Talk:World War II/Archive 1
|
|
There's nothing about Benito Mussolini or the actions of the Italian Fascist government in here.. they were one of the major Axis powers. Anyone know enough about them to contribute something?
Some estimates for Dresden deaths are as low as 25,000 (and as high as 250,000). Low estimates for Hiroshima at 66,000 deaths and Nagaski at 40,000 may support Dresden as the worst but some etimate the Tokyo firebombing at 83,000 to 100,000 which would make it greater. The US airforce credits defeated German generals and Communist propaganda with inflating the Dresden causualty figure. Initial British figure of 8,000 dead are undoubtledly low but many other German cities received far more tons of bombs, even more tons of incendiaries than Dresden so the high figures are hard to justify.
Certainly we should have a page to discuss the questionable practice of firebombing or carpet bombing in general.
and the use of flachette-rounds on civilians
Note that in the cases of both Dresden and Tokyo, the casualties were completely out of proportion to the tonnage of bombs dropped. This is because in both cases the continuing fires started by the bombing did much more than the bombs themselves. This was probably the intent in using incendiaries against cities with many wooden buildings, but it is unlikely that the allied miitary expected quite as many deaths as actually happened.
By contrast high explosive bombing, and incendiary bombing against targets that were not so easy to burn, in many cases involved a lot more bombs for a lot less deaths.
It is reasonable that Tokyo would have more wooden buildings than the average Western city, but was Dresden notably more wooden than Hamburg where firebombing probably killed 50,000? Berlin as the capital may had more stone and brick buildings but it was bombed so many times it is hard to find death numbers for a specific raid. All of these numbers are hard to imagine.
"America rebuilt the rest of Europe"! Did the rest of Europe have no role in rebuilding itself perhaps?
- Whatever you feel about the substantive issue, it mostly did not happen until the war was over.
I think we need to put some more emphasis on the push to open a second front and the political manouevrings behind the scenes e.g. the abandonment of COSSAC, the reasons for the appointment of Bernard Montgomery, etc.
More bloody crap that is both slanted, self-glorifying and plain stupid. First, it sounds like after mighty, wonderful, all great, all loving, all splendid, Lord of kickas, the magnificent America joined the war, others followed her glorious example. Crap and double crap! Canada, Australia and others were there from DAY 1 and thousands fought and died while America was watching "Gone With The Wind" and building a colossal economic infrastructure while France, Belgium, The Netherlands, England etc. were having their infrastructure blown to hell. Second, there were no "minor" powers in the Allied forces. All of these countries contributed accordsing to population and/or economic ability. Per capita, other countries had more soldiers fight and/or die fighting Hitler than than did the U.S. -- And, I am an American citizen too....DW
V-E Day and V-J day (and their respective dates, May 5 and Sep 2, I believe) should be incorporated.
Surely Stalingrad deserves at least a sentance. Because of Hitler's 'no retreat' policy, it was in many ways the turning point of the war.
- I agree. Please add it. sjc
- Dresden what allegedly filled with displaced persons from the east; thus, the high death figure.
