Jump to content

Talk:World War II: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 300: Line 300:
:::Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, before annexing more Czech territory in 1939. Sebastian Haffner is correct regarding Hitler's role in decolonisation. The Munich Agreement never failed - it was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable military pact with Poland that led to World War II. ([[User:DavidNo1Fan|DavidNo1Fan]] ([[User talk:DavidNo1Fan|talk]]) 13:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC))
:::Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, before annexing more Czech territory in 1939. Sebastian Haffner is correct regarding Hitler's role in decolonisation. The Munich Agreement never failed - it was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable military pact with Poland that led to World War II. ([[User:DavidNo1Fan|DavidNo1Fan]] ([[User talk:DavidNo1Fan|talk]]) 13:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC))
::::Seriously, so there would have been no WW2, if we had let Hitler got what he wanted? I think with this we can close this derail. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
::::Seriously, so there would have been no WW2, if we had let Hitler got what he wanted? I think with this we can close this derail. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
:::::The UK should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig. Fascist Poland had been allied with Nazi Germany since January 1934, and had participated in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. Stalin knew the UK and France would only declare war on Germany, hence his invasion of Poland in September 1939. ([[User:DavidNo1Fan|DavidNo1Fan]] ([[User talk:DavidNo1Fan|talk]]) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC))
:::::The UK should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig. Fascist Poland had been allied with Nazi Germany since January 1934, and had participated in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. Stalin knew the UK and France would only declare war on Germany, hence his invasion of Poland in September 1939. ([[User:DavidNo1Fan|DavidNo1Fan]] ([[User talk:DavidNo1Fan|talk]]) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC))


== About women ==
== About women ==

Revision as of 17:22, 28 November 2022

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateWorld War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Operation Market Garden

I noticed the section for the failed Operations Market and Garden was removed. Any reasons why? TwoNyce (talk) 06:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus to implement change in lead sentence

I am trying to modify the lead sentence. Given the notice appearing to seek consensus, I present my proposal hereby.

The lead sentence currently reads,

World War II or the Second World War, often abbreviated as WWII or WW2, was a global war that lasted from 1939 to 1945.

My proposal is to change it to,

World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939–1945) was a global conflict and the deadliest in human history, with tens of millions people killed.

Also, a connected edit later in the paragraph to avoid redundancy. This part currently reads,

World War II was by far the deadliest conflict in human history; it resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Tens of millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

The new edit for said later part of the paragraph would be,

It resulted in 70 to 85 million fatalities, mostly among civilians. Millions died due to genocides (including the Holocaust), starvation, massacres, and disease.

Edit summary explaining the change: edit summary: moved alternate names to parenthesis for conciseness per MOS:FIRST, "global war" >> "global conflict" per MOS:REDUNDANCY, added a top notability (the deadliest in human history), copyedited relevant part later in first paragraph to avoid redundancy with first sentence. --Thinker78 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like your first half of the sentance, but the rest could be fixed
"with tens of millions people killed"
Poor grammer, and very poor word choice
A better sentance would be
"World War II (WWII, WW2, or the Second World War; 1939-1945_ was a global conflict and the most destructive in history.
Better, more to the point, and quicker for the intro. It also flows better. Panda0317 (talk) 13:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2022

Adolf Hitler killed himself 216.48.247.162 (talk) 14:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We say that. Slatersteven (talk) 14:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 14:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Allied leaders of World War II

@Economist0723 and Iamjustben:

On 2022-11-15T11:05:46 User:Iamjustben changed the order of the "Main Allied leaders" to read Churchill, Stalin, FDR, and Chiang Kai-shek.

I was surprised to see this for two reasons:

  1. It has been argued over extensively in the past. The conclusion in Talk:World War II/Archive 62 was to present the "Big Three in chronological order". For that they referenced the companion discussion on Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 10 on "Big Three / Four label and weight". That would be the UK, which officially declared war in 1939, the USSR, which switched sides (after Germany invaded) in 1941, and the US after 1941-12-08.
  2. Chiang Kai-shek should not be on this list at all.

Evidently multiple other changes have been made to this article without being challenged by any the people who were aware of and concurred in that earlier discussion. (The archive protocol makes researching something like this difficult, because it breaks links to discussions as they are archived. That's a problem that should be fixed, but I don't know to whom to complain.)

