Talk:World War II/Archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Edit request on 2 January 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Prescott Bush (grandfather of George H.W. Bush jun.) through Union Banking Corp. UBC served in financing and money laundring for the Nazi regime under Hitler. Therefore he got sentenced by the american justice system. Bush had good connections to the German industrial Franz Thyssen and so on. ((So actally America financed the war of Germany against itselves...))

Sources: http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

Kind regards J.C.

Jcgloor (talk) 19:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as necessary here, there were many companies in all the Allied countries that did business with Nazi Germany prior to the outbreak of hostilities. Doing business with someone does not necessarily make you a sympathizer of their cause. Perhaps there could be a separate article on companies that did business with Nazi Germany.Mediatech492 (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done per above. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 02:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Japanese invaded the USSR"

Hey, this is not correct. The Japanese never "invaded" the USSR in the formal meaning the article claims. What happened were border conflicts. And while some historians belive that defeat in the border conflicts made the Japanese change their mind about attack the USSR, there's no conclusive evidence of this. Also, the Japanese perspective must be considerate as well. Masanobu Tsuji for example, belived he could have won if IGHQ supported him. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

Maybe you're right, but we need a citation. So... Agent 78787 ^talk 02:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Inquiry

Just a quick question. Why isn't the German word "Fall" translated anywhere as "operation"? -- Director (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No-one's thought of doing it yet. Where would you put it in for best effect? Britmax (talk) 10:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any instances of the term 'fall' being used in this particular article. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

World War II Article

The article on World War II is currently semi-protected against possible vandalism. I suggest that it be fully protected against vandalism so that only Jimmy Wales, and high level administrators can add, delete, change, or alter the article. 71.72.18.201 (talk) 11:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Why? There's not really any reason for it. There's only been a handful of reverted edits since December, which hardly constitutes a vandalism spree. It's fine as-is.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with User:L1A1 FAL, no need to change. Semi-protection, or in other words requirement to actually take responsibility for one's edits, is hardly a strangling prohibition for any legitimate editor. - Wanderer602 (talk) 16:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler killed in action?

In the "Commanders and Leaders" list Hitler is marked as being "Killed in Action". This is incorrect since he committed suicide.Mediatech492 (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed true. Kiko4564 (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2012

{{edit semi-protected}} I wish to add the details of peril harbor and the USS Lexington aircraft carrier. Fireflykidwell (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

National wikiprojects

I don't think we should be including this article in the scope of national wikiprojects, just like articles on Earth, history of the world, and such don't do so. Some events and concepts are international, and it makes little sense to tag them with national wikiprojects. It makes for a gigantic and unwieldy header, too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

war or conflict

hi everyone. i think we need to link to the war article in top of this article. if anyone think the war world not be suitable[1] i change it to armed conflict.[2]. regards,--Behtis (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Japan was already at war with China, irrelevant and unnecessary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed per WP:NOTFORUM, and to prevent a flame-war by a ball-less anon editor.

Japan fighting China in the second Japanese-Chinese war should not be included in the beginning of the paragraph, maybe at the end or somewhere less visible as it distracts the reader from the actual start of the war. If your mentioning precursors you might as well talk about the German invasion of Austria or Czechoslovakia, or even the independent SARS region. I smell some serious Chinese bias here, only in China do the textbooks say WWII started in 1937. PLZ FIX

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.79.118 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

kitty are awesome and i hate dogs you no--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)the worlds is aesoem yu know my bffs are y. stevens Yea if you are biased toward the Chinese, why start with Japan and China if the war was fought primarily between western powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous1290 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allies?

this i a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.79.5 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In one section, it states the "allies" successfully defended Port Moresby. This is incorrect, only Australia was present in that part of the war. If someone makes the correction, I would be happy thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that at all. It correctly note that the defeat of the Japanese force in the Battle of the Coral Sea was an Allied effort (the US Navy dominated they Allied forces here) and the rest of the section doesn't specify nationalities. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth trying to take this article to A class?

I was wondering if there was interest in developing this article so that it passes a Military History Wikiproject A class review? I don't think that it would require particularly huge changes to the article, but those changes which are made would need to be done through a consultative process (for instance, it's likely that many of the asides to the main narrative which have been added over the years would be removed/rearranged). I'd be happy to take the lead if other editors agree that a) this is a good idea which they're willing to help with and b) they don't want to take the lead themselves! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I never participated in such work before, so it would be interesting to try. I think you are a right person to take the lead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any objections? If not, I'll start working through the article to make minor changes and post suggestions for significant changes over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How could anyone make a serious objection to attempting to improve an article to A-class? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A class review preparations: Comments and proposed changes