--Yooden
Do we need the detailed references to the bombing that initiated the invasion to Poland? If we are going to write all the "acts of barbaric cruelty" committed mainly by the axis powers in the war, we are not going to have space in one encyclopedia article. AstroNomer
No, I think this belongs in a separate article altogether. This page is really a top-level history of major events and facts in WWII; moreover, the new addition is inherently incorrect: there is no 'real' beginning to WWII, you could, if you chose, trace its origin to the 1918 Treaty of Versailles, the appeasement of Hitler at Munich in 1938, the anschluss, whatever. I will strip it and create a new sub-page called World War II/Edited Text. Then when a suitable page is found we can add this information to it.sjc
2. I disagree with sjc on the beginning of WWII. The origins of WWII stretch back to Vesailles. However, if we are refering to the beginning of the war as an international conflict of arms and not merely a political standoff (as it was during the occupation of the Rhur, the anschluss of Austria and the occupation of Czechoslovakia) then it only began on the 1st of September 1939 at 04.45. Chris Markides
No, the point I was making relates to the problems in periodicity. WWII was not a 'real' world war until 1941. There is no real beginning, just points of departure which led to the event which we now refer to as WWII. sjc
WWII was just as much a World War in 1940 as WWI was before US involvment. We need to remember to define the terms as they are commonly used - not make up our own definitions. -rmhermen
I accept that WWII is 1939-1945 on one level, but the actuality is considerably more complex than that, as I am sure you will agree. That is the point which I am making. WWII has its beginnings in a number of critical events which are not purely the consequence of the Nazi provocations and invasion of Poland. To divorce WWII from these other events is a reductionism which I am sure you do not subscribe to having read a considerable amount of your admirable contributions. Without the unopposed rearmament of the Rhineland, the Nazi policy of guns before butter would have been doomed to failure. Is this the beginning of WWII? No. But it is a significant contributory factor, probably the major juncture at which WWII could have been forestalled. sjc --- Yes I think that the events which led up to the war should be discussed in the article on the war. However they are just that -events that led up to the war. The war itself began on a specific day with the invasion of Poland. This needsa to be mentioned, too. The original paragraph removed needed a lot of work. War is when the shooting starts - the rest is just diplomacy. (Although you need to understand the diplomacy to understand the war.) --rmhermen
Again, I agree with what you're saying. But the shooting started a long time before 1939. The annexation of the Sudetenland was not bloodless nor was the anschluss. The periodicity of WWII, as with most historical periodicities, is an agreed upon mental construction. And, as Voltaire pointed out, diplomacy is merely the conduct of war by other means. sjc
I'm inclined to agree with rmhermen on the subject of the periodicity of WWII. The anschluss of Austria and the annexation of the Sudetenland may not have been entirely bloodless, but local skirmishes do not constitute a war. The fact remains that both the governments involved (Austria and Czechslovakia) knowingly allowed the events. It may be argued that at the time these were puppet governments set up by the Nazis but this does not detract from the fact that the official position of the countries was to allow the areas in question to become parts of the German Reich. If skirmishes ensued with the German troops (of which, I must admit, I am not aware), these were localised and not officially organised. This was not the case for Poland - Chris.
This discussion is actually shaping up to become an article in its own right. I will create a page called The Origins and Commencement of World War II. We can then shape it accordingly. sjc
Could someone please check on whether the US just threatened to cut off steel and oil trade with Japan, or if the US did. The article is vague there (because I wasn't/still am not sure which the US did).
Why moving verfiable facts to a subpage ???
It is a clear-cut information that needs to be included in the main page !
Every reader would surely like to know when and where the WWII began.
Moving the facts to a subpage is really unconstructive.
--Kpjas
There are millions of veryfiable facts about the war, you cannot put them all on the first page.
This page should contain only large-scale information. "Barbaric act of cruelty" does not sound as unbiased as Wikipedia should be.
--Yooden
- Oh come on. You can remove something you regard as biased. But these were historical FACTS. When and where. You think it is desirable to have facts about when and where some event took place like launching Apollo 13, A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima etc., don't you ?
--Kpjas
I can and I should certainly remove something I regard as biased, that's why I'm here. If you step back for a minute and think about your sentence you will agree that your description of the attack is biased. Any encyclopedia, Wikipedia maybe even more than others, should state facts. Whether the bombing of town with no military targets is barbaric or cruel should be the decision of the reader.
What's more, I don't consider this attack particulary important. Its historic significance is nowhere near that of Hiroshima (the first nuclear attack ever) or even Guernica (the first bombing attack on civilian targets, but I'm not sure here). Its significance for showing the nature of war is nowhere near that of the siege of Leningrad or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising.
I don't consider the launching of Apollo 13 as particulary important.
--Yooden
First bombing of civilian targets
Guernica, as you may have been aware, was not the first case. The Germans bombed London from Zeppelins and large aircraft as early as 1915.
Germans = Nazis?
Maybe we should avoid using the term Nazis except where we are actually discussing the activities of the Nazis proper rather than the German army? Not all Germans were Nazis, and many were antipathetic to the Nazi cause.
- The German military was an instrument of government policy; so long as the government was Nazi, then any government activities, including military activities, can be called Nazi. The exception would be where the millitary was pursuing activities independent of government policy, though I don't know of any cases of this.
