Talk:World War II/Archive 48

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

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

The German attached to the included picture (Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-L20582,_Charkow,_Strassenkämpfe.jpg) says, "Federal Archives; Picture of Kharkov street fights" and "On 25.10.1941 our superior forces were able to conquer the German-fascist army in Kharkov, the capital of Ukraine. Shown here: tanks and infantry street-fighting in the city."

I will admit my German really sucks, but I know enough to know I don't see the word "house" (Haus, Zuhause) anywhere in the picture description.

My overarching concern, though, is that the picture does not show a house! As such, the old caption looks silly, just like if it showed a ship and said, "Soldiers used this car to reach the city."

I see three choices, though there may be more: 1) Change the caption. 2) Change the picture. 3) Remove 'em both.

I just can't, in good conscience, leave the picture/caption as it was, so I changed it to match the uploaded description.

Thoughts, anyone? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

One more thing: The Russian description attached to the photo ("Улица Свердлова, впереди Лопанский мост и Университетская горка") says something like "Sverdlov Street/Road, by/in front Lopansky Bridge and University Place/Hill" (Sorry--my Russkiĭ sucks even more than my German!). Nowhere do I see anything like "дом" (dom--house). Ja? Da?

Danke, er, I mean, спасибо (spasibo--thanks). — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:50, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. There are no words "dom", "Haus" or "House" there. However, since the caption (German infantry and armoured vehiclesbattle the Soviet defenders on the streets of Kharkov, October 1941) contains no word "house", I am not sure I understand what are you talikng about--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)19:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I propose that a heading be added to the belligerents box (or could be a note/ref) that participants in the war are listed by formal order of accession to the conflict, and that the belligerents be re-ordered to reflect that (with years specified for all parties, as already done for some). That solves a host of POV and thorny issues around arguments regarding the order, whether or not to include neutrals which were attacked (no), whether to include the USSR as an Axis power prior to their being an Ally (not formal, so no) et al. Once that is done, we can address the nuances of the USSR being initially allied with Germany but not as an Axis power prior to Barbarossa, the USSR invading and annexing Baltic and Romanian territory, etc. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

(this is the reply on both this proposal and the Vecrumba's 18 May 2012 post.) I see several problems with your proposal. Firstly, as I already explained, implementation of this your idea would require us to re-write the whole "Course of the war" section. If you agree to be historically accurate, you should realise that many sections, for example, the "Axis advance stalls" section devote unproportionaly high attention to the Pacific/Western European theatres than to the Eatsern Front. As a result, the actual contribution of the Allies (as well as the relative importance of theatres) is unclear from the narrative. Thus, the section devotes equal space to the Battle of Buna–Gona (20,000+ Allied troops, ca 6,500 Axis troops, unimpressive strategic results), and the Operation Mars (more than a half a million troops from both sides, heavy casualties, which resulted in dramatic delay of the advancement of the Allied troop to the West). The Operation Winter Storm (which was comparable to the Battle of El Alamein by its scale, and had extremely important consequences: the Germans failed to relieve the blockade of 6th Army, although they prevented the Army group B in Caucasus from being cut off, and delayed capture of Rostov) is totally ignored. And so on and so forth. Therefore, in a situation when real large scale battles having important strategic implications appeared to be diluted with large number of low to moderate importance events, it is hard for a reader to obtain a real impression of the overall importance on different events (and of overall contributions of different participants). The situation is not so dramatic now, because the order of the belligerents partially compensates for this imbalance. Therefore, the change of the order as you proposed is possible only when the balance will be restored.

The second issue is the China. ROC was de facto at war with Japan from 1937, so if we adopt the chronological order, to list ROC after the USSR and the USA would be misleading (despite the fact that formally ROC declared war on Japan only after Pearl Harbour).

The third problem is the order of the Axis belligerents. If we adopt your scheme, Japan (at war with China since 1937) should go before Germany and Italy.

As a result, the first impression of the infobox would be that the WWII was a war between China and Japan, so poor school students who will be looking at this article will draw totally misleading impression about the war. Can we afford to pay this price for removal of the USSR from the first position of the list? I am not sure this article is a proper place for making a stress on the MRP. If you want to edit such a global article, try to think globally.

And, finally, taking into account that discussion about the starting date of the war re-starts again and again (the last example can be found here, and even had been a subject of MedCab, this issue is even more controversial than the dispute over the order of belligerents. By accepting your proposal, we thereby endorse one concept (either Euro- or Asia-centric), which by no means is neutral.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba's proposal has merit. Given that this article is about world war, the war between China and Japan (prior to Pearl Harbour) can be seen as a regional war so it would be incorrect to place ROC first in any case, particularly since they did not formally declare war on Japan until after Pearl Harbour as you say. --Nug (talk) 10:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely with Paul's well-considered post. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a disconnect between the start date of WW2 in the infobox of 1 September 1939 and the argument that WW2 started in 1937 for ROC (I have a source that states Japan/ROC's WW2 started in 1931[1]). On what basis is the current ordering made? if it is casualties then China should be mentioned second, if it is economic then the USA should be first, the criterion should be at least mentioned in a footnote. Paul's argument that we would have to list Japan and China first if we adopt a chronological order isn't valid, because it is generally accepted that WW2 was a war between the Axis and the Allies and thus any chronological ordering would be based upon when nations joined the Axis or Allies as belligerents, not when individual countries fought isolated regional wars, such as Italy's invasion of Ethiopia in 1934 or Japan's war with China in 1937 (as stated in the article). --Nug (talk) 18:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The ordering was made based on the military contribution (which is not equal to the amount of losses sustained). You should probably re-read the past discussions, the talk page's FAQ, and the template:WW2infobox talk archives.

Re Axis, you should re-read the arguments that had been put forward during the last MedCab and the recent discussion on this talk page. You should also keep in mind that no Axis existed by the moment the WWII officially started in Europe: the major document signed by Germany, Japan and Italy by that time was the Anti-Comintern pact, which (i) was directed mostly against world Communism and the USSR, and (ii) was not a military alliance at all.

I also found the exaggerated attention to formal issues (war declaration, alliance signing, etc) in this particular case illogical, because during the discussion about the USSR participation of the invasion of Poland the opposite argument was used, namely, that the fact that no war was declared on the USSR did not change the fact that the USSR was physically involved in hostilities. Interestingly, both arguments serve the same goal: to remove the USSR from the top position of the list at any cost...

--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, just letting you know I will provide a much longer and considered response. However, you cannot have it both ways, if you wish the USSR atop the Allies leader board based on contribution, then the USSR needs to be reflected as the leading a Nazi co-belligerent in the infobox as well up until Barbarossa based on the Soviet contribution to the bifurcation of Eastern Europe. You speak of all the misconceptions which would be created were the order to change in the infobox. No, the infobox is already creating gross misconceptions, the question is how to fix them. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:22, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Whereas there is no disagreement about the fact that the Eastern Front (it terms of losses, from both sides, and of the amount of troops involved) exceeded all other theatres taken together (the figures have not been contested, so this statement is not a subject of debates), there is no consensus that the USSR was an Axis co-belligerent from sept 1939 till june 1941: annexation of the Baltic states and Bessarabia occurred without the war, and none of the states annexed by the USSR (except Poland) were the Allies: most of them were future Axis members (Romania), Axis co-belligerents (Finland) or Axis collaborators (population of the Baltic states massively collaborated with Nazi). The only questionable case is Poland, however, even here there is no consensus. However, I have some deja vu feeling: I recall we have already had similar discussion before.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Your mantra of massive Nazi collaboration on the part of those who had first been attacked by the USSR, your mantra of "no war" regarding brutal Soviet invasion and subjugation is yet again a rehash of your favorite baseless and uber-POVed personal provocations. You've already proven yourself wholly incapable of even discussing the Soviet invasion of the Baltic states, or have you already forgotten your fantastically abysmal conduct? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly do their future allegiance matter? Which were in several cases actually results from the Soviet aggression. The future allegiance of the countries listed has no relevance what-so-ever to the matter at hand. For example with mild sarcasm we might with the logic applied by Paul Siebert just as well judge Nazi Germany as a NATO country while we are at it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

"Logic" implies some syllogisms. I drew no conclusions from e.g. Romanian Axis membership. However, if you want to criticize my logic, here it is. "Co-belligerence" means fighting against the same enemy. In the case of the USSR, only Poland fit this criterion, because in other cases either there were no fighting (thus, in the case of Romania, the USSR just issued an ultimatum and took disputed territory back, there were no war in the case of the Baltic states either), or Soviet opponents weren't the Allies (the fact that most of them were future Axis members, co-belligerents or collaborators just demonstrates that they had no relation to the Allies). In other words, the USSR had military conflicts with several states, most of whom would become the Axis members or co-belligerents, and were not the Allies. How all of that can be interpreted as Soviet the Axis co-belligerence?--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, so you agree that the Soviet Union was co-belligerent to the Nazi Germany - as shown your comment to the Poland case. I think that is enough. Again what ever the future allegiance of the countries was to be has no relevance. You can not use it as a baseline for stating that 'they had no relation to the Allies'. If you do so you are already using the effect to justify the cause. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

See my answer below.--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Paul, in carefully reading over your points, I am in the end left with the observation that the infobox does not exist to address shortcomings in the article. If the Battle of Buna-Gona and Operation Mars get equal time--unjustly by your estimation--then simply suggest how to fix that article content problem. If Operation Winter Storm lost out on any editorial time whatsoever--unjustly by your estimation--then simply suggest how to fix that article content problem.

