Talk:World War II/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. Topical Archive: This archive contains discussions of the intro to the World War II article. If there is a need for additional archiving on this topic, a new archive should be created.

In the intro every word counts and should be justified. Here we have: "The war was fought in response to the expansionist and racist policies of Nazi Germany". I don't think "racist" belongs here. Not that think that the Nazi policies weren't racist, but I don't think it was their racist element that prompted the war. Rather the war was fought in response to German expansionism and military agression. Any disagreements? DJ Clayworth 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that more space is given in the intro to the aftermath of the war than the war itself. I think this is wrong, and at least a couple of sentences should be given to the scope of the war and sequence of events, with just a sentence or two on the aftermath. DJ Clayworth 13:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was racism that led to the genocide of Jews, so racism is an appropriate word. The beginnnings of World War II are very important, and Hitler's attempt for world domination. Oyo321 20:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my point is that the Allied powers didn't go to war over the genocide of the Jews. The genocide wasn't well-known in 1939. Genocide later turned out of have been a reason why fighting the war was a good thing, but not a reason why the Allies went to war. Hitler's agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes. DJ Clayworth 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DJ Clayworth. The "race reasons" for the war were extremely insignificant compared to the "expansionism reasons". Of course, there were foreign worries about the "Jewish question" (sadly minor), but it is beyond any doubt that it was Hitler's methodical annexation of country after country that triggered the war in Europe - one has just to study the diplomacy that went on prior to the outbreak. The plans of genocide were not known at that point, and it is not even certain there were any firm German plans at that point, but that is an entirely different question. Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 20:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote that sentence. An intro to WWII must emphasize Adolf Hitler and Nazism. Without the racism reference, one could easily read the whole article, with the exception of the casualties section, and completely miss that the Germans had fallen for a really bad idea. Saying Hitler was a militarist and aggressive and wanted to conquer other lands just isn't enough. There is no way that he could have gotten the Germans to kill that many Slavs without racism. That this kind of thing can happen in a modern civilization is the take-home lesson of WWII. If we tell the story of the war in dry, completely inoffensive "he wanted all the land and power, and the Allies didn't want to give it to him, and now let's talk about Army Group B", then we're only giving a one-dimensional view of the war. Haber 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel that more can be written about the Nazi's racist policies then fine, there are other places in the article it can go. And nobody disagrees with pointing out that such racism existed. But the sentence as it stood was a falsehood - the Allies did not primarily go to war for reasons of racism. We are not helping at all if we start making false statements. DJ Clayworth 17:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True America did not go to war against racist policies in Nazi Germany. I don't agree that Hitler's "agression and expansionism were much more prominent causes" were the reasons that U.S. went to war. Pearl Harbor was one thing, and the fact that Churchill was wailing for help as the last sole fighter in Europe would have had absolutely no chance of keeping the U.S. neutral. Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statements above refer to why the war happened, not why the US decided to join in. DJ Clayworth 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DJ you're right. I'll work it in somewhere else. Haber 01:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph: ...roots in earlier conflicts such as the Second Sino-Japanese War..."

Isn't that a little bit exclusive of the European theatre? Would anyone object to adding, say, WWI to that? -ChunkySoup 11:29pm 7/16/2006

Yes I would. The intro is too long on the causes already. However I have removed the specific reference to the Sino-Japanese war. DJ Clayworth 22:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't. If WW1 had not happened, it is unlikely WW2 would have in that way. Many historians state that WW2 was a follow on from WW1. Wallie 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again i think the intro has got out of balance. I propose a new one. Essentially I've added:

The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; and also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