- If you do German = Nazi, you are certainly wrong. This only provocates the converse statement that only few Germans were Nazis.
--Yooden
I concur with you on this, the two terms are certainly not synonymous. However, it is very easy to slip into substituting one for the other when writing; we need to watch this closely.sjc
Two points: 1. I don't think it's a problem refering to the German Army of the time as Nazi; in the same way as I don't think it would be a problem refering to the Soviet Army of the time as Communist. It is generally accepted in literature and as mentioned above the army was the arm of the National Socialist dictatorship of the time and therefore represented the state!
1. The Soviet army of the time had political officers (commissars, zampolit) in place to ensure the political orthodoxy of army units precisely because they were perceived by Stalin and his merry men to be not nearly communist enough. It would be incorrect to call the Soviet army the Communist army. Just as it would be incorrect to call the German army of WWII the Nazi army.sjc
That's not the point I'm trying to make. The German Army, the Soviet army and every other army of the world is the military arm of the state, whether that state is ruled by an elected government, a dictatorship or an oligarchy. It is there to enforce the will of the government as and when that govenment requires. We are not discussing the individual beliefs of the German or Soviet soldier. If we were I would tend to agree, but we are not. The German army was the military force directed by the Nazi Government and hence was the Nazi army. The same applies for the Soviet army (it doesn't matter if the communist beliefs were enforced by political officers etc) - Chris.
Let us draw a very sensible divide here and use the two terms appropriately, and not slackly. We could argue this ad infinitum, and achieve nothing. sjc
According to the stats quoted in http://tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/anarchist.html "Nazi" is a pretty good characterization of German polity in the years prior to WWII. These stats show that sure, there was a small minority in opposition to Hitler's ascendency. And not everyone who voted for Hitler was a party member. But, attaching the term is not an overgeneralization in this light. -- dja
Your stats aren't. They are journalistic prose. The fact is that the Nazi party when 'elected' in 1934 wasn't a majority govt, it only came to power because Hindenburg was unable to assemble a sensible coalition govt. sjc
- dja, you have either a hidden agenda or a lot to learn. ESR's interpretation is utter bullshit. In 1934 Hitler was already in power, the Ermächtigungsgesetz was more than a year old, no oppositional parties were allowed, inner party opposition was destroyed after the "Röhm-Putsch". Guess what: The elections were rigged.
- Explain this: Three years before the communist government of the GDR was toppled by the people, they got 99,94% in elections.
- The Weimar constitution had no constitutional restraints against what happened. Both Nazis and Communists were allowed to strive for its abolition, the Reichspräsident had dictatorial powers whenever he wanted. Again, ESR is willfully misleading.
- Hindenburg was dead at the time.
--Yooden Yes, you're right about Hindenburg. I was thinking about the earlier negotiations with Hitler in 1931-33. dja's comments about 1934 were what led me off on a tangent. The 1934 elections were a total put-up job. sjc.
The characters listed under "Akagi" say "Sky-Mother Akagi," presumably meaning "The Carrier Akagi," but that's not clear to the reader, who might think that the whole assembly says "Akagi," so I'm removing the first two characters. -- Alex Kennedy
Sky mother is the abbreviation of four kanji characters, 'travel sky mother ship' which obviously means aircraft carrier.
- What's more, I don't consider this attack particulary important. Its historic significance is nowhere near that of Hiroshima (the first nuclear attack ever) or even Guernica (the first bombing attack on civilian targets, but I'm not sure here). Its significance for showing the nature of war is nowhere near that of the siege of Leningrad or the Warsaw Ghetto Rising.(by yooden)
what's so important in Ghetto Uprising in comparison to other events of WWII?szopen
In 1945 according to my info Poland was fourth allied power in number of soldiers after USSR, USA and Commonwealth. Is that fair to include us as "minor allied power" while South Africa is "major allied power"?? szopen
- I believe you are misinterpreting your figures. I agree that at one time Poland had 1 m men under arms during the war but this was not in 1945 it was in 1939. This would place them 7th in the Allies behind USSR, USA, UK, China, France and India. but in 1945 Poland was not a genuine active power, similiar to France - all the battlefield fighting by these nations was over by 1939-40. IMHO both Poland and South Africa (140,000 troops) are minor Allied powers, while Poland suffered heavy military casualties (300,000+) the country did not engage in major conflict for most of the war's length.
