Talk:World War II/Archive 52
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Pyrrhic victory
The following discussion 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.
Some time ago I noticed through my watchlist that FilBox101 inserted 'pyrrhic' before 'victory' in the infobox. Later Alex Bakharev removed it. Can we get a consensus on this? Or has one already been reached? Green547 (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why would the victory be pyrrhic. The phrase pyrrhic victory is, as far as I know, generally reserved for a situation where a battle (or war) has lead to such devastating losses at the side of the victor, that another battle with the same enemy would almost certainly result in a decisive defeat of the earlier victor. By the end of WWII this is definitely not the case as the US-UK-USSR(and other allied) armies could easily crush any army fielded by either Germany or Japan (or any other Axis nation). Arnoutf (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well User:FilBox101's edit summary was 'due to the massive number of casualties' and definitely it was a massive number of losses. I'd like to see his POV on this before moving ahead. Green547 (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Probably none of the parties would be able to field the same power as they had in the field in 1940. But since there were no powers in the world at that time who could, that does not make it a Pyrrhic victory - a victory with so much casualties it would lead to almost certain loss if the ongoing war would continue from the status quo after the victory. If we redefine Pyrrhic victory to fit the outcome of WWII almost all major wars would have ended in a Pyrrhic victory. E.g. the outcome of the Napoleontic war would also be Pyrrhic (Wellington would not have been able to confront the Grande Armee immediately after Waterloo -- But that was a non-issue as Napoleon already lost that army in his ill-fated Russian campaign). Similarly the French would probably not have been able to withstand the original 1914 German attack in 1918, however the Germans were not able to execute that attack anymore in 1918.
- But I am interested in User:FilBox101 detailed arguments why this would be a Pyrrhic victory as well Arnoutf (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going through that sort of arguments in my head, but I think the number of casualties and resources expended is relevant also. Pyrrhic victory could simply mean a victory won at a terrible cost. We need his imput on this. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- In a summary like an infobox, when a qualifier such as Pyrrhic is at all debatable....then it should be left out. An editors opinion on it is not RS'd. Only if the consensus of mainstream historians employ it..should it ever be considered. Juan Riley (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I was going through that sort of arguments in my head, but I think the number of casualties and resources expended is relevant also. Pyrrhic victory could simply mean a victory won at a terrible cost. We need his imput on this. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I, too, have not seen "pyrrhic victory" applied to World War II, and find it inappropriate. Perhaps it's the huge Russian losses that make that term seem suitable, but a pyrrhic victory is appropriate when the defeated has inherently greater resources and can eventually win a war of attrition. The Axis had no such reserve strength against the Allies. Dhtwiki (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've also never seen any source describe World War II as a "Pyrrhic victory" or similar for the Allies. It's hard to see how that would be the case given that the Allies completely defeated the Axis powers and then went on to dominate the post-war world. Nick-D (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
WW2 was certainly a pyrrhic victory for Britain and France as the two countries were completely destroyed. (Dredernely (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC))Striking out comment from sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
- But being completely destroyed after being victorious is not necessarily a Pyrrhic victory - a Pyrrhic victory means that after such a victory the next battle to the same enemy is almost certainly lost. While Britain was very much damaged, Germany could not have fielded an army with any hopes of defeating Britain in mid 1945 (as Germany was even more damaged at the time). Therefor it was not a Pyrrhic victory.
- In the larger scope of things WWII did result in the folding of the European colonial empires (not only British and French but also Dutch, Italian and German). So if we consider WWII as an episode in ongoing colonial wars it may be construed as a Pyrrhic victory. However that construal would be original research; and in any case be beyond the current article. Arnoutf (talk) 10:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
- Two of the major parties emerged from the war with not only stronger armies, but with greater world power. Neither the USSR nor the USA were prepared to fight in the beginning. Both developed their militaries during the war and were stronger in 1945 than they were in 1940. The USSR took vast losses. The USSR's army was stronger at the end than at the beginning. That's not Pyrrhic in the slightest. Yes, Europe lost colonial empires but that took place for decades after the war, due the rise of the new powers that be, and only indirectly due to the war itself. Germany's motivation was to build an empire within Europe, not to simply take over colonies, so that makes it an existential war for Europe, not a colonial one. Western Europe was then rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, money provided by one of their wartime allies. A Pyrrhic victory means you win the battle but lose the war. Yes, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, etc., lost influence and colonies, but they emerged nationally intact, were rebuilt with the assistance of a wartime ally (and were able to build a beneficial international alliance that did not exist pre-war), and were not subsumed into a Thousand Year Reich, so it's a vast stretch of the imagination to say the Allies won the battle and lost the war. Poland could make the argument they won the battle but lost the war, but I'm really not sure any other country could.71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the victory was indeed quite decisive, but looking at the cost (over 500% more losses than the defeated power) it certainly is a war won at very high cost. But with that being said, it also crushed the third reich and the existence of "Axis powers" from the globe. and on the other hand it forged the path to the cold war. So yeah... A war won, but at extremely heavy costs. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Two of the major parties emerged from the war with not only stronger armies, but with greater world power. Neither the USSR nor the USA were prepared to fight in the beginning. Both developed their militaries during the war and were stronger in 1945 than they were in 1940. The USSR took vast losses. The USSR's army was stronger at the end than at the beginning. That's not Pyrrhic in the slightest. Yes, Europe lost colonial empires but that took place for decades after the war, due the rise of the new powers that be, and only indirectly due to the war itself. Germany's motivation was to build an empire within Europe, not to simply take over colonies, so that makes it an existential war for Europe, not a colonial one. Western Europe was then rebuilt under the Marshall Plan, money provided by one of their wartime allies. A Pyrrhic victory means you win the battle but lose the war. Yes, England, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, etc., lost influence and colonies, but they emerged nationally intact, were rebuilt with the assistance of a wartime ally (and were able to build a beneficial international alliance that did not exist pre-war), and were not subsumed into a Thousand Year Reich, so it's a vast stretch of the imagination to say the Allies won the battle and lost the war. Poland could make the argument they won the battle but lost the war, but I'm really not sure any other country could.71.160.33.132 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody suggest the victory came cheap. But extremely heavy costs, both in human life and destruction of infrastructure does not make it a Pyrrhic victory. Arnoutf (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I never said I though it was Pyrrick did I? I just stipulated the heavy losses suffered as direct result of the war, I don't care how you want to call it. but it may be reflected by calling it: "something.. Victory" 195.109.63.17 (talk) 10:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- If we do decide to call it a pyrrhic victory we better have reliable sources to support that position. Our opinion doesn't count. What reliable sources say does. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Both Britain and France ceased to be superpowers as a direct result of World War II, so for them it was definitely a pyrrhic victory. (LoweRobinson (talk) 11:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
- Please read up on what Pyrrhic victory means. As used above, in the classical sense it means "winning the battle but losing the war". WWII where Germany, Italy and Japan were the enemies ended in 1945. The UK and France have not been in a war with either of those states since. So no, it was NOT a Pyrrhic victory in this sense of the word. In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor". To use this definition would imply that France and the UK should have been better off without winning the war (i.e. occupied France, besieged Britain) than with winning the war. Again a very far fetching interpretation.