Your objections to chronological order for the infobox relate to the article, not the infobox. From the very start, the article's Chronology section is an unsubstantive self-contradicting mass reflecting the pointless POV conflicts giving birth to the fragments left remaining which diddn't overly offend anyone. At the moment, that section concludes nothing and merits its own cleanup proposal, but another conversation. To your specific cases:

• ROC formally accedes to conflict (declares war on Japan) after Pearl Harbor while being at war from 1937.
  • This is not a problem. This is no different from the USSR formally acceding to conflict as an Ally in 1941 and having no mention as a Nazi co-belligerent prior, that relationship stopping just short of a formal military alliance. Regarding the ROC accession, simply note that there had been no interruption in hostilities since the Japanese attack of 1937.

• Japan AXIS power at war before Germany and Italy
  • This, too, is not a problem. There is no serious opposition to the notion that World War II started in 1937 in Asia. It was the opening of widespread conflict in Europe that added the "world" to World War. The problem is that the supporting, indeed foundamental, Chronology section of the article is a shambles with regard to cohesive narrative--that is the real source of confusion here.

• Endorsing a Euro- or Asia-centric view
  • Simply no. Quite frankly, too many people think nothing material was going on prior to Hitler's attack on Poland. Improved awareness of conflict in the Asian theatre would be a tremendous benefit. Again, this all goes to the issue of a proper Chronology section.

• No formal AXIS
  • So?

• "Interestingly, both arguments serve the same goal: to remove the USSR from the top position of the list at any cost."
  • Your defense of the sanctity of the #1 position for the USSR and contention that anyone who disagrees with you is out--at any cost--to strip the USSR of that glory points only to your own lack of objectivity in this matter . You don't appear concerned at all, speaking of your concern for misconceptions, that the current infobox implies that WWII started with the Great Patriotic War. The simple bottom line is that the USSR does not merit the top position regardless of the argument made.

Your objection that changes to the infobox result in article bias are unfounded; your objections to current shortcomings in the article stand on their own and should simply be addressed in due course. There is no "price to pay" regarding content balance for removing the USSR from the top of the Allied leader board. If anything, the true price being paid should we construct an infobox that is congruent with the formal conflict is, as I've already alluded, that we won't indicate that the USSR was a Nazi co-belligerent for 1939-1941--and there are ample scholarly sources for "co-belligerent," so let's not jump down that rathole. (We simply note that prior to 1941, the MRP Pact was in effect between Germany and the USSR with regard to dividing Eastern Europe.) But on the positive side, the precursory role of the conflict in Asia will get the recognition it deserves.

Lastly, I tire of your attack innuendo ("Interestingly,..."). Since you saw fit to level accusations of over-the-top POV motivation (your "at any cost"), since I am prepared to not list "USSR (1939-1941)" in the "Nazi co-belligerent" section as the inevitable result of adopting a chronological formal accession to conflict order, that clearly proves your attack is completely baseless. I suggest you work on your need to denigrate other editors. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 19:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Re "the sanctity of the #1 position for the USSR and contention that anyone who disagrees with you is out--at any cost--to strip the USSR of that glory" No "sanctity" and no "glory", just bare facts: more people fought and died in the Eastern Front (from both sides) then in all other theatres taken together. The fact that some of those peoples had a relation to occupation of the Baltic states does not mean their lives was less precious than the lives of, e.g. Americans, who invested a lot in the war (in terms of money and materiel), but lost just 1/55 of what the USSR lost (and killed much less Axis personnel then the Soviets did). In contemporary world human life is a primary value, isn't it? If you agree (and I am sure you will not object to this thesis) then why are you trying to come out with some secondary (and artificial) criteria? The only reasonable explanation is that you believe that the USSR was the bad guy, and the bad guy does not deserve to be on the top. Yes, I agree that the USSR was not an angel. However, the fact is that one of the most important Allies was a bad guy does not mean we have a right to give a distorted picture of the war.

Re Nazi co-belligerence. If we agree that formal signing of the Tripartite Alliance, as well as formal war declarations, mean nothing then the USSR should be listed before Poland and Britain, because Khalkin Gol preceded the invasion of Poland. Although I again have a deja vu feeling, let me remind you that during 1939-41 the USSR (i) had been involved in several minor (comparable to the Battle of Iwo Jima by their scale) clashes with Japan (future Axis member), invaded Poland (future Ally), annexed territories of Romania (future Axis member), annexed three Baltic states (whose population would massively support Germany), attacked and invaded neutral Finland (future Axis co-belligerent). I believe I haven't missed anything. Of course, these facts may serve as unequivocal evidence of USSR's Axis co-belligerence, aren't they?

Speaking seriously, your attempts to present my objectivity as my bias are amazing. Noone can denigrate your better than yourself.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, can you please explain what relevance does the future allegiance have to the events that took place (apart from being clear violation of causality) prior to the formation of such allegiances? Also for the note, Poland was an allied nation already when the Soviet Union invaded it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I explained that in my previous (21:09) post. Future allegiance is important only in the case of Japan, because if we consider the war between China and Japan as a part of the WWII, then Khalkhin Gol is a part of the WWII too. If you propose to discuss seriously Soviet invasion of Poland, then Khalkhin Gol should be discussed too. Regarding future allegiance of other states, that is not too important. What is important, it the fact that none of them was an Ally. If Germany and the USSR had no common enemy (except, probably, Poland), what co-belligerence are you talking about?

Re "Poland was an allied nation already when the Soviet Union invaded it" Yes, such an opinion exists. However, you must take into account the following: (i) there were no Allies by Sept 1: Anglo-French alliance was just a continuation of the Triple Entente, this alliance ceased to exist after French defeat, Britain, USA and USSR formed quite new alliance in 1942; (ii) Poland was not a member of the Anglo-French alliance, in actuality, Britain and France gave guaranties to Poland, but those guaranties were directed against Germany only; (iii) as a result, Soviet invasion of Poland was not an act directed against the (non-existent by that moment) Allies, hence no war declaration.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

WW II has been generally seen to have started with Hitler's invasion of Poland in autumn of 1939 (1 September). Soviet invasion of Poland happened after this, fighting at Khalkhin Gol happened before this event (pretty much only the ceasefire agreement took place after it - mid September 1939). In addition Soviet invasion of Poland was very closely linked to the German efforts including joint victory parades making it clearly an event with very strongly ties to the Nazi invasion of Poland which was part of the World War II. Essentially inseparable part of it thanks to M-R Pact. Which makes it part of WWII. Also like you said Soviets and Nazi had an common enemy, Poland, which made them co-belligerents. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To avoid duplication of the discussion, I answer here on your 04:33 post also.

I did not agree that the USSR was German co-belligerent in Poland, I just conceded that Poland is the only case when we can speak about Axis co-belligerence more or less seriously. However, it this situation you must avoid double standards. Thus, you write that, since the WWII is believed to have started on 1 September, all pre 1 September events should not be taken into consideration. By writing so, you pay undue attention to formal things. I don't mind to follow this approach, however, we must be consistent, and following facts should be taken into account:

1. Cease fire agreement between Japan and the USSR had not been signed until mid September, so formally fighting at Khalkhin Gol ended only after the date of formal WWII start;
2. Soviet invasion of Poland was not an act against the (non-existent by that moment) Allies, because neither Britain nor France were bound by any obligations to protect Poland against Soviet attack;
3. No war was declared on the USSR as a result of its invasion of Poland.

In any event, if you want to speak about pro-Axis belligerence of the USSR in Poland, you must simultaneously write about anti-Axis belligerence of the USSR in Far East (Khasan and Khalkhin Gol), especially, taking into account that real scale of hostilities was larger there. And, of course, we cannot speak about any Axis co-belligerence of the USSR after invasion of Poland ended, because none of other states annexed or invaded by the USSR had any relation to the Allies (and most of them had more or less tight connection to the Axis).--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually use of your own exclusion method - ie. 'there was no fighting' - forces us to disregard the Khalkhin Gol since there was no fighting any more in September 1939. Which leaves us only with the Nazi and Soviet invasions of Poland into the consideration. Also funny that Anglo-Polish military alliance mentions "...mutual military assistance between the nations in the event either was attacked by another European country..." so that the claim of 'no act against the Allies' appears to be false just as well and it also means that Soviet invasion of Poland had very clear relation to the (Western) Allies. Also no war was declared on Finland because it entered war as co-belligerent to Germany either - yet it is noted as being 'co-belligerent', for one to claim to desire to avoid double standards your posts seem to contain quite a lot of them (do note that UK declaration of war against Finland did not take place when war started, only much later). How did the countries you listed had 'more or less tight connections to the Axis'? So far only thing which support this is the how their allegiances were formed as the result of the start of the WWII and Soviet aggression, although you can not use their actions following the events as evidence for justifying the events. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My method is simple: any approach can be used, but, as soon as we decided to use some concrete approach, it must be applied uniformly. If we are speaking about actual events, then no formal arguments should be used, so the arguments about the formal start date of the WWII in Europe are irrelevant, and Khalkhin Gol and Khasan must be included. If we decided to make a stress on formal aspects, then it is necessary to keep in mind that the USSR was not at war with any state as a result of invasion of Poland. Similarly, if we discuss seriously the secret protocol to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, then we cannot ignore the fact that British guarantees to Poland also had a secret protocol which said: " By the expression "a European Power" employed in the Agreement is to be understood Germany. In the event of action within the meaning of Article 1 or 2 of the Agreement by a European Power other than Germany, the Contracting Parties will consult together on the measures to be taken in common", so Britain had no obligations towards Poland in the case of the Soviet invasion (except the obligation to "consult together").

Re Finnish co-belligerence, that is simple. Finland was at war with at least one major Ally, the USSR (which was at war with the major Axis power, Germany). This is quite sufficient to consider Finland as the Axis co-belligerent, both from formal and informal point of view. British declaration of war adds little to that.