As noted above, I think that it's worth trying to develop this article so that it meets the Military History Wikiproject's A class criteria. This thread is for discussion of changes relevant to preparing for this review. I'm going to post my comments on the article and proposed changes here, and encourage other editors to also work their way through the article and do the same. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The article contains too many piped links, and some common terms are linked when they don't really need to be. I've removed some of these links (by either editing the sentence to remove the piping or de-linking the term), and propose working through the article to further reduce this piping. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the references which have been used seem a bit odd (eg, they're reliable sources, but are mainly about a completely different topic from what they're being used as references for, and presumably only mention the topic in passing). I'm replacing these references with references to works specifically about the topic, as these will be of greater use to readers wishing to use the article as a starting point for further reading on the war and provider better background. I'm also removing low quality references (eg, reprints of old books or popular-type histories) with references to more recent and better regarded works. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Lead: "The Japanese Navy was defeated by the United States, and invasion of the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands") became imminent." - this is very simplistic to the point of being misleading given that the Japanese Army was also defeated. I'd suggest changing this to "Meanwhile, Allied forces advanced through the western Pacific during 1944, defeating Japanese forces in a series of campaigns, and by mid 1945 were preparing to invade the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands"). Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Army was not defeated until the very end of the war. Thus, Operation Ichi-Go was a full success. If I understand correctly, naval defeats, which lead to the blockade of Home Islands and to capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, was more important factors then the defeats of some Japanese garrisons stationed on isolated Pacific islands. In my opinion, oversimplifications are unavoidable in the lede, and this is not the only oversimplification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but in the 1944-45 Philippines campaign the US Army defeated quite substantial Japanese Army and Army Air Force units as well, so 'forces' works better. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "The Japanese Navy was defeated and key West Pacific Island were captured, so invasion ... became imminent"? In any event, since the lead is doomed to be somewhat imprecise (simply by virtue of its small size), I have no serious objections against the change you propose. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Background and Pre-war events sections: the single-paragraph sections on the Invasion of Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War in the 'Pre-war events' section partially repeat material in the 'background' section. The small sections on the 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' also seem too detailed given that these occurred before the war, and the events are actually described in greater detail than those in the war proper. I suggest merging and trimming this material into the 'background' section (with sub-headings) Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' can easily be merged into a single section (especially, taking into account that those events were interconnected). With regard to the Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War sections, they can be simply removed, although corresponding "background" paragraphs need in some expansion: we need to devote a couple of sentences to each of those events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and war crimes section. The last sentence of the second para currently says:

"Roughly 7.5 million civilians died in China under Japanese occupation,[287] and hundreds of thousands (varying estimates) of ethnic Serbs, along with gypsies and Jews, were murdered by the Axis-aligned Croatian Ustaše in what would become Yugoslavia, with retribution-related killings of Croatian civilians later in the war.[288]"

I am not sure death of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs needs in an explicit mention along with the death of 7.5 million of Chinese. It was not the only European nation that suffered tremendous losses, and Ustaše were not the only perpetrators. We definitely need to mention the outburst of nationalistic violence that (frequently under the Axis control) lead to mass deaths of various ethnic groups, however, to mention only Ustaše (as perpetrators) and Serbs (as victims) would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph says:

"While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals,^[1] incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include population transfers in the Soviet Union and Japanese American internment in the United States; the Operation Keelhaul,^[2] expulsion of Germans after World War II, mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army; the Soviet Union's Katyn massacre, for which Germans faced counter-accusations of responsibility. Large numbers of famine deaths can also be partially attributed to the war, such as the Bengal famine of 1943 and the Vietnamese famine of 1944–45.^[3]"

I am not sure the wording is adequate. By writing "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial (...) incidents caused by the Allies were not," we thereby imply the crimes were of comparable scale. In actuality, neither population transfers in the Soviet Union nor Japanese American internment can be comparable with the Holocaust, starvation of Leningrad, or Nanking Massacre.

Some events described in this paragraph, namely Operation Keelhaul and expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be considered war crimes simply because they occurred after the war.

"mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" is not accurate wording, because in actuality the rapes were committed by almost all Allied troops, the Soviet rapes were simply more numerous.

The Bengal and Vietnam famine deaths should not be mentioned in a context of Allied criminal acts, so I suggest to move the last sentence to the more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor note, besieging a city is not a grounds for a war crime. At least not according WWII era accords. Whole point of the statement was that war criminals of victorious parties were allowed to walk free. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Axis advances section, paragraph beginning "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France,". This para appears to go into too much detail on diplomatic maneuvers in eastern Europe and Soviet expansion, and basically presents the lead up to war between Germany and the USSR as being the result of 'normal' great power politics and tensions. This ignores the very strong role the Nazis' ideology played in starting the war. I suggest reworking this para to simplify the material on eastern Europe and remove the material on tensions between Germany and the USSR as it's misleading, especially as the article generally doesn't go into explaining the motivation for various activities. Alternately, it should be reworked to include the Nazis' views towards the USSR, but I think that this would be over-complex for this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that the paragraph can be improved, I am not sure I fully understand what concretely do you propose. If we remove the information about Soviet-German tension, it will be unclear why Soviet-German cooperation (which is being discussed in the paragraph in details) lead to Barbarossa. In addition, whereas it is tempting to present the conflict between the USSR and Germany as a collision of two ideologies, some authors believe it was more a result of what you call "'normal' great power politics and tensions". In any event, I think it would be better to discuss some concrete text. Can you present a new version of this paragraph as you see it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your statement that the article doesn't go into explaining the motivation is not correct. Thus, the connection between American oil embargo and Japanese decision to occupy Indonesia and to attack Pearl Harbor is being discussed in the War becomes global section. Nevertheless, I agree that the paragraph should be shortened. What do you think about that?

