Talk:World War II/Archive 15

message: There is a suggestion in the To Do list:
"Axis powers like germany,Austria etc were more commonly known as the Cential Powers.Mythamrith92 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Do: Central Powers? 

message: Please compare the overview of this article with that of the following introduction  and the rest of the American Civil War article.
The American Civil War (1861–1865) was a sectional conflict in the United States between the Federal government ("Union") and 11 southern slave states that declared their secession and formed the Confederate States of America, led by President Jefferson Davis. The "Union", led by President Abraham Lincoln and the Republican party which opposed expansion of slavery, rejected any right of secession. Fighting began April 12, 1861 when Confederate forces attacked a Federal fort at the Battle of Fort Sumter.
The whole Civil War article is not judgemental. It does not take sides and use inflamatory language such as invasion, aggression, defeat, nazi, militarism etc etc. To outsiders, the good vs evil in the American Civil War was more clearcut at the start of the war than in the similar phase of WW2. However, the writers have concentrated on facts, not just regurgitating what appears to be propoganda taught in the American school system. Correct me if I am wrong on the latter point. Wallie 20:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide a suggested new overview. --Habap 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the current form of the introduction is rather rough and overly politicized. A more neutral and objective approach should be taken, but as Habap said, if you disagree with the version that we have now, please write an alternative so we can discuss it here on the talk page. I looked at Woogam's version and it seems drastically better than what we have now. TSO1D 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted it back to the modified version of the one I wrote. If it's really that Nazi-apologetic sounding, I can't see it, I'm sorry. I wrote it to match other encyclopedic entries on the war stylistically, and I'm not being conceited but I feel it's objective and neutral without being excusive or excessively harsh either way. What are some things we can add (or remove) to make it better? --Woogums 08:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Thank you for writing it. The text is fairer too.  Wallie 11:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter bias in this WW2 article 

message: * Support per above.--Nixer 17:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as it pains me, I'm going to have to agree with Wallie on this one.  Things have been changed, to the point where this poll is a total mess.  None of us seems to be bright enough to come up with a real consensus-drawing gem anyway.  I say let's forget it and go back to anarchy. Haber 21:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support old version

message: * Support (shifting support to Redvers version) While the aggression was the start of the war, the groundwork had been laid by Versailles, the Depression and the resulting surge of nationalism. To limit the cause to only the aggressive military actions of Germany and Japan over-simplifies the case. I think this one does need some work, but it is better than the old one. --Habap 11:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the version by  [[User:Woogums]]

message: *Support The version below by Redvers. --Habap 21:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In re-reading, I notice this one has nothing about the Holocaust, which was a huge part of World War II. Now, I am less certain. Woogums may be the best version. --Habap 14:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support the version by  [[User:Redvers]]

message: When does this poll end? Green caterpillar 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closing debate

message: Wallie is claiming that two other people support his repeated reverts, removing the words "Nazi" and "Hitler" from the introduction to our encyclopedia article about WWII.  Please, Wallie supporters, step forward so that you may be counted. Haber 21:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In a revert war the original remains until resolved on the talk page.  No one has voted to just delete the whole paragraph. Haber 22:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its not there now. The old (previous) version is there. Wallie 00:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wallie's reverts of article 

message: The Society for  Military History is considering a session on Wikipedia at its annual meeting (Frederick Maryland, April 19-22, 2007). Any active editor who would like to be a panelist please contact rjensen@uic.edu Thanks Rjensen 00:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discuss military history in Wikipedia at Society for Military History meeting 2007 

message: There is no mention of the German invasion of Yugoslavia.--Cretanpride 12:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a really good point. I think this would deserve at least a sentence, possible as part of the Greece invasion. DJ Clayworth 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it should be included, perhaps lumped in with other countries under a "Balkans" heading. Haber 16:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yugoslavia