Regarding my "more or less tight connections to the Axis", let me remind you that unfriendly acts of the USSR cannot be served as an indulgentia for large scale collaboration with the Axis. If some country had been a victim of the USSR, that does not mean its subsequent Axis membership, co-belligerence or collaboration was completely justified. In any event, Romania, Finland or the Baltic states had no relation to the Allies, so Soviet actions against them does not make the USSR the Axis co-belligerent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland was an actual event so can not understand what you are after. By your own logic Khalkhin Gol and Khasan would need to be excluded. I merely stated that it is most often observed to have started on 1 September 1939, you are free to disagree with it but you would need to base it on something. Fact still remains that Poland was allied with Britain, regardless of the clauses. As for the Finnish case situation seems very similar, USSR was at war with an Ally, who at the time was at war with Germany. De facto war if nothing else (actually in both cases). As per your deductions this is enough to consider USSR as the Axis - or rather German - co-belligerent. Again you are applying double standards. And yes, while effect of the USSR aggression can not be used as justification neither can be the subsequently chosen allegiance with or alongside Germany like you several times implied. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, invasion of Poland was an actual event, however, hostilities in China and Far East were the actual events too. Although the formal WWII start date is considered to be 1 Sept 1939, Far East events are also being discussed in the article (and in the infobox).

The situation with Poland differed from the Finnish case in several aspects. Firstly, Polish-British agreement was not a full scale alliance, and it did not stipulate any concrete actions in a case of the attack of any power other than Germany. In contrast, the Anglo-Soviet alliance was a full-scale military agreement. Secondly, the USSR was not at war with Poland. No war was declared by Polish government on the USSR (a war was probably declared post factum by London government in exile, but Britain was displeased by that fact). And, importantly, no major Ally declared a war on the USSR as a result of Soviet invasion of Poland. Moreover, according to Churchill's comment, this Soviet step was partially justified (I am not sure that was what he really thought, however, that partially reflected the official viewpoint). One can argue apout Operation Pike, however, that was just planned operation, which had never been implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Anglo-Soviet agreement was also specific in that it was anti-German agreement. Soviet Union was not in war with Finland either (officially), or can you point out the declarations of war from the Soviet side, so that is another moot point. And also neither did any major Ally declare war on Finland just because of the war - Britain declared it only later on but took no action against Finland. None of the claims you made are in any measurable way different from the Finnish case. So as per your earlier statements the Soviet Union was German co-belligerent. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No. This agreement was directed against Germany or any of the States associated with her in acts of aggression in Europe, i.e., against European Axis, satellites and co-belligerents. This agreement, as well as subsequent Grand Alliance, was a full scale military alliance.

Re "Soviet Union was not in war with Finland". Which war do you mean? Winter war or Continuation war? If you are talking about the former, I don't think it was a primary subject of our discussion (alleged German co-belligerence by the USSR), because Finland had never been at war with Germany. If you are talking about the later, then, if that was the case (no official state of war between the USSR and Finland), then what was the reason for British declaration of war on Finland? You perfectly know that Britain took that step reluctantly, and, importantly, there were no practical need in that (neither Finland nor Britain had access to territory of each other). Had Britain had any good pretext to avoid this war declaration, she would gladly used it. Nevertheless, she had declared war on Finland. Why?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In similar way Anglo-Polish agreement was a military alliance, can't see anything which could disqualify the claim there.

Finnish government determined that it was in a war (Continuation War) when Soviets bombed civilians in Helsinki on 25 June 1941, there were no declarations of war. It certainly was not the primary subject but you insisted on several issues on why would not be similar situation however none of them has actually held under scrutiny. Britain declared war to appease Stalin who had earlier repeatedly demanded it to happen and in order to win (political) concessions from the Soviet Union, though six months after the war had started. I can't any reason why Anglo-Soviet agreement would have resulted in this, since it was agreed on 12 July, nearly 6 months before the declaration of war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Re Anglo-Polish agreement, let sources speak for themselves:

"...the Soviet invasion of eastern Poland on the morning of 17 September did not come as a major surprise. A representative from the Foreign Office, Lancelot Oliphant, was on hand at the Cabinet meeting that day to assure all that 'the provisions of the Anglo-Polish agreement would not come into operation as a result of Soviet aggression against Poland'. The guarantee applied only in the event of a German attack. Britain was not legally bound to declare war on the USSR, a judgment that must have served as a considerable relief.(Paul W. Doerr. "Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War, 1939 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439)

Re Finland, I am not sure I understand your point. What relation do Winter and Continuation wars have to the question of Soviet-German co-belligerence?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The analogy of the situation. If the Finns were co-belligerent with the Germany then if Soviet-German activities during the invasion of Poland were similar were they not co-belligerent as well? Either both should be or you are applying double standards to the issue. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:32, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand you. If that is the only unresolved issue, let's discuss it. The question is, however, was the Soviet-German activity similar to the Finno-German collaboration during Continuation war?--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

What exactly was there different? Apart from that Soviets and Germans actually had binding treaty between them, something Finns and Germans did not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact that there was no official Finnish-German agreement until very late in the war does not mean that the two countries were not allies until then. That is just another dubious claim by you...

What exactly was it about the non-aggression pact that made Nazi Germany and the USSR allies? How was their relationship the same as the Finnish-German one?

Did the German and Soviet armed forces coordinate their attacks? Were there any Soviet divisions under German command or German divisions under Soviet command? Did their units fight side by side in the same battles? Did the German airforce fly missions in support of the Soviet army or use Soviet airfields? Did Hitler come to the USSR to personally wish the Soviet leader a happy birthday? Did any Soviet commander receive a top German military award?

I know that the answer to all these questions is yes if you replace Soviet with Finnish... -YMB29 (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well it is different, M-R Pact was agreed before the operations - Finnish relations with Germany were undefined. Also 'non-aggression pact' contained something known as 'the secret protocol' which elevated the treaty quite a bit beyond to what is understood as 'non-aggression pact'. German's and Soviets agreed on demarcation line running through the Poland, held joint military parades, Soviets even provided navigation aids for German aircraft and so on. Not to forget that Germans even gave ('sold' on extended credit) Soviets warships, modern military aircraft and gave access to the related factories. So not necessarily allies in the narrow (formal) sense, but does make them allies in the same sense the term is expanded to state that Finland was Germany's ally in the war (granted situation was different between 23 June 1944 - mid August 1944 due to R-R agreement). - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:46, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a repetition of old arguments that had been already addressed. The MRP (main document) was just a non aggression pact, and was similar to many pacts signed during those times. With regard to the secret protocol, it did not stipulate any coordinated invasion, it just defined spheres of influence of each party. Of course, the protocol can be post factum interpreted as an agreement to jointly invade Poland (and some authors interpret it in this way), however, most likely, Hitler started his invasion without having any concrete agreements with Stalin, and Stalin made a decision to invade Poland only after Sept 1st.

Joint parade is also somewhat controversial story. Germans, who initially occupied Brest, had to withdraw, and the Red Army had to enter the city. Both parties decided to do that in a form of the parade, and I do not understand why so deep conclusion are being drawn from that fact.

Re navigation, yes, German ambassador requested Molotov to order Minsk radio station to transmit, when the station is idle, two key words, along with the word "Minsk", allegedly, "for urgent aeronautical experiments". Molotov agreed only on the word "Minsk". That's it.

Re warships etc, remember, in 1939-40 America was selling many strategically important materials for Japan, and that was normal for neutral countries. And, it is obvious that USSR was buying warships and other equipment for future war with Germany herself. In other words, the activity that is normal for other countries is seen as the traits of an alliance when you speak about the USSR and Germany. I am not sure that is correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Regardless those are joint military operations no matter how it is portrayed. Also strategic materials are a bit different from actual military equipment, let alone allowing access to factories and designs themselves. So were are back at the question, what exactly would state that the Soviet Union was not co-belligerent to the Germany against Poland. So far there has been plenty for it. Also i did say 'ally in the same sense the term is expanded' - not that it would actually have been an ally. It is hilarious that for countries to wage war against the Soviet Union they are automatically co-belligerent but for the Soviet Union to age war alongside Germany against Poland means that it is not. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not about going to war with the USSR. Finland is considered an Axis ally/co-belligerent not because of the Winter War... The level of cooperation between Germany and Finland cannot compare to that of Germany and the USSR.

For military operations to be called joint there has to be coordination; it is not just about fighting the same enemy.

Can the USSR be considered Germany's co-belligerent against Poland? I guess it depends on what exactly is the definition of co-belligerent. You can find what reliable sources say about this. -YMB29 (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Finns disregarded a lot what Germans told they should do. And outright refused from doing the German bidding. So clearly there was no such coordination between Finland and Germany either. Even the few Finnish units nominally under German command actually followed Finnish HQ. So no coordination there. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There was more than enough coordination. The fact that there were Finns under German command speaks for itself. -YMB29 (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @Paul, regarding your latest contentions/rhetoric:

1. Re your objectivity on the USSR's role in this, need I remind you of yours followed by Nug's and then mine?
2. What "artifical" criteria are you talking about? Absent of political or moral machinations is not "artificial", it is "objective."
3. There's plenty written that the Soviet invasion of the Baltics et al. sealed Hitler's decision to invade the USSR, if so, Stalin brought that suffering upon his own nation.

Your personal thesis that the "value of human life" puts the USSR atop the leader board is ironic given that the value of human life in Stalin's USSR was nothing. How many Red Army died because their officers shot them on orders that no one retreat? 300,000+ casualties in a failed attempt to take the Courland Pocket? The squandering of life in victory does not make that squandering any less immoral. We value life now, Stalin did not. The massive Soviet casualties are reminiscent of the U.S. Civil War, where old style tactics (throw innumerable troops against the enemy in the field of battle) were met by modern instruments of war (mow down charging attackers like a harvester cutting down a field of wheat).

