Talk:World War II/Archive 17

Seventh World War

I am not an expert in this field but I read (or rather heard on an audio book) that this was in fact the seventh world war and would like to know if anyone could confirm this. If it is in fact not the second world war I believe this should be added to the article.

According to an audio book by the author of "Lies my Teacher Told Me" there were several wars prior to this that were fought on nearly every continent such as King Phillips war. I am not sure if Australia was involved, probably not which would differentiate WWI and WWII from Phillips war as well as the other four but this still this sounds relevant. According to the author, King Phillips war was fought on North American soil as well as European soil.

See King Philip's War. Doesn't look like a global conflict to me. Ultimately, though, what defines a global conflict will be a question of degree that comes down to interpretation. See World war - Seth ze 03:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't see how king philip's war could be considered a world war, it was essentially a border war between colonists and natives, on one continent. Parsecboy 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When one refers to the World Wars one thinks of a conflict [I think] between U.S., Britain, France, against Germany and some other supporters it rounded up. I don't doubt that there were other wars fought on all-most continents. For example [[1]]

The Seven Years' War begins as Great Britain declares war on France expanding the North American conflict to Europe, Africa, Asia and South America.

by definition this could be considered a "World War", but the "World Wars" as we know them refer to two wars fought roughly 20-30 years apart from each other with tanks, planes, and mutiple factions. As in The French and Indian War They were fought over 5 continents but they involved few factions. A world war i believe refers to many factions fighting over a large area of land, see [[2]] view the first and fifth definitions in particular. --Hello1994 05:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

How can there be debate about this? The First and Second World War are as such because almost every single country in the world was at war. Nicht Nein! 12:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Do these wars *have* to be called 'world' wars? Marathi wikipedia refers to both the 'world' wars as महायुद्ध, or great wars, namely, First Great War and Second Great War. Of course, that will open up *another* debate on what is 'great' :-)

The important thing is not what number they actually are numerically, nor does it matter that some languages might not refer to them as world wars. The important thing is that when someone thinks of "World War II" and wants to look it up in the English Wikipedia, they find this entry. We are providing information, not deciding what things ought to be called. --Habap 16:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deadlock vs. "war turns"

I find the distinction "deadlock" vs. "war turns" to be somewhat questionable. For the russian offensive, Germany was critically dependent on avoiding a deadlock, since it had neither the resources nor the logistics to stay around for long under enemy fire. In fact, parts of German intelligence questioned whether Germany had at all the resources to succeed in the operation either way. In either case, a deadlock was tantamount to losing the war -not immediately, but eventually. --84.60.121.49 00:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dutch empire"?

Is it really accurate to accept the recent change in the Aftermath section and speak of the Netherlands as being one of the world empires that ended at the end of WW2? See for example Debate about the usage of the term "Dutch Empire". I am in favour of taking this reference to the Netherlands out - the war primarily ended the British Empire and also the planned empires of Italy and Germany. Some also say it ushered in the American Empire but that's a different debate. :-) In any event, there were hardly any overseas territories of the Netherlands left in 1939. MarkThomas 21:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The Netherlands did play a part in the Pacific War... Remember also that the Dutch East Indes with its huge oil reserves was an important Dutch colony. Wallie 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the Dutch East Indies were conqured by Japan and so became a major thearter of warfair involving both Dutch and some Indonisian resistance frcces. The Dutch also gave a war ship to the battel of the Coral Sea. --Homer slips. 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Stalin