message: An odd selection - the Polish leader but not Mussolini? If Truman is in there, why not the other two British prime ministers during the war, or de Gaulle? Some are not technically commanders, but political leaders, although it's true they all had major roles in directing military operations. --Cyclopaedic 12:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders box

message: Does anyone else feel that the invasion of Greece caused the delay of the invasion of the Soviet Union? I would like to hear some thoughts?--Sac222 03:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not much connection between the two, really. Wallie 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Keegan may mention a connection. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's speculation with no place in an encyclopedia article where it's impossible to include the myriad opinions on the matter. Glantz (and Glantz & House) think it caused delays, Van Creveld thinks that it didn't (and that it was a necessary precondition for Barbarossa in any case). One can add opinions indefinitely and be no nearer any conclusion as historians feel under no obligation to explain their counterfactual asides (and would deny making them in many cases). Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What was the name of the movie?66.53.98.122 07:16, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The seventh day i think, something like that.67.81.110.178 00:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greece and Operation Barbarrosa

message: The intro is getting rather large, and needs to lose some weight. Wallie 23:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Battle of the Bulge

message: If you don't like something, please don't be lazy and go back a few versions. It makes life difficult, and something good could be lost forever. Better to change, or even delete, the bit you don't like, and keep moving forwards, i.e., go with the flow. If you think of something good to say, put it in, even if it doesn't quite fit. The text can always be rearranged later by you or someone else. Wallie 20:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You have absolutely no right to complain.  Other editors have been more than willing to engage you in a reasonable debate.  In return you offered nothing but half-baked, evasive answers, personal attacks, and an even longer list of ridiculous grievances.  Look forward to all of your Nazi-leaning edits being erased without further explanation. Haber 22:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only want to move forward on this article. I have no idea why you think I am "Nazi leaning". I have contributed to the Holocaust article too. Wallie 22:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please no blanket reverts

message: During a visit to the offices of the Calgary Herald newspaper I saw a copy of the front page of the 3 September 1939 issue reporting on France and the UK declaring war on Germany. The front page declares the new conflict "The Second World War". Although it's doubtful a small-city newspaper like the Herald would be the originator of the term, presumably it was applied through wire service coverage of the declaration. My question to those more well-read on the subject, is whether the use of the term by media on Sept. 3 (doesn't matter which media) constitutes the first public use of the term, or whether it might have been used even earlier. 23skidoo 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is very interesting indeed. I have always wondered when the term was first used, and as early as that! If you have this link, or can somehow get the page from the Calgary Herald up on Wikipedia, you would be doing everyone a great service. World War 2 was a really original term, when you think about it, as the previous one was called the Great War. Anyway, well done. A fascinating piece of research. Wallie 22:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ox Engl Dict reports that it was used in 1930 by famous novelist H G Wells in Autocracy of Mr. Parham p 257 (heading) Book the Fourth: The Second World War. Rjensen 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that was of course a fictional war (and a very different one, too. I believe the novel described a dreamt war, someone had a nightmare about it or something it turned out, between the US and England). Never the less, it's still an interesting bit of trivia that would deserve mentioning if we wrote an article about the naming of ww2. I think maybe we should. There are lots of stuff that article could include, like who (countries/people) called it what and when and also include the start-date debate, (1937, 1939, 1941, etc). That would also give us some relief from that ever returning edit war we have here over the start date. We could maybe also include a section on the naming of WW1 as well, as it is related. Shanes 04:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Leslie Charteris novel from 1930, The Last Hero has the protagonist Simon Templar fighting to stop a second world war from being triggered, and the term is used as well. However obviously we're talking about official uses. To my knowledge the newspaper cover I referenced is not online anywhere -- it is hung up on display in the Calgary Herald offices -- but I did note the date, etc. and will add the citation for now, pending anyone offering an earlier use of the term. 23skidoo 18:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've moved the text to the existing section on "names".Michael Dorosh 18:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Earliest use of the term "Second World War"