DJ Clayworth 22:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. ...and in and around Asia (Japan, China, Burma, India, Soviet Union)... and in and around Australia (Coral Sea, New Guinea, Darwin, Midway)... and in and around Africa (Lybia, Sudan, Egypt)... Wallie 20:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those are in/around the Pacific or Europe. And it does say majority of the fighting. We're looking for a brief summary here, not an exhaustive list. DJ Clayworth 17:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro, it should be mentioned that the Soviet Union had aggressive expansionist plans. Stalin had explicitly mentioned even in his public speeches that the modern army is an attacking army. He also partitioned Europe with Germany in the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty. Partitioning territory of sovereign state is an act of war especially when the plans were implemented with the Baltic states and Poland. His plans were partly realized in the later stages of the war, when the Soviets invaded half of Europe. I already added Stalin's aggressive expansionist policy to the "causes of war" paragraph in the intro, but it was removed as a "minor cause". Care to explain? When the largest state in Europe mobilized five million men, that's hardly minor. --Vuo 17:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly explain. It wasn't a major cause because war wasn't declared in response to it. If Soviet expansionism had been a major cause the Allies would have declared war on the Soviet Union. If Stalin had sat at home and not been expansionist the war would still have happened. DJ Clayworth 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is the naive view that Stalin was entirely passive. I wonder when people will start seeing past official Communist propaganda. Whether war was declared on which grounds, or what would have happened in a given scenario, is irrelevant. Stalin first partitioned Europe with Germany, and was planning to attack west. One of the first wars in the Second World War was Winter War, where Stalin attacked Finland. Germany wasn't involved in this war. The pattern you can see here is that both Germany and the Soviet Union planned an attack towards each other. --Vuo 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia.". No one believes this any more, except you of course. "Imperial ambitions of Japan?". Gimme a break! It is highly offensive to German and Japanese people, as you intend it to be. Wallie 20:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, in the sense that no side in the conflict was innocent. To think it's just some mad Austrian's idea is incredibly naive. Most Western Allies definitely had empires and imperialist ambitions. The Soviet Union certainly did have plans to conquer areas west of them. Even Finnish extremists had ideas of Greater Finland. To mention only Germany and Japan in the introduction is the so-called victors' truth. --Vuo 20:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? So what would Japan's "Imperial ambitions" be rather called? That is the only term that I believe tells 120% of the truth. What else would it be? "Japan's glorious unification of Asia" or "The Imeperial saviour to save the Asian world from poverty" What would Germany's "ambitions" be called? Like probably for you, "The Nazi regime to help purge Jews to free the free world." Lol

Yeah, expansionism and colonization was rising as stronger nations snuffedout weaker ones. But I don't think America's ambitions to colonize Hawaii and Cuba was to torture and kill them. Colonization was inevitable 50 years ago. And the Soviet Unions plans were obvious. What else could it be? Turn the free world into a Communist world. You can't compare such evil intentions to colonization, which is what just about everyone did.

Oh, and Wallie thats a pretty mean sentence in the second line of yours.Oyo321 04:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article about WWII must mention Hitler and Nazis in the introduction. These are two critical facts for people to know about the war. If you don't like the rest of the statement, at least figure out a way to leave these important pieces of information.

No Germans I know are fans of Hitler or Nazism, and they don't object to the actions of the time being described as military aggression. We need to be able to make reasonable statements that describe what actually happened. Haber 04:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Wallie, I never thought anyone would argue that Hitler and Imperial Japan were responsible for World War II. If most historians now disagree with that assessment, I'd better clear all the books writen before 2001 on my bookshelves, which universally blame them.

Hitler's Lebensraum did combine with German frustrations over the way they'd been treated after World War I and the economic collapse of the late 1920s. Without the expansionism of Germany and Italy, assuaged by appeasement, we have only Russian designs on other European countries. Or are you blaming Holland and the Netherlands for being too antagonistic?

Imperial Japan's expansionism (see Second Sino-Japanese War led to the economic sanctions that thwarted their goal of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. It would be hard for me to fault the nations that imposed sanctions for the war, as these sanctions came after Japan started shooting. Or were the Chinese to blame for the Rape of Nanking? It's hard to see Japan as innocent when they hoped to replace the European colonial powers with Japanese colonial power. This leaves off the attack of 1941-12-07, which was certainly an act of war, even if you might claim it was provoked by US economic policy in the Pacific.