"In June, during the last days of the Battle of France, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania,^[4] and then annexed the disputable Romanian region of Bessarabia. Meanwhile, Nazi-Soviet political rapprochement and economic cooperation^[5]^[6] gradually stalled,^[7]^[8], and both states had begun the countdown to war.^[9]"

Some explanations: I removed mention of rigged elections and illegality of annexation of the Baltic states, because forceful nature of this annexation is tantamount to its illegality. We do not need to go into such details here. I added the notion about the dispute over Bessarabia, because, by contrast to the Baltic case, the USSR never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (the position that was tacitly supported by many other states). I removed the mention of population transfer, because it is unclear what concrete point it was supposed to demonstrate. I removed the mention of the Axis-Soviet talks, because we do not discuss the failed negotiations in this article. I propose to leave the last sentence, because some logical linkage between Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa is definitely needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That wording looks excellent to me Paul: it's concise and gets to the core of what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Disputed" would be better than "disputable", and "to prepare for" than "the countdown to", if you ask me. 216.8.135.197 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a change as such, but I think that the British occupation of the Faroe Islands should be mentioned in the article. A very brief mention, along the lines of and in the same area as the Invasion of Iceland, would suffice. Manxruler (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

What is Czechoslovakia doing in the Allied list? Czechoslovakia ceased to exist months before the outbreak of the war, in fact would it not be simply easier to only say Allies and Axis instead of getting specific, and leaving some country out of the list as we do at present? Particularily when some countries fought on both sides in the war. Also it would avoid odd things like having Britain listed as "British Empire" yet the Dominions (sans Newfoundland and of course Ireland) are listed as seperate countries entireley, (which would have been shocking news to hear at the time in New Zealand say, particularily as they did not adopt the Statute of Westminister until 1947). Hawjam (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam

Just as there was a Free France, there were several other countries that maintained a government in Exile during the Nazi occupation which had status among the members of the Alliance. One of these was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile under Edvard Beneš. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but I don't think that is enough to justify that country's inclusion, according the article you linked to the government-in-exile was only established after the war began and did not even recieve particularily wide international recognition even amongst Allied nations for several years. Nor does it seem to have been particularily important to the war effort, certainly it seems to have been a far less important member of the Allies than the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which not only waged a conventional war (however briefly) but also had considerably more partisan activities not to mention actually de facto existing when the war began. Threadnecromancer (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

I'm not sure what you consider "sufficient recognition" to be included. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich was a Czech operation as were hundreds of other operations by covert operatives and resistance fighters such as the Slovak National Uprising; which means they did considerably more to oppose the Nazis than most of the Pan American states which did little more than make a symbolic declaration of war and then sat back and waited until the end; yet they are also included. Czechoslovakia was an official signatory to the United Nations Declaration of 1942; which shows the Allies considered them to be sufficient to be recognized as a member. I don't think we need to look further than that. Just because they were small does not mean they were insignificant.Mediatech492 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Perspective and 1939 Starting Point

Mine name is riles:) Not to reignite an old argument, but since the starting date for the war seems to be partly a matter of historical perspective, why not amend 'generally said' to 'said to have begun in the West' in 1939? This isn't meant to debate or neutralize the 1939 starting point, but just to acknowledge that the war has been appraised and remembered differently in different places -- not only in China, but in Japan and other parts of Asia as well.

74.68.136.97 (talk) 13:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I second this. By definition, a world war is a war that contains all the world's great powers, so if you want to use that definition, you could say the war didn't begin until 1941, before which point Russia and the United States, both of which are great powers, were not in the war. In reality, we know that's not a proper starting point for the war, so we have to use our best judgment to decide at what point the conflict went from a "regular" war that was contained within a certain part of the world, to a "world war" thats effects covered a large portion of the planet. Prior to 1939, the war was a Pacific war and not a world war. 1939 is when it expanded beyond the continent of Asia, so i agree with 1939 as the starting point, but the way it is currently phrased on this Wikipedia page could easily give the impression, to those who aren't knowledgeable on the subject (and they're the ones who are going to be reading this page above all others), that the world went from a state of peace to a state of war almost entirely during the year of 1939, which is of course not accurate. I would recommend something like what 74.68.136.97 mentioned above, that better acknowledges that war existed well before 1939, but that the conflict did not truly become a world war until that time. I might suggest something like, "With Japan and China at war since the beginning of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, war had existed throughout Asia for over two years, but the war did not expand to Europe until September 1, 1939, when France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, which is why that date is generally the one used as the starting point for the war. Until that point, it was a Pacific war, not a world war." Someone could refine it a bit and make it a little less verbose, but something to that effect I think would be great to begin the second paragraph, in place of what's there now. Tron55555 (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I am not sure if any commonly accepted definitions of a world war exist, it is natural to expect that a world war is supposed to involve most (not necessarily all) great powers. However, one can argue, and most Western authors agree about that, that after 1st September, 1939 involvement of all great powers became inevitable, so Soviet and American neutrality would end in any event, sooner or later. Therefore, 1st September, 1939 is usually understood as a start of the WWII retrospectively.

Regarding SSJW, I cannot agree that this conflict expanded to Europe. In actuality, the the conflict in Europe, which would later become the WWII, had a purely European origin, and SSJW had little or no effect on its outbreak. In contrast, expansion of a local SSJW onto whole Pacific (including the attack of European possessions there, and of Pearl Harbor) became possible mostly due to the German successes in Europe.