message: Finland can't be considered one of the axis powers just because it happened to be fighting Russia at the same time as Germany was.  Germany took over Finland and destroyed most of it when they were leaving, they definately weren't allies!
:I agree with these sentiments. Finland was just protecting itself. Simply a victim, I'm afraid. Wallie 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically speaking, Finland was an "Axis power" during the brief personal agreement into which Nazi Germany pressured the Finnish President Risto Ryti. For the rest of the time, it was cobelligerence. For example, some Finnish Jews fought alongside the Germans in Lapland in the Continuation War. --Vuo 08:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That agreement was just president Ryti's personal deal, not an agreement between Finland and Germany. RPriha 08:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finland as an Axis Power? 

message: If we've settled on this as an opening, it needs improvement in grammar at least. It also needs to be *far* less childish in tone. This is Wikipedia, not "Janet and John's Guide to World History"
Well, for the moment anyway. I'm sure this opening will be completely changed in a week's time, hopefully for the better. As Haber says, "that's anarchy"... and its great! As for Janet and John, it would be best if we could keep the simplicity of style, but at the same time make it professional. This will probably happen anyway as many of us including me do not really understand the big words used by University Lecturers etc. anyway. Please keep adding to the article anyway. Someone else can always correct the grammar later... Is there an English teacher in the house? Wallie 07:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Janet and John 

message: World War II was a war fought from 1939 to 1945 in Europe, and from at least 1937 to 1945 in Asia. It was the largest armed conflict the world has ever seen, spanning the entire world and involving more countries than any previous war - and fought with powerful new weapons, culminating in the first aggressive use of two atomic bombs, whose very existence had been a tightly-held secret.
The conflict ravaged civilians more than had any previous wars of the modern era, and served as a backdrop for genocidal killings by Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan. World War II caused a greater number of deaths, about 61 million, than any previous war.
:I got this intro dated 8 Dec 2001 from the Wikipedia history. Have we really improved this intro in this time... I like the word backdrop. Wallie 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because something is 5 years old dosent make it bad, change it back if it was better in 2001 Ironplay 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ..... I would expect it to be better now. I just put this up for a bit of fun to show what the intro was like then. Also, it is interesting to see how much we have progressed since then. Wallie 11:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have we improved in five years? 

message: It would be best to have a very very small intro. That was the idea of creating the overview section, as the was the old intro, and the intro was getting too big. So if there is more than say two sentences in the intro, then put some of it in the overview section. Also, think of removing stuff from the overview, and putting it in the main article. Wallie 21:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format 