- Well, Poland in 1945 had:legal, legitimate government (As opposite to France, where De Gaulle wasn't constitutional continuation to ealier gvt) recognized by all powers. Poland was fighting up to the end, Polish army fought in France (50.00 soldiers, only 20.000 were evacuated), in North Africa, in Norway, Polish pilots fought in Battle of Britain, Poles fought in Arnhem etc etc. Poland had navy, aricrafts, everything.
Polish army on the west had close to 200.000 soldiers. Polish army on the east was bigger, something between 200.000 and 300.000 soldiers. Polish army participated in capturing Berlin.
- half of million soldiers + numerous soldiers in AK are more than "active" power. In 1945 Poland was 4th allied power.
this is the same which i put on user:TwoOneTwo talk page.
Ah, that numbers were from my memory. I consulted my books, and i choosed one you should have access to: "God's playground" by Norman Davies. It said, that in March 1944 Polish army in West (governed by constitutional Polish government on exile) had around 195.000 and Polish army in East (under communist new government) had around 78.000. In 1944 to 1945 these numbers grow to 228.000 soldiers in the West, and 400.000 soldiers in the East. Which means, that Polish army had more than 600.000 soldiers, that is more than 4 times more than South Africa. Note that i am not adding to that number soldiers of Polish underground: AK and Bch, which were under Polish Government on Exile, numbered more than 200.000 members, who fought in partisan units, then in Warsaw Uprising, in action "Storm" (in Vilnius etc), and AL (under communist rule) in 1945 numbered almost 100.000 members. These organizations had press, underground universities, judges, intelligence (AK had agents almost everywhere in Europe: but when Polish historian asked what happened to reports from AK, Brits answered, that they were burned because of their small value. next version that they were burned in accidental fire. Now we are hearing that they are scattered in British Archives.
It means, that Poland in 1945 had more soldiers than France, more soldiers than South Africa (since you gave 140.000 number for SA army), yet Poland is minor allied power, and South Africa is major allied power. In Battle of Britain, except for Brits, Poland gave more pilots (143) than all other allied nations put together, being something to 12% of pilots fighting in BoB.
How many soldiers had New Zealand? And others?
Especially words: but in 1945 Poland was not a genuine active power, similiar to France and the country did not engage in major conflict for most of the war's length i find particularly offensive. Tobruk, Monte Cassino, Narvik, Arnhem, Battle of Britain, Defense of France, Berlin, etc etc are not major conflict?!? How many soldiers had France in 1945? szopen
Re your "particularly offensive", I was placing France and Poland in the same category (although I do think France played politics extraordinarily well considering its military contribution). But I stand by the second statement, as a country Poland did not engage in major conflicts post-1940. user:TwoOneTwo.
Wouldn't it be a good idea, in stead of quarrelling about naming something minor or major, to make the very static list of allied powers into a short paragraph, explaining the details. It could include that some of the allied powers (such as Poland) were actually occupied at the time, while f.e. South Africa was - I think - mainly engaged because of its Commonwealth links with Britain. Similarly, the role of the minor Axis powers needs some clarification as well. Also, this division (if you want to make any) between major/minor should be based on influence rather than sheer numbers of soldiers - it was mainly the USSR, USA and UK that lead the alliance politically. Unfortunately, I think my knowledge of the situation is not good enough to write this paragraph myself, therefore I place it as a suggestion. -- User:Jheijmans
- This would be good idea. I am not arguing Poland was one of major power, i am arguing that it isn't fair to include states like South Africa as major powers, while Poland is minor power. I would say defeinetely that major powers were the three you mentioned, and the rest should be minor szopen
Ok, here we go:
- I put USA, UK and USSR as major alied power. No exaplnation needed.
- I put also China, although until recently i've never think aout China as allied power, but 5 million soldiers - that impressed me. Suprising enough, in no polish site China is mentioned - including China means i guess in 1945 is 5th, not 4th in number of soldiers.
- I included France, although after 1941 it was definetely minor power, but before that she was important member of alliance.