- So either (1) we continue this, so far unfruitful, discussion by putting in our own thoughts and definitions (which is a gross violation of the central policy on original research WP:OR); or (2) we bring in reliable, mainstream sources that explicitly use the term Pyrrhic victory (but I have seen none so far, so I doubt they exist). Or (3) we close this discussion. (I would vote for closing this) Arnoutf (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- The UK ceased to be a world power as a direct result of World War II, and was soon surpassed economically in Europe by West Germany. France was only occupied and Britain besieged because they had declared war on Germany and immediately started bombing German cities. Many people today believe the UK should never have declared war on Germany in 1939. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
- What is your point explicitly in relation to the very specific term Pyrrhic victory, and what reliable mainstream sources support this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Churchill said in 1960 that the UK made a huge mistake in destroying itself and its empire by starting World War II. He said Britain should have remained neutral and allowed Hitler a free hand against the USSR. (LoweRobinson (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
- What is your point explicitly in relation to the very specific term Pyrrhic victory, and what reliable mainstream sources support this? Arnoutf (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- The UK ceased to be a world power as a direct result of World War II, and was soon surpassed economically in Europe by West Germany. France was only occupied and Britain besieged because they had declared war on Germany and immediately started bombing German cities. Many people today believe the UK should never have declared war on Germany in 1939. (LoweRobinson (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
- Also, there's no way that Churchill would have said what LoweRobinson is attributing to him, along with an insane claim that the UK started the war. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- @ Arnoutf: Your second interpretation where you state "In the Oxford a Pyrrhic victory is more broadly defined as "a victory won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor"" doesn't nesecarily mean that the war must have been won for Germany. It simply states that the losses suffered by a winning party (or even a part of them) has lost more than they otherwise would have if they didn't participate. And next to that, how do you measure such thing anyway? I would say, purely looking at the total deathtoll, the victory was indeed pyrrhic, certainly for US, because even with the Pearl Harbor event, US inlands was never attacked and would likely not have happened anyway. Also, as the points made above, France and Britain were heavily degraded as a worldpower. France and Britian also suffered severe economic damage with half their countries destroyed.
- In conclusion, I see your point that most likely the war would not have been gone otherwise looking at the two sides which were fighting. and for these 'factions' the war may not be pyrrhic. But looking at certain countries individually, I'm not so sure. Also, I'm thinking that finding some reliables sources about this is going to be nearly impossible, because nobody will ever admit that it may have been more pyrrhic than they'd like. even now, 70 years later. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Shorter lead
I made some changes (diff) to the lead, particularly the lead paragraph. Nick-D reverted them, pointing out that they were substantial and should be discussed.
About the points raised by Nick-D:
a) "false claim that millions of people were killed by strategic bombing"
- This is actually argued (with source) in the restored text
b) "greatly over simplified why Japan surrendered (it wasn't just due to the atomic bombs)"
- My edit only mentioned how the situation developed up to that point, and this included that an invasion of Japan was imminent. The lead should concentrate on major factors.
Nxavar (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for starting this discussion Nxavar. I'm in favour of simplifying the lead as well (not to mention the body of the article, which has become a bit lengthy), but I'd suggest that per the precedents for this article substantial changes be agreed here first. Regarding the points, the article currently states that "approximately one million were killed" by bombing, not millions, and I think its better one way or the other to note that multiple factors led to the Japanese surrender than imply that it was just the atomic bombs given the considerable debate over this topic among historians. That said, there was some good stuff in your changes. A way to progress this might be for you to post your proposed text here, and other editors can comment on it and/or tweak it. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you for you constructive criticism! The rewritten lead paragraph, for reference:
World War II (WWII or WW2), also known as the Second World War, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945. It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries, including all of the great powers. It was initiated by the Axis military alliance, which was opposed and eventually defeated by the Allies. It is the deadliest conflict in human history,[1] with in an estimated 50 million to 85 million fatalities. Most of the victims were civilians, with millions dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres[2] and the Holocaust.[3][4]
- I have no objection with including the apprximate numbers found in the current version instead of the vague "millions". I propose this sentence:
Most of the victims were civilians, with approximately one million dying in strategic bombing of industrial and population centres and over 10 million the Holocaust.
- No objection with mentioning the Soviet invasion of Manchuria either. Nxavar (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't like the direct comparison of the casualties caused by bombing to the Holocaust at all: the two were very different, and it implies some kind of equivalence between (mostly) Allied actions and those of Nazi Germany. It also excludes the millions of civilian deaths Japan caused, and the deaths from the many other atrocities (for instance, mass starvation in German-occupied Eastern Europe). The current wording also isn't good at all in this respect, but I think that this is a step backwards. I'd suggest changing the last sentence proposed here to: "It was marked by mass deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust (in which approximately 11 million people were killed)[5][6], other atrocities and the effects of fighting." It's also not really accurate to say that the war "was initiated by the Axis" - it was started by Germany in Europe and Japan in Asia, with both acting separately of their allies. Italy didn't join the European war until May 1940. On reflection, I think that the rest of the current first para is pretty good: my concern really is about the next three paras which are too detailed (especially the second para where lots of countries are name-dropped for no clear reason) and could be compressed into one or two paras. Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
See also is in need of attention
The see also page is in need of attention. It misses a lot of key links. I think what we're shooting for in it is a list of links to sites that cover World War II, not just articles (except for Wikipedia articles). Fisch1234 (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- Which ones do you suggest? On this topic, I'd suggest deleting the (very partial) list of documentaries as there are many hundreds of them, and including a link to the List of World War II documentary films article would be much superior in this high-level article. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I like that suggestion; I'll work to implement that today. On the more general sites, should we start a list of sites on world war II article? I'm in school, so reply could take some time (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Date while adding link
I tried to add a link to this page while editing my user page.It worked, but I would like to notify users that when you add the link to the page, the bubble that says that basic info reads that WW II took place from 1939 - 2019. This is obviously a mistake, so it would be great if it could be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see where that appears in the article (including its hidden text) Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Choice of pictures
Just a query, but is there a reason why we haven't included a picture of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the article? Regardless of the importance in the Japanese surrender, it is pretty common to claim the use of atomic weapons as one of the most important geopolitical legacies of the conflict. It might also draw attention to the excellent quality articles we seem to have on the bombing and related subjects. —Brigade Piron (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- I am in favor of this yes. While in relation to the total deathtoll the atomic bombs haven't made the greatest impact, it remains being the only use ever for a dedicated nuclear weapon to be used in any war. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Advancements section
Hello I've now come acros the bit of advancement in technology and warfare section, reading up on the article some bit. And I came acros the "Land Warfare" part. I fell that a part of the story is leut/not properly explained. It was WWO 2 that not only changed the tactical use of tanks, like the modern way to format an armed divison, but also the science on tanks in combination with their roles. May I suggest the following writing?:
- Land warfare changed from the static front lines of World War I to increased mobility and combined arms. The tank, which had been used predominantly for infantry support in the First World War, had evolved into the primary weapon.[1] In the late 1930s, tanks were considerably more advanced than it had been during World War I and tank design pushed for standadization of the parts it consisted out of.[2] Technological advances continued throughout the war with increases in speed, armour and firepower, aswell as means to significantly increase production rates.
- At the start of the war, most commanders thought enemy tanks should be met by tanks with superior specifications.[3] This idea was challenged by the poor performance of the relatively light early tank guns against armour and Germany's use of combined arms, were among the key elements of their highly successful blitzkrieg tactics across Poland and France.[1]
- From 1941 when Russia used the T-34 and KV-1 tanks with great succes against german forces, a race erupted to build the superior tank, including the Panther, Tiger I, IS-3, T-29 and even superheavy classes such as Maus and T-28. However the war ended prematurely causing many designs to never see active service. These constant advances also resulted in many means of non-tank anti-tank weapons, including tank destroyers, indirect artillery, anti-tank guns (both towed and self-propelled), mines, short-ranged infantry antitank weapons.[3] Even with large-scale mechanisation, infantry remained the backbone of all forces,[4] and throughout the war, most infantry were equipped similarly to World War I.[5]
In my view this shows a bit more clearly how tank design and landbased combat was affected because of the war.[6] and to shed a tiny light on some madman ideas (for which Hitler was known to have). If people can agree with this please be so kind an put it in. Thank you. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 07:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- While relatively interesting, we should ask ourselves the question whether it is central to the understanding of WWII. The idea of Wikipedia (and in fact all encyclopedias) is that it provides focused concise articles on topics. The conciseness is essential to keep the matter readable. The broader such a topic (like WWII) the less space there is for relatively minor details. Narrower, subtopics, could provide detail and background for the interested reader, where a top level article cannot.