This is a fairly good article, except that I believe it is wrong by listing Joseph Stalin with the Allied forces. He was just as cruel as Hitler. He should definitely be under Axes forces. I will not rewrite it, but I felt I should state my opinion. User:Anonymous 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ally is just fact not a judging of moral virtue. BUT I agree very much it should be saying Russia is the ally of Germany until theyre stabbed in the back. I made some changes to do this but more can be done. All we have is 'From the signing of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in August, 1939, through half of 1941, Stalin and the Soviet Union fed and equipped Hitler and Germany as Germany invaded Western Europe and attacked the United Kingdom by air' which isnt much because Russia help was critical to Germany war effort.Opiner 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The USSR was not an ally of Germany - it is illustrated by the undeniable fact that neither did the USSR declare war upon France and UK, nor did UK and France declare war upon the USSR. As for Soviet-German trade of that time period, it is quite arguable that this trade did more to strengthen the allies, than the axis, as the Germans supplied machinery and tools to the Russians. The above does not state that USSR did not have an interest in two of their enemies - the nazis and the western imperialists - fighting and weakining each other. The problem is that it is stuck in your mind that Stalin was an EVIL, EVIL, very EVIL man, who was no better than Hitler (which is also biased ..., since not only Hitler killed more people than Stalin, but Hitler wasn't even maxed out, cause he was stopped). If one employs such a biased, cold-war vintage approach, it is no wonder that USSR's actions are not understood. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't know how they teach math where you're from, but 6 million jews, gypsies, and other "undesirables" is certainly a lower number than 20 million, a common estimate for the number of soviet citizens stalin butchered in the gulags. stalin WAS no better than hitler. as for the nazi/soviet treaty, they were essentially allies. they concluded a non aggression pact, that included both sides invading a country and splitting it between them. how is that not an alliance? you accuse people of using a "cold war vintage approach", but a russian nationalist point of view is just as, for lack of a better word, undesirable. call things what they are; don't sugarcoat things that paint your country of origin in a negative light. Parsecboy 15:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they teach math well. But seems like they don't teach history where you're from. First of all, Hitler is responsible for more than 6 million deaths - what about 27 million Soviet citizens that perished in the war, what about the poles and the yugoslavs and albanians crushed by the wermacht? Also, the 20 million number for Stalin is a cold war exaggeration. After 1991 many archives were opened, and REAL numbers of victims are known (with some margin of error of course, but the margin is in thousands) - about 1.6 million people died in camps, 2 to 4 million died in collectivisation (deportations/starvations), up to 800 thousand were executed for political crimes (espionage, treason, anti-soviet propaganda, etc). If we accept the maximum number (6.4 million), it falls desperately short of Hitler's "legacy" - and Hitler was not maxed out, he was stopped, while Stalin was maxed out - he died undefeated. Don't get me wrong, Stalin was a brutal ruler (although his role in history is exaggerated by both his haters and followers) - the facts speak for themselves; however, I doubt there is a non-political reason for holding on to cold war american propaganda. Speaking of allies, your logic than would make Poland a Nazi ally, as they fit both criteria - in 1938 they 1)had a non-agression pact with Germany 2)invaded Czechoslovakia together with Germany. Now please show me where is the biased russian nationalism hidden? Is it in the desire to understand and share the understanding of what really transpired as opposed to russophobic myths? I'm not denying USSR collaborated with Nazi Germany out of self-interest - but all is learned in comparison - and USSR was not the only one. Munich pact ring a bell? With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ko Soi IX, I can't always follow the points you are making, but I take it the central thrust of your argument is that Stalin was not as bad as painted? What changes would you therefore suggest for this article in the light of that assumption? Personally I think you are wrong on your figures above. You have a strange view of the findings from the Soviet Archives release. If anything, many historians seem to have concluded that the numbers of deaths in the USSR between 1925 and 1945 from all causes were even greater than the widely disseminated figures you decry. For example, I have heard that population demographers in Russia today believe that famine, deportations, execution and labour camp starvation killed more than 21 million people before the second world war. However, in the context of this article, these are being discussed in the wrong place. Stalin's pre-war record would be better discussed on Talk:Joseph Stalin and places like Talk:Soviet Union. You could also refer to Talk:Great Purge. There is a good survey of the literature of Stalinist terror at [3]. Modern scholarship on the Great Terror and Stalinist deportations is still in a state of flux precisely because of the lack of good access even today to Soviet-era archives and because of the limited number of western experts who have reviewed them and the politically charged nature within modern successor states to the SU on the issues. MarkThomas 10:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