You are correct in stating that I do not care if I offend Germans or Japanese with my assertion of the blame for the start of the war. I assuredly don't blame the current German or Japanese people as a negligible portion were alive during the war and none of those were the decision-makers.

Vuo, are you really blaming Finland for World War II?

Please explain who we should blame. After we establish that, we can start investigation of the evidence behind your theory. I have no problem with the sentence being removed during this discussion. --Habap 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's not a scientific question to ask "who should we blame". Trying to answer to that inevitably leads to promoting "victors' truth". Yes, Finland did have its share in causing the Second World War. Without the idea of Greater Finland, Finland wouldn't have attacked to pre-1939 Russian territory. Obviously Finland's ambitions aren't the only ones causing the war, but they're there, just like German and Soviet ambitions. --Vuo 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they aren't there in the same way at all, because the Finnish participation in the war was a deeply minor factor compared to, say, German, Soviet, Japanese, American, British, French, and Italian involvement. Looking at the major countries, the British and French involvement stemmed out of a desire to prevent German expansion, not to expand themselves; the Soviets only got involved in the war when they were invaded by the Germans (whatever ambitions Stalin may have had), and the Americans were mostly concerned with stopping Hitler and, to a lesser extent, preventing Japanese expansion. Of the lesser allies, the Poles are probably most significant, and Polish expansionism was not a notable cause of the war. On the other side, the Germans began the war by attacking Poland, the Japanese were involved in aggression in China and then attacked the American, British, and Dutch territories in Southeast Asia to secure oil; and the Italians began the war by attacking the French during the height of the German invasion, and continued by invasions of Egypt and Greece. As to Finland, perhaps Finland can partially be blamed for its own participation in the war, at least its participation on the German side from 1941 on (I don't think Finland can be blamed for getting invaded by the Soviets in 1939). But the fact that Finland participated in the war on the Axis side was pretty damned insignificant to the war as a whole. Blaming the war on the military aggression of Nazi Germany and Japanese imperialism seems like a fair enough shorthand. john k 21:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, Finland was a victor, writing the victor's history? I'm really confused which war you're talking about. If Finland's fight led to any countries besides the Soviet Union entering any war in this period, it's news to me. I will admit to imprecise knowledge here (especially as regards British and French actions in Norway), but I really don't understand how Finland could be to blame for the invasion of France. Japan and Germany, led by men who are long dead, invaded other countries. This was the start of the war. The causes of the war are more complex, but that's the basics. --Habap 02:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habap. I can see you really have it in for the Japanese. For others who are not so one-eyed, you can read Causes of World War 2. Habap, you can just keep on listening to this sort of stuff churned out in the USA around the time. [1] Wallie 20:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wally, please desist with these baseless ad hominem attacks. Haber 00:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments and the way you are directing these discussions make it very clear that you hold a very strong bias indeed against the Japanese people, and maybe even against German people too. When I point this out, you then say this is attack on yourself. My points are not baseless. Wallie 20:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wallie, I have two eyes. While I don't take offense at your mistake, it does read as though it was intended to be a personal attack. I believe you are also confusing Haber and I, Habap. Despite similar usernames, we are not the same person.

No, I don't have a bias against the Japanese people. I do have strong feelings about the military regime that ruled Japan with the Emperor's consent during the war and about the atrocities committed by the Japanese military against civilians and prisoners of war. Similarly, I have strong feelings about the Nazi regime that duped the German people into starting a war and attempting to exterminate Jews, Gypsies, and anyone who didn't fit their molds correctly.