- It is for this reason that the it is highly recommended that no single article will have more than about 100,000 characters (see WP:AS). The current article already is more than twice that length (about 225,000). So before suggesting to add another 2,000 characters, we should seriously ask ourself whether we need it (and which 100,000 characters should go first). In my view, the tekst above is too detailled for this article. If we want it, we should probably find another article to put it in. Arnoutf (talk) 13:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- I understand. After I wrote the piece I was also wondering for myself if side-sections like these be included at all. They may come better to their value in a separate article that deals explicitly with effects such as technological advancement in warfare tactics/designs and maybe social/cultural impacts. An article with such callout seems to not yet exist. 195.109.63.17 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Problems with early paragraphs
I tried recently to improve the early paragraphs but my changes were instantly reverted with the comment only that they were "unhelpful". I should like to persist:
- Paragraph 2 begins "The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937,[5] but the world war is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939[6] with the invasion of Poland by Germany ...". This part of the article is primarily about when the war can be said to have started, but the style here places the emphasis on Japan rather than Germany, which I would suggest is at odds with the general perception of the War. I suggested removing "aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and", which (while perfectly true) is a distraction from the question of when the war began, and lightens the weight of the Japan material at this point, thereby going some way towards adjusting the balance.
- There is no indication in the article as it stands when the United States entered the war. I proposed to add after the description of the attack on Pearl Harbor "This drew the United States into the war.". If this is regarded as inaccurate, then I would say that some other means should be found of making the events clear, or the innocent reader may think that the US had been part of the war from September 1939, which is of course not the case.
Deipnosophista (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Deipnosophista revision did add an important missing piece to the lede, and it didn't warrant a reversion. Instead of abusing the use of this tool and adding, in addition, ridiculous reasons, User:Miracle dream, if he considered important to retain "aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific", should have add his own revision. Even more distasteful is Deipnosophista's use of part of the reverted text for his own editorial effort, without citing its origin. Carlotm (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- At first, the first sentence of paragraph 2 just stated the beginning of the war which is no intent to emphasis any countries (Japan or Germany). Even you think it emphasis Japan, I don't see any problem with this because it just talked about the start time not the whole war and it indeed said "is generally said to have begun on 1 September 1939" which is clearly enough. Actually the paragraph 2 uses its most of contents to describe the War of Germany while there are only one and a half sentences about Japan. Hence, it is really hard to say "emphasis Japan." Actually Germany is not the only major Axis power even though it is the most important. Japan is the second important Axis power which is also a major Axis.
- Then the lede indeed indicated that "In December 1941, Japan attacked the United States" which means the US involved the War.The link of this sentence is Attack on Pearl Harbor which is the beginning the US involved the war. If you think we need to add "the US joined the war", I guess we also need to add the Soviet Union joined the war after the "European Axis powers launched an invasion of the Soviet Union, opening the largest land theatre of war in history" or Poland joined the war after "the invasion of Poland by Germany " or even China joined the war after the first sentence"The Empire of Japan aimed to dominate Asia and the Pacific and was already at war with the Republic of China in 1937"Miracle dream (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016
Japan was in the right
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The article should mention that Japan was 100% in the right. The attack on the US naval base at Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the illegal US oil embargo. Everybody wanted the European colonial powers expelled from the Far East, and Japan was best able to do it. (79.67.121.111 (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC))
|
Attacked the United States?
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Japan did not attack the United States. Hawaii was not part of the US until 1959. (31.50.130.83 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2016 (UTC)) Hawaii had been a US territory since the 1890s or so. It became a State in 1959. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
|
Western Europe section
Closing discussion initiated by banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This section reads as though the Germans began bombing British cities first. In reality it was the other way round - the British began bombing German cities in May 1940, and the London Blitz did not begin until September (possibly in direct response). (86.133.85.128 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC))
|
Poland
The following discussion 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.
Why did the UK and France declare war on Germany, when the Soviet Union also invaded Poland at the same time? (217.42.28.200 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC))
- (Simplistic answer) - perhaps better mention of this should be noted in the article. The allies had a pact that they would defend Poland if GERMANY attacked....no pact for any other country if they attacked....but that said the Allies did attempt to fight Russia in the winter of 1939 by forming a task force but Finland surrendered before any action was taken. -- Moxy (talk) 18:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is also incorrect to say Poland was invaded 'at the same time' by Germany and USSR. Poland was invaded Sep 1; Britain declared war on Sep 3; USSR did not attack until Sep 17 or so IIRC.
- USSR had been seeking an anti-German pact with UK & France for years and had gotten its overtures rejected. France in particular sought allies who would help defend France without making any commitment to take offensive action on behalf of those potential allies. Tough position to bargain with. It was very late in the day before Stalin decided he was better off dealing with Hitler instead. Books have been written about the folly of British and French diplomacy in the pre-war era.
- Moxy is of course correct that the western allies nevertheless came very close to fighting the USSR.
- regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Everyone knew Germany and the Soviet Union had agreed to invade Poland at the same time in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on 23 August. The original text made no mention of Germany. The UK and France had to refuse Stalin's demands because he insisted on taking all of Poland, the rest of eastern Europe, and the Baltic States. (217.42.104.109 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC))
- USSR had been seeking an anti-German pact with UK & France for years over the bodies of millions of Soviet and Mongolian citizens with Soviet networks in the UK and France. Uncle Joe always alive.Xx236 (talk) 10:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Map of Axis advance in Europe
I am pretty sure there was once a map showing the Axis advance in Europe and/or the height of the Axis and Axis aligned states advance in Europe in 1942. It was similar to the current Pacific War map in the article. Why has it been removed? Those maps are very helpful for the reader to get a grasp for the territorial extend of the conflict. Dead Mary (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, I'd like to replace the Casablance Conference image under "Axis advance stalls (1942–43)" with File:Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png. Reason: There are already 3 "Churchill chilling with friends" pictures in the article and I think this article badly needs a map. Afaik this picture was there in earlier article versions too. Any objections? Dead Mary (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The happy Red Army soldier
The coming years - hunger in the SU, persecutions of people who saw the outside world. No reason to be happy.Xx236 (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of this page is to improve the article. It's not a forum. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not Soviet propaganda tool.
- The purpose of this page is to improve the article, not to attack me.Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The new caption
The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR.
- The RAS could be confronted with another sources.
- Even if there were 13.7 million dead, they wasn't all killed by Germans. The partisan war was instigated from Moscow and local collaborators participated.
- The Soviet leaders didn't prepare the nation to fight in 1941.Xx236 (talk) 10:43, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- Which other figures for Soviet casualties are commonly used in reliable sources? And keep the commentary on the war to other websites: no-one is really interested here as it isn't a discussion website. As you know. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- World War II casualties is listed as Main.
- If you present the Soviet POV it's O.K., when I oppose your propaganda, I'm not welcome. Xx236 (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Take your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere please. Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Take your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality elsewhere please. Neither Nazi nor Soviet propaganda is welcome here.
- Which other figures for Soviet casualties are commonly used in reliable sources? And keep the commentary on the war to other websites: no-one is really interested here as it isn't a discussion website. As you know. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Soviet POV is that Polish citizens "liberated" in 1939 were Soviet, so the numbers include both the total number of "annected" people and the number of their deaths. If you approve the Soviet POV you have to mention also the other POV - the Polish one. According to the international law Communist Poland accepted the Polish-Soviet border in 1946 only so occupied Poland was occupied Poland like occupied Russia was occupied Russia. I understand that simple answers are preferred, but the reality is more complicated than computer games. Xx236 (talk) 07:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The SMERSH isn't even mentioned in the article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/holly-cara-price/smersh-stalin_b_1200086.htmlXx236 (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Background - Europe
The text is mostly about Germany. At the same time the Soviet Union created the biggest army of the world, committed a series of crimes against humanity, invided Mongolia, tested Sovietization there. Xx236 (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Let's summarize the state of armies in 1939, raw numbers. Is it still WP:SOAP? The Soviet Union had the biggest army, the terrorist network and the ideology. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197440/Soviet-Union-guilty-Nazis-World-War-II.html
- Let's summarize the numbers of victims of the Nazis and the Soviets 1933 -1939, 1939-June 1941,June 1941-1945, 1945-1956.