Comments?
now:
- after country there should be short links and short info. In poland case i put number of soldiers in 1945 (onlu regular fores, excluding underground - for underground i found numbers varying from 300.000 to 500.000 members) and put link to Polish contribution next to existing links to Polish history. Why this page is necessary? Well, it isn't, but having page listing all things Poles made to help achieve victory will be good for my ego, so as long as it does not hurt nobody, it is good enough reason, right ? ;))))
ps: i have always problems with double negation in English. Should i have written "it does not hurt anybody" instead?? szopen
Nobody notices double negatives these days, the meaning is clear and only pedants care - it don't hurt no-one!
- Re your "particularly offensive", I was placing France and Poland in the same category (although I do think France played politics extraordinarily well considering its military contribution). But I stand by the second statement, as a country Poland did not engage in major conflicts post-1940. user:TwoOneTwo.
- What do you define by country? Poland had constitutional, legal, legitimate government (in contrast to France, for whom legal, constitutional government was Vichy allied to Germany), recognised by all allies, until some 1944 or so even by USSR. Military forces. Merchant navy. Intelligence. If you would add to that underground state, you have education system and taxation. Poland was side in many treaties and agreements. Poland paid in gold for equipment bought or lended from Brits etc. I would say, that this is everything that constitute state.
- "in contrast to France, for whom legal, constitutional government" well legal Vichy suspended the constitution and the vote of the parliament for Petain was made in violation of the constitution.
- Ericd
More attention should be drawn to wars in Asia, inlcuding China, Philippines, Java and the Indonesian islands, Vietnam and Indochina, Burma and India. IMO More attention also on incidents off the battefield like the Cairo Convention, Nazi's massacre of the Jews, the Nanjing or Nanking Massacre etc. user:Ktsquare
- Yes, there should be more attention given to the Asian theatre, which is underrepresented in the article at this point. To fix such requires people who know about those battles to contribute. As for the genocides, they deserve mention - however, most have already been covered in other articles, and we should link to that coverage.
--- I added a remark about the Netherlands not having had anything to do with Versailles, mostly because I am sick and tired of meeting Germans who still think it was somehow 'justified' what was done to my country. The truth is that Holland had always been on good terms with Germany and neutral, though rather pro-German in WW I. After that it harbored the Kaiser and thousands of german, austrian and hungarian kids who did not get enough to eat at home. These same kids came back as guides for the nazi forces who proceeded to create a manmade famine in a land of agricultural plenty. User:JCWF
Here are some links that should be of interest to the usual writers here: Strategic bombing and Strategic bombing survey. Ortolan88
There is very little coverage of the Asian theatre as the article stands. Made a start on correcting this. Notes:
- Moved "The end of the War" section (which only deals with European events) up so that it logically follows the start of the war in Europe, and retitled it "End of the War in Europe".
- Merged "The war in Asia" and "Asia-Pacific Theater" sections.
- "Indonesia" did not exist at that time. Replaced "Indonesia" with " Dutch East Indies".
- Fleshed out the events of December 1941. (Pearl Harbour was certainly the most famous and probably the most important event of that period, but far from the only significant happening.)
- Added a brief account of the conquest of South-East Asia.
- Added a brief account of the turning of the tide: Coral Sea, Midway, Kokoda, Guadalcanal.
- Coverage of events in the Pacific theatre from mid-1943 on is still a little scanty, particularly events in Burma & China.