If human cost is of interest, then Poland needs to be at the top given its horrific losses of both Jews and Poles. Surely you cannot contend that the victim of both Nazi and Soviet aggression at the start of the war is less of an Ally than one of the powers that attacked it. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide some non-local example? What relation does occupation of the Baltic states have to the question of military contribution of the Allies into the WWII? Yes, Stalin occupied the Baltic states, but Truman bombed Tokyo and Hiroshima (where more innocent civilian died). Does that change our vision of relative military contributions of those nations in WWII? I am not sure.

Regarding your last claim, yes. I do declare that the countries that signed non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany during Anglo-Franco-Soviet anti Hitler negotiations in 1939 (and thereby actively contributed into negotiation's failure), the countries whose population made no contribution into the Allied war efforts (and actively collaborated with Nazi Germany) were less Ally then the USSR. The Baltic states had never been on the Allied side, and to claim otherwise would be a lie.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The Baltics are merely the touchstone for crystallizing for others your POV view of the USSR and its role in WWII.

Your latest contention? Stalin occupies the neutral non-belligerent Baltic states and you equate it to Truman bombing Hiroshima, a city of a country which launched a war against the U.S., and Truman certainly killed more "innocents." That you present this as ameliorating Stalin's invasion and brutal subjugation of the Baltic states, well, no, actually you make out Truman as having slaughtered more innocents than Stalin, conclusively demonstrates you're not fit to edit here, either. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, do not misinterpret my words. I have no desire to discuss your last post, which contains gross misinterpretation of what I said.

Regarding your previous post, your idea that, since Soviet leaders didn't value lives of their citizens, we do not need to do that either is quite cynical. By writing about old style tactics you may be right or wrong, however, the fact is that is was those innumerable victims that lead to the victory over Nazism, and the citizens of the Baltic states did not contribute into that victory. By no means I blame them in that, however, I expect them to observe at least minimal decorum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do explain my misinterpretation, I merely clarified your contention.

Considering that Hitler and Stalin both forced the peoples of the neutral Baltics to fight in their armies, for brother to kill brother, some individuals winding up serving in the armies of both powers, on top of the Soviet Union being the first to invade the Baltic states, your "did not [assist Stalin to] contribute to victory [over Hitler]" proves that you have no desire to deal with facts, only to proselytize your historically inept, grossly misguided and, quite frankly, Baltophobic, personal contentions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not expect the Balts, who suffered from Stalin's repressions, to assist the USSR. I (partially) understand their semi-voluntary collaboration with Hitler, who saw them as "Semi-Aryans" and treated them much better then Polish, Russian or Belorussian population. However, I cannot reconcile two things: (i) the fact that the Baltic states are arguably the only contemporary European states where people can wear Nazi uniform publicly and proudly, and (ii) your attempt to present them as almost the Allies. What Ally had been occupied during the occupation of the Baltic states, and what relation does it have to the question of Soviet co-belligerence? --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

(od) @Paul, your belief system could serve as a case study demonstrating that in the presence of contradictory accounts, belief systems win out over facts. Re yours:

(i) The Latvian Legion wore uniforms. They fought against Soviet re-occupation wearing Latvian flags under those uniforms. Those uniforms are symbolic of their struggle against Soviet re-occupation. You imply Latvians glorify Nazis to the shame of the entire rest of the planet. Well, no, there is Finland which still uses the swastika and is regularly denounced for parading Nazi symbols. The commonality is not the shameful glorification of Nazism (as you allege), it is calling anyone who fought against the USSR in WWII a Nazi. I regret that such demonstrations appear to be necessary more than ever, given the unremitting rhetoric from Russia, to remind the world of Stalin's unprovoked assaults on its sovereign neighbors and co-belligerence with Germany in partitioning Poland at the start of WWII. Should I remind you that Stalin wound up with more of Poland than Hitler?

(ii) The British were active supporters of the Baltics against German occupation in their fight for independence after WWI, a close relationship that went back to Courland being Britain's shipbuilder. In WWII, the Baltic states were neutral. After the war the Latvian Legion were stationed as Allied guards at Nuremberg. If categorizing, certainly "Allied" not "Axis."

I won't even attempt to fathom why you're asking me about something nonsensical which I have not said and how it relates to Hitler and Stalin actively cooperating in the bifurcation/partition of Poland.

And I regret to point out that your outlandish, hate-mongering contention of quid pro quo Baltic "semi-cooperation" with Hitler because Hitler saw the Baltic peoples as "semi-Aryan" proves you're not fit to contribute to any topic touching on the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 12:50, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

My belief system is irrelevant to the issue we discuss. What I want to say is the following. Of course, we can discuss some specific circumstances when the nation that actively fought against the major Ally can be considered not as Nazi co-belligerent. However, a situation when this nation attempt to impose its own vision of history of WWII on other people is somewhat ridiculous. Thus, you write "Should I remind you that Stalin wound up with more of Poland than Hitler?" However, that is simply a lie. Hitler caused death of ten times as many Polish citizens then Stalin did (moreover, some Jews had been saved as a result of Stalin occupation); regarding the territorial changes, let me remind you that major part of polish territory taken by the USSR was Ukrainian, Belorussian and Lithuanian populated areas, which were conquered by Poland as a result of Soviet-Polish war, or directly annexed (Vilno region).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really, we should get back to the discussion regarding chronological order before you dig yourself any deeper. Regarding "some specific circumstance when the nation that actively ought against the major Ally can be considered not as a Nazi co-belligerent," when the USSR invaded and brutally subjugated the Baltics it was not an Ally. That it was an Ally later is completely irrelevant to the situation in the Baltics and any other territories where the USSR was the initial aggressor, and you know that. (I also point out that you use later, not original, relationships to tar others but use the same to your benefit when it's good for Stalin.)

If you wish to demonstrate some semblance of objectivity, I suggest you:

1. retract your contentions of "semi-voluntary" cooperation by the Baltic peoples with Nazis based on gratitude that Hitler considered them "semi-Aryan" and not semi-Simian
2. affirm that as far as you are concerned, the only reason Latvians et al. fought against an "Ally" is because that "Ally" was re-invading their homeland, and that fighting that "Ally" had nothing to do whatsoever with the expression of sympathies for the Nazi cause.

Absent of these two actions on your part, I cannot consider your presence here and participation in this conversation in particular as being in anything resembling good faith.

Regarding Poland, let's see, 51% of territory to Stalin, 49% of territory to Hitler = Stalin wound up with more of Poland than Hitler. So, your personal attack that I'm lying is, unfortunately, a lie.

As for your contention that Stalin "saved" Jews, with respect to the Baltics at least, Jews were deported to Siberia by the USSR in a greater proportion of population than any other ethnic group and to harsher conditions, as Stalin was a rabid anti-Semite. Your history is flawed there as well. That some Jews escaped owing to circumstance had nothing to do with Stalin being beneficent to Jews, he plainly was not. VєсrumЬа ►TALK

Please make more of an effort to assume good faith and be civil. (Hohum ^@) 17:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Really, I'd rather not do diffs to prove my point. I gave Paul a measured non-accusatory response point by point and his subsequent conduct here has mirrored that at the thread/conversation I referred to above. Please read that and then return to discuss my perceptions. Links repeated for your benefit:

1. Paul Siebert
2. followed by response by Nug
3. and then my response to Paul Siebert

Best, Peters VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Hohum, unless instead of complaining to Paul Siebert I should simply file enforcement requests. I thought we were trying to build a more collegial culture. If you have issues with my conduct please contact me on my talk page or by Email. Your interjection of admonishment here to me lends credence to Paul Siebert's rehashing of historically baseless and offensive contentions. (And how should one respond when accused of lying?) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 17:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to do that. I'll even try to make your life easier. You requested me to retract my contentions of "semi-voluntary" cooperation by the Baltic peoples with Nazis based on gratitude that Hitler considered them "semi-Aryan" and not semi-Simian. I have to concede that I was not completely right. We can speak not about semi-voluntary, but about fully voluntary cooperation of Latvian and Lithuanian (cannot tell about Estonia) population. A source for this statement is Eric Haberer. Intention and feasibility: Reflections on collaboration and the final solution. East European Jewish Affairs Vol. 3 1, No. 2, 2001/1350-1674/64-81: "The institutionalization of collaboration and the invention of native security police commandos made the Holocaust a foregone conclusion in the Baltics long before the Final Solution was enacted at the Wannsee conference in January 1942. In July-October 1941 the Baltics truly became the flashpoint of genocide, which made the unthinkable possible. In a short space of time, the combined 'harvest' of these rotating killing units amounted to between 90,000 and 100,000 murdered people, the vast majority being Jews.") You must concede that 100,000 victims for the countries with ca 4 million population is quite impressive number. Thus, I claim that a small nations, whose representatives voluntarily and consciously murdered 100,000 peoples (about 2% of its own population), cannot adopt a stance of a victim. Anticipating the arguments that only some representatives of Latvian population participated in the Holocaust (which is totally correct), let me remind you that not all German participated in the Holocaust either. However, a support of Nazi collaborators was widespread in Latvia and Lithuania ("Without their (local public officials) willing co-operation and, in the case of the Hilfspolizei and Selbstschutz, their frequent and direct participation in executions, the Holocaust in provincial Latvia and Lithuania could not have been implemented." (ibid)). As another author said, "the undoubted vileness of Soviet actions in the Baltic countries from 1944 onwards must not be allowed to impede a continuing and fuller study of the involvement of Latvians and other Baltic peoples in the Holocaust." (John Hiden. The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 85, No. 2 (Apr., 2007), pp. 364-365). Therefore, I have to retract the word "semi". My apologies.

Regarding the Latvian legion, and other Latvian units on Nazi service, the same author warned against separation of Latvian legion from such notorious units as Arajs Commando, because "The fact that part of the commando was incorporated into the Latvian Legion further undermines the distinction noted earlier between the events of 1941 and 1943"(ibid.)