good point on the 20+ million russians that hitler killed, although the numbers i've seen are closer to 22-23 (11 million soldiers and 11.7 million civilians), not 27, however, half of those were soviet soldiers. should we include german soldiers into stalin's tally? i was only talking about the people that were murdered outside of the armed conflict, i.e., where stalin killed most of his citizens. however, while the soviet archives might say that stalin only killed 6.4 million people, that doesn't make it true. read "lenin's tomb: the last days of the soviet empire" by david remnick. soviet "historians" wantonly falsified the historical record, to paint current and previous leaders in a better light. the 20 million figure i used for the number of people stalin killed was quite low, compared to other numbers i've seen, up to 60 million. regardless, the argument you're making here is ridiculous. you're essentially saying that a man who only killed 1 person is somehow less of a murderer than the man who killed 2 people. you ask where the russian nationalism is hidden now? well, the same place it was earlier, still making excuses for stalin. you keep making the statement that hitler wasn't "maxed out", whereas stalin was. so what? they were still maniacal butchers of their own people. your attempt to compare a border conflict between Poland and Czechoslovakia and the willful, duplicitous dividing of poland between germany and soviet russia is laughable. there was no planning to invade czechoslovakia together, there was no effort in concert with each other, as there was with germany and the soviet union. as for the munich pact, that was german and hungarian aggression against czechoslovakia, both members of the tripartite pact; it's not in dispute. i don't understand the point of your comment on it. Parsecboy 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It was Hitler, not Stalin who invaded the USSR and it was Germany who started the WWII, so the Nazis (not Hitler alone) should be attributed for all the 50 million victims of the war. Anyway I would also point out that the WWII was mostly the conflict between Germany and the USSR with overwhelming majority of casualties and economic damage on those two sides. The period before the invasion of the USSR can be seen as olny an preparation for the real war.--Nixer 14:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no apologist for the Nazis Nixer, but putting aside the issue of who started World War 2 apart from the obvious of Hitler and the Nazis which is always a vexed one (we could for example trace back to Versailles and the reluctance of Swiss and American bankers to cancel German debt for example), can we really be so confident that the USSR had no plans in the direction of Europe? Stalin I feel sure would have actively considered an offensive into Europe once he had completed massacring his perceived enemies at home. The theory that Hitler's Generals and economic satraps were primarily concerned to pre-empt an inevitable invasion from the East is not wholly without foundation I think - and I've not come to this conclusion lightly, since given the Nazis appalling grotesque cruelty and abominable inhumanness one does not wish to "give an inch" to their theories. But on the realpolitik of soviet intentions, it does not seem quite credible to discount an eventual campaign of "communitisation" of western europe by the commissars. MarkThomas 15:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the formerly secret archives much more than politically tendentious "assumptions" by people who never seen them. For example, V.Kozhinov, a suprisingly objective historian (not afraid to tackle delicate topics, like pogroms, role of jewry in the Russian revolution, etc. etc.) has an even lower number for political repressions, but overall he concludes that excess deaths were about 6.5 million. However, since this article is about WW2, and Stalin was the single most important allied commander - we should have something on that. As for "soviet historians falsifing records" - certainly, that also happens - but it's doubtful that they were able to falsify MILLIONS of routine documents from GULAG administered camps, or that they would lower the number of executed in documents at the time when the amount of executions showed the effectivness of repressive organs (NKVD). My point about Stalin is simple - his role in history is exagerrated - his haters attribute ALL bad things that happend to him, while his followers attribute ALL good things that happend to him - both approaches are heavily influenced by the cult of personality. Stalin may have been a mass murderer, but under his leadership the USSR experienced unparralelled economic growth, and defeated entire Europe when she came knocking. There is no reason to glorify him, but he must be given his due, for the sake of being objective. As for Polish-Czechoslovak "border conflict" - that's an euphemism for agression. I certainly don't think that Poland was Hitler's ally... Without Munich pact there would not be a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Many historians, including Churchill, conclude that USSR was interested in brockering an alliance with the Western "democracies" aimed against Germany, while the Western "democracies" (except France to an extent) were largly interested in having USSR and Germany fight it out. And yes, theoretically it may be possible that Stalin would eventually invade Europe... but only theoretically. With respect, Ko Soi IX 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To MarkThomas. What are you saying here is a clear Nazi apology (how to call it otherwise?). May be Hitler can be also justified in killing Jews as they were potential commies? But I should also note that Stalin was an opponent of the worlwide revolution in the Soviet leadership (and it was one of the cornerstones in his struggle with Trotsky).--Planemo 16:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I assume this is a troll by you Planemo, so I won't take the bait too much, but I am not a Nazi apologist, if you read my contribution I did say "given the Nazis appalling grotesque cruelty and abominable inhumanness one does not wish to "give an inch" to their theories" and I stand by that. There is a difference between making apologies for the conduct of the Nazis and taking a view on the eventual aims of the Soviet leadership, which I am quite sure under Stalin would eventually have led to some sort of concerted attack on the west regardless of the second world war. This view incidentally was very common in Britain and the US before and during the war, and was of course played on by Nazi propagandists who tried to divide the Allies using this. But just because the evil Nazis went to war with Stalin does not mean Stalin himself, or his system, was good and just. And to pick up your point Ko Soi IX, I agree that the personal role of Stalin is exaggerated, the system bearing his name is what we are really discussing here. MarkThomas 17:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i don't see how they'd have to falsify every single prisoner related document. when you try to make the actual number smaller, all you have to do is burn the documents you don't want people seeing, and then make up a much smaller number. how hard is that? i'm not saying stalin himself, or even people in his bureaucracy did it, but revisionist historians trying to paint stalin in a better light, for example, in the 60s, under the stalinist brehznev. in response to the "stalin was the single most important allied commander" comment; are you nuts? stalin did nothing. it was the generals like zhukov and chuikov who fought and won the battles, and even they weren't the best generals of the war. it takes little to hurl thousands of infantry and tanks at a vastly outnumbered enemy. regardless, were it not for FDR extending the lend/lease act to the USSR, stalin would be a ww2 punchline. without american made armaments and supplies, the germans would've crushed the soviets at stalingrad, and the entire war would've ended differently. there was no "most important commander" of the war. but if there were one, it would not be stalin. it might be roosevelt, because he steered america through both theatres of conflict, but i wouldn't even say he was all that important, as he was only formulating broad strategy, not the strategy that ultimately defeated the nazis and japanese. as for stalin, sure, he did industrialize the soviet union, and gave it most of the tools necessary to defend itself from germany. however, they defeated essentially only germany, not "entire europe". as for the polish/czech border conflict...do you know anything about it? it was a conflict that was totally unconnected with hitler, that had it's origins in the two states founding in 1919, after WWI. you say that without the munich pact there would be no molotov ribbentrop pact. well, without the versailles treaty there wouldn't have been either of those two. or without the dual alliance between germany and austro-hungary, there wouldn't be any of the other three. what's your point? you're still avoiding the issue that the molotov-ribbentorp pact an alliance between two countries to mutually invade a third country. Parsecboy 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If they did in fact falsify the documents, but didn't falsify every single prisoner related document, than those loose ends will eventually be found, and than, and only than, one would be able to claim that the documents were falsified. If the some documents were simply destroyed, that also can usually be proven. So far, there is no reason not to believe the archives. I am not nuts. Stalin did nothing, you say? Can you prove it, or is it one of the politically charged anti-stalinist statements? You say "it takes little to hurl thousands of infantry and tanks at a vastly outnumbered enemy" - but you've got it all wrong. The Germans enjoyed a numerical advantage early in the war - USSR enjoed same later on. USSR had no more than 170 million people at the start of the Great Patriotic War, while Hitler could enjoy the labor of 300 million europeans. The reason why the USSR was able to achieve numerical superiority lies in the effectivness of the Soviet economy in times of war. All this is well studied and documented, so I shall not venture further. FDR does not fall into the category of military leaders, as he was a civilian. As for "defeated only Germany" - check this out - prisoners of war taken by USSR since 1941, by nationality (excluding far east) -Wermacht: Germans: 2388443, Austrians:156681, Czechs and Slovaks:69977, Poles:60277, French:23136, Jugoslavs:21830, other: 13395. German european allies: Hungarians:513766, Romanians:187367, Italians:48957, Finns:2377 (from http://www.soldat.ru/doc/casualties/book/chapter5_13_11.html). The reason I brought up the Munich pact is because the USSR is often blamed for the war nowadays, because of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact - but the pact was not signed in vacuum... The sad truth is every single prominent allied country (except France) collaborated with Hitler one way or another. Singling out the USSR is unfair... With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. You wrote "you're essentially saying that a man who only killed 1 person is somehow less of a murderer than the man who killed 2 people". I think there is a problem with your logic. For example, your president Johnson is responsible for the deaths of millions of vietnamese. He did not personally kill them, but the desicions he made led to those deaths. So is it fair, in your opinion, to put him in the same pot as Hitler? And not like he's the only american president whose desisions resulted in deaths of civilians. Bush allows up to 40 thousand people to die each year in USA by not instituting "free" health care - not to mention Iraq - is he same as Hitler? Ko Soi IX 07:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