On an unrelated matter, the inclusion of France as a major power alongside the USSR, the USA, China, and Britan seems very difficult to justify. If France, why not Canada? Poland? - Tannin
Nice start. However, I would change some points. The Doolitte Raid deserves to be named as such and linked. Secondly, you forgot that the U.S. was reading Japanese codes at Midway, which enabled the battle to be close-fought. Perhaps I can include more. --GABaker
Thankyou GABaker. I agree about the Doolittle Raid; I'll link it in a moment. On Midway, the code-breaking was indeed vital, as was the phenomenally fast repair of USS Yorktown, the last-minute location of the Japanese carriers by McCluskey's dive-bombers, the accidental timing of several other events (first arrival at French Frigate Shoals, for example), and so on. (If there was ever a more extraordinary battle, I'm not aware of it!) My feeling is that these matters, vital as they were, belong in the entry on the battle of Midway rather than the entry on WW2 as a whole. As for the role of code-breaking in both Midway and many other battles, I imagine that there is an entry on this already. If there isn't, here should be, and it should probably be briefly referenced in the main WW2 entry. (Checking quickly on this I see that the European Enigma has an entry, but I don't see anything about codebreaking in the Pacific there, nor in the Pearl Harbour and Midway entries. Looks like a job for someone!) I'd be reluctant to add too much more detail to the Pacific theatre section of the entry, as that would be to risk unbalancing the coverage of the European theatre. The level of detail in each should ideally be roughly equal, I think.Tannin
The point of my edit was that it said "after 1941" and then referred to them as the united nations... I agree with it as is now clarifying "after 1942" instead of 1941. Pedantic I know..but.. Reboot
I just moved France from the list of major Allied powers to the minor powers again. It is absurd to list France in the same category as the USSR, UK, and USA, because if you include France then you most certainly would have to include Canada, and if you include Canada then you'd have to include Australia, and if you include Australia then .... it goes on forever. Someone suggested that there should be short annotations attached to each country. I think this is a good idea, both for its own sake, and also because it might help defuse this kind of silliness. Tannin
- I strongly agree on the annotations. Each country made its own kind of contribution and deserves proper credit. I know a little about Norway. The country suffered hugely under German occupation, but also tied up tons of German troops, resistance movement was very effective (helped sink battleships, destroy atomic development labs), contributed world's third largest merchant marine, maintained a legitimate government despite invasion, even managed to put a warship in combat, etc. Stacks up very well compared to France (French ships attacked the US), but much less known. Measured by population and disadvantageous situations, many allied countries might say the same. Ortolan88
I recently came across an old copy of Pears Cyclopaedia published in 1941. Obviously in the middle of WWII. The war was called "The War against agresssion" throughout. Does anyone know if this is what the war was generally called before Pearl Harbor?, or before The Invasion of the Soviet Union perhaps? Mintguy
- Not that I know of. I think it was just called "the war". Tannin 04:39 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
Deleted " It should be remembered that the rapidly rearming Germany had militarily stolen a march on Britain, which was completely unprepared for war at this time. Chamberlain's infamous act of appeasement, which has been widely seen as cowardly submission, was explained by Chamberlain as an effort to buy time in which to rearm. ", because it is not NPOV. Sebastian 04:10 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
- No no. It's true. It IS often seen as backing down in the face of agression. Cowardly is perhaps too strong a word, but the facts are correct Britain was ill-prepared, and so it allowed time for Britain to re-arm. Mintguy
- It is true that it is seen this way by many. But there's more gratuitously emotional wording ("stolen", "infamous", "act"). Maybe you can rewrite it? Sebastian 04:21 Jan 25, 2003 (UTC)
Historians break a war down into theaters and campaigns, but at most these are implicit in the running account. Any objection to a list of names and ultimately dedicated articles? Stan Shebs
"Asia was not considered involved in the war till the japanese attack on pearl harbour." this statement may not be completely accurate. I had a period edition of Time Magazine that reported on the Japanese invasion of China including some of the atrocities. It might be said that war in asia was less important to the Europeans/Americans before Perl Harbor, but don't forget there were colonies there too. If no further support is offered, I'll remove this statement. -Reboot
Is there any factual evidence for listing Albania in the "Minor Axis Powers"? Albania was under occupation by Italy and then Germany. There was armed resistance to the occupation and many Albanians died trying to liberate the country. Although there were some Albanians that were put in minor position of power under the Italians. I am Albanian and admittedly most of what I know about my country was learned under the Communist Dictatorship and thus not 100% relliable, but I have never heard of Albania being associated with the Axis Powers before.
-Dori
Should we keep Finland in the "minor Axis power" ? The Finland had a terrible choice between Stalin and Hitler. They had a war with the Soviet when they where allied to Hitler. When Hilter broke his alliance with Stalin they helped the Nazi to fight the Soviet and then fighted the Nazi themselve, they had no other choice than realpolitik IMO.
Ericd 21:28 Apr 1, 2003 (UTC)