In any event, I believe the previous consensus was that this list should be Churchill, Stalin, and FDR, in that order, without Chiang Kai-shek. I plan to make that change. If you disagree, first please review that earlier discussion, and then state your reasons here. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm satisfied by these arguments and endorse this change. Economist0723 (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Economist0723:, et al. What do you suggest we do to ask that the archive process NOT break links to old discussions? My research for the above comments took several times as much time as it should have, because the archive process used here does NOT include appropriate #REDIRECTs. Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidMCEddy I'm not sure about this one sorry Economist0723 (talk) 12:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@强汉盛唐: Please see the above discussion and enter related search terms in the box just above "Search archives" above. There have been extensive discussions on this Talk page (many of which have been Archived) of exactly whom should be listed as the "Main Allied leaders" and in what order. The consensus was that (a) Chiang Kai-shek should not be on this list (presumably, because the generally available records suggest that his impact on the war was substantially smaller than that of the other three), and (b) the order should reflect the dates on which the other three entered the war.
To change that consensus, that history would have to be reviewed again, and people "Watching" this article would have to agree that a change is warranted.
Thanks for your support of our great project to improve the availability of the sum of all human knowledge. DavidMCEddy (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, and I've just restored the list to the longstanding order, which as David notes is the result of many and extensive previous discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I'm confused by your interpretation of "the longstanding order" that resulted from "many and extensive previous discussions": My research cited above said the "big three" should be in chronological order, Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt. You've modified that to Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill.

Can you please do the following

  1. Find what seems to be the most recent "previous discussion" and consensus on this? (NOTE: Shouldn't it be either the one I cited above or something more recent? If not, please explain why you think the one I cited should be overruled.)
  2. Change the order to match the results of your research, unless it happens to justify the change you just made.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC) the discussion that supports your change or change your latest change to be consistent with what you[reply]

settled on that and confirm that I was somehow mistaken? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I myself thought that chronological order could be a solution. However, that means we must be consistent, so the Axis leader should be listed chronologically too. However, that may lead to additional disputes: whereas the starting date for Hitler seems obvious (1 Sept, 1939), what should be the date for Hirohito? Pearl Harbor? But that would be too US-centric. It would be logical to assume that for Hirohito the war started with the start of SSJW, which means he should go first. Do we agree on that? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: Good question.
The article on "Axis leaders of World War II" lists Hitler, Hirohito, and Mussolini. The current "World War II" article indicates that Hitler started the war by invading Poland in 1939. Mussolini invaded France with Hitler in 1940. Hirohito's military was projecting force in other parts of Asia before the attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941, but those actions were not considered part of World War II until December 7, 1941.
Meanwhile, the Wikipedia article on "Military history of Italy during World War II" says that Mussolini himself was arrested by the King of Italy in July 1943, after which Italy descended in civil war, becoming a liability rather than a partner to the Axis.
I suggest we leave the order of the "Axis leaders of World War II" as indicated in that other article, especially since that order fits with my understanding of the war: Without Hitler, there likely would not have been a World War, so he needs to come first. Hirohito fielded a very strong military. Mussolini's military strength does not seem to have been close to that of either Germany or Japan.
However, I do not see an order of the leaders specified in the Wikipedia article on "Allied leaders of World War II". I think this leaves us free to select our own order. As previously discussed, there are strong arguments for putting any of the "big three" first. I don't see a way of resolving that argument in a reasonable way other than leaving the Allied leaders in chronological order (Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt).
CONCLUSION: Allies: Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt. Axis: Hitler, Hirohito, Mussolini.
Acceptable? DavidMCEddy (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: The order of the "big three" (and whether it shouldn't be the "big four", including Chiang Kai-shek) have been discussed extensively for some time. Above please find a summary of that discussion and more recent comments.
Bottom line: I think the consensus is Churchill, Stalin, Roosevelt, NOT because "Churchill is much more notable than Roosevelt in terms of World War II" -- we'll never get a consensus on that -- but because Churchill was at war against Germany (1939) before Stalin was (1940) and before Roosevelt was (1941). DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:58, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot and Therealscorp1an: See the discussion above. Am I correct that this supports the recent change by User:Therealscorp1an? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so. But may I ask why you have placed Roosevelt first despite the conversation above? He did not have as much to do with the war as Churchill and Stalin, and was a latecomer to the Allies. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 08:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that the current ordering was the result of a discussion of the Allied countries that contributed the most to the outcomes of the war, per what reliable sources said (e.g. that the literature generally argues that the Eastern Front in Europe was the decisive theatre of the war, with the US playing the dominant role in the Pacific and the larger overall role in western Europe than the UK). This is in line with the guidance for determining the ordering in this field in the documentation of Template:Infobox military conflict which states "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict..." Re: some of the comments above - please don't reference whatever your views are if you'd like to propose a change, please stick to what a survey of a range of reliable sources say (noting that there are of course divergent views on the topic). The order obviously isn't reflective of how nice the leaders were - the sources generally argue that Stalin was a monster and an aggressor, yet also led the main effort that destroyed Nazi Germany and played an important role in forcing the Japanese to surrender. As Norman Davies argues in Europe at War 1939–1945: No Simple Victory the war was complex, and wasn't a clear cut contest between good and evil given the role of Stalin. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:53, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So where are we? Stalin-Churchill-Roosevelt or Churchill-Stalin-Roosevelt?
I favor the latter for two reasons: (1) I can see arguments claiming that either of the two were "more important to the conflict". (2) Churchill got England into the war before Hitler turned against Stalin, and Churchill also got Roosevelt into the war: If England had been overrun by the Germans, Roosevelt might not have wanted to fight in Europe and might not have embargoed oil shipments to Japan, thereby pushing Japan to attack Pearl Harbor. That sounds to me like Churchill was more important than Stalin to how the war actually developed.
However, if the consensus is that Stalin should come first, I could support that, especially if we could find one or more references that support that position, which could then be cited to justify that ordering. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As it was an allied effort, and arguably no one can be said to have solely won it, it is far too subjective to pick a leader based upon "most important". I also prefer alphabetically as it avoids issues like "when did the war start", "was Russia allied with the axis at one point" and no doubt others as well. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: The text of the article seems to make the chronology fairly clear: Churchill (1939), Stalin (1940), Roosevelt (1941).