Please provide some books that I can read which support your arguments. I am always interested in learning more. --Habap 22:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The war was fought in response to the military aggression of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, and the imperial ambitions of Japan in Asia. The majority of the fighting took place in and around Europe, where Germany invaded and occupied much of Europe and later the Soviet Union; Africa where the Afrikakoprs of Erwin Rommel fought in Egypt and Libia ( to in Italian East-Africa where the Italian army´s where soon defeated ) also in the Pacific where Japan invaded many countries around the Northern and Western Pacific.

Points

• Britain and France were the ones that declared war on Germany. Otherwise WW2 would not have started then.
• No mention of the post WW1 actions of the allies which ruined the German economy.
• The Japanese Emperor was a figurehead. The statement implies he directed the war.
• Repetitive use of the word "invaded", indicates strong bias.
• Loaded words such as "aggression", "occupied" and "defeated".
• No mention made of the American blockade of Japan.
• No mention made of any fighting "in and around" Asia or Australia, even though it did really happen in these two continents, and not just in "the Pacific".
• Little mention of Soviet participation
• No mention of why America stayed away for so long.

These are just some of the examples of what I would only describe as American propaganda and glaring omissions. We all know that America won the war, but how long do the defeated peoples have to endure these sorts of distortions of world history? Wallie 20:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie, lots of times you write "no mention of" when in fact these points are mentioned plenty. What you seem to be objecting to is that in the one-paragraph introduction we are unable to go into all the subtleties and nuances of the question of the responsibility for WWII. Frankly, that is impossible! To do what you seem to want would be to expand the introduction so that it was the same length as the article. Then we would have to write an introductory paragraph, and we would be exactly back where we started. To counter your specific points:

• Asia and Australia are around the Pacific.
• 'invaded' is exactly the right word to use when one country moves into another with its military.
• 'defeated' is exactly the word to use when one side in a war surrenders. 'occupied' and 'aggression' are likewise appropriate.
• The Soviets get one mention in the intro, which is exactly the same number as the British and Americans.

Your other points are covered extremely well in the rest of the article. Frankly it begins to look as if you are making these comments just to stir up trouble. DJ Clayworth 20:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on DJ Clayworth's comments (in italics) by Wallie

• Asia and Australia are around the Pacific.

So what you are saying is that the Pacific is more important than Asia and Australia. Possibly as America is part of the "Northern Pacific".

• "invaded" is exactly the right word to use when one country moves into another with its military.

Not used if a "friendly country" is involved. The United States moved into Vietnam. But this was not called an invasion.

• "defeated" is exactly the word to use when one side in a war surrenders. 'occupied' and 'aggression' are likewise appropriate.

Same as usage of the other loaded words, such as invaded. Only applicable when describing enemies.

• The Soviets get one mention in the intro, which is exactly the same number as the British and Americans.

There is something about the crafty way the Soviets are introduced here, which makes me feel very uneasy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallie (talk • contribs)

No. This is absolutely not my intention, and you know it very well. If the points are covered in the rest of the article, why are they completely left out in this overview? Do you really and honestly believe that this section is unbiased? Wallie 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The points are left out of the overview because it's an overview. If you put all the points back in, it stops being an overview and starts being a complete article. DJ Clayworth 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the overview only contain's one country's POV, then it is biased. The overview should not to my mind blame any country for the war, but refer people to the "Causes of the War" article instead. I know that it is very difficult for any American to understand this, due to the education system there. The good guys are American and the bad guys the commies, nazis and japs. Wallie 22:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of revisionist BS. JPotter 22:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I may briefly respond to each of Wallie's points at the start of the section:

• Britain and France were the ones that declared war on Germany. Otherwise WW2 would not have started then.

Britain and France declared war on Germany after it invaded Poland. Germany had thus already started a war. Britain and France were fulfilling their obligation by treaty with Poland.

• No mention of the post WW1 actions of the allies which ruined the German economy.

While the economic disaster caused by the Treaty of Versailles was a cause of the war, it wasn't the primary one (men marching across borders).

• The Japanese Emperor was a figurehead. The statement implies he directed the war.

That's reasonable. Perhaps there is a better way to refer to the government of Japan than as Imperial Japan.