- The war in Europe wasn't finished in May 1945, the pacifications and partisan war continued till 1950, even 1960.Xx236 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it is. And if you cannot see that yourself you should seriously doubt whether you should be on Wikipedia at all (per WP:COMPETENT). Arnoutf (talk) 10:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Agree with Arnoutf the war ended with the German surrender… any armed skirmish after that is considered post-war. --E-960 (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Why reverting?
Nick-D lately reverted an image added by Kiwi228 as being a "staged propaganda image". How can you affirm that? Anyway, if so, just change the caption, citing a source for your assertion. Carlotm (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of the link-ups photographed by journalists were staged events. The actual link ups were, for obvious military reasons, highly cautious and not very photographic affairs. Liaisons between Soviet and US troops were kept to a minimum. We don't need more images in the article, and especially staged images of limited value. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D, I am unable to agree to your last sentence's assumptions. Whether staged or not the image is a valuable testimony of soldiers' relief and joy for the end of the war, and as such, even more so because of its transient nature, it's a meaningful remembrance. I don't agree also to your other premise, that "we don't need more images" not only because of my specific and opposite thinking but also because of your unethical introduction of a new reason for your reversion, which was not part of your original argumentation. Carlotm (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- ? I've been saying for months here that the article has too many images. You're welcome to disagree, but calling me "unethical" when you lob images into one of Wikipedia's highest profile articles and can't be bothered considering prior talk page discussions isn't a good practice. If you want to propose a photo showing happy Allied troops, there are loads of unstaged or at least less staged images to pick from. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not that I want to waste your and my time endlessly. Here I was considering you reversion and your reasons for it, among which never was the "don't need more images" reason. That you afterward brought up this "new" motive is simply unethical. Prior talk page discussions have nothing to do with it. Please, don't replay if only to add gratuitous considerations. Carlotm (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I apologize that has sent a photo without discussion. One more try, you agree or not to publish in article photo from here http://collections.ushmm.org/search/catalog/pa1172309 PS: Previous photo which I sent, it was from this website too. --Kiwi228 (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- ? I've been saying for months here that the article has too many images. You're welcome to disagree, but calling me "unethical" when you lob images into one of Wikipedia's highest profile articles and can't be bothered considering prior talk page discussions isn't a good practice. If you want to propose a photo showing happy Allied troops, there are loads of unstaged or at least less staged images to pick from. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D, I am unable to agree to your last sentence's assumptions. Whether staged or not the image is a valuable testimony of soldiers' relief and joy for the end of the war, and as such, even more so because of its transient nature, it's a meaningful remembrance. I don't agree also to your other premise, that "we don't need more images" not only because of my specific and opposite thinking but also because of your unethical introduction of a new reason for your reversion, which was not part of your original argumentation. Carlotm (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
I think three things are playing here at the same time. Let's try to disentangle them and discuss content here
First - can the article (or the axis collapse section) capacitate more pictures. My inclination would be to say "No" - four pictures in a relatively short section seems like overdoing it.
Second - Should we focus on the monumental events - i.e. main government buildings and state leaders; or should we also give some place to common soldiers and civilian response (i.e. human interest). My inclination would be to say "Yes" the end of the world was not only a matter for leaders.
Third - What are the best pictures available, and should we avoid staged photos. My inclination would be to say that this is unavoidable, shutter times were long, camera's unwieldy during WWII (and by the way the Yalta photo is obviously staged too).
If we follow this line of reasoning the discussion would become more along the lines of - The new image should replace an existing image, and can we agree that there is a new image that is more relevant than one of the current 3? (To be honest, to me the Yalta picture seems less illustrative of the big message of this particular section than the happy soldier picture) Arnoutf (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- The "happy solders" picture should inform about WWII results - economic success of the USA and starving of Soviet people, accompanied by terror. The Red Army participated later in mass crimes in Poland (Augustów roundup). Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- I recommend that we update images VERY selectively. I'm puzzled why the animated map of the war in Europe was removed? This was a long standing items for months if not years, and was quite useful. --E-960 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/http://www.navy.mil:80/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html to http://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100218221016/http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm to http://www.un.org/aboutun/history.htm
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110430165110/http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT30/011/2006/en/11079910-d422-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/act300112006en.pdf to http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ACT30/011/2006/en/11079910-d422-11dd-8743-d305bea2b2c7/act300112006en.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
- http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp [non-working]
- https://web.archive.org/web/20080306082607/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz2/glantz2.asp [working, archive]
- http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp [non-working]
- https://web.archive.org/web/20080302130751/http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/glantz3/glantz3.asp [working, archive]
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Checked and have added working, archival links to non-working, for last two links. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Killed in action?!
That's new: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Adolf Hitler and Mussolini killed in action (see Infobox). If we want to rewrite the meaning of words to suite anyone's inclination, an immense amount of changes has to be expected and accepted. Carlotm (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed the templates. Only Mussolini could qualify as being killed by enemy combatants, and I think that should be discussed. Dhtwiki (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Mussolini was not killed in action but, after a short imprisonment, executed without due process as per an order signed by the CLNAI - Comitato di Liberazione Nazionale Alta Italia (National Liberation Committee- North Italy Section). Carlotm (talk) 06:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Maps
Reverted an edit that included maps of Colonies after WWII and Division of Czechoslovakia. The colonies map is a bit out of place, the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires, this occurred in the 1960s, so the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics, to include the map in the Aftermath section is a bit premature for the events it tries to address. As for the Divisions of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate fit, but since we have an image of the Munich conference the item is highlighted in the section already. Lets avoid excessive mapping, we can add a map for everything — annexations of Austria, partition of Poland, invasion of Finland, annexation of the Baltic states and so on… --E-960 (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
- Regarding to this edit [1]... Czechoslovakia was actually the first real victim of Nazi German aggression (the vast majority of Austrians welcomed the Anschluss). Its territory was divided among Germany, Hungary, Poland and the puppet Slovak state. The map shows two waves of annexations (1938–1939).
- The Japanese victories over the Western powers in Asia between 1941 and 1943 (and German victories in Europe and North Africa) showed Indians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Burmese, Arabs and other colonized nations that the colonial powers were not invincible. War had done terrible damage to their prestige. World War II left colonial powers like Britain, France and Netherlands weakened, unable to sustain their empires. ... Vietnam declared independence under Ho Chi Minh in 1945, but France continued to rule until its 1954 defeat. Indonesia under Sukarno fought a war of independence from the Netherlands from 1945 to 1949. There was a rapid wave of decolonization in the two decades following World War II.
- Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946), Syria (1946), Jordan (1946), India (1947), Pakistan (1947), Burma (1948), Ceylon (1948), Laos (1949), Indonesia (1949), Eritrea (1951), Libya (1951), Cambodia (1953), Vietnam (1954), Sudan (1956), Morocco (1956), Tunisia (1956), Ghana (1957), Malaysia (1957), Guinea (1958) ... -- Tobby72 (talk) 08:03, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, after WWII European powers did began to lose grip on their colonies, but the bulk of the breakaways happened in the 1960s. Generally, it is the Suez Crisis which marks the fall of the British and French colonial power. "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." [2]. As for the Division of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate item, but do we really need that map in a crowded section, If anything you could add a map of the partition of Poland this is when the "shooting" war started in Europe. My recommendation is not to over do it with the maps. --E-960 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, one more thing, I think that the one map that should be added to the page is for the North Africa Campaign, we have maps for the war in Europe and Asia, but nothing that shows the fighting in North Africa. --E-960 (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct, after WWII European powers did began to lose grip on their colonies, but the bulk of the breakaways happened in the 1960s. Generally, it is the Suez Crisis which marks the fall of the British and French colonial power. "The Suez crisis is widely believed to have contributed significantly to Britain's decline as a world power." [2]. As for the Division of Czechoslovakia, it's a legitimate item, but do we really need that map in a crowded section, If anything you could add a map of the partition of Poland this is when the "shooting" war started in Europe. My recommendation is not to over do it with the maps. --E-960 (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
- While after WWII the European began to lose their grip power, the two great power nation United States and Soviet Union appeared to engage an gobal Cold War until the year 1990-1991 the Soviet Union have finally disintegration and became now the country of Russia. SA 13 Bro (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- The Suez Crisis did not contribute at all to the decline of Britain and France. That had already happened during World War II. (LoweRobinson (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC))
- Actually the decline had already started much earlier. Clear examples of the decline of Britain are Irish independence (1922), unrest in India under Ghandi (from 1915 onwards). In other words, the European power began to lose their grip way before WWII. The process was probably sped up by WWII but it began well before and ended well after that war; so no need to include that story here. Arnoutf (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Ireland wasn't fully independent until 1949. Gandhi's non-violent campaign had little effect until the 1930s and probably delayed Indian independence. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))
"the war did not cause the loss of the colonial empires". Depends on which empires you are counting. The Japanese colonial empire was completely gone by 1945. The Italian Empire lost most of its territories due to the War, with only what became the Trust Territory of Somaliland continuing to have Italian colonial presence until 1960.
"the war itself did not have a great impact on colonial politics". I hope you are joking. French Indochina, at least, was destabilized due to the War. The First Indochina War (1946-1954) is largely a continuation of World War II divisions. That is certainly impact. Dimadick (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
"Dates of independence of Asian and African countries: Philippines (1946)". I would not count the Philippines as an example of a country gaining independence due to World War II. Decolonization of the Insular Government of the Philippine Islands (an American colonial administration) started with the Tydings–McDuffie Act of 1934, the Commonwealth of the Philippines was established in 1935, and the Americans promised full independence of the Philippines by 1945 or 1946. The War is actually considered to have delayed independence. Dimadick (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Summing this all up. There seem to be opinions that the war sped up, delayed, or hardly impacted allied decolonization. We can come up with many repetitions of above ideas, examples and similar but in my view, this is the time where we should either let it rest as something outside the main topic of this article, or bring in modern mainstream historians who explicitly discuss these positions. Arnoutf (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- World War II destroyed the UK and France as world powers, and massively sped up/caused the end of their colonial empires. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC))
- Did you even read my comment above before making this remark? Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- The US doesn't count here - it only had one overseas colony, which had already been promised full independence before the war. Britain and France were both destroyed economically and militarily as a direct result of WW2. (92.15.198.4 (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC))
- Are you trying to make any relevant point that adds something new (in which case, clearly state your new insight in a relevant (to improving the article), comprehensive and comprehensible way and backed by mainstream modern historians, instead of putting in unconnected unsupported sentences that do not follow the thread), or are you just not listening to any of the other editors? Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- If we as Wikians want to be precise, then maybe line up the story with an article about exactly this point?
- https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Decolonization , and another one
- https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/British_Empire , I haven't read through all yet, but it should provide some handling in the issue at hand. At the very least it should provide some insight in wether the world war(s) caused the loss (not the decline, but definitive loss) or if they had already lost the grip and the loss was inevitable.
- Are you trying to make any relevant point that adds something new (in which case, clearly state your new insight in a relevant (to improving the article), comprehensive and comprehensible way and backed by mainstream modern historians, instead of putting in unconnected unsupported sentences that do not follow the thread), or are you just not listening to any of the other editors? Arnoutf (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
- Decolonization of the British Empire only really began in 1947, as a direct result of the financial and industrial cost of World War II. (79.67.123.180 (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC))
E-960. Regarding to this edit [3]. Due to the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947, Italy lost all its overseas colonial possessions. Map showing prewar Italian Empire (in 1936) is useful. -- Tobby72 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hello Tobby72, I understand that this is a legitimate fact of post war changes. I just support keeping that section as is… I think we had two recent edits where a very similar map was added to the Aftermath section. Both times they were reverted by other editors who opted to keep the content unchanged in this case. --E-960 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- That world map doesn't really show anything, and is too small to have much of an impact. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Perhaps I can suggest the map of the Italian Empire in 1940. Do you agree now? -- Tobby72 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Date of war's beginning
More trolling by HarveyCarter |
---|
The Second World War is usually said to have began on 3 September 1939. And the entire British Commonwealth and Empire declared war on Germany, it wasn't only the UK. (81.132.48.60 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC))
Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September, 1939… that's way past the time when Brtain and France declared war on Germany. Not sure what is the argument here? --E-960 (talk) 12:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense. --E-960 (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC) |
HarveyCarter
As a note to everyone watching this talk page, please keep in mind that posts made by IP accounts here arguing about the facts of the war and/or trolling are, based on recent history, quite likely to be the banned editor User:HarveyCarter. Please ignore or remove them. Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
WWII Europe Map
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/19/Second_world_war_europe_animation_small.gif)
User:Staberinde, if you have an issue with this map, perhaps you should elaborate on it a bit more. The animated map was on this page for a very long time. But, you simply removed the image and stated that "please fix at least the most blatant inaccuracies before re-adding". What inaccuracies are you referring to? Can you elaborate first before edit warring, I'm not convinced that this is a sound argument... I myself find the map's accuracy quite reasonable, without it being overly detailed. --E-960 (talk) 07:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I also agree that it should be removed as it's inaccurate. While it's somewhat tricky to closely fact check the map as it can't be paused, it contains some clear problems:
- The Soviet Union's major gains in territory over the winter of 1941/42 appear to be under-stated (especially in the Ukraine). This was one of the most important Allied offensives of the war.
- For no sensible reason, Belgium is depicted as neutral from late 1944 onwards: it was actually a core part of the Allies
- Similarly, for no good reason all of Eastern Europe is shown as neutral at the end of the war, when it was actually under Soviet occupation, with many of the countries already having pro-Soviet puppet governments in place. A few enjoyed a period of semi-independence for a few years after the war, but this wasn't the case in June 1945.
- Finland's declaration of war against Germany (following a fair amount of fighting) in 1944 is missing
- The map's treatment of occupied vs aligned vs contested territory is inconsistent, and seems random at times. Showing Vichy territory in northern Africa as forming part of the Axis powers prior to Operation Torch in 1942 is clearly inaccurate, and there are lots of smaller errors.
- As such, I don't think that we're really doing our readers a service by keeping this map in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a quick note, looking back at article history it appears that this animated map was on the page since 2012. Anyway, I believe that the arguments in this case are over minutiae... you can endlessly argue about how accurately the front line was depicted. I don't think this should disqualify the map... as it helps the reader to get a good general understanding of how the war progressed. Also, I don't agree with your assessments listed above, again upon closer inspection they are somewhat inaccurate:
- Winter Campaign of 1941–42 was primarily centered around the Battle of Moscow, no way the Red Army pushed into the Ukraine as you suggest. The Battle of Stalingrad ended in 1943, and the city is well east of Ukraine.
- French colonies in North Africa were Vichy, and since the Vichy government was collaborationist they are also depicted as Axis. Pls see Attack on Mers-el-Kébir when the British attacked the French Vichy fleet in Algeria in 1940.
- Eastern Europe (and Belgium) was under de jure "neutrality" immediately after the war. However, in the case of Eastern Europe the Soviets between 1946 and 1948 used coercion and Red Army's presence to ensure Communist maintained and/or gained power. Again, the map is not inaccurate to depict those countries as "neutral/independent" immediately after the war.
In the end, the map is quite accurate, and the arguments against it simply result from a not having a full understading of all the details involved (and there are a lot of them). --E-960 (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Italy is marked as Axis member from beginning, it joined war in June 1940.