But whatever we decide, I suggest we document the decision in footnotes to "Mail Allied leaders" and "Main Axis leaders".

E.g., replace:

| commander2 = '''[[Axis leaders of World War II|Main Axis leaders]]:'''{{plainlist|

with

| commander2 = '''[[Axis leaders of World War II|Main Axis leaders]]:<ref>In order of apparent importance.</ref>'''{{plainlist|

And

| commander1 = '''[[Allied leaders of World War II|Main Allied leaders]]:'''{{plainlist|

with either

| commander1 = '''[[Allied leaders of World War II|Main Allied leaders]]:<ref>Ordered by date of entry into the war</ref>'''{{plainlist|

or

| commander1 = '''[[Allied leaders of World War II|Main Allied leaders]]:<ref>in alphabetical order</ref>'''{{plainlist|

???DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to demonstrate you that formal aspects may be very ambiguous, let me point out that at least two arguments can be proposed against your "fairly clear" statement "Churchill (1939), Stalin (1940), Roosevelt (1941)". Thus, for Churchill, where "1939" comes from? It is the time when Britain joined the war, but Churchill was NOT her leader by that time. He became a prime minister only in 1940. As far as I remember, he even had to hire, by himself, bodyguards, because the government could not provide them for the persons who has no official position in His Majesty's government.
Why "Stalin (1940)"? What exactly happened in 1940 that made Stalin a WWII commander? Soviet occupation of Baltic states? But the Baltic states had never have any relation to the Axis, they were neutral states (to some degree leaning towards Germany, although that was not sufficient to call them Nazi allies). What else? As soon as Stalin is being discussed, it makes sense to remember that by the moment WWII had officially started in Europe (1st of September, 1939) there was a de facto state of war between USSR and Japan. Therefore, I would say, from a formal point of view, if we decide to use a chronological order, more arguments can be proposed in favour of "Stalin-Churchill-Roosevelt". And this dispute may continue endlessly.
That is why I propose not to use such formal criteria as chronology. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Stalin broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 28 June 1940 when he invaded Bukovina. He then broke the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement in August 1940 by withholding deliveries of war materials for Nazi Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidNo1Fan (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt should clearly be listed before Stalin, as the USSR was on the Axis side for two years. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

And the USA entred the war after Russia. Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The United States was already at war with Germany in 1940, as Admiral King confirmed at the time: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic/ (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
What Admiral King thought is not relevant as neither the USA or Germany were in a mutual state of war. That is why Germany had to declare war on the USA in December 41. Slatersteven (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
US warships were already firing on sight at Axis U-Boats in the Battle of the Atlantic by April 1941. The so-called "declarations" by Germany and Italy only acknowledged the US had already been in a state of war since Roosevelt publicly confirmed shoot on sight on 11 September 1941. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

More groundhog day on this issue! Just to reiterate, Churchill may not have been the British Prime Minister when war was declared, but he was an elected member of parliament at the time and was actively engaged in correspondence with Chamberlain to encourage that declaration of war, as well as someone who had accepted a position in the War Cabinet (I recollect the appointment was announced after the declaration of war). It is also worth adding that Britain was the only one of the Allies that was faced with the option of going to war. Both the USSR and USA were attacked.