the point though, is, if they did destroy all of the documents, and the people related to them are dead, there's no way to trace what actually happened. there is no way possible to track what really happened, unless former guards/officials start talking. ever heard of the saying "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a noise?" ? if 20 million people are killed, and there are no records and no one is alive to tell about the truth, are you going to believe the government when it says there were only 2 or 4 or 6 million killed? as for there being no reason to not believe the archives, read the book i recommended earlier. it details a history of the archivists altering records, text books, etc. to better portray lenin, stalin, and the rest. you're stubbornly refusing to even accept the possibility that the records are wrong. as for my "Stalin did nothing" assertion, can you prove he did anything? he was just as civilian a leader as roosevelt, unless he actually got out in the trenches and told what divisions to attack where. you're out of your mind if you think the germans outnumbered the soviets early on. perhaps after the invasion, when all of the soviet troops west of moscow were captured or killed, but even after that, the soviets outnumbered the germans. i'm not talking population wise, i'm talking troops. as for your pow numbers, take a look at them. are those 23k french troops going to turn the tide at kursk? how about those 23 hundred finns? i bet they were crucial at stalingrad. the main opponent of the USSR was Germany, and you know it. the other countries were periphary and insignificant, as their troops were generally of the "cannon-fodder" grade. your comment on FDR not falling under the category of a military leader shows how ignorant you are. the president of the U.S is the commander in chief of all armed forces. how does that not make him a military leader? as for the munich pact, i didn't ever blame the USSR for WWII. if anyone, i blame the U.K. and France for the vindictive versailles treaty. that more than anything created the conditions for WWII. the USSR was just acting in it's self interest. i don't see how my logic is flawed with the "person who killed 1/ person who killed 2" argument. i'm noticing a trend here. you make a counter-point, and then don't argue it. you don't back it up. you just move on to a vaguely related topic. as for LBJ and Bush, you're comparing apples to oranges. Johnson was fighting a war; whether it was just or not is up for debate, just the like current iraq war (if you were wondering, i don't think the U.S. should have gone into either country), but in war, people die. whether they're soldiers for the other side, or civilians who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. but that's no way comparable to the pre-meditated extermination of 12 million people in the holocaust. i never said americans are saints and can do no wrong. but there is a huge gap between what Bush has done in Iraq and what Hitler and Stalin did to their countries. Parsecboy 14:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is an interesting method of comparison. Soviet military dead were at least 8.7 million people. Many members of my family perished in the war - and it's same for others. But I don't have any relatives that were repressed by Stalin - and neither does anyone I know - so the 20 million number is laughable. Imagine that every 8th person in USSR falls victim to Stalin's brutality - can that be hidden from the population? Don't forget that most victims of repressions and starvation were males - which makes the 20 million number even more bullshit. By your logic, USSR's people were either in camps or guarding those camps. But who was building industry then? (GULAG was NEVER profitable). While I don't deny the possiblity of Soviet archives being falsified, I think that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. Before there is SOLID evidence indicating that the Soviet archives are nothing but lies I don't see a reason not to trust them. As for Stalin's role in the war, you reluctance of providing sources on his inactivity speaks for itself. As for FDR, what was his rank? As for the POW's - the story is similar to that of Napoleon's invasion of 1812 - while the main enemy was the french, his army was european - same with Hitler and his allies. I'm sure that finns would be highly offended by your innacurate portrayal of their troops - most soviet sources indicate that they were AT LEAST as good as the Germans, and the relatively low number of their prisoners illustrates Finnish bravery at it's best. And while no finns were in Stalingrad, the terrible fate of Leningrad's civilians is partially finnish fault. However, I must say - "respect" - for your understanding that USSR was acting out of self-interest. My point about Johnson or Bush was to show that EVERY PROMINENT POLITICIAN makes desisions that result in people dying. Most of Hitler's victims were guilty of the crime of being Jewish or Slavic, while Stalin's system punished people for a wide pletora of crimes, including (of course) political crimes such as treason, espionage, anti-soviet propaganda, etc. - as were the laws of that time. It was the same time when americans were lynching negroes - while there was virtually no racism in USSR. Let me say this again. Stalinist USSR needs not to be glorified - it must merely be given it's due. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