- Vichy France is colored same as Axis members/occupied territory. This is not really an accurate representation of actual situation. There was no Nazi occupation of Algeria.
- Defeated Axis members Romania, Bulgaria and Finland joined Allied side and participated actively in combat, so they should not be marked as neutrals.
- Liberated Allied members Belgium and Yugoslavia should not be marked as neutrals.
- Finland joined war on Axis side in June 1941, not in May.
- Iceland was occupied by British in 1940 May, not April.
- Poland somehow becomes neutral at war's end.
- Some of that stuff has been pointed out at image's talk page long ago, although obviously nobody ever bothers reading that. And some of those definitely are not "minor"..--Staberinde (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Staberinde, well what is your suggestion to fix the issue? You are simply asking to remove of the map, so that the European Theatre is without a helpful illustration. Perhaps, could you fix the animation scheme? I would think that this is a much more constructive solution then to remove the map all together. Pls take a look at the map's history there are several "fixes" that corrected minor inaccuracies in the past. --E-960 (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Given that you're arguing for the map's retention despite the problems noted above, it would be good if you could try to fix it. We wouldn't permit text with such obvious and fundamental inaccuracies in the article, and the map should be removed until it's corrected. It's certainly not GA worthy content. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Staberinde, well what is your suggestion to fix the issue? You are simply asking to remove of the map, so that the European Theatre is without a helpful illustration. Perhaps, could you fix the animation scheme? I would think that this is a much more constructive solution then to remove the map all together. Pls take a look at the map's history there are several "fixes" that corrected minor inaccuracies in the past. --E-960 (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Staberinde and Nick-D, it would be greatly appreciated if you could help improve the map and file improvements in Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop. You are the folks that see the problems, why not take the initiative and fix them, instead of delegating them to other edits? I simply argue that this map is needed, if you see issues please fix them, don't just "throw the baby out with the bathwater." --E-960 (talk) 08:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that my graphics editing skills don't extend that far. Per WP:BURDEN you also should be looking to improve what you seem to acknowledge is sub-standard content given that you re-added it to the article. Anyway, given that there seems to be consensus that the map currently isn't up to standard, would there be any objections with me removing it until it's corrected? Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I did not see any major problems with the map, see my comments above. If Staberinde feels that there are inaccuracies, then he should correct them, not simply delete the map. This map went through several updates in the past to improve accuracy, that process should be continued. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also, as suggested I'm not comfortable with removing the map and waiting until it is fixed. If user Staberinde sees issues (I don't) then the best option would have been to adjust the details and in a proactive manner upload the new map for use. These would not be glaring issues, WP has tag so you don't delete everything if you see a problem with. --E-960 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Let's see what other editors think then. I personally contend that given the large number of significant inaccuracies in the map which have been identified above, it should be removed for now. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then. I think that the animated map even with the inaccuracies that I see as minor is useful and should stay. More importantly, before anyone starts improving it I think it would be useful if the (Commons) description of the map would include a sourced description of its initial state and every change the animation undergoes. This would prevent discussions as the above, where editors may argue over what the map actually reflects. Then, before anyone updates the map or requests that it should be updated, there could first be an informed discussion (i.e. based on cited sources) about the current state of the map and the proposed change. Lklundin (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, I did not see any major problems with the map, see my comments above. If Staberinde feels that there are inaccuracies, then he should correct them, not simply delete the map. This map went through several updates in the past to improve accuracy, that process should be continued. --E-960 (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
There's been a bit of too and fro about the figure in the article for the death toll for the Nanking Massacre. I also agree with TitaniumCarbide (talk · contribs) that the current reference, Iris Chang's book The Rape of Nanking is an undesirable source. The coverage of this issue in the Death toll of the Nanking Massacre notes that estimates vary considerably, with the most common range being between 40,000 to 200,000 Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Fifty thousand is the lowest estimation. The International Military Tribunal for the Far East put the estimation over 200,000 (See page 496 of source: [4]). The Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal put the estimation at 300,000. Not only Iris Chang. Then wiki article cannot be used as the source for another wiki page. The Death toll of the Nanking Massacre is a wiki article largely edited by a single user. Check this statistic page [5], user CurtisNaito made 94.4% edition for this page. Then Banzaibilitz who was blocked indefinitely made about 4% edition. This means other users made less than 2% edition. If we use the data from this article, why not use the data from main article Nanking Massacre which put the range from fifty thousand to three hundred thousand? Then based on the wiki rule, we should not use any wiki article as the source. I just use a range not a single data in this article which is a more NPOV choice. Miracle dream (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2016
- I am not suggesting that the mentioned article be used as a source, rather I directed reviewers in my edit summary to consult that article for a fuller description of why stating "hundreds of thosuands" as fact is not credible.
- User:Miracle dream, do you have any familiarity with the historiography of Nanjing? It is widely agreed in non-Chinese sources that the IMT and Nanjing tribunal findings lack fundamental credibility. The "traditional" figure of 300,000 is discussed in responsible historical accounts of Nanjing, but mainly to dismiss it as politicized and unsupportable, even if it cannot be disproven. This is why I chose to mention only the lower bound of credible estimates with "at least." TiC (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2016
When searching "World War II from the main page (https://www.wikipedia.org) or from the mobile app, the short little description under the article title states that the war lasted from 2003-2016. This is a case of blatant vandalism.
Thanks, SB49Champs
SB49Champs (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Done There was vandalism at the Wikidata item for this article which I have reverted. clpo13(talk) 16:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
The block "Participants"
It should be divided into different periods of the war. The coalition was so different at different stages that it can not be ignored. The existing text creates a false understanding for a reader like Germany and USSR were not in the same coalition during the whole war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.241.110.18 (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- The catastrophic USSR-Nazi warfare greatly overshadows their minimal cooperation. It's noted in the body, like all details. But, if you have sources that treat the war as having very distinct stages, we're interested. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Interesting category removal.