Feel free to add that to the enforcement request. Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. Re Polish 49 vs 51%, formally you were right. However, if we take into account not the territory, but a real harm inflicted by Hitler and Stalin, then the figures provided by me more correctly reflect the real state of things. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

More on Latvian voluntary co-belligerence. I noticed that the article VI SS Army Corps (Latvian) has a German Wikipedia twin named VI. SS-Freiwilligen-Armeekorps (lettisches). The word "Freiwilligen" means "volunteer". I have done some search and I found the following about the defenders of Latvian independence:

"Contrary to the Commission’s views, the Legion did not arise in a vacuum in 1943. In July 1941, the SS organized Latvian volunteers into armed ‘Police Battalions’, which initially rounded up and executed communists, Red Army stragglers and Jews. By the autumn of that year, the SS deployed them to the Leningrad front, where Heinrich Himmler subsequently consolidated several Latvian battalions into the Latvian Second SS Volunteer Brigade. In early 1943, Hitler labelled this brigade, which later became the Latvian Nineteenth SS Volunteer Division, along with the new Latvian Fifteenth SS Volunteer Division, the Latvian Legion. The new terminology changed little for Latvian soldiers at the front and certainly did not erase their pre-1943 SS activities, either as individuals or units" (Valdis O. Lumans. European History Quarterly 2009 39: 184)

Therefore, the facts are that, (i) at least a part Latvian SS-mans were volunteers, (ii) they started their glorious career not with the defense of their own Homeland, but under Leningrad, and (iii) they (at least some of them) did participate in the Holocaust. In connection to that, I believe the Latvian issue is closed, and it will not be used any more as an argument during this discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, the abysmal "foregone conclusion" you cite is precisely the kind of scholarship that ignores the details of history. Scholarship which concludes that the Holocaust could not have been successful as it was without widespread support, ergo there had to be widespread support, is a judgement seeking a criminal. I'll have to read through Haberer's article more thoroughly for a more detailed response. (For example, there is German correspondence that indicates that if it was found out that German commandos were wiping out villages of Lithuanian Jews, and not the Lithuanians as "officially" reported, the Germans could get into real trouble.) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:05, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

My comments were not directed to an individual. WP:CIVIL is not optional. Overlook slights (especially imagined ones); be the bigger man and give none in return. Stick to the subject, not other authors.

..and now, back to your discussion. (Hohum ^@) 19:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying your community reminder. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

World War II, or the Second World War (often abbreviated as WWII or WW2), was a global war that was under way by 1939 and ended in 1945

Is this really true? It seems that there were actually two wars going on, one in Europe and another in Asia that had virtually nothing to do with each other. The two wars in fact had completely separate origins. Germany and Japan were completely cut off from one another and did not even coordinate their actions together. The Soviet Union and Japan did not engage in all-out hostilities until the very last month of the war in Asia.

Germany set out to establish a large empire in Europe.

Somewhat misleading, Hitler's ambitions were to subjugate Eastern Europe, Poland and the Soviet Union specifically.

Why are Allied war aims not discussed?

In December 1941, Japan, which aimed to dominate Asia, joined the Axis, attacked the United States and European possessions in the Pacific Ocean, and quickly conquered much of the West Pacific.

Japan didn't attack the United States and Britain just because it wanted to dominate Asia, it attacked them because they imposed economic embargos against Japan, and Japan felt like it was being strangled.

The war in Europe ended with the capture of Berlin by Soviet and Polish troops and the subsequent German unconditional surrender on 8 May 1945.

Well, this completely ignores the invasion of Germany, of which Berlin was one part.

The Battle of Britain and the bombing of Germany is completely omitted from the intro. The post-war occupation of Germany and Japan is not mentioned either.

Pre-war events

This ignores Hitler's failed attempts to secure an alliance with Britain against the Soviet Union. It ignores how the Franco-Soviet-Czech alliance in many ways influenced Hitler to eliminate France and Czechoslovakia so as to have a free hand against the Soviet Union. It ignores how the guarantee to Poland was instrumental in prompting Hitler to launch the invasion.

The strategic implications of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact are not mentioned, specifically how it allowed Hitler to escape the dilemna of a two-front war.

In April 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to secure shipments of iron ore from Sweden, which the Allies were about to disrupt

Should be made clear the sort of "disruption" envisioned, namely the violation of a sovereign state's territory for the purposes of provoking an enemy reaction.

Axis advances

Hitler's public offer to end the war with Britain on July 19, 1940 is not mentioned at all.

At the end of September 1940, the Tripartite Pact united Japan, Italy and Germany to formalize the Axis Powers

They did not form the "Axis powers" until Japan entered the war in December 1941. The pact was merely a defensive alliance which Hitler intended to use to deter U.S. intervention.

The Tripartite Pact stipulated that any country, with the exception of the Soviet Union, not in the war which attacked any Axis Power would be forced to go to war against all three

In fact, Japan made clear numerous times that it would take an independent interpretation of the pact.

In 1940, following the German capture of Paris, the size of the United States Navy was significantly increased and, after the Japanese incursion into Indochina, the United States embargoed iron, steel and mechanical parts against Japan.

Ignores that the U.S. banned aviation gasoline to Japan on 31 July even before the move into northern Indochina was made.

During this time, the United States continued to support the United Kingdom and China by introducing the Lend-Lease policy authorizing the provision of materiel and other items[86] and creating a security zone spanning roughly half of the Atlantic Ocean where the United States Navy protected British convoys.[87] As a result, Germany and the United States found themselves engaged in sustained naval warfare in the North and Central Atlantic by October 1941, even though the United States remained officially neutral

Ignores the fact that the American-escorted convoys were in violation of international law. Ignores how Roosevelt provoked clashes with German ships which gave him an excuse to engage in an undeclared naval war with Germany. Does not mention Roosevelt's public accusations, using false intelligence supllied by British propaganda, that Germany wanted to control Latin America and abolish world religion. Does not mention the massive U.S. re-armament which began in 1940, nor the high level talks with the British to discuss U.S. entry into the war.

In early April, following Bulgaria's signing of the Tripartite Pact, the Germans intervened in the Balkans by invading Greece and Yugoslavia following a coup; here too they made rapid progress, eventually forcing the Allies to evacuate after Germany conquered the Greek island of Crete by the end of May.[98]

Fails to mention the British role in overthrowing the Yugoslav government.

By early December, freshly mobilised reserves[126] allowed the Soviets to achieve numerical parity with Axis troops

In fact, they substantially outnumbered the Axis troops.

German successes in Europe encouraged Japan to increase pressure on European governments in south-east Asia. The Dutch government agreed to provide Japan oil supplies from the Dutch East Indies, while refusing to hand over political control of the colonies. Vichy France, by contrast, agreed to a Japanese occupation of French Indochina.[130] In July 1941, the United States, United Kingdom and other Western governments reacted to the seizure of Indochina with a freeze on Japanese assets, while the United States (which supplied 80 percent of Japan's oil[131]) responded by placing a complete oil embargo.[132] That meant Japan was essentially forced to choose between abandoning its ambitions in Asia and the prosecution of the war against China, or seizing the natural resources it needed by force; the Japanese military did not consider the former an option, and many officers considered the oil embargo an unspoken declaration of war.

Japan didn't ask for "control" over the East Indies. Japan wanted to secure resources that had been cut off to it due to Roosevelt's embargo policies. The move into southern Indochina was designed to pressure the East Indies into making economic concessions that it had been refusing to make at the behest of the U.S. and Britain. This also ignores the immense lengths Japan went to avoid war in negotiations with the U.S., and how Roosevelt rejected compromise at every turn.

Japan planned to rapidly seize European colonies in Asia to create a large defensive perimeter stretching into the Central Pacific; the Japanese would then be free to exploit the resources of Southeast Asia while exhausting the over-stretched Allies by fighting a defensive war.[134] To prevent American intervention while securing the perimeter it was further planned to neutralise the United States Pacific Fleet from the outset.

This does not make clear that the U.S. implicitly threatened Japan with war if Japan tried to break through the blockade against it. Again, Japanese peace proposals are ignored.

Germany and the other members of the Tripartite Pact responded by declaring war on the United States.

In fact, the German declaration stressed the U.S. attacks on German ships as the reason for the war.

Allies gain momentum

This section ignores the Allied demand for unconditional surrender issued at Casablanca, thereby making a negotiated solution to the war impossible.

Also completely missing is mention of the Allied bombing of Germany designed in part to terrorize the German population into submission. Hundreds of thousands of civilians were killed in indiscriminant bombings and millions made homeless. The Hamburg raid in particular stands out. Tens of thousands of civilians were killed by the Allied bombing of France and Italy, literally no mention is made of this in the text. This is is a military event that belongs in the military section.

On 6 June 1944 (known as D-Day), after three years of Soviet pressure

The Soviet's self-serving demands are hardly notable for inclusion. You might as well say "On August 8, 1945, after three years of American pressure, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan". It would be better if overall Allied grand strategy was discussed.

On 16 December 1944, Germany attempted its last desperate measure for success on the Western Front by using most of its remaining reserves to launch a massive counter-offensive in the Ardennes to attempt to split the Western Allies, encircle large portions of Western Allied troops and capture their primary supply port at Antwerp in order to prompt a political settlement.

It should be clear that by "political settlement" it is meant that they wanted to force the Western Allies to make the peace which they consistently rejected up to that point.