your reasoning for discounting the 20 million number is flawed. it wasn't 20 million all at one moment in time. stalin had what, 20-30 years in power? that's only a million per year or less. you show your mindset perfectly with the phrase "wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth". you could care less about the truth, you just want to hear what you want to hear. as for the crimes all of these people committed against the state? will you honestly argue that most of them were not trumped up charges? was the entire soviet army officer corps secretly plotting against stalin in 1936? as for stalin's role in WWII, the burden of proof as to his activity is on your shoulders. regarding FDR's rank, i told you earlier, but i'll say it again to make sure you see it. he was the Commander In Chief, U.S. Armed Services. actually, the finns had nothing to do with leningrad...mannerheim repeatedly resisted german requests for finnish troops to attack towards leningrad from the north, as it was not part of their goal of capturing all of karelia from the USSR. and yes, while the finnish troops fought well, they didn't have the numbers to have a significant effect on the war. the "cannon fodder" comment was mostly directed towards the italian and central european troops. read "panzer battles" by f.w. von mellenthin for a good appraisal of those allies. you are correct that every politician makes decisions upon which people die, but there is a fundamental difference between the vietnam war and the holocaust and gulags. i'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant "guilty of the 'crime' of being jewish or slavic". of course i understand that the USSR was just acting out of self interest in regards to poland and the molotov/ribbentrop pact. that's what almost every country in the history of the world has ever done. look at america in the middle east, or britain during the colonial period. stalin was paranoid, but he wasn't stupid. he knew he couldn't risk a war with germany 2 years after he decimated his officer corps in the Great Purge, and failing to secure an alliance with western europe, he tried to stall hitler, in order to buy time to rebuild his army. you're right that there was no official racism in the USSR at that time, like there was here in America, which is something stalin should get kudos. i'm not a russophobe or even a stalin-phobe. i just don't believe the good stalin did even comes close to outweighing the bad he did. Parsecboy 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't follow your logic about my reasoning being flawed. Do you understand what killing every 8th person means? It means that something like that is impossible to hide - and yet you still claim that it happened. Well, at least you don't believe other cold war era numbers - 30, 40, 60 million dead - the more the merrier. While the phrase that wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth seems cynical to you, it is the only way wikipedia can function. What is truth? I say that my above statements are truth. You say that your above statements are truth. So providing sources is the ONLY way to go. Was the entire soviet army officer corps repressed? Beyond any reasonable doubt, most prisoners in labor camps got what they deserved. Most of them were non-political criminals - thiefs, robbers, rapists, murderers etc. As for the political prisoners - again, I happen to believe that majority of them were tried for the crimes they commited. However, considering the situation, both internal and external, it is not unreasonable to think that innocent people were repressed in hundreds of thousands - no legal system is flawless. As for Stalin's role in the war, this frisby-throwing of who has the burden of sources is rather pointless. Tommorow I will provide sources on that, until then - please, wait. As for FDR, Commander in Chief is not a rank, it's a position - compare: regiment commander=position, while colonel=rank. So, what was FDR's rank? For example, Stalin eventually came to hold the position of Glavkom (Commander in Chief), the rank he held during the war was that of a marshal. Finns had nothing to do with Leningrad's tragedy? That's wrong - the Finns blockaded the city from the north; however, it's true that Mannerheim refused to attack Leningrad. Yes, I am familiar with the feeling German generals had towards their central european allies and italians - it was definately based in reality. Comparing the Holocaust to Gulag administered camps is biased; if anything, Gulag could be compared to, say, American prison system, not death camps. The purpose of Gulag was not exterminating people. The most damage to the RKKA was done by repressions in 1930, initiated by Tuhachevsky, when many prominent military theorists were repressed, including Svechin. (source: V.Kozhinov, Russia XX century, 1939-1964 - can be found here http://www.hrono.ru/libris/kogin20vek.html, in Russian only though). In 1937-1938 the officers removed from the military were not replaced by inexperienced youngsters, but rather with people of the same generation, with similar or, in many cases, better experience. BTW, Hitler later on in the war praised Stalin for killing his generals - while in the beginning of the war Hitler saw the military purges in USSR as a weakness for the Russians. Your understanding of Soviet international politics of that time clearly shows you are not a russophobe. Check this out: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html, some food for thought. I hope that eventually I will be able to persuade you that the good Stalin (actually, his system) did far outweights the bad Stalin (again, actually, his system) did. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