• Repetitive use of the word "invaded", indicates strong bias.

Neither Poland, nor China invited these two powers into their countries. "Invaded" is the proper word to use.

• Loaded words such as "aggression", "occupied" and "defeated".

I find no bias in those, but you are welcome to offer substitutes.

• No mention made of the American blockade of Japan.

Please provide details, especially indicating which of the ships in the US Navy participated.

• No mention made of any fighting "in and around" Asia or Australia, even though it did really happen in these two continents, and not just in "the Pacific".

No fighting occurred in Australia and it is far easier to refer to territories which all border on that ocean with that short phrase. --Habap 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In and around....

1. Japanese bombing of Darwin (quite major)
2. New Guinea, Solomans etc
3. Coral Sea and Midway were effectively the battles for Australia
4. Australia was a strategic base, even though somne Americans may think that all the US soldiers were living on USS Hornet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallie (talk • contribs)

I've changed the paragraph to indicate "Asia and Australia" instead of "the Pacific". I would disagree that all the battles north of Australia were really battles for Australia, but am willing to concede a lack of detailed knowledge of the fighting in the southwest Pacific.

It's a shame you feel the need to smear the American education system in so many of your posts as these comments add nothing to the value of your arguments and make you seem biased.

Additionally, since the USS Hornet was an aircraft carrier, the few people who would be able to name it would know that it couldn't carry troops (certainly not the many divisions of the US Army and Marine Corps that fought in the Pacific). None of the editors of this article have demonstrated ignorance of Australia as a strategic base. --Habap 11:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is you that is biased, especially against the Japanese. Your depiction of Germans as "Nazis" is unfortunate too. And yes, I do put this down to the American education system. I find that people such as yourselves othen change their view over time, when they obtain more of a world view. But unfortunately, the damage is already done. At this stage, whatever I say, you will disagree with, as you are so tied up with the idea of "good" vs "evil". Wallie 18:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As noted elsewhere, when I (and historians) use the term "Nazi", it is to separate discussion of the German people from the Nazi regime. The Nazi regime was "evil". If you don't agree, I suspect you lack a complete understanding of what the regime's goals were OR that you have some bias. You are correct in your assertion that I won't be changing to a favorable view of the Nazi regime in Germany or the Japanese military from the 1930s until 1945. --Habap 12:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Little mention of Soviet participation

Someone already noted they get listed once, just like everyone else.

• No mention of why America stayed away for so long.