Aftermath

Post-war suffering in Germany is largely skirted over. Economic devastation. Cities in ruins. Massive refugee crisis. Some 1.2 million dead by harsh conditions, up to 2 million dead in expulsions. KCJ75 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article's biased because it doesn't present Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan as being keen to make peace and fails to emphasise how the Allies caused the war? Wow. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is as it is as a result of a consensus of all contributors. It sounds like you are accusing the article of bias so that you can have it restructured to reflect your own bias. Irony that. Mediatech492 (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there an algorithm to tell us how long the article would be if we covered all the events of the war consistently in this much detail? Britmax (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it would take infinitely long to execute, so no immediate help. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not only the anon's post contains the Axis whitewashing, it is simply inaccurate. Thus, he writes:

"Japan didn't attack the United States and Britain just because it wanted to dominate Asia, it attacked them because they imposed economic embargos against Japan, and Japan felt like it was being strangled." That is incorrect. The oil embargo was imposed on Japan in response on her expansionist policy in south-east Asia. The situation when the US provided ROC with moral support and provided Japan with oil needed for continuation of her war in China was ridiculous.

"In fact, they (the Soviets) substantially outnumbered the Axis troops." Incorrect. About 1 million troops had been involved from both sides. Taking into account that the Germans usually did not count auxiliary units, whereas the figures for the Red Army show the total strength, the ration was probably even less favourable.

"The Soviet's self-serving demands are hardly notable for inclusion. You might as well say "On August 8, 1945, after three years of American pressure, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan"." That is incorrect. Neither the US nor UK pressurized the USSR to declare a war no Japan, taking into account that the USSR bore lion's share of the war in the major theatre of war, Europe.

Leaving Axis apology beyond the scope, I have to concede that there is at least one reasonable proposal in the anon's post. He writes:

"It would be better if overall Allied grand strategy was discussed."

I support this idea, and I propose to discuss Allied and Axis grand strategy in the article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The embargo was imposed on Japan when Japan moved it's troops into southern Indochina in July 1941. The reason Japan made the move, according to post-war Japanese monographs, was to force the East Indies into making economic concessions, made urgent by the Allied embargos of late 1940 to early 1941. In subsequent negotiations with U.S., Japan offered to withdraw it's troops from southern Indochina and not to advance elsewhere in southeast Asia if the embargo was lifted. This was rejected by Roosevelt.

I would like to see some hard evidence that Soviet troops were basically equal to the Axis in December 1941. In any event, it's misleading to imply that the success of the Soviet counter-attack was due to acheiving numerical equality when the Soviets had already thrown in far troops more than the Axis did. The success of the counter-attack was due to the exhausted, depleted, and under-supllied state of the German army as well as unfavorable weather conditions.

From the U.S. official history on Pacific strategy: The Pearl Harbor attack gave impetus to the efforts to complete arrangements with the Soviet Union for American use of the Maritime Provinces. On the day after the attack Secretary Hull sounded out Maxim Litvinov, the Soviet Ambassador, on this question and Marshall raised it in military conference. But Litvinov, on instructions from his government, quickly put an end to such hopes. To the President, during a visit to the White House, and to Mr. Hull later, he made it perfectly clear that the USSR would have to maintain a neutral position in the Far East. His country, Litvinov explained, was too heavily committed in the war against Germany and "could not risk an attack by Japan. [2] So yes, contrary to the above claim they did ask for their support. But my main point was that their previous demands do not merit inclusion into the discussion at hand, which is about the immediate landing and not the strategy that surrounded it.

Basically, the article suffers from excessive focus on military issues at the expense of political issues. It ignores Hitler's efforts to avoid war with the U.S. and Britain. It ignores how after 1939 the Allies always rejected negotiated compromise in favor of regime change. It ignores the lies and deception Roosevelt used to drag America into the war, and the concerns by the pre-Pearl Harbor anti-war movement that the U.S. was being dragged into war by special interests.

The tragedy which befell Europe's population and culture due to the utterly ruthless Allied bombing campaign, which many would describe as acts of terrorism far exceeding what the Germans threw at Britain, is disgracefully shunted into a sentence at the end. It also ignores that Britain began attacking German cities as early as May 1940, two months before the Battle of Britain and four months before the Blitz.

It claims that the war was an Allied victory, but the original reason given for the war (Polish independence) was casually cast aside when the war ended. KCJ75 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Wondering if anyone would be opposed these changes to the infobox: adding Vichy France to the "Client and puppet" states section, and the FFF to the Allies column. Also, adding de Gaulle to the list of allied commanders. I believe a strong argument could be made that he was more important than Chaing kai-shek, who is listed. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rail88 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

You should probably read more on the war in China and more about de Gaulle. There was a discussion of how to handle France last year which ended with the current outcome. Nick-D (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

What is Thailand and Iraq doing in the Axis zone? I don't remember them being part of that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeeminglySubdued (talk • contribs) 08:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Couple of examples even from wiki for Iraq & Thailand. Neither was officially member of the axis though. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia, Greece, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium and Czechoslovakia are in th alies side, but they should be on the axis side. Can someone correct it please (201.82.151.218 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC))

Axis = Germany-Italy-Japan and allies. Occupied countries are not allies. Arnoutf (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia, Norway etc. Where fightning on allied side. Yes it is true that they were occupied, but their goverment went in exile in London which means that they fought for the allies. --Humlenerd01 (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to change a sentence in "Background", section three. The sentence is: "In Germany, the Nazi Party led by Adolf Hitler sought to establish a fascist government in Germany". This is not true, it was a national socialist government. The original fascism(actually formed by D'Anunnzio, not going to discuss it here) "made" by Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was indeed nationalistic, but it did not promote racism(or the thought that a superior race existed even though he wanted to create a larger Italy) in a way nacional socialism did it. Neither did the fascist promote hatred against religious minorities or ethnic groups as the nazis did. Both Jews and Muslims(from Libya) were members of the Italian Fascist party.

The reason I wish to change "Fascist" to "National Socialist" the sentence is simply because it's inaccurate.

"Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’" - George Orwell.

Humlenerd01 (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I have made significant changes to that page and apprise its editor/owner, IF THERE IS ONE!!!johncheverly 14:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)Johncheverly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

According to Churchill's accounts of the war (in The Gathering Storm and Their Finest Hour), the term "Phoney War" for the early part of the British troop support in France (prior to the 1940 invasion by Germany) was used by the Americans, while the British used the term "Twilight War". This addition / distinction would be useful in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tstrand71 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Where is it??? The link on its page only yields a 404 message.johncheverly 22:49, 26 July 2012 (UTC)johncheverly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncheverly (talk • contribs)

What image are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

In the info box for locations, it says briefly North America. Pearl Harbor is not in North America. Isn't this incorrect? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guphanti (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The North America battle location refers to the islands of Attu and Kiska in Alaska which were occupied by the Japanese in 1942. Mediatech492 (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Requesting that the section of the first line "For Churchill's book, see The Second World War (book)." Be changed to "For Winston Churchill's book, see The Second World War (book).", as it may not be obvious to some who the Churchill the line is referring to. --120.144.176.238 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done - Moxy (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested edit. In the opening, someone has accidentally written 'a vast majority' instead of 'the vast majority'. Summerdoor (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that this material added by Stroganoff (which he or she has since edited back into the article after Binksternet and myself removed it) arguing that the post-war insurgencies in Eastern Europe mean that the war didn't really end in August 1945 is accurate or warranted. While some conflicts did continue in Eastern Europe and (probably on a larger scale) Asia, all the major works on the war I've read have stated that World War II effectively ended with the surrender of Germany and Japan, and that these other conflicts weren't a formal continuation of the war per-se. I'd suggest that this be removed. Nick-D (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's talking about groups like the German Werwolf commandos then it is marginally relative in the same manner as the Japanese holdouts attempting to continue the conflict. This assumed that these anti-soviet forces were distinctly pro-fascist/nazi. On the other hand if these insurgent groups were pro-democratic or any other anti-soviet ideology other than fascist then they clearly fall more to the area of the Cold War instead. Regardless they have no impact on the outcome of the war. A separate article would be more fitting to cover the subject. Mediatech492 (talk) 01:55, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Even German and Japanese holdouts can't be said to have continued WWII. The thing ended in August 1945 per extremely wide consensus. There are minor opinions stating otherwise but we can ignore them as flyspecks against the great mass of mainstream thought. Binksternet (talk) 03:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Should that be added? Production of steel, aluminum, coal and petroleum.

http://digital.library.northwestern.edu/league/le0281ai.pdf Moonshot925 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but that extensive source you suggest should be summarized. Important points should be noted, such as the fact that Japan's industrial power was generally understood to be one-tenth of USA's. Such a disproportion meant they could never win an extended conflict. Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (1987) gives total global warmaking potential in 1937

USA = 41.7%
Germany = 14.4%
USSR = 14.0%
UK = 10.2%
France = 4.2%
Japan = 3.5%
Italy = 2.5%

This means that the United States had greater industrial stregth in 1937 than Germany, the USSR, Japan and Italy combined. Moonshot925 (talk) 21:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The article says something about "prevented the sacking of experienced Soviet military leaders such as Georgy Zhukov". I don't understand the context here. Did some action taken by Japan prevent this? Binksternet (talk) 19:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This would be in reference to Stalin's the pre-war officer purges which eliminated the majority of the Soviet army's experienced officers. Mediatech492 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me from consulting literature and listening to eyewitness accounts that "World War II" (and World War I) is mainly used by Americans. The British prefer to say Second World War (and often just The War). Since the article is written in British English, are there any objections to it being renamed? -- Borb (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, strongly. While (from memory) the name of this article is something of a historical accident, 'World War II' is also frequently used in British-English countries (it often pops up here in Australia for instance, though 'Second World War' is more common) so the name is justifiable. There are also many 'X in World War II' articles which are named to be consistent with this article, so changing its name would be really big deal and would require a lot of work (updating the thousands of links to this article alone would probably require a major bot run). Given that there's nothing wrong with the name 'World War II', I don't think that processing the move would be a good use of editors' time without a strong reason to make the change. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Second World War is a predominantly British usage, but as Nick says this is one of the cases where British English is happy with both. (It's a bit like -ize spellings, which are widely used in the UK). Anecdotally, I suspect the preferred form in UK English may be a generational thing, but either way I think WWII is common enough to call it generally acceptable in both dialects. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

thanks. Doubtcoachdoubtcoach (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