my point in your logic in regards to the "1 in 8" logic is this: stalin had 20-30 years in power to kill 20 million people, not just a single year to cram it all in. that's less than a million a year, which is considerably easier to hide, especially over a country as vast as the USSR. do you think that men like nikolai bukharin, alexei rykov or lev kamenev were anti-communist reactionaries? they were central players in the 1917 revolution, and all helped stalin gain and consolidate power, and then when they became useless in that regard, they "committed crimes against the state". the rank issue with FDR is one difference between the USA and the USSR, in the USA, the military is commanded at the very top by civilians, the president, and the secretary of defense. and while they don't hold a military rank, they are the very top of the chain of command. the army, navy, marines, and airforce go where the president tells them. perhaps physically the gulag camps could be compared to the american prison system, but the type of people imprisioned in both is quite different. you didn't get put in jail for being a democrat when the republicans were in power, or vice versa. but being even a slightly right-er communist got you executed, even if you were still a member of the party, and only disagreed on whether to continue the NEP or collectivise the farming (talking about bukharin). the officers who replaced the purged ones, however, were loyal to the party, and that is the point that matters. dissent was not allowed. even zhukov, who was massively popular after WWII was removed from the soviet occupation zone in berlin and sent to the relative backwater post in the odessa military district, and was only returned to a position of prominence after stalin died. honestly, i wouldn't take a compliment from hitler about anything. he had a history of hatred of the wehrmahct generals, hence the reason for the waffen-ss, a military branch of unquestionable loyalty. i read the "stalin as a democratic reformer" article, and it did have some interesting premises, but i have a few problems with it. it says that stalin's efforts to introduce secret and contested elections were largely ignored. he was the general secretary of the communist party! i have a hard time believing the first secretaries would stand up to stalin, when people like trotsky, who were at one time politburo members, ended up with an ice pick to the skull. the article states that the 1936 constitution was passed, but the secret ballots and contested elections called for in said constitution were never held. it smacks of another instance where a repressive government claims to be democratic and transparent, while still clamping down on dissenting views, like north korea or iran. another problem i have is that western/capitalist, trotskyite, and khrushchevite historians all paint stalin as a villain. i can understand the argument that "the western historians buy into the decades of propaganda", and can even accept the trotskyites as being unfairly biased, who i'm sure felt wronged or betrayed by stalin, but i don't see the motivation for khrushchev denouncing stalin. i also doubt the part about Tukhachevsky and the plot with the german general staff. the german army very much didn't want war in the 1930s, to the point of nearly assassinating hitler before the invasion of czechoslovakia. i seriously doubt that they would engage in activity, that if discovered, would possibly result in war with the USSR. that, in my opinion, is a prime example of the trumped up charges stalin used against potential/real political opponents. Parsecboy 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

During the War every 19th person in USSR was killed while serving in the military. This occured over a perios of 1418 days - almost 4 years. Almost every family has lost someone in the War. For example, my great grandfather on mothers side and his three brothers were all killed, and it's not all. But I've yet to meet a single person, who's relatives were repressed. While this certainly doesn't prove anything, doesn't it strike you as odd that 8.7 million deaths register with almost every single family, while 20 million - don't? A demographer (can't remember his name, or find his works right now) said that "historians have killed of every single male in USSR plus a little more" in regards to the inflated numbers of excess deaths. The Great Purge was aimed mostly at the Party, which is one of the reasons why quite a lot of Russians respect Stalin. ("Stalin didn't steal and didn't allow others to steal"). All prominent party leaders (including Stalin of course) are responsible, in one way or another, for the horrors of the Revolution and subsequent Civil War. All those buharins and trotskys saw executions as a very good way of communicating with the masses. So justice was served - even if under false pretext in some cases. Stalin, on the other hand, was a pragmatic, not a hysteric. He evolved. He realized where Russia is heading should buharins and troskys gain power. The "old bol'sheviks" were efficient at destroying and plotting - that's what they've been doing all their lives. Stalin wanted to build, not destroy - so a conflict was inevitable. As for Zhukov, do you know why he fell out of favour? Zhukov pocketed far too much trophees from Germany for it to go unpunished. But repressing him was not an option due to his popularity. The reasons why Stalin's democratic reforms failed are in the desire of the Communist Party to stay in power. Stalin could repress any single one of them, but he couldn't repress them all. One man cannot defeat a system. The democratic reform would've given Stalin MORE power, while taking most of the power from the party. Hrushchyov's motivations are simple - he had to back up his claim to the "throne". He needed justification for murdering Beria and assuming power. He needed justification for his own reforms, for problems with economy that started as soon as the party departed from succesfull stalinist economic principles, etc. As for Tuhachevsky - he got what he deserved, for gassing peasants in Tambov, for executions of hostages and for the 1930 repressions, for his neglect of artillery, etc. Even if he was not in fact planning to overthrow Stalin (which is also quite possible), he's a person who's execution was an act of good. Finally, I promised you sources on Stalin's role as a commander, but so far haven't found any good non-Russian sources, so unfortunately you'll have to wait a little more. With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

i'd be interested to read an article from that demographer whose name you couldn't remember. what you say about the reasons for the democratic reforms failing and khrushchev's denunciation make sense. the zhukov issue makes sense as well, stalin was sort of between a rock and a hard place. i suppose i agree with your explanation of Tuhachevsky, it is quite possible that a prominent general was plotting to overthrow stalin (how many times has that happened throughout history?). perhaps you have started to convince me that stalin wasn't as tyrannical as he is portrayed in the west. i would still like to see any sources on his role as commander, if you can find them. Parsecboy 20:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For example, there is a book by S.M.Shtemenko "The Soviet general staff at war, 1941-1945" (can be bought from here http://aol.alibris.com/search/books/author/Shtemenko,%20S.%20M., I've yet to find it online in english). I haven't read it all as of yet; some knowledge of soviet historiography is nessesary to fully understand why, for example, the author enhances the role played by the Party far out of proportion. (As was the custom of the time). As soon as I find more information, I'll post it. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed China and France

Well give some reasons why they and other allies should not be there. I learned my lesson by putting Canada on there last month. So just give reasons why they should be up there and not countries such as Canada, Austrailia, etc. (Socialismo01 19:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Basically the arguement for removing France would be that it wasnt an allie throughout the war and actually become Axis when it was invaded by Germany. Even though there were the Free French Forces which wasn't the whole of the country.