The removal by User:Nick-D might be defens(c)ible on the details were it not for the categories he left standing. Comments before I revert? Juan Riley (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Which categories did he leave standing? Lucasjohansson (talk) 23:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Juan, what's your concern here? I removed the generic history of the USA and USSR categories as a) they're part of the same category tree as the more-relevant Wars involving the United States and Wars involving the Wars involving the Soviet Union categories and b) this article isn't about the history of the USA or USSR specifically - the Military history of the United States during World War II and Soviet Union in World War II articles cover those topics. Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2016
Nataguerra1e2 (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Not done. No specific edit request given. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Material on books concerning India added to the article today
copy ex talk:Rjensen:Hi, Could you please start a discussion on the talk page regarding the content you're seeking to add to the World War II article? The article currently doesn't have summaries of the contributions of the various countries involved, and I personally don't think that this would be useful - others might have a different view though, of course. I note that you have added identical links to the books concerned to multiple articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- The CBI theater includes India and it had major theater status. I was moved by a major book review by Tooze in today's Wall Street Journal of the two books and he makes the importance clear. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yet the material you're edit warring in only has a single sentence on that topic, with most of it being about different things... I'm familiar with those books and have also seen lots of positive reviews of them, but you seem to be intent on shoehorning material concerning them into the article regardless of content, complete with little advertisements for the books. I know from previous contacts with you that you make a habit of stuff like this, and it's really annoying - it sure isn't collaborative editing. I'll start a talk page discussion. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- I make a habit of thousands of edits in military history articles. This article does talk about soldiers a dozen times (1) "Italian soldiers recruited in 1935" (2) "Japanese Imperial Army soldiers" 3) "Soldiers of the German Wehrmacht" 4) "About 100,000 Polish military personnel were evacuated to Romania and the Baltic countries; many of these soldiers later fought against the Germans in other theatres of the war." etc. Rjensen (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yet the material you're edit warring in only has a single sentence on that topic, with most of it being about different things... I'm familiar with those books and have also seen lots of positive reviews of them, but you seem to be intent on shoehorning material concerning them into the article regardless of content, complete with little advertisements for the books. I know from previous contacts with you that you make a habit of stuff like this, and it's really annoying - it sure isn't collaborative editing. I'll start a talk page discussion. Nick-D (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The CBI theater includes India and it had major theater status. I was moved by a major book review by Tooze in today's Wall Street Journal of the two books and he makes the importance clear. Rjensen (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
My main concern with the material being edit warred in is that it doesn't fit into the tone and content of the article as it's basically a little mini-essay on India's role in the war - it covers India's entire war effort from 1939 to 1945 in a paragraph on events in North Africa and the Middle East during 1941 (bit odd to find material on the Chinese-Burma-India theatre in 1945 there!). I'm certain that there's scope to improve the relevant parts of the narrative, but this should be done by improving the existing material - which notes the various campaigns - rather than shoehorning material into the article. The article also doesn't have comparable summaries of the war efforts of other countries, nor a need for them as this is what the various articles on the history of national contributions to the war do. The referencing is also problematic as while the books cited are of a high standard, no page numbers are provided, and the full references include Rjensen's personal views on the books and unnecessary links to their entries on Amazon.com. From a post on their talk page, it appears that Rjensen might be motivated by a desire to highlight these books [6], and this began with them adding references to these books without any content to this article [7] and they've made similar edits to two other articles: [8], [9] Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- We need to take a broad view of the war and include material on a major theater CBI that provided millions of combat soldiers and was a key base of supply. Soldiers are indeed included in the article ["About 100,000 Polish military personnel were evacuated to Romania and the Baltic countries; many of these soldiers later fought against the Germans in other theatres of the war."] I was motivated to mention the two new major books because they cover seriously neglected topic and there was a major book review in today's WSJ newspaper. (I also have read the Khan book). The way for you to to ask for page numbers is to ask for them not delete the cite. annotations are ok by wiki policy so don't erase them. The amazon link is necessary for readers to access the texts. You have an ownership attitude that is unfortunate--especially since i have written far more text on this article than you have. Rjensen (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- The material doesn't belong in a section on the Mediterranean, and in a paragraph on successes in Syria and Lebanon. In any case, it should be removed pending a resolution here. Although somewhat irrelevant to what's under discussion here, I don't understand a need for links to Amazon in references, as such links can be seen as promotional. Because Amazon listings often rank high on Google searches, I'll get bibliographical data from them; but my links in references are not to their site, unless there's no other way. Dhtwiki (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, the text in question does not belong in that section. Let's set secondary issues aside. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- In my opinion, User:Nick-D should stop saying "edit war". Then we can review and discuss.Juan Riley (talk) 19:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, the text in question does not belong in that section. Let's set secondary issues aside. --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As there's been no support from other editors for including this material at present, I've removed it. It's posted below. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
- The British Army raised over 2 million volunteer soldiers from India during the war. They played a large role in the Middle East, against Italy and Germany. They also played a major role in defeating the Japanese in Burma in 1944-45. India served as a major base for American supply lines into China. [1] [2]
borked up refs
- Per WP:CITEVAR, there must be a discussion if one is to change styles. I see no discussion. I could care less what one is used, but when changing styles on a huge article, mistakes will happen.
- In the zeal to convert everything, info is being removed or completely messed up. For example, ref #239 (Rees 2008, pp. 406–7) has this quote:
Stalin always believed that Britain and America were delaying the second front so that the Soviet Union would bear the brunt of the war.
With redoing the styles, the quote was left out of the ref and just dangling in the paragraph with a</ref>
left behind. Another quote left out,It was the most calamitous defeat of all the German armed forces in World War II.
This ref was left borked up in the article text,Michel Thomas (20 October 1999). "Results of the German and American Submarine Campaigns of World War II". U.S. Navy. Archived from the original on 9 April 2008. Retrieved April 2008.</ref>
Those are three I could spot quickly. - I reverted to the version without errors.
Bgwhite (talk) 07:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Instead of reverting you should have given me a call; errors happen but they can be resolved. Why should I start a discussion? for what? I didn't change any style; I was simply recouping some space and solving somne errors and broken links, and adding some "page needed". But it seems you don't care much about that. Carlotm (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm Egads. If you are going talk down to me, there is nothing for me to say to you. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think that's useful Bgwhite. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D Ending one's comments with,
But it seems you don't care much about that
was talking down, uncivil and I don't deal with people like that. There's no place for that comment. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nick-D Ending one's comments with,
- I don't think that's useful Bgwhite. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I'm in favour of moving to the {{sfn}} references: this is rapidly becoming the standard, and requires less coding than the current version. As Carlotm notes, the end product is pretty much exactly the same so it's not really a change to the referencing style. I'd also prefer to delete all the comments and quotes which have been included as part of the references as hiding material away like this isn't helpful to readers, and none of the comments or quotes seems necessary. If any of this material is considered useful, it should be presented more clearly as "notes" rather than being placed with the references. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't care if the quotes are left in or out. The details are up to you. The quotes were being left in the article with no context. Borked refs were being left in the article. If these were being borked, what else was? If one doesn't discuss about changing style of refs, and going to different templates is part of style, then things can go down hill quickly. I've seen alot of work lost because it wasn't discussed and changes were reverted. Changing ref styles is one of the most contentious things around here. It's best to do it right. Nick-D wanting quotes out while Carlotm was keeping them in is another reason to discuss. Decide what you guys want to do before hand is easier and a time savings in the long run. Bgwhite (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
- Carlotm Egads. If you are going talk down to me, there is nothing for me to say to you. Bgwhite (talk) 08:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
How are we doing here?
Just wondering what you guys are thinking. Are there any ways this article could be much better? I'm not talking things you think we can get consensus for. Just assume we let you control the article for a week. What changes would you make? Sole Flounder (talk) 01:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016
I was wondering why there was no mention of Italian surrender108.249.208.46 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Not done No specific requested change here. -- Dane2007 talk 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
socking
Be advised, LelouchEdward was a sock of Miracle dream. Both have edited this article before so interested parties should be aware. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Date of war's beginning
Please don't respond to trolling from User:HarveyCarter sockpuppet accounts Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 4 October 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The war began on 23 August 1939 when Germany and the Soviet Union agreed to invade Poland. (JebDilbert (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC))
|
WWII
1. The article is great in description, but it needs some grammar check overall2. Some of the links do not lead anywhere, but most of them do lead to specific points in the article.3. It would be best if there were specific statistics in the amount of economic investment that went into the war.4. the aftermath only described how japan grew after the war, but excluded the many other countries that also quickly developed to become powers post WWII.Jgallaga (talk) 07:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please be specific about points 1 and 2? It's not really possible to follow up on general comments on topics like that (alternatively, feel free to fix the grammar and links yourself). Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- I would suggest that postwar recovery is farmed out to a daughter article, as then we will be able to treat each aspect fairly without expanding this article beyond readable (and loadable) size. Britmax (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Did Japan surrender unconditionally?
- I reverted a significant but debatable edit by Boeing720. [10]. Is this strictly correct, or was it an unconditional surrender? Any thoughts by colleagues on this and how, if consensus is with the edit, it should shape the section? Irondome (talk) 00:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- A quick check of general sources suggests that it was an unconditional surrender. From Hirohito's broadcast: "...we have ordered our Government to communicate...that our Empire accepts the provisions of their Joint Declaration...", ie the Potsdam Declaration. Viewed narrowly the Potsdam Declaration could be said to not be unconditional surrender, but reading the terms that seems to me to be hair splitting; it does state "the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces". Importantly for Boeing720's point the Declaration and Hirohito's acceptance of it make no mention of retaining the monarchy.