What reliably sourced figures do you suggest? Given that the war lasted for almost six years, and involved a shifting cast of countries, it would be difficult (though probably not impossible) to pick out some meaningful figures. Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I noticed just by reading the first few paragraphs that places such as Japan, China, Poland, Germany, France, Europe, Eastern Europe, Africa, Northern Africa, and Pacific Ocean to name a few, are all hyperlinked when first mentioned. However, the United States isn't hyperlinked when first mentioned, nor any place after that. Is there a reason that this country is not hyperlinked, is it to insult Americans? After all, whoever wrote this article, how can you think to hyperlink EVERY other country, region, continent, and even bodies of water, but forget to hyperlink the Unitedf States? It doesn't make sense. Either it was done purposely, which is insulting; or it was forgotten, which is insulting. It's a country, you are hyperlinking every other country and place, why not the United States? Some people spend so much time trying to make sure that they are not showing bias against weaker countries that they actually end of showing bias against stronger ones, like the United States. Can we get this correct and not show bias against ANY country, strong or weak? Again, I don't see how this blatantly could have been left out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Why not just place [[ ]] around it instead of whining? Britmax (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Duh! You're really not serious are you? Because the article is locked!! And this should have been done anyway; it's done for every other country and place. How can the very country we live in be forgotten? Again, the article is locked. Does that answer your question?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 10 September 2012

The article is semi-protected (which just means that IP-editors cannot edit it), because of persistent vandalism in the past. If you'd like to edit the article, register for a Wikipedia account and then wait until your named-account is autoconfirmed. Hope this helps, Shearonink (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that does. Thanks for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I was translating this article for Assamese wikipedia, and by mistake changed the 'aftermath' part of this article. I have already undone those changes, but I request admins to delete my edit history for this article. With thanks.উদ্দীপতালুকদাৰ (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quickly reverting yourself (and nice work translating the article!). There's no need to delete the edits. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

This is a truly disgraceful article, in the locations box of WW2, it mentions every theatre of the war except for the Oceanian Theatre. Even the North American Theatre is acknowledged even though nothing of interest happenend there. By not acknowledging the Oceanian Theatre it is a great disrespect to those who fought and died. The article has ZERO merit if it cannot even properly identify where the war was fought. Here is a small example of the many battles that were fought in Oceania, a vital part of WW2:

• The Battle of Milne Bay
• Battle for the Coral Sea
• Bombing of Darwin
• The Kokoda Campaign
• Battle of the Bismarck Sea
• Battle of Buna,Gona
• Battle of Sanananda
• Battle of the Java Sea
• Attack on Sydney Harbour
• Attack on Broome
• Bombing of Rabaul
• Battle of Wau
• Salamaua-Lae Campaign
• Landing at Nassu Bay
• Battle of Mubo
• Battle of Bobdubi
• Battle of Lababia Ridge
• Battle of Roosevelt Ridge
• Battle of Mount Tambu
• Bombing of Wewak
• Finisterre Range Campaign
• Ramu Valley Campaign
• Battle of the Pimple
• Battle of Cams Saddle
• Battle of Faria Ridge
• Battle of Prothero
• Battle of McCaughy's Knoll
• Battle of Kankiryo
• Battle of Scarlet Beach
• Battle of Finschhafen
• Battle of Sattelberg
• Battle of Jivevaneng
• Battle of Wareo
• Battle of Siro
• Battle of Guadalcanal
• Bougainville Campaign
• New Britain Campaign
• Admiralty Islands Campaign
• Landing at Aitape
• Landing at Hollandia
• Battle of Wakde
• Battle of Lone Tree Hill
• Battle of Morotai
• Battle of Biak
• Battle of Noemfoor
• Battle of Driniumor River
• Battle of Sansapor
• Sinking of the Centaur
• Aitupe Campaign

The List could be VERY long if I wanted to name them all, so why isn't Oceania listed while North America, which had no battles is?--Collingwood26 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are talking about since the infobox contains Pacific - in several places, including the locations entry - as does the navigation box related to it. And the actual article text also repeatedly refers to events in the Pacific. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wanderer the Pacific is an ocean, Oceania is one of the worlds continents...--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

No, Oceania is certainly not a continent. It is nothing but a region. Which to add to the problems related to using the term it is vaguely defined and definition even depends on actual context in which the term is used, see Oceania just like Nickm57 suggested. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Click on the "South-West Pacific Theatre of WW2" and guess where it takes you? To the article Oceania. This just adds further proof that this article is incorrect.

Actually I know Oceania is not a continent, it is a region. You have Europe, Asia, Oceania, North and South America, Africa and so on. Australia itself is one of the worlds continents, but when your talking about geographical regions you refer to it as Oceania.--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Given how vaguely Oceania is defined the areas do not correspond with each other - merely partially overlap. Besides conjecture such as that is not exactly something the articles should be based on. - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This matter and assumption of bad faith editing was raised back in May. Editors can write out lists of missing battles all day long, but there are two realities relating to the term Oceania. First, as WP notes, the term Oceania is ill defined; "Opinions of what constitutes Oceania range from the coral atolls and volcanic islands of the South Pacific …to the entire insular region between Asia and the Americas, including Australasia and the Malay Archipelago." See also the Macquarie Dictionary entry.

Second, if the term "Oceanian Theatre" was used in WW2, or by reputable historians since, then by all means cite it and use it. But it wasn’t. Pacific Theatre and South West Pacific Theatre were and still are the prefered terms. Nickm57 (talk) 10:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Just because the were called Pacific and south-western pacific theatres doesn't mean thats its location. Take for example, the North American theatre, that in reality could be considered part of the East Pacific Theatre but because it happenend in the continent of North America they have labelled it as such.

I'm not saying Oceania Theatre is widely accepted, because it doesn't have to be. Its the location that you need to cite!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If the term is not widely accepted then there is not much to cite. Just because you don't like it does not necessitate a change, especially when majority of sources oppose it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is Europe as a region widely accepted? Or what about Asia as a region? Is that widely accepted? Yes of course it it, well then you should know then that Oceania too is widely accepted as a region. Please cite your sources when you say "a majority of sources oppose it".--Collingwood26 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Trying to shift the burden of proof does not help your case. You made the claim that it should be named Oceania so provide the sources to support that view. Until you do there is no point in continuing this discussion - Wanderer602 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

MORE PROOF??? Can you not see all of the battles I have listed above? Does that not constitute enough proof that war occurred in Oceania too? Well then how about we remove "North America" from the locations box. Nothing happenend there but its still mentioned yet you want to whitewash the true history. SHAME ON YOU!!!! The blood of those who were killed in Oceania is on your hands!!!--Collingwood26 (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Supporting the choice of one or another name for a high-level grouping of battle sites is exactly like being personally present at those battles and killing people. It's a remarkably powerful position to be in. Myself, it's the main reason I joined the project! EEng (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please, refrain from shouting and roaring. May I point out that this article is just a short overview of the war and not a deep digging article? And what do you want, merging Pacific Theater of Operations, South West Pacific theatre of World War II, Pacific War, South-East Asian theatre of World War II, Second Sino-Japanese War and all of the campaign and battle articles in one big article? It will end up as a huge unreadable and unmaintainable article. Does it help or honour the death as nobody is reading about the battles they fought? I don't think so. And you forget the most important thing: we are writing this encyclopedia for "interested readers", not for scholars. The student who wants to know more about the battles his grandfather fought in WW2, desires a readable and accessible article. Not an article of 1 000 000 pages of which only ten describe his grandfathers war...

When you really want to improve accessibility of the information, try other methods. Is there is index on articles related to WW2 in the Pacific? If not, there is your challenge. The Banner _talk 14:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The USSR really ought to be mentione on the axis side (1939-41). Switches like this occur in the infobox of other wars and the Soviet role in Axis is more significant than many of counties that are listed in the Axis.Stumink (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was never an Axis partner. Both the Soviets and the Nazis considered that war between them was inevitable and it was only a matter of when. The the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression treaty, not an alliance; and in fact little more than a handshake before the big fight. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually it was axis partner, just not a member. Soviet material aid for axis was rather important all the way until Operation Barbarossa. The whole issue is much more complex than just two-way split used in the article. - Wanderer602 (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