message: I see there has been quite a few debates on the topic. rjensen has mentioned that industrial production, technoology, materials, etc. played a significant part in the war. His table about the allies producing three times as much as the axis, subsequently removed, I found this fascinating and educational. The more I think about it, this IS an important theme, and should be covered in this article. But at what level? There are other important themes too. You know, I once saw a whole series on TV just about the impact of oil on the war. It ended with Hitler and Eva being burnt in the stuff. Any thoughts please? Wallie 08:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be low on our list of priorities.  Space is at a premium.  This should be a one-liner, possibly in the home front or technology section, and can be expanded on in another article.  Haber 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with Haber, agree with Wallie. John Ellis demonstrates in Brute Force that the war was won more by industrial superiority than tactical prowess in the field. It deserves more than "a one-liner" in this article.Michael Dorosh 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hard dats from leading economists published in the leading economics journal is a good summary of wartime economics. There is no disagfreement among specialists about its accuracy--one editor seems to think he has better, secret data that he has not yet shared with us. People who think it is "misleading" shouldexplain what they mean with full citations rather than just vandalize the article by blanking. Rjensen 18:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an overview article.  We should all agree that industrial production and logistics played a role, but not to the exclusion of everything else.  You would turn what is supposed to be an overview into a detailed analysis of why the Allies won, and why you think this one factor is more important than all other factors.  You attempt to cram your opinion down everyone's throat by including ponderous, ugly data, and then you get upset when people delete it.  That chart has no business in an overview article.  Your point will be included, but it can fit in far less space. Haber 02:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The industry section including the table is less than 5% of the length of the article--hardly excessive since it summarizes the munitions products used by all the armies, navies and air forces in battle.-- This was not a rifles and bayonet war--it was tanks, artillery, aircraft carriers, shells, bombers, fighters etc etc. If there are scholars who think munitions were not very important, please cite them. Rjensen 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out "What Summary Needs" above.  Nobody is disputing that industry was a factor, but many people consider other factors to be more important.  Believe it or not, munitions are just so much junk unless used properly. "Mr. Chard Sir! Patrol has come back, Zulus have gone, all of 'em. It's a miracle!/ If it's a miracle Colour Sergeant, it's a short chamber Boxer Henry, point 4.5 caliber miracle./ And a bayonet Sir! With some guts behind it!" Haber 03:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually every major study of WW2 mentions munitions like tanks and airplanes. Let's skip the bow and arrow Zulu stage and jump into WW2, and allow the users the opportunity to see the data. Were other factors important--yes indeed--and NOTHING has been left out on account of the munitions section. The table adds 4kb to the article --less than 4%. Some people it is true are ignorant of economics and hate numbers. They can skip the section which is well below all the battles. But people who do know numbers will want data to chew on. Rjensen 04:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Zulus had guns, and could win battles.  That's not really the issue, but space-hogging with your private agenda is.  Plenty of topics in this article are being covered very superficially, if at all.  Everyone is making a concerted effort to keep it short.  Besides, the table is ugly, incomplete, and possibly misleading, as it includes Canada but not Italy, a more populous country. Haber 00:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: a dozen lines that includes the munitions production of the major powers is "hogging"? Nonsense. What wastes space is stories about the death of Mussolini (years after he was deposed as dictator.) Rjensen 00:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I warned Haber that deleting important information is vandalism--he's new at Wiki and does not know the ropes yet, so it was a friendly warning. He apparently dislikes economics but lots of Wiki users are able to handle economic data and should not be prevented from seeing it. As for the 12 lines it adds, I've already deleted 15 lines in other parts of the article. Rjensen 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See Wikipedia:Vandalism.  Deleting your chart is not vandalism.  The chart is too detailed for an overview article, and it is of low quality.  It lacks units, it's large, it omits important information, and its sole reason for existence is for you to reinforce a point that is clearly explained in the previous paragraph.  Haber 02:03, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well you're new here and not used to the Wiki policy of providing more information rather than less. (We're talking about 12 lines of text.) It is concise, covering only the major countries and it summarizes vast amount of highly relevant data. The economists and economic historians use it and many Wiki users have the business/economic education to use it.  People uninterested in numbers can easily skip over. So please do not vandalize--if you have something to say about the data then please annotate the section with your evidence. Rjensen 02:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Real cool.  You rightfully took this ridiculous discussion to my talk page, then you cut and pasted my response to the main discussion page.  If this is what Wikipedia veterans do, then I don't want to become like you.  Anyway, here is my response: Haber 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your vandalism warning is completely unfounded, and Wiki policy clearly is to keep articles within a manageable length.  To any serious statistician this chart as it is presented is useless.  It reports the nebulous variable "munitions" with no units, and omits Italy, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Hungary... all major Axis players at least on par with the mighty Canada.  Furthermore, the WWII article does not have space to present all sides of the "Why did the Allies win?" question.  It's POV to go on and on about industrial production which is only one factor among many.  The article barely has space to tell what happened, and it really cannot do justice to the "why" question.  I'm willing to let the two short paragraphs slide because they are mentioned in passing in most histories, but I think even that is bending NPOV a little bit. Haber 02:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The section nowhere claims that munitions production was the only cause of victory--that is simply a careless misreading. The table takes up 12 lines and I have already cut more than that from elsewhere by making sections more concise. Haber seems confused and uneducated about economics--that's perfectly understandable, but millions of Wiki readers have taken courses in economics, business or statistics and can handle this basic information. If Haber is uninformed about economics he should not make editorial decisions on that matter. The article is a summary of the main actions of the wars. The table is a summary of the most important non-combat activities of the major powers: which was munitions production. (Why Canada? because it was #6 in the world munitions output during the war, well ahead of Italy or Czechoslovakia or Hungary.--Look at Dear and Foot p 183) These are basic facts that Haber does not know--a good reason for having the table.Rjensen 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Settle down.  You're repeating yourself.  Let's see what others think. Haber 03:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Industrial Issues 