- The formal instrument of surrender - drawn up by the Allies and imposed on the Japanese - includes "The authority of the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the State shall be subject to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers". My understanding, over simplified, and to quote from another Wikipedia article, is that the head of the occupation administration Douglas "MacArthur found that ruling via the Emperor made his job in running Japan much easier than it otherwise would have been" and so never got round to abolishing the institution. This is covered in much detail elsewhere, but the point is that when the Japanese surrendered there was no pre-condition that the monarchy would be retained; that the occupying Allies found it expeditious was fortuitous. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The Japanese themselves wrote somewhat on this point, according to our article on the their surrender:
- On July 27, the Japanese government considered how to respond to the Declaration. The four military members of the Big Six wanted to reject it, but Tōgō persuaded the cabinet not to do so until he could get a reaction from the Soviets. In a telegram, Shun'ichi Kase, Japan's ambassador to Switzerland, observed that "unconditional surrender" applied only to the military and not to the government or the people, and he pleaded that it should be understood that the careful language of Potsdam appeared "to have occasioned a great deal of thought" on the part of the signatory governments—"they seem to have taken pains to save face for us on various points."[1]
In this sense then I suppose it could be said that the Japanese were able to squeeze out a condition, however the generally accepted version is that the Japanese surrendered unconditionally by submitted to the terms of the Potsdam declaration. Honestly, it could go either way, but I'd prefer not rock the boat such as it were and leave it as it is in the article, all the more so since their are better places on Wikipedia to address the matter - if it is judged by the community to need addressing. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- In the sense that "unconditional" is a juxtaposition to a negotiated peace on any sort of mutually beneficial terms, it works well enough. Signing a paper that says "your general > our emperor", as has been pointed out, pretty much makes moot any nominal token "concessions" that may have been traded. Having said that, as I sit on my porch in the Appalachian countryside, I would be interested to know how the Japanese WP treats the issue. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Problem is of course that unconditional surrender is more of a colloquial than a legal term. The condition that the Japanese emperor would not be prosecuted for war crimes and could remain to be head of state of Japan (albeit severely diminished in stature) could be construed to be conditions (hence the surrender was not unconditional). The fact that signed over all authority to the US could be construed as being unconditional. I would lean towards the latter, as Japan would have collapsed soon anyway and the only reason to accept surrender over defeat would be some conditions (if only the survival of troops otherwise being sarcificed in last post defenses). Let's go with the mainstream sources here. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed, but I want to point out that there was no condition that the Showa emperor would be retained. Rather, the understanding was that the imperial system would be retained. The emperor fully expected that he would have to abdicate; he was acting to preserve his house. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Problem is of course that unconditional surrender is more of a colloquial than a legal term. The condition that the Japanese emperor would not be prosecuted for war crimes and could remain to be head of state of Japan (albeit severely diminished in stature) could be construed to be conditions (hence the surrender was not unconditional). The fact that signed over all authority to the US could be construed as being unconditional. I would lean towards the latter, as Japan would have collapsed soon anyway and the only reason to accept surrender over defeat would be some conditions (if only the survival of troops otherwise being sarcificed in last post defenses). Let's go with the mainstream sources here. Arnoutf (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- In the sense that "unconditional" is a juxtaposition to a negotiated peace on any sort of mutually beneficial terms, it works well enough. Signing a paper that says "your general > our emperor", as has been pointed out, pretty much makes moot any nominal token "concessions" that may have been traded. Having said that, as I sit on my porch in the Appalachian countryside, I would be interested to know how the Japanese WP treats the issue. TimothyJosephWood 12:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- The Allies specifically accepted wording of the terms of surrender so that they would not be seen as a surrender by the Japanese Emperor, who was the personification of the Japanese state, but by the army. As a result, the Emperor remained on the throne and his subjects did not challenge the post-war occupation. TFD (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- Here's some confusion - like comparission with Potsdam. The German troops surrendered unconditionally (at all fronts) at 7.May 1945 signed by Alfred Jodl, head of OKW's staff, at Eisenhower's headquaters. The day after, at Karlhorst, a bit east of central Berlin, did the Germans surrender again, and again unconditionally at all fronts - but this time to the Soviet Union by Wilhelm Keitel, head of OKW. Potsdam was when the victorious nations drew up Europe's new borders. But the word "unconditional surrender" implies no objections. And regarding Japan after Nagasaki, did United States indeed demand an unconditional surrender. But the reply was very close to this "we accept, on the conditions that the Emperor's position isn't affected". This was apparently acceptable for Truman and the United States. But I strongly mean that the Japanese surrender wasn't "unconditional" - in contrast to the German surrender(s). Prove me wrong by any known author (some of you may know that I just have moved and my library of books are still packed in cartons). It might appear to be a minor matter, but Japan is still a Monarchy due to this little condition or term. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. How about we read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which they signed, which you can find here. Which is exactly as TFD describes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but the last paragraph is written like the Emperor's position (and him alone) already has been delt with. I.o.w. the Emperor remains as such together with the Monarchy. In any case is this surrender quite different, compared to Germany's. Isn't it ? The Emperor was to my knowledge indeed very involved in the Japanese war, espcially 1937-42 including for instance the attack on Pearl Harbour. I further assume the document is the one that was signed onboard the American battleship in early September -45. Though the document points in TDK's and your direction, am I still not entirelly convinced that the surrender can be regarded as 100% "unconditional". Especially if there was any form of negociations between Nagasaki and onboard the battleship. Boeing720 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- For the negotiations, see Hasegawa, Chapter 6, "Japan Accepts Unconditional Surrender". The Allies were not willing to allow the Emperor's status to remain unchanged ie a god with absolute authority. The option of removing the emperor was left open. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK, but the last paragraph is written like the Emperor's position (and him alone) already has been delt with. I.o.w. the Emperor remains as such together with the Monarchy. In any case is this surrender quite different, compared to Germany's. Isn't it ? The Emperor was to my knowledge indeed very involved in the Japanese war, espcially 1937-42 including for instance the attack on Pearl Harbour. I further assume the document is the one that was signed onboard the American battleship in early September -45. Though the document points in TDK's and your direction, am I still not entirelly convinced that the surrender can be regarded as 100% "unconditional". Especially if there was any form of negociations between Nagasaki and onboard the battleship. Boeing720 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure. How about we read the Japanese Instrument of Surrender which they signed, which you can find here. Which is exactly as TFD describes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here's some confusion - like comparission with Potsdam. The German troops surrendered unconditionally (at all fronts) at 7.May 1945 signed by Alfred Jodl, head of OKW's staff, at Eisenhower's headquaters. The day after, at Karlhorst, a bit east of central Berlin, did the Germans surrender again, and again unconditionally at all fronts - but this time to the Soviet Union by Wilhelm Keitel, head of OKW. Potsdam was when the victorious nations drew up Europe's new borders. But the word "unconditional surrender" implies no objections. And regarding Japan after Nagasaki, did United States indeed demand an unconditional surrender. But the reply was very close to this "we accept, on the conditions that the Emperor's position isn't affected". This was apparently acceptable for Truman and the United States. But I strongly mean that the Japanese surrender wasn't "unconditional" - in contrast to the German surrender(s). Prove me wrong by any known author (some of you may know that I just have moved and my library of books are still packed in cartons). It might appear to be a minor matter, but Japan is still a Monarchy due to this little condition or term. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
First, I have moved (in the physical sence) and I have thus been without internet connection for more than two weeks, as I had stated at my personal page. To the matter - give me a decent source that states the Japanese surrender after Nagasaki didn't include the term "provided the Emperor's posistion must remain intact". And this was also the case. An unconditional surrender doesn't contain any terms at all. And Hirohito continued to "rule" as Emperor of Japan until 1989, I think. Quite a difference towards Hitler - if Germany had agreed to an unconditional surrender around 15.April -45, providded "the Führer's position did not change. I see it as our duty to be historically correct. Boeing720 (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
- No, it wasn't. The German instrument of surrender contained nothing specifying that Führer or the Nazi Party would be removed. In fact, consideration was given to allowing the Führer (Dönitz) to remain on. As with Japan, the document itself says "unconditional surrender". And I've given you the whole Japanese surrender document. It doesn't include "provided the Emperor's posistion must remain intact". Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)