That is, perhaps best left in another article. We can't put everything in the opening paragraph. You are, of course, welcoem to submit your own proposal for an opening paragraph. --Habap 22:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You forget that the commies were among the good guys in that cartoonish view of the war. --Habap 22:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should say "the Pacific" when describing that part of the war in the intro, because that is what the theatre of war is known as in most cases. DJ Clayworth 13:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on where you come from. It is a US-centric term. However, very little of the war was fought around California, which springs to mind, whenever the word Pacific is mentioned. Wallie 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As we've established, I am from the US. Oddly, when I hear "The War in the Pacific", I never think of California. There was no fighting in California (you could look it up) and I don't know why it springs to mind for you. It seems a bit US-centric that you think of a US state when hearing "Pacific". --Habap 12:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie's a troll. I suggest dropping it since you've already destroyed him. Look at it. You're arguing with a moron over what the Pacific means. Haber 05:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may be a moron, but then you are a definitely a lower moron than me. It is always great to argue with someone even stupider than oneself. I may be destroyed as you can only hope. However, I will always try to redress the obvious American propaganda in this article. I know what the Pacific means in this context. It is also used to belittle Asia and Australia, and magnify American efforts. The British use the term "Far East" for your information. Wallie 20:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility, please. Address the content rather than waste time insulting each other. --Woogums 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you taking away my right even to defend myself? I did not notice you saying anything to Haber when he attacked me 2 days ago. I think this attitude stinks. Wallie 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Each other' means both of you, or all of you, or anyone who hurls insults on the talk page. Nothing is going to get done on improving the article if no one is interested in treating each other with even the semblances of respect. You know, I know and hopefully Haber now knows that this name-calling is a waste of everyone's time. --Woogums 00:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're wasting time, nerd. Haber 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. This is an important issue. I was being attacked a few times on this page. You seemed quite happy to let this continue. When I responded, you then made your comment. I do treat others with respect. If I did not respond, then everyone would rightfully think I was the guilty party, just as the Germans and Japanese are considered the guilty parties in this article, as the most of the "name calling" and "insult hurling" is being done by the other side. Wallie 02:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wallie, if it's that important to you, please point out where you were insulted by anyone other than Haber. Don't forget that you called me one-eyed on 24 July, which some would consider a personal attack. Your continual claims of bias violate WP:AGF and your repeated comments about the American education system have no place on a talk page. It doesn't really matter who started the name-calling. Let's just stop it. --Habap 10:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am never worried about name calling. If they dish it up, then they get it back. Calling me a troll guarantees a response. I just don't like referees coming in, however well intentioned and blaming both sides, when only one is at fault. As for AGF, I do assume good faith. I may disagree with a person's POV, but not necessarily their motives. It is just that some do not really think of the big picture, and I just present the other side. I can be wrong too, sometimes in not seeing the big picture. As for the American education system, I may be wrong about this, but it seems that all German and Japanese people, men, women and children, who were alive between December 1941 and August 1945 are portrayed by many Americans as being weak, evil, stupid, and most of all Losers. I did infer that were you one-eyed, but this is just another way of saying you had a POV, not meant to be a personal attack. If anyone such as yourself replied back in a similar way, that would be OK by me. Wallie 11:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haber, the Nazis expansed in the Eastern Europe because they really belived this territory to be biological base of Jewry, not because Jews simply "concentrated" there. Please do no sweetening their ideology and goals. Otherwise we should remove for example any mentions of "Lebensraum" etc.--Nixer 15:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I think I see where you're going with this, i.e. bad Nazis, and I couldn't agree more, but maybe you are unaware that in English the term "biological base" implies vermin-like qualities. You need to enclose such dehumanizing terminology in quotes. Otherwise it isn't clear where the thought is coming from. To give another example of what shouldn't be written: "One objective of the Ku Klux Klan is to ship all the mud people back to Africa."... perfectly illustrates how vile the Klan is, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, unless maybe it's a direct quote. Even then, I would recommend great caution. Haber 00:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Nazis also saw the Slavs as "sub-human", eliminating them was considered a nice side effect of securing Lebensraum in their lands, I suppose. --Habap 04:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again. At least the Germans stopped thinking this way after 1945. Americans kept the idea going, and to my mind still do. You are still going on about "commies" are you not? What did Americans think of Japanese people in WW2? I think you know, if you are honest. So, before you start criticizing others, please look at yourself and your own country first. Wallie 18:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the Nazi's as holding this view to separate it from the bulk of the German people. It's a shame you blame the Germans for the aberrations of the Nazi regime, but some of us are more open-minded and worldly, I guess.