Regardless of this, counting the time that Churchill was leading Britain at war (as PM), he was still doing so for longer than Roosevelt or Stalin as leaders of their respective countries at war. So the "days in leadership and at war" criteria still hold good. The measure is simple, it is factual (so no matters of opinion on who was more important) and it has been previously agreed on this talk page.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill began pressing for war with Germany in May 1938 after his vast debts were settled by Strakosch. The US attacked Germany and Japan in April 1941. Stalin broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in June 1940, before breaking the German-Soviet Commercial Agreement in August 1940. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
1938, the year of the Munich crisis? So did Churchill "press for war" or just realized that a man like Hitler would continue until he was stopped? Slatersteven (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Poland and Hungary invaded Czechoslovakia in 1938, before annexing more Czech territory in 1939. Sebastian Haffner is correct regarding Hitler's role in decolonisation. The Munich Agreement never failed - it was Chamberlain's decision to form an unworkable military pact with Poland that led to World War II. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 13:50, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Seriously, so there would have been no WW2, if we had let Hitler got what he wanted? I think with this we can close this derail. Slatersteven (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The UK should have pressured the anti-Semitic regime in Warsaw more heavily to allow a referendum on Danzig. Fascist Poland had been allied with Nazi Germany since January 1934, and had participated in the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in 1938-39. Stalin knew the UK and France would only declare war on Germany, hence his invasion of Poland in September 1939. Regardless of this, Roosevelt should be listed before Churchill, as the UK and its defunct empire was already a satellite of the United States by the end of 1940. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

About women

Hi i an going to tell u about womens 2001:8F8:183D:5593:6953:2646:5357:B85D (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We already mention women, what do you want to add? Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street

The article should mention that Wall Street funded the Russian Revolution, and declared war on Germany in March 1933. DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DavidNo1Fan: I perceive two problems with that:
  1. It's widely accepted that World War II began with the German invasion of Poland in 1939. You mention events presumably dating from 1917 to 1933.
  2. We'd need credible reference(s), and I'm unaware of any supporting that perspective.
DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that you, Harvey?--Jack Upland (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the article on Jacob Schiff. World War II began on 28 June 1919. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Schiff prevented the Russian Empire from receiving loans during World War I, and financed the Russian Revolution which led directly to World War II. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 16:11, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
You need RS saying this, do you have any? Slatersteven (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous articles online showing Wall Street's declaration of war against Germany in March 1933. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Wall street cannot declare war, it is not a nation-state. So what you seem to be talking about is rhetorical statements. Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wall Street announced its declaration of economic warfare against Germany on 24 March 1933. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
What? Slatersteven (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The announcement of the economic blockade in March 1933 was a clear declaration of war. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Order of leaders

Roosevelt should clearly be listed before Stalin, as the USSR was on the Axis side for two years. DavidNo1Fan (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this to the above discussion on the topic. Slatersteven (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do I do that? (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
The way you add to any thread, the way you added to this one (and by the way, you have added to it, just not this commment [[1]]). Slatersteven (talk) 17:40, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Find the section above on "Allied leaders of World War II" and click on "edit source" to the right of that header. Then add your comments on that issue at the end of that section, like you did to add "How do I do that" to this section. DavidMCEddy (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!

In solidarity?

The lede states Germany and Italy declared war in solidarity for Japan. In reality Hitler and Mussolini could no longer ignore Lend-Lease, and needed to begin the Second Happy Time. DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source? Slatersteven (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/december/11/newsid_3532000/3532401.stm (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I see this mentioned in terms of Germany, not Japan. Slatersteven (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The United States was already at war with Germany in any case, as Admiral King had confirmed in December 1940: https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/article/undeclared-war-in-the-atlantic/ (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
No he did confirm it, he claimed it. As he was not head of the government he did not get to make that decision. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roosevelt's secret orders to the navy meant the US was already at war by the end of 1940. Roosevelt told Churchill he would wage war without getting Congress to officially declare it. (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
You need RS saying the USA was at war, not that an admiral said or acted as if they were. A source saying "the USA was at war with Germany" Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Roosevelt declared war on Germany and Italy on 11 September 1941 when he publicly confirmed shoot on sight, having lied about the Greer incident: https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-fdrs-shoot-sight-fireside-chat (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I do not see anything there about this being a declaration of war. Please read wp:v (this source says edging towards war (for example) not "at war"). This will be my last response here until you provide a source that actually says The USA declared war on Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Burns confirmed shoot on sight declared war on Germany on pages 141-2 of "Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom" (1970). (DavidNo1Fan (talk) 13:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II&oldid=1124386006"