There was a very lengthy discussion of this a while ago (which, from memory, drew on a range of sources), and it would be worth searching the talk page archives for it. Given that the USSR wasn't a member of the Axis, and was never at war with the main Allied powers it seems misleading to place it in the 'Axis' side of the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Finland was never an official axis partner either and the Soviet contribution was much greater. It seams misleading to not have them tbh. Couldn't you just put the Soviet Union as "Soviet Union (1939-41)" as a co-belligerent. This seams undeniably accurate.Stumink (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at the previous discussion of this? Also, what reliable sources state that the USSR was a 'co-belligerent' of Germany during this period? (the country wasn't at war with any of the Allied countries after the invasion of Poland was completed). Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, that is conveniently ignoring that the Soviet Union did invade Poland and was therefore in de facto state of war with an Allied country while operating in conjunction with the Nazi Germany. However the matter was discussed previously. - Wanderer602 (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"State of war" is a legal term, so "de facto state of war" is nonsense. However, if we decide to use your terminology, we must concede that the USSR was de facto at war with the future Axis state Japan (until mid September) and with the future Allied state Poland (from mid September till ???). If we want to reflect the latter, it would be incorrect to ignore the former. To write that the USSR switched the sides in mid Sept would be equally incorrect, because no "sides" existed by that time (neither Axis nor Allies existed in September 1939).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Declaration of war is legal term, state of war may or may not be (from Merriam-Webster: a : a state of actual armed hostilities regardless of a formal declaration of war ). As i stated earlier " The whole issue is much more complex than just two-way split used in the article.". - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"de facto state of war" comes up 159 times in my Google Scholars search. And was not Poland an allied state from the very beginning? 216.8.164.126 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No. By 1 Sept 1939 Poland was not an Ally, and "the Allies" were the remnants of the Triple Entente (minus Russia), an old alliance between France and Britain, joined by Russia before the WWI. Just before the WWII, France and Britain provided (separately) Poland with guaranties against Germany (and only against Germany), so it was not a full scale military alliance. In addition, after defeat of France, the Entente ceased to exist, and we can speak about the true Allies only when "The Grand Alliance" was formed by the UK, the US and the USSR in 1942. Between the end of the Battle of France and Pearl Harbor, no "Allies" existed, just Great Britain plus dominions (or the British-Soviet alliance from July 1941).--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually slightly wrong. It was the United Nations that were created in 1942, this is not the same and should not be confused with the creation of anti-German coalition, see Allies of World War II for example. In other words 'United Nations' became synonymous to the Allies but it was not initially the same thing. - Wanderer602 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

UNO was created in 1945. Regarding Allies of World War II, the article says exactly what I wrote: it was a strictly anti-German alliance, which ceased to exist in 1940. BTW, that is why neither France nor Britain declared a war on the USSR in 1939.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

You are again mixing issues, United Nations Charter was created 1945, however, see: Declaration by United Nations on January 1, 1942. Allies were initially formed on basis of anti-German alliance, but it was not strictly just anti-German. And, Allies did not cease to exists on 1940, see for example Allied Forces Act 1940 which explicitly makes allowance for Allied countries to continue their fight as independent entities. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Declaration by the United Nation contains a reference to the Atlantic Charter, but not to the pre-war alliance between Britain and France. The Allied Forces Act was a unilateral act by the British Parliament, not the international treaty. It created the seeds for future resistance, but by no means it was an alliance. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Difference between Allies and United Nations was already discussed earlier and the difference between the notations was also made clear. Just because terms later were understood as synonymous does not mean that they were so at the beginning. Allied Forces Act shows that the Allied forces (in addition to Britain) existed on 1940 as independent entities contrary to your earlier claim. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Your notion that we cannot interpret the terms retrospectively is quite correct. In connection to that, I cannot agree that the old Entente Cordiale could be considered as a seed of future Allies. After defeat of France we had Britain (+Commonwealth) and Polish immigrant government as the only forces officially opposing to Germany. British Allied Forces Act was just an attempt to pretend that some other state entities existed that continued to resist to Germany. In actuality, the only legal successor of, e.g. French Third Republic was Vichy France, and any resistance to Germany was negligible in West Europe in 1940-44. It is incorrect to claim that the US and the USSR joined some British led alliance. It would be more correct to say that some totally new alliance, where the US and the USSR played leading roles was formed in 1942. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not quite just Commonwealth and Polish immigrants, also Norway and all the Benelux countries. You may read and interpret the Allied Forces Act as you choose however it does indicate that those forces did exist as independent entities which is all that really matters. And that 'totally new alliance' was pretty much what the Declaration by United Nations was all about however that does not render the Allied agreements existing before that as irrelevant or non-existing. Also it was not stated anywhere that Britain would have been 'leader' of the Allies after the US and the USSR joined in however Britain did remain as one of the leaders of that new alliance in addition to the US and the USSR (+China) for the duration of the WWII. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless this discussion has wandered off quite a bit of the initial issue, which was already confirmed, that Poland is generally counted as amongst the Allies already from the start of the World War II. If there is further need to discuss the issue it might be best performed in relevant article's talk page. - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:23, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is remarkable that some claim that Poland wasn't counted as one of the Allies given that we have an article on that very topic Anglo-Polish military alliance. So at the very least the Soviet Union can be considered a co-belligerent on the side of Nazi-Germany against the Allied nation of Poland. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Only for a few weeks. Anyway, infoboxes aren't very good at showing shades of grey, and the relationship between Germany and the USSR is explained in the appropriate sections of the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, British refusal to declare a war on the USSR was in full accordance with provisions of the Agreement of Mutual Assistance Between the United Kingdom and Poland. This refusal was a demonstration that neither Britain nor France considered the USSR to be German co-belligerent, but believed it to pursue separate strategic goals. I agree with Nick regarding showing tiny nuances of grey, and I strongly disagree with a tendency to reduce all shades of grey to black when we are talking about some particular countries.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D, more than a few weeks, ongoing actions such as the Katyn massacre eight months later are belligerent actions against officers subject to the Allied Forces Act 1940. It can be argued that killing these officers benefitted the Nazis as they otherwise may have made their way to the UK to continue the fight from British soil. Paul, the USA did not declare war on Finland either, by your reasoning this demonstrates that the USA did not consider Finland to be a co-belligerent with Nazi Germany either. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Not only killing of Polish officers benefited the Nazis, but the Soviet officials conceded in 1941 that Katyn massacre was a "terrible mistake" (of course, they did that privately, and they never recognised that openly). However, one must keep in mind that Allied Forces Act 1940 was an internal British document, that had nothing to do with the Polish prisoners at Soviet territory. The USSR saw those prisoners as Soviet citizens, and treated them according some ad hoc internal procedure.

Regarding Finland/USA, I think, the US simply preferred to ignore this issue, because Finland was too small, too isolated, and American interference there was neither necessary nor possible. I don't think we can draw any conclusions from that fact.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Problem with this is that then you are applying the shades of gray in selective manner which just as bad as reducing all of them to black. Its inherent issue of the infobox flag setup and not-so-clear-cut manner how the World War II took place which after all "was in many ways a number of small wars that aggregated together" (quote from documentary World War 2 - Complete History). On the other hand i am not sure if there are any solutions to it other than getting rid of the belligerents box altogether, which is not particularly good solution. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:35, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

This is getting a bit off topic, but the US chose to not declare war on Finland to keep diplomatic channels open and provide a means of putting pressure on the Finns to not advance any further into the USSR - the US threatened war on a few occasions when the Finns were seen to be at risk of doing so, and the Finns were pretty keen to keep relations open to preserve one means of getting out of the war, so the arrangement worked well. The US obviously didn't have any real means of damaging Finland anyway (ditto the UK). Finland was obviously closely aligned - by choice - with Nazi Germany from June 1941 until June 1944, taking part in the invasion of the USSR and hosting tens of thousands of German combat troops during operations in far north. Nick-D (talk) 08:16, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why not stay on topic and respond to the issue of Soviet co-belligerence with Nazi-Germany with respect to its invasion and military occupation of Poland? Given the Soviet propensity to forcibly conscript men from newly acquired territory to defend the motherland, what does the killing of tens of thousands of Polish officers say about the argument that the invasion of Eastern Poland was a defensive measure against Nazi expansionism? Surely only a co-belligerent (if not an ally) would feel secure enough in its relationship with its pact partner to be able kill a significant number of military personnel who could otherwise be potentially deployed against a future enemy. --Nug (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That reasoning seems rather tenuous to me, and I don't believe that it even comes close to reflecting the general view from historians on this topic (though please do correct me if I'm mistaken by pointing out books/journal articles which state that this is the general view of experts). Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you may be right. According to Max Hastings in All Hell Let Loose: The World at War 1939-1945:

"If Stalin was not Hitler's co-belligerent, Moscow's deal with Berlin made him the co-beneficiary of Nazi aggression. From 23 August onwards, the world saw Germany and the Soviet Union acting in concert, twin faces of totalitarianism. Because of the manner in which the global struggle ended in 1945, with Russia in the Allied camp, some historians have accepted the post-war Soviet Union's classification of itself as a neutral power until 1941. This is mistaken. Though Stalin feared Hitler and expected eventually to have to fight him, in 1939 he made a historic decision to acquiesce in German aggression, in return for Nazi support for Moscow's own program of territorial aggrandisement. Whatever excuses the Soviet leader later offered, and although his armies never fought in partnership with the Wehrmacht, the Nazi-Soviet Pact established a collaboration which persisted until Hitler revealed his true purposes in Operation Barbarossa"[3]

So there are two conclusions that can be drawn from this, firstly only some historians accept the Soviet post-war claim of neutrality prior to 1941, and that the Soviet Union collaborated with the Nazis during that period. I don't think any historian would deny such collaboration existed. The reason that editors keep coming back to this issue of where to place the Soviet Union prior to 1941 is that this article does not adequately convey the impact and importance of this Soviet collaboration with the Nazis in the two years between the joint invasion of Poland in 1939 and Barbarossa in 1941. --Nug (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The quote also says that Soviet army never fought in partnership with Wehrmacht. The source doesn't say the USSR was Germany's co-belligerent, it just doesn't rule out a possibility of such interpretation. Therefore, this source is germane to some more specialised article, not to this one. We simply have no space to devote it to the discussion of that level controversies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is the picture "Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing" shown in this article? This battle happened in 1938 and WWII began in 1939. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.46.2 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

It is argued by some editors that the war actually started with Japan's invasion of China in 1937 and the German invasion of Poland marked the expansion of the war to Europe. It has been a source of much debate here without firm consensus. Check the archives for details. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right that WWII officially started in 1939 with the invasion of Poland. However, the Chinese had been fighting the Japanese in the Second Sino-Japanese War since 1937. This conflict played a significant role in the Pacific War and is generally considered to be part of the prelude (if not an outright part of) World War Two.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

World War II began in 1939. (92.7.20.70 (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC))

I removed the words "did not adhