov's theory represents a minority views, and should be represented accordingly. Please, avoid violation of WP policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invasion of the USSR 

message: I ereased this section because it was a bunch of non-sense letters. I hope someone writes about the Molotov Riblentrop pact beacause of it’s importance in the invation to Poland--Elazoteescriba (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Molotov Riblentrop pact 

message: Westerplate is in Danzig but the pic is made in Gdingen 
Deutsch: Das deutsche Schlachtschiff Schleswig-Holstein beschießt die Stadt Gdingen während dem Polenfeldzug.
English: German battleship Schleswig-Holstein during a shellfire of Gdynia.--79.240.212.196 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture with a wrong descriptition

message: In this edit I've removed some material which seems to relate to the view that the US Government deliberatly goaded the Japanese into attacking Pearl Harbor. In particular, the material was anchored around a quote from Henry L. Stimson's diary that "he had discussed with US President Roosevelt the severe likelihood of imminent war with Japan and that the question had been "how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves"". However, the full text of the diary entry in the source provided actually states:
:The President brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked, perhaps (as soon as) next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. 
:When I got back to the Department I found news from G-2 that a Japanese expedition had started. Five divisions had come down from Shantung and Shansi to Shanghai and there they had embarked on ships—thirty, forty or fifty ships—and have been sighted south of Formosa. I at once called up Hull and told him about it and sent copies to him and to the President. . . .
As such, it is clear that the discussion was about how to manage the imminent Japanese surprise attack (which was in fact being launched at the time of the conversation, as was soon discovered), and not diplomatic and military maneuvering aiming to spark war. The text I've removed then went on suggest that this exchange was linked to the Hull Note (without citation) and provided vauge text from another source suggesting FDR regarded the attack on Pearl Harbor as a price worth paying. More generally, if one theory of the US Government's actions in the lead up to the start of the Pacific War is going to be presented, competing views also need to be covered. Nick-D (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead up to Pearl Harbor 

message: Currently it begins with: 
:"Out of all causes of World War II, the desire and ability of Adolf Hitler, in control of Nazi Germany, to dominate Europe (especially agrarian lands in the East) and resettle German farmers was dominant"
Starting like this is wrong and inflammatory. Wikipedia intros need to be based on the content of the article, and give something of the flavour of it. In particular, in this case there needs to be some acknowledgement of the whole host of causes and then (perhaps), summarize with the current text. Snori (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The current lede follows the RS and emphasizes multiple goals: the "desire and ability of Adolf Hitler, in control of Nazi Germany, to dominate Eastern Europe, eliminate the Jews, and replace Slavic farmers with resettled German farmers." Rjensen (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the way it is formulated is absolutely misleading, and I came to this talk page exactly to raise the issue and at least it confirms my concerns that  has already raised it. I absolutely agree that Lebensraum was a major factor, but to present it as if all others were secondary (to take one at random, Versailles revisionism and the desire of many Germans to see Germny re-established as a great power was at least as important), and on top of that in a way that would leave one believing it was some kind of agricultural lobby policy is simply astonishing, and I had trouble believing I was really reading what I thought I was reading. walk victor falk talk 17:49, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the text works fine--the other "causes" (Versailles revisionism and the desire of many Germans to see Germany re-established as a great power) had been fully achieved by 1936-38 and did not cause a war in 1939.  It was caused when Hitler invaded east--into Poland (Britain and France declared war) and 1941 when he moved further east (into USSR, which now entered the war). The text explains why he moved east.  are there some other causes that need mentioning?? Rjensen (talk) 01:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes I fixed that to read: "The immediate cause was Britain and France declaring war on Germany after it invaded Poland in September 1939." Rjensen (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro needs reforming

message: None of the major Japanese complaints are listed 
1. Blocking of racial equality clause. This simply meant that Japanese are just second rate citizens. 
2. Japan's war of aggression came only because all it's attempts to get resources peacefully were blocked. Read the American terms of ultimatum against Japanese advance.
3. Manchuria incident. If Japan invades and brutalizes Manchuria, it cannot be termed humane, but western imperialism can be? It is the same question Japan asked in the debate. A simplest instance of this is the drug trade emanating from Manchuria conveniently forgetting that British India hit the world's all time drug production levels(even more than Columbia and Afghanistan combined in their peak years), I believe in 1906.
By the way, when did the second world war start? Is it 1931(Second China War) or 1935(Invasion of Ethiopia) or is it just a continuation of the first world war after a brief lull? And when did it end? 
1945 - Surrender of Japan
1953 - Korea War
1950 - Chinese Civil War
1949 - Indonesian Independence
1975 - Vietnam War(technically reestablishing control over pre-war territories)
This is under the assumption that the low level civil war still going on in Korea or between China and Taiwan is not considered.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.220.226.43 (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What of Japanese Reasons? And the date of Start and End of War 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Causes of World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205122644/http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-01.htm to http://www.net4war.com/e-revue/dossiers/2gm/indochine-sgm/indochine-sgm-01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: What are various reasons behind the world war 2 103.159.32.150 (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: factors or reasons that led to the outbreak of world war 2 141.95.0.38 (talk) 07:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  World war 2