Please sign your comments Socialismo01 by using four tildas after your comment. I already left a note on your talk page about your recent unjustified and uncommented change to the allies list in the infobox. In fact, I think the problem here from your last comment is that you have a very basic misunderstanding of what this page is about, and what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not for passing moral judgements on the value or worth of different participants in World War 2, although we can relate what many have said or done in relation to them. The allies list is not a values list or a moral judgement. This is the main page for the whole of World War 2. In that vast conflict, as other editors have already explained to you, France was more significant overall than was Canada. This is not passing a judgement about who was best; just who was most significant. Therefore your edit was reverted. If you wish to change the list of allies, make a new proposal here in this discussion for a new list so that other editors can comment. Thanks. MarkThomas 19:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Yeah i don't care about it anymore...I am going to look for other stuff to look at and talk about editing...WW2 is just not what i care about at the moment. Maybe WW1 Or the Korean Conflict...anyways if I do get more info that i feel need be to share ill certainly do so...if u want u can just remove this discussion thing P.S i forgot about signing my name after an edit haha...

imho, if we include france as an ally, we should include vichy france as a member of the axis side. Parsecboy 15:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly perhaps, Vichy France was never formally part of the Axis and even had diplomatic relations with the US for some considerable time. There is probably better reason for not counting France as amongst the Allies, since the great majority of the French people actively collaborated with Nazi Germany during the war and the Free French and resistance were only in a small minority. MarkThomas 17:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Japan flag to Naval Ensign of Japan on both discussion ifo box and main.

Yeah I changed it because they used the Naval Ensign / flag of the rsing sun during WW2...any conflict just change it back...i'm not too concerned just bored. (RiseAgainst01 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Casualties by Country by Theater

I recently got asked a question of how many US troops and German troops died in the European theater alone along with the question of how many US troops and Japanese troops died in the Pacific theater. I was wondering if anyone had a high-detail graph/chart of the deaths by country by theater. I would very much appreciate this if anyone could fill my request.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm. This one is not high-detail though, more of a crude, but efficient graphical representation. I think we definately need such information. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that link. I've seen it before, and like you said, is pretty crude graphic. It would be great to see a table kind of like the by country one in the Casualties page. Thank for your response. User: Big money90

China and Romania

Doesn't anyone thing that China and Romania should be included as major Allied and Axis powers respectively. China was fighting the Japanese as far back as 1937 and suffered the 2nd largest number of casualties next to the Soviet Union. It committed 5 million troops, more than Great Britain, and during the peak of the Pacific war 4 million Japanese soldiers were tied down in China. Japan suffered more casualties in China than all the other Allied fronts combined.

Romania on the other hand was the 4th largest donator of troops in the axis, and suffered more military and civilian casualties than Italy, and was member of the Axis longer. Romanian troops were present in significant battles on the Eastern front, notably Stalingrad which was the turning point of the War. Romania also donated massive amounts of raw materials, particularly oil and grain, which kept the German war economy going. Romania was Germany’s sole provider of oil from 1941 and stopped the German population starving. This meant Romania was a key ally and was responsible for the Balkan campaign and subject to massive allied bombing.

India to a smaller degree also was a major power. They mobolised 2.4 million troops, was an ally during the whole war and suffered more casualties than America. 80% of Indias economy was turned over to war production in 1942-43. The war played a major role in India's post-war politics and industry, such as its decolonisation.

Surely these nations don't qualify as "minor" combatants Matt. P 19:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder to everyone that the Infobox "quick-list" of allied and axis powers is not intended to be a value-judgement about the worth of any country, nation or people or an exhaustive list, but a quick "at-a-glance" overview. For this purpose, China was a major allied power and is included. Romania was never more than a small player relative to those mentioned and so is not in the axis powers quick-infobox-list. Canada also should not be. MarkThomas 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I may mention that I did not put Canada there and I agree that it should be removed. I will also mention however that these countries should deserve more of a reference. Just because a ally did not tip the war, these countires certainly made a major contribution compared to other combatant nations. By the way, China was not politically united, so shouldn't the (much larger) communist forces commander, mao Zedong, be listed together with Chiang Kai-Shek? Matt. P 11:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

List of Major allies

Reading a lot of debate on who belongs in the list of major combatants and who doesn't. I propose we trim our list to just the nations represented by the Big three (U.S., U.S.S.R., and Britain). According to List of World War II conferences, those three were present for most of them which helps us define the importance the nation has on the global picture (the conferences were designed to create a global picture during WWII and after). These three were the key to deciding how the war would function, and how to sort out the mess afterword. If thinking in terms of the major combatants in the European front, Canada can be added to the list to make 4 (by virtue of Dieppe, Liberation of Italy, Juno Beach, Liberation of the lowlands). In terms of the Pacific Front, U.S.S.R. and Britain have no place there (possibly replaced with China, India, Australia, New Zealand - don't know much about who was involved there). But collectively, the major combatants of the major combatants list from both fronts include the Big three and define a class of their own. A secondary class exists of key allies which include the like of Canada, China, France, Poland, India, Australia, New Zealand, etc. but are not on the same scale as the big three. Similarly, the major axis powers consisted of the big three on the axis side (Germany, Italy, and Japan) and all three should be in this article. Comments please?--Will2k 02:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