I don't need "extra" honesty to know that US propaganda depicted the Japanese badly. Of course, it didn't help the image of the Japanese that the Japanese military committed so many atrocities. --Habap 12:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to "commies", you should note that I used it reference to a statement you made calling them "commies". Your statement had incorrectly identified the Soviets as being "bad guys" in the American view of the war, when, in fact, the Soviet Union joined the Allies and in a cartoonish view of the war in which everything is only good and evil, the Soviets were "on the good side". Even the "good versus evil" view had wrinkles about who was good and who was evil, based on necessity. --Habap 12:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Habap that really doesn't make much sense. I don't know what Stalin's intentions were in the beginnning of World War II, but they certainly were aggresive-slicing and dicing Poland between Germany and themselves. Then Germany cut the pact and invaded the Soviet Union. The thing is the Soviet Union never was on the "good-guy" side. When the U.S. joined the war, it just happened to be that the Soviets were fighting the Germans and so were the Americans, so undoubtly, that made them on the same "side." Oyo321 12:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was only in reference to a propagandist, cartoonish view of the war. It was a challenge for the US gov't to spin the realpolitick of helping the Soviets when they'd been portraying the communists as the Red Menace for so long. As noted, even the cartoonish view of the war, which attempted to portray Stalin as "Uncle Joe", wasn't as simple as those who would troll the subject portray it. --Habap 13:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of this helping us build a better encyclopedia? DJ Clayworth 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course Oyo321 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now overview does a couple things, one, it says the war started when Germany invaded Poland, but we might say it started when England and France declare war? its easy to imagine they didnt declare war, then this would be called the fourth partition of Poland not a world war II. Im not sure on this but...It is definitiely POV not to mention here that Soviets and Germany already agreed to divide Poland and USSR invaded, too. if Germany started war by invading Poland, then Germany and Russia started the war together when THEY invade Poland.Opiner 20:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FX:Rolls eyes. For a brief overview it is perfectly ok to say 'WWII started with the German invasion of Poland'; we explain later the subtlety that Japan and China were at war since the mid-30s, that Britain and France took a day or to to declare war, that the USA declared war in 1941, and so on. The Land 21:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No eye rolls needed. My point is that this make sit sound like Germany started the war which is not that simple. Its not apologism we can agre that Nazis were the bad guys here, but are we really sure Hitler wanted to fight England for example? Probably not. Fairer to say Germany PROVOKED the war by breaking their deals and invaded Poland.

Wosre than the antiGerman POV is the pro-Russian. No mention at all that Russia participated in invasion and was German ally until stabbed in the back. Makes Russia sound like innocent victim!

We should say instead, Germany provoked the war by breaking Munich agreement and invading Poland with Russia. Britain and France then declared war. Later, Germany betrayed agreement and attacked Russia.Opiner 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We do say that. Just not in the introduction. DJ Clayworth 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Going through this article Im not pro-German AT ALL but I gotta say theres a whole lotof POV that doesnt need to be here. Why the scaring quotes around "ethnic German" is this really disputed? Etc. I agree Hitler was main problem here but just tell the story.Opiner 02:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a repeated Wikipedia phenomenon that someone comes and criticises the introduction section of an article saying "that doesn't give the full story". No, the full story is given later. On a subject this complicated the really full story is given in a huge number of subarticles. DJ Clayworth 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably we could add all my ideas in a few dozen words.Opiner 08:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more obvious non-neutrality is 'The main aim of the Nazi aggression was the conquest of Lebensraum (living space) for a greater German Empire at the expense of the peoples of Eastern Europe.

That was a long-term aim of course but aims which prompted the war was aim of REGAINING territory in Poland which had been taken from Germany at Versailles! See Prussia, Silesia. In Czechoslavakia it was to bring Germans again under German rule which they had until the breakup of Austria-Hungary. Aim of Lebensraum doesnt come up until Barbarossa. So, Lebensraum was goal of German aggression against USSR but NOT of the things which actually began the war!Opiner 20:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Prague and Warsaw are not German. Haber 01:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. While some territories of contemporary Poland were formerly German (and even earlier (Middle Ages) they were Polish...), much of the Polish areas annexed by Nazi Germany were never before controlled by Germany.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are all three of us right. What was made Czechoslovakia was part of (ethnic German) Kingdom of Austria until after WWI. Part Germany demanded and got at Munich was only Sudetenland. Hitler obsession was to unite German speakers in one nation. In Poland Germany attack supposedly because Poland refuse to give back Polish corridor which WAS part of Germany until only twenty years before and was almost completely German speaking. But if Germany ONLY took former German land there still would be war. They did take more but No one said if you only take German territory no war and Germany didnt ask for anything that wasnt.