In connection to that, it would be more correct to say that Pacific conflict merged into the European war (what the article currently implies).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, your comment is well-taken, but also seems to validate the notion that the 1939 date is largely a matter of Western historical perspective. Japan was also a great power, and the Pacific theater -- which outlasted the European theater -- is understood retrospectively in Asia as having begun in 1937, and sometimes 1931, for the same structural forces of inevitability you mention when speaking of Europe. Let's not forget that whatever inevitability we see in the US getting involved retrospectively starting in 1939, it was Japan that attacked Pearl Harbor, and this attack was not made any more possible by German advances in Europe (as you claim) than it was by Japanese advances in Asia. Now to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 1937 date should take precedence or that it's objectively more correct, but only that the word 'generally' in the article seems to actually imply 'in the West.' 140.247.45.85 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if we use this article as the only source, it becomes clear that the US pressurised Japan to stop their war in China, and imposed embargo on Japan. This embargo was the ultimate reason that triggered the Japanese decision to seize Indonesia and to neutralise the US in Pacific by destroying their fleet. Obviously, if Britain had not been deeply involved in the war with Germany, if France, Belgium and Netherlands not been occupied by the Axis, Japan would never attempted to expand hostilities outside of mainland China. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a misunderstanding here. This isn't about whether Europe or Asia is more important. Yes, the European theater is central and crucial to understanding the causes of World War II, and Japanese foreign policy was formed with Europe and other actors in mind. I think all parties agree on this. The central point is that when we say World War II started in 1939 we speak as Westerners, and that many people in East Asia wouldn't think of it that way. History's messy and political, and so are its interpretations; is it really too much to acknowledge this with the modest words 'in the West'? 140.247.43.177 (talk) 21:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, however, since a whole Chronology section is devoted to this issue, the viewpoint you are talking about has already been covered in the article. I don't think we need to add anything to that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed -- this is a question of semantics, not adding new information. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Most historians would define "World War II" as a continuation of the unresolved hostilities of World War I, and as such the September 1 1939 starting date is correct. This is the date Germany invaded Poland, and England and France declared war. I would also suggest that the summary of the war needs some clarification overall as well. In the summary and sidebar different dates and terms are given. I think these ought to be better-defined using the common legal and diplomatic terms and dates. ie: Sept. 1 1939 as the declarations of war, that the Japanese instrument of surrender was signed on Sept. 2 1945 (and this was legally the end of the war, August 15 is merely a ceasefire date). The phrase "The war ended with the total victory of the Allies over the Axis in 1945" could be better defined as "The war ended with the unconditional surrender of the Axis powers to the Allies in 1945". Victory sounds more positive, but from a diplomatic and legal perspective it was the acceptance of the unconditional surrender demanded by the Allies that largely prevented a repetition of post-WWI politics and foreign policies, and the surrender by the Central Powers in WWI was NOT unconditional.209.89.236.191 (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not all the Axis countries surrendered unconditionally. I don't think that Italy did, and Japan probably wouldn't have surrendered unless the Allies had agreed to maintain the Emperor in his position. 'Total victory' is entirely accurate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And 'probability' is entirely irrelevant. That's pointless obfuscation.209.89.236.191 (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No one is debating the correctness of a 1939 start date. 140.247.43.177 (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And also, Italy DID surrender unconditionally. As per http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/september/8/newsid_3612000/3612037.stm Eisenhower also made a radio announcement to this effect209.89.236.191 (talk) 04:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

German and USSR invasions of Poland

Paul, explain to me what you find objectionable about my edits. Germany did invade Poland from the east. And the USSR did invade Poland from the west several weeks later as the text states. In the subsequent sentence about the division of Poland, I added that such a division was in accord to the previously signed Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. In particular, the changes I added were inline with the information in initial invasions section of the M-R Pact article. Is there a problem with my rather modest changes? Let's talk. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Germany invaded Poland from the west and north (by virtue of its geographic position). For the same reason, the USSR could invade Poland only from the east.

Regarding MRP, neither the pact nor the secret protocol contained a direct agreement to divide Poland. Moreover, some sources (e.g. Geoffrey Roberts) say that the decision to invade Poland was made by Stalin only after German invasion started.

BTW, the text used by you is wrong. The cited author does not tell about some concert attack of Poland:

"The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war." (Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78)

Thank you to pointing at this issue. I fixed it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems as if we are quibbling here. First with respect to geography. Yes, Germany invaded from the north as well as the west and also the south. See Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). Perhaps it would be accurate to say that Germany invaded western Poland. Subsequently, the USSR invaded eastern Poland. Mentioning the geography should help the reader since most people need a reminder.

Secondly, I didn't say it was a concerted attack. The spoils were agreed to prior to Germany's invasion--and before Germany's occupation of the sphere of influence agreed to by the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. That's also discussed in Invasion_of_Poland_(1939). As to the motivation of Stalin and timing of his decision, that I'd leave to another article. The way it reads now makes the phrase "after signing a cease-fire with Japan" suggest that the agreement with Japan has the greatest bearing on the invasion of Poland. Mentioning that the two European superpowers talked about "spheres of influence, anticipating potential 'territorial and political rearrangements' of these countries" (as it says in the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact) seems to be a more appropriate emphasis than "after signing a cease-fire with Japan." Don't you think? Jason from nyc (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We are not quibbling, I just removed the geographically incorrect statement. I also do not think "east" or "west" are needed here, because people usually know where Germany, Poland and the USSR were. We do not explain a direction of invasion of France, why do we need to do that in this particular case?

It's a judgment call. You have a greater estimate of the reader's knowledge. I thought it might help. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding MRP, the pact stipulated just the borders of Soviet and German spheres of influence. Some sources interpret that as a territorial division of Poland, whereas others (e.g. Roberts) are not. There is no direct proof that German invasion of Poland and Soviet participation in it were discussed before 1st of September, 1939 between Germany and the USSR. The most likely, the decision to invade Eastern Poland was made by Stalin later. We do not need to add a discussion of spheres of influence here, because the "European occupations and agreements" section already does that. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove the "signing a cease-fire with Japan" or move it to the "agreements" section. It leads to the implication that the agreement with Japan has to do with the Soviet invasion of Poland and that it has greater bearing than the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Again, I'm not commenting on Stalin's decision. Let's assume, for sake of argument, that it was nothing more than "hey Adolf took possession of his sphere, and that was easy, why not take possession of ours?" The agreed upon spheres of influence has bearing on Germany's immediate actions and scope of operations. Who invades half a country? Explain that to the reader. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

We cannot move a truce with Japan to the "European occupations and agreements" section, because the section tells about the per-war agreements, whereas the agreement with Japan was signed after the war started.

That's fair enough but it shouldn't be a dependent clause of a much more significant act. Don't you agree, Paul? Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't read it as a dependent clause, however, if you prefer "the USSR signed a cease-fire with Japan, and invaded Eastern Poland", I will not object.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Re "Who invades half a country?", Germany invaded half of France (Vichy France remained unoccupied). --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

C'mon. That's not the same by a long stretch--you know the details. Germany invaded half of Poland with the intent of absorbing it's agreed-upon sphere. Why not tell the reader that Germany invaded western Poland as per MRP? That makes clear Germany's aim and intent at that point in time.Jason from nyc (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Not "invaded western Poland as per MRP" (MRP did not stipulate such an invasion), but "invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How about putting it in the article? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Paul, 'tis odd, your "Some sources interpret that [MR pact] as a territorial division of Poland" some don't, considering that Berlin communicated to Moscow on the 3rd (invasion on the 1st) that Stalin should go ahead and occupy Poland up to the prior agreed-upon line of demarcation. And of course, we have the Soviet radio signals from Minsk to guide the Luftwaffe invasion. (Your retort to that in the past has been that the Nazis duped the Soviets into unknowing complicity.) I'm curious on what basis Roberts contends Stalin didn't intend to partition Poland in concert with Hitler. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The full text of this telegram (with Roberts' commentaries) was as follows:

"The foregoing evidence can also be read as demonstrating German anxiety about whether the Soviet Union would keep to its side of the partition bargain. However, and this is the third documentary clue, on 3 September Ribbentrop telegraphed the following instruction to Schulenburg:

We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest, and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would not only be a relief for us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well.

Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find. What other explanation can there be for Ribbentrop's evident need to interpret the 'sense' of the Moscow agreements of 23 August?" (Roberts, op. cit.)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

As I read the sources it becomes clearer. Ending years of flare-ups in the East with an agreement with Japan allows Stalin to immediately turn his attention to the situation in Poland. As you show in the Ribbentrop telegraph, Hitler has a dilemma. As I ask above, how do you fight half a nation? Ribbentrop notes that for military reasons he will have to secure the Soviet sphere if Stalin doesn’t. He can’t, as you insinuate above, create a Vichy regime since that would put the eastern part in the German sphere of influence. With Japan no longer requiring attention, Stalin can proceed (planned or not) with the Polish invasion. If Germany invades half a nation what’s Stalin’s options to secure its sphere if MRP remains operative? Why not insert your sentence above: “Germany invaded Poland and occupied its western part within the sphere of influence outlined in the MRP secret protocol.” Jason from nyc (talk) 21:07, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

If this proposal will not be objected by anyone within next few days, feel free to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Paul, I'm not a WWII buff (I focus on events leading up to the American Revolution and the last years of the Roman Republic). You, Vecrumba, and everyone here and on the other articles led me to many good sources. Let me do something more modest. I'll clarify that Germany "invaded western Poland" because that's exactly what she did. And the Soviets invaded "eastern Poland". The emphasis is on events; I'll leave the full discussion to the other articles covering specifics of the invasions, motivations, leaders, and other details. I'll put it in; if anyone objects they can take it out. Thanks everyone for the discussion.Jason from nyc (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that edit. The wording implies that the Germans and Soviets had limited goals in their invasion of Poland, which is inaccurate as they intended to conquer the entire country. It's also not accurate to say that the Germans invaded western Poland on geographic grounds (for instance, as shown by File:Poland2.jpg, they invaded the north and south of the country and advanced well into its east). Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, on your "clearer evidence," that would also necessitate that Berlin's communication to Moscow two days after Germany's invasion regarding the USSR's occupation of Polish territory was sent in the absence of any prior expectation of Soviet invasion. And Molotov's agreement would have been given in a state of complete surprise. (While Molotov "agreed," he stated the time wasn't quite right.) Moscow subsequently communicated its invasion to Berlin prior to its launch. And, upon completion of partition, a joint statement was released. I read this as Berlin communicating to Moscow that the USSR needs to get along with its invasion to complete crushing Poland—this was the predatory partitioning of a sovereign state after all. Such language as appears in the communication is not atypical; the observation that Germany would otherwise need to pursue Polish forces into the Soviet "sphere" was a clear signal for the USSR to keep up its part. I suggest more sources on lack of premeditation on the part of the USSR (and Germany) if you wish to make such an (attributed, not universal) contention. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:22, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's also likely that Japan factored in all along for the USSR. The MR pact was signed days after Zhukov started his offensive at Khalkhin-gol; Poland was invaded a day after the Japanese peace was signed. That is, Stalin timed his invasion of Poland (not my words) to coincide with elimination of the Japanese threat. As sources discuss planned timing, Japan should be mentioned to provide additional context. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not my "clearer evidence", that is a quote from the reliable source (an author MRP which has been extensively cited in the MRP article). I present reliable sources, and you - just your own speculations. In connection to that, I suggest you to remove your annoying and uncivil soapboxing. We know nothing about your own credentials as a historian, and therefore your personal opinion is hardly valuable for us in this particular case.

Regarding some "attributed, not universal contention", since I do not propose to add any positive claim on that account, I do not have to prove anything. In contrast, the users who want to add a statement about coordinated Nazi-Soviet invasion have to provide the evidence that their viewpoint is a sole mainstream point of view.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not everyone is as enamored of Roberts as you are. Yours was the characterization of no "clearer evidence"; that characterization does not stem from Robert's words. I don't see that discussing potential issues with the contentions of a source you cite is soapboxing or uncivil. If it's as clear as you indicated, you should have a plethora of sources contending the same. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC).

BTW, Snyder, in Bloodlands, specifically writes that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland. I don't see that I have to prove "sole" anything. Nor is Roberts' opinion "sole" anything, either. That the Soviet invasion of Poland was an afterthought is the minority view. (And, upon re-reading, your contention of "proof" of no prior agreement is your synthesis unless Roberts indicates this is clear and incontrovertible "proof".) And as you can't prove a negative in any event, any such proof is ultimately an opinion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, the words "Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find" are not my words, that is what Roberts says. Please, read carefully the text you are trying to refute.

Re Snyder, we have two opinia: that Hitler and Stalin "agreed" to invade Poland (Snyder and others), and that no such an agreement existed (Roberts and others). In that situation, the best way would be just to present bare facts: that Germany invaded Poland on 1st of September, and that the USSR ivaded Poland on 17th of September.

And, again, please stop making comments on me. Your accusations are offensive and false. Try to maintain necessary decorum or leave this page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the extract from Bloodlands which says they "agreed" please? I am having trouble finding it. (Hohum ^@) 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I cannot say that the Snyder's Bloodlands presents a universally accepted or mainstream viewpoint. It presents no new arguments either. Thus, Omer Bartov in his review on this book says:

"The book presents no new evidence and makes no new arguments. Facts and interpretations are culled from established authorities: Christian Streit on the Soviet prisoners of war (POWs); Christian Gerlach on “hunger politics”; Nicolas Werth and Lynne Viola on the Ukrainian famine; Dieter Pohl and Karel Berkhoff on German-occupied Ukraine; Peter Longerich, Christopher Browning, and Andrej Angrick on the Holocaust. Admirably synthesizing this voluminous scholarship, Snyder stresses that most civilians (and POWs) died in the east. While not a revelation for scholars of the period, this argument may appear startlingly new and shocking to nonexperts." (Omer Bartov. Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin by Timothy Snyder. Slavic Review, Vol. 70, No. 2 (SUMMER 2011), pp. 424-428)

According to Bartov:

"The book is also permeated by a consistent pro-Polish bias and fails to critically engage with Polish policies and attitudes." (ibid)

"Bloodlands also tends to present German and Soviet soldiers’ conduct as similarly criminal for similar reasons." (ibid)

"By equating partisans and occupiers, Soviet and Nazi occupation, Wehrmacht and Red Army criminality, and evading interethnic violence, Snyder drains the war of much of its moral content and inadvertently adopts the apologists’ argument that where everyone is a criminal no one can be blamed." (ibid)

I am not sure we can use this source as a support for any general claim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

This wikiarticle is written by non-experts to non-experts, and synthesis is a good thing in research. The possible pro-Polish bias and lack of criticism towards Polish attitudes is something we need to keep in mind, along with other reasonable caution measures, but none of this allows us to dismiss a book as easily as Paul suggests. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jaan, you didn't understand me. I neither propose to dismiss the book nor I claim it to be without any merit. My point is that it would not be correct to speak about Snyder as a mainstream source and about Roberts as a minority/revisionist. We can speak about two viewpoints having approximatelly similar weight, so if one of those two opinions are mentioned, another one should be discussed too. However, I am not sure such a discussion to belong to this concrete article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Correction on end date of WWII

While the commonly accepted end of WWII is 1945, which was obviously the end of all hostilities, the war did not officially end until the Treaty of San Francisco went into effect in 1952. That should be noted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.145.181 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

That brings up an interesting point, does a war end when the killing stops or does it end when the bureaucrats have finished the paperwork? If it requires a piece of paper to end a war then the Peloponnesian War never ended and Sparta and Athens are still at war. In fact most of the wars of history never had a treaty to end them. Likewise a treaty does not always end a war sometimes the killing will go on long after treaty is signed. For example, the Battle of New Orleans was fought two weeks after the treaty of Ghent was signed.Mediatech492 (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

WWII ends at the date reliable sources says it does. (Hohum ^@) 22:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Japan was already at war with China, irrelevant and unnecessary

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Closed per WP:NOTFORUM, and to prevent a flame-war by a ball-less anon editor.

Japan fighting China in the second Japanese-Chinese war should not be included in the beginning of the paragraph, maybe at the end or somewhere less visible as it distracts the reader from the actual start of the war. If your mentioning precursors you might as well talk about the German invasion of Austria or Czechoslovakia, or even the independent SARS region. I smell some serious Chinese bias here, only in China do the textbooks say WWII started in 1937. PLZ FIX

-Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.152.79.118 (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

kitty are awesome and i hate dogs you no--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)--71.80.115.102 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)the worlds is aesoem yu know my bffs are y. stevens Yea if you are biased toward the Chinese, why start with Japan and China if the war was fought primarily between western powers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annonymous1290 (talk • contribs) 07:47, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allies?

this i a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.79.5 (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In one section, it states the "allies" successfully defended Port Moresby. This is incorrect, only Australia was present in that part of the war. If someone makes the correction, I would be happy thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that at all. It correctly note that the defeat of the Japanese force in the Battle of the Coral Sea was an Allied effort (the US Navy dominated they Allied forces here) and the rest of the section doesn't specify nationalities. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it worth trying to take this article to A class?

I was wondering if there was interest in developing this article so that it passes a Military History Wikiproject A class review? I don't think that it would require particularly huge changes to the article, but those changes which are made would need to be done through a consultative process (for instance, it's likely that many of the asides to the main narrative which have been added over the years would be removed/rearranged). I'd be happy to take the lead if other editors agree that a) this is a good idea which they're willing to help with and b) they don't want to take the lead themselves! Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Support. I never participated in such work before, so it would be interesting to try. I think you are a right person to take the lead.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Are there any objections? If not, I'll start working through the article to make minor changes and post suggestions for significant changes over the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

How could anyone make a serious objection to attempting to improve an article to A-class? Joefromrandb (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

A class review preparations: Comments and proposed changes

As noted above, I think that it's worth trying to develop this article so that it meets the Military History Wikiproject's A class criteria. This thread is for discussion of changes relevant to preparing for this review. I'm going to post my comments on the article and proposed changes here, and encourage other editors to also work their way through the article and do the same. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments

The article contains too many piped links, and some common terms are linked when they don't really need to be. I've removed some of these links (by either editing the sentence to remove the piping or de-linking the term), and propose working through the article to further reduce this piping. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
A lot of the references which have been used seem a bit odd (eg, they're reliable sources, but are mainly about a completely different topic from what they're being used as references for, and presumably only mention the topic in passing). I'm replacing these references with references to works specifically about the topic, as these will be of greater use to readers wishing to use the article as a starting point for further reading on the war and provider better background. I'm also removing low quality references (eg, reprints of old books or popular-type histories) with references to more recent and better regarded works. Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Lead: "The Japanese Navy was defeated by the United States, and invasion of the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands") became imminent." - this is very simplistic to the point of being misleading given that the Japanese Army was also defeated. I'd suggest changing this to "Meanwhile, Allied forces advanced through the western Pacific during 1944, defeating Japanese forces in a series of campaigns, and by mid 1945 were preparing to invade the Japanese Archipelago ("Home Islands"). Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Japanese Army was not defeated until the very end of the war. Thus, Operation Ichi-Go was a full success. If I understand correctly, naval defeats, which lead to the blockade of Home Islands and to capture of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, was more important factors then the defeats of some Japanese garrisons stationed on isolated Pacific islands. In my opinion, oversimplifications are unavoidable in the lede, and this is not the only oversimplification.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but in the 1944-45 Philippines campaign the US Army defeated quite substantial Japanese Army and Army Air Force units as well, so 'forces' works better. Nick-D (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "The Japanese Navy was defeated and key West Pacific Island were captured, so invasion ... became imminent"? In any event, since the lead is doomed to be somewhat imprecise (simply by virtue of its small size), I have no serious objections against the change you propose. --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Background and Pre-war events sections: the single-paragraph sections on the Invasion of Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War in the 'Pre-war events' section partially repeat material in the 'background' section. The small sections on the 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' also seem too detailed given that these occurred before the war, and the events are actually described in greater detail than those in the war proper. I suggest merging and trimming this material into the 'background' section (with sub-headings) Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. 'Japanese invasion of China' and 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' can easily be merged into a single section (especially, taking into account that those events were interconnected). With regard to the Ethiopia and Spanish Civil War sections, they can be simply removed, although corresponding "background" paragraphs need in some expansion: we need to devote a couple of sentences to each of those events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Casualties and war crimes section. The last sentence of the second para currently says:

"Roughly 7.5 million civilians died in China under Japanese occupation,[287] and hundreds of thousands (varying estimates) of ethnic Serbs, along with gypsies and Jews, were murdered by the Axis-aligned Croatian Ustaše in what would become Yugoslavia, with retribution-related killings of Croatian civilians later in the war.[288]"

I am not sure death of hundreds of thousands of ethnic Serbs needs in an explicit mention along with the death of 7.5 million of Chinese. It was not the only European nation that suffered tremendous losses, and Ustaše were not the only perpetrators. We definitely need to mention the outburst of nationalistic violence that (frequently under the Axis control) lead to mass deaths of various ethnic groups, however, to mention only Ustaše (as perpetrators) and Serbs (as victims) would be incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph says:

"While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial in the world's first international tribunals,^[10] incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such Allied actions include population transfers in the Soviet Union and Japanese American internment in the United States; the Operation Keelhaul,^[11] expulsion of Germans after World War II, mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army; the Soviet Union's Katyn massacre, for which Germans faced counter-accusations of responsibility. Large numbers of famine deaths can also be partially attributed to the war, such as the Bengal famine of 1943 and the Vietnamese famine of 1944–45.^[12]"

I am not sure the wording is adequate. Penis . <=====3By writing "While many of the Axis's acts were brought to trial (...) incidents caused by the Allies were not," we thereby imply the crimes were of comparable scale. In actuality, neither population transfers in the Soviet Union nor Japanese American internment can be comparable with the Holocaust, starvation of Leningrad, or Nanking Massacre.

Some events described in this paragraph, namely Operation Keelhaul and expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be considered war crimes simply because they occurred after the war.

"mass rape of German women by Soviet Red Army" is not accurate wording, because in actuality the rapes were committed by almost all Allied troops, the Soviet rapes were simply more numerous.

The Bengal and Vietnam famine deaths should not be mentioned in a context of Allied criminal acts, so I suggest to move the last sentence to the more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a minor note, besieging a city is not a grounds for a war crime. At least not according WWII era accords. Whole point of the statement was that war criminals of victorious parties were allowed to walk free. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Axis advances section, paragraph beginning "In June, during the last days of the Battle of France,". This para appears to go into too much detail on diplomatic maneuvers in eastern Europe and Soviet expansion, and basically presents the lead up to war between Germany and the USSR as being the result of 'normal' great power politics and tensions. This ignores the very strong role the Nazis' ideology played in starting the war. I suggest reworking this para to simplify the material on eastern Europe and remove the material on tensions between Germany and the USSR as it's misleading, especially as the article generally doesn't go into explaining the motivation for various activities. Alternately, it should be reworked to include the Nazis' views towards the USSR, but I think that this would be over-complex for this article. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree that the paragraph can be improved, I am not sure I fully understand what concretely do you propose. If we remove the information about Soviet-German tension, it will be unclear why Soviet-German cooperation (which is being discussed in the paragraph in details) lead to Barbarossa. In addition, whereas it is tempting to present the conflict between the USSR and Germany as a collision of two ideologies, some authors believe it was more a result of what you call "'normal' great power politics and tensions". In any event, I think it would be better to discuss some concrete text. Can you present a new version of this paragraph as you see it? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that your statement that the article doesn't go into explaining the motivation is not correct. Thus, the connection between American oil embargo and Japanese decision to occupy Indonesia and to attack Pearl Harbor is being discussed in the War becomes global section. Nevertheless, I agree that the paragraph should be shortened. What do you think about that?

"In June, during the last days of the Battle of France, the Soviet Union forcibly annexed Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania,^[4] and then annexed the disputable Romanian region of Bessarabia. Meanwhile, Nazi-Soviet political rapprochement and economic cooperation^[13]^[14] gradually stalled,^[15]^[8], and both states had begun the countdown to war.^[9]"

Some explanations: I removed mention of rigged elections and illegality of annexation of the Baltic states, because forceful nature of this annexation is tantamount to its illegality. We do not need to go into such details here. I added the notion about the dispute over Bessarabia, because, by contrast to the Baltic case, the USSR never recognized annexation of Bessarabia by Romania (the position that was tacitly supported by many other states). I removed the mention of population transfer, because it is unclear what concrete point it was supposed to demonstrate. I removed the mention of the Axis-Soviet talks, because we do not discuss the failed negotiations in this article. I propose to leave the last sentence, because some logical linkage between Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and Barbarossa is definitely needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That wording looks excellent to me Paul: it's concise and gets to the core of what occurred. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

"Disputed" would be better than "disputable", and "to prepare for" than "the countdown to", if you ask me. 216.8.135.197 (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not a change as such, but I think that the British occupation of the Faroe Islands should be mentioned in the article. A very brief mention, along the lines of and in the same area as the Invasion of Iceland, would suffice. Manxruler (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

What is Czechoslovakia doing in the Allied list? Czechoslovakia ceased to exist months before the outbreak of the war, in fact would it not be simply easier to only say Allies and Axis instead of getting specific, and leaving some country out of the list as we do at present? Particularily when some countries fought on both sides in the war. Also it would avoid odd things like having Britain listed as "British Empire" yet the Dominions (sans Newfoundland and of course Ireland) are listed as seperate countries entireley, (which would have been shocking news to hear at the time in New Zealand say, particularily as they did not adopt the Statute of Westminister until 1947). Hawjam (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)Hawjam

Just as there was a Free France, there were several other countries that maintained a government in Exile during the Nazi occupation which had status among the members of the Alliance. One of these was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile under Edvard Beneš. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the response but I don't think that is enough to justify that country's inclusion, according the article you linked to the government-in-exile was only established after the war began and did not even recieve particularily wide international recognition even amongst Allied nations for several years. Nor does it seem to have been particularily important to the war effort, certainly it seems to have been a far less important member of the Allies than the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which not only waged a conventional war (however briefly) but also had considerably more partisan activities not to mention actually de facto existing when the war began. Threadnecromancer (talk) 04:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)Threadnecromancer

I'm not sure what you consider "sufficient recognition" to be included. The assassination of Reinhard Heydrich was a Czech operation as were hundreds of other operations by covert operatives and resistance fighters such as the Slovak National Uprising; which means they did considerably more to oppose the Nazis than most of the Pan American states which did little more than make a symbolic declaration of war and then sat back and waited until the end; yet they are also included. Czechoslovakia was an official signatory to the United Nations Declaration of 1942; which shows the Allies considered them to be sufficient to be recognized as a member. I don't think we need to look further than that. Just because they were small does not mean they were insignificant.Mediatech492 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Historical Perspective and 1939 Starting Point

Not to reignite an old argument, but since the starting date for the war seems to be partly a matter of historical perspective, why not amend 'generally said' to 'said to have begun in the West' in 1939? This isn't meant to debate or neutralize the 1939 starting point, but just to acknowledge that the war has been appraised and remembered differently in different places -- not only in China, but in Japan and other parts of Asia as well.