message: I don't understand why you think the war was only in two "theatres". I cannot imagine dismissing the Great Patriotic War as a non event. Also, you describe the Soviet Union as being in Europe, which I find very strange, given that you live in Germany, and Germany has never really considered it as being part of Europe. In reality, much of it is in Asia. Also, I cannot understand why you do not consider this important, as the move into the Soviet Union involved many more participants than did Poland or Pearl. However, if you insist on this, it is OK, as many other issues I was irritated with have got smaller, and I am interested, as you probably are, in keeping the intro small. Wallie 22:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact Hitler himself said they would conquer Libensraum in Europe.--Nixer 11:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I try to simplify things, not do the opposite..... Wallie 21:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW2 and the SU

message: This is getting seriously out of hand.  Now it's like there are two articles.  It's a shame because there is some good content getting in there, but it will have to go somewhere else. Haber 23:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you can't just remove it and throw it away. It is really vandalism, but that is probably not your intention. It is best to move the parts of the overview a little bit at a time to the rest of the article, so it is clear what is happening. For an article of this importance, the overview is not so big (not yet anyway). Wallie 20:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you seriously think that the overview should include detailed casualty statistics and three paragraphs on the air war?  These parts were added quickly; they should be removed quickly. Haber 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what you are saying in essence. I think this should be summarized. Probably there should not be any separate section of air war or casualties in the overview, and it can be merged into the other existing sections within the overview. The rest can be copied (the good bits) into the main article. I just think everyone has to be careful when deleting large portions that they are put somewhere else and "pitched at the correct level". When rewriting the stuff, you can always remove any "bloat", but the "history" itsslf should not be removed without a good reason. This does take a certain amount of effort. Wallie 05:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. Haber, I have already started "chipping away". This can also be done for the whole overview. Wallie 05:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The article needs a good sumamry of the main points regarding main countries, air-land-sea campaigns, regarding munitions and weapons, and regarding casualties. Readers need that information in summary form. (Keep in mind the entire article is itself a sumamry of specialized articles) Rjensen 06:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. The correct balance needs to be maintained. People can always add good stuff to the overview. Others can keep summarizing it down to the main article, as Haber/I will do from time to time. However, if anyone feels that the overview has been over-summarized, then stuff can be moved back. As mentioned before, if anyone has a good idea, put it in somewhere. It can be rearranged later. Also, please please don't delete any good work outright, as it is lost forever and is most unfair on the original contributor. Wallie 06:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro/Overview 

message: I have just moved the War deaths down to the Casualteis section.
#If anyone, e.g. rjensen, feels this is over-summarized (it probably is), feel free to build it up again to the correct level.
#The Casualties section as it now stands has conflicting data in it as to the breakdown, military and civilian, holocaust, by country, etc. I got rid of the duplication for the 62 million total, which both versions agree on, but the rest is still there, as I have no idea which is correct. Can someone (maybe you rjensen) please find out which is correct, and remove the other. Thanks. Wallie 06:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: historians do not agree on the numbers, and Wiki reflects that. Rjensen 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Both versions are now there. We need to agree on an approach, though. For example, start removing duplicates, delete one figure, and leave the other (the referenced one probably). Also, saying "one source says this, and the other that" is also OK. I guess this will be noticed by various people, and sorted out over time. Wallie 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  War deaths/Casualties - different estimtes/numbers