Lebensraum? Yes that was ideology and MAYBE war happen anyway BUT that was NOT proximate cause of war. Unifying former Germany plus Austria was enoiugh to cause and DID cause war. England and France didnt mention Lebensraum in war devclarion did they? Did they declare war to stop later attack on Russia where was all the Lebensraum? Russia who had just signed friendship with Germany and was in on the plot? They DID violate their deal at Munich no one denies that but to say that endless territorial ambition cause war is wrong. It is conflating of the two ideas.Opiner 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To say that territorial ambition causes wars is wrong? I am a political socio-military historian, and all of the wars I have seen are result of the endless territorial ambition of one nation or another. WWII - Germany wanted Lebensraum, I mean were they thinking that the USSR would go: "sure, we have a strong army, but please take our land, we don't want it anymore, and we feel that you'd take better care of it through genociding our Slavic brothers"? The whole damn principle of endless territorial ambition leads to wars! Country A has endless territorial ambition, where it will eventually (endless, remember?) reach country B that isn't planning on losing land, and hence BOOM we have a war. It's a simple concept really, kinda like military history 101. You cannot have a single entity, a single country dominating the entirety of the planet, cause that would simply kill off all of our culture, and people jealously guard their cultures! So that single, ever expanding (endless to use your words) entity/country will eventually have war! Looks at the whole principle of Imperialism, and understand why it fails! No empire, whether first reich, second or third will last indefinetely, becuase not everyone thinks the same way. Would you want people entering your country, and telling you how to run it, due to their endless territorial ambitions? Or perhaps their endless economic ambitions? Most people would be pissed off, and on the verge of declaring war, and there's always some crazy person who would trigger the ignition, it's just a cycle. That's how it works. As for WWII, Germany started it, becuase once that's out of the equation, no world war, duh! Hitler wanted World Domination, which required fighting everyone, (yes even Mussolini and Tojo) but fighting them eventually, not this very minute! Luckily this mad man was stopped by the Red Army, to whom we all owe our deepest gratitude. And look, in a post WWII world, no countries claim to have endless territorial ambitions, they've learned their lessons, have you?

User ABC

Did not say territorial ambition didnt cause war only ENDLESS terrotiorial ambition. BECAUSE endlessness of ambition not obvious until Barbarossa. Even then not literally 'endless' right. Russia big but still finite. Main point it was recreation of pre great war Germany itself break treaty because including what then called Polish corridor which was proximate cause of war. NOBODY say declare war on Germany because they want Lebensraum in Russia. Only because attacking POland because Poland not giving the land back. No real moral point here since Going back further Germany take a bunch of land from POland to begin with in series of partitions with Russia and Austria. Just the observing of the facts September 1939.Opiner 02:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we need more explanation of how and why the War started. While certainly the war started with the German invasion of Poland, the paragraph describing causes of the war states nothing about the role of Poland in starting the war. It doesn't say anywhere how Poland betrayed her allies France (repeatedly), Romania and Czechoslovakia for shallow self interest. As a matter of fact, there were TWO major agressors in Europe - Germany and Poland. Not only did Poland attack Czechoslovakia (and, unlike Germany, without a "go" signal from France, UK and Italy), but she pursued an imperialist policy ever since the Polish state was re-created (you can call it "federation" or whatever, but same way as people's republics aren't reallyAnd since I'm sure that may sound odd to some, so I'll give a source - for example, Muhin's "Antirossiyskaya Podlost'" which can be found here http://www.patriotica.ru/authors/muhin.html (in Russian only). For instance, this would explain why Churchill called pre-war Poland a "hyena". With respect Ko Soi IX 20:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is the lead for this article extremely short? Shouldn't it be just a bit longer given the size of this article as WP:LEAD states? Periklis* 23:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody permanently deletes the intro.--Nixer 11:24, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted your addition because inaccurate and non-neutral. See section above here.Opiner 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Small Text