USSR and Britain have no place on the Pacific Front? You are joking, no? British and Indian are synonyms for this period of time, and the importance of Soviet Union's 1945 August Storm can't be overlooked. USSR took out almost as much (if not as much) Japanese as did China. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You are narrowly-focussed. While India acts in accordance with Britain, India is still not Britain. Also, while August Storm could be considered big, that month of fighting did not define the Pacific front in the same way American Island hopping did over the 4 years. Anyway, these debates are for a seperate section (perhaps seperate article). This is an RFC for "Major Allied Combatants" on the World War II article only.--Will2k 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ko Soi IX is right, Britain was one of the most important Allied powers fighting in the Pacific theater, as India, Australia, and New Zealand were all still British colonies at the time, so they essentially were British forces. Britain also provided many naval and air forces to the Pacific theatre. they forced the Japanese out of Burma and kept the supply lines into China open, allowing the Chinese to continue fighting. I would say the 1945 entrance of the USSR into the Pacific theater is often underrated by historians. it's a common belief that the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were what forced the Japanese to surrender, but it was more likely the Soviet attack that persuaded them. also, the Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, seized by the USSR at the end of WWII, are still disputed between Russia and Japan. Parsecboy 02:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think British colonies count as Britain itself. But anyway, I emphasize that this isn't the debate. I request comments on whether the Big Three defines good criteria or not.--Will2k 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re British colonies, both Australia and New Zealand were independent during WWII; they were no more British colonies than was Canada. - Eron ^Talk 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, American involment on pacific front was more important than August Storm - however, on the European theater the difference between the roles of USSR and USA is even larger - yet it is undisputable that USA was also an important player on European front. Personally, I like the idea of separating the Big Three - because the other allies' (perhaps, China's role can be debated, but she's the only one) contribution was marginal given the scale of warfare. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Englands role in Pacific is like France in Europe to be unexpectedly swift defeated to not play the major role youd think from the beginning. Their ships sunk and army captured right away. Significant role as a defeated party. Russia role is to opportunity grab back the islands theyre losing before. not major at all.Opiner 07:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If conferences are to be the main criteria, China did attend one important one, the Cairo Conference in the shape of Chiang Kai-shek and De Gaulle attended Casablanca. Then do we discount the United Nations Conference on International Organization (1945) which was attended by 50 countries? See List of World War II conferences. I think conference attenders is a rather poor rational criteria, although it is easy. I would say we should go on size of armed forces involved in combat. On that front, the order is (allies) USSR, USA, China, UK, India - the rest are also-rans. Axis - Japan, Germany, Italy, Romania + also-rans. And not forgetting Switzerland and Sweden. (this last bit is a pointed joke) MarkThomas 10:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Size of armed forces is poor criteria. Then you get into debates about whether a country with smaller army size (eg. Canada) had more of a contribution then one with a larger size (eg. India) and the debates will never stop.--Will2k 02:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

opiner, your reasoning for ruling out the British as an important power in the Pacific theatre would also rule out America, as it too was "unexpectedly, swiftly defeated, with their ships sunk and army captured". if anything, the British defeat was less severe than the American one. sure, the Brits lost the core of Force Z and Singapore, but they still retained India, from which they, as I said earlier, forced the Japanese out of Burma during 4 years of intense fighting, and more importantly, kept the Burma Road into China open, allowing the Chinese to continue to fight. That seems pretty important to me. Parsecboy 12:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Burma and India isnt on the Pacific but it is against Japan so I see your point.Opiner 19:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Opiner, USSR's role was not grabbing the islands, but destroying the Kwantung army. For instance, over 600 000 Japanese prisoners were taken by the Soviets (and some more chinese collaborators). With respect, Ko Soi IX 18:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your latest comment Ko Soi is an extraordinarily naive interpretation of Soviet actions in the closing stages of the war. It is quite clear (and no serious historian disputes this, not even Soviet-era ones) that the aim of USSR policy at that stage was to seize as much land towards Japan as possible. In fact, a primary motive for the use of the atom bomb by the USA against Japan at an early date was that Truman's advisors believed based on intelligence reports that Stalin was eager for the Red Army to move into Japan. I think we can be sure this was not because of his good-hearted intentions towards the Allies! You seriously sound like one of those Alter Marxists of the 1930s, who, learning that Stalin had personally signed the death orders on millions, explained it away to themselves that "it was all for the best" and "you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs". MarkThomas 13:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Cut me some slack, will ya? I never claimed USSR did this out of "good-hearted intentions towards the Allies" - I just pointed out that Soviet role in the East was more than taking some islands - the USSR also dealt with the Kwantung Army. Of course the USSR was acting out of it's self-interest. Similarily, USA and UK opened the second front (or Western Front if you prefer not to fight Germany or help the USSR, but because they feared that the USSR will take out Germany by itself and stop at the English Channel. But as a result, they did HELP the Soviet Union. Same was in the Far East. With respect, Ko Soi IX 14:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC) PS. and regardless of alleged intentions, the USSR did honour it's agreement with the allies...

bismarck

Please change references to battleship Bismarck in 1941-european theatre to German battleship Bismarck. Currently, the link takes reader to Otto Von Bismarck.

Also add interwiki link to Marathi wikipedia as [[mr:दुसरे महायुद्ध]]

Thanks.

I have introduced these changes. TSO1D 01:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Mussolini's Italian flag.

On the list of commanders, Mussolini doesn't have an Italian flag, & I don't know how to upload images, I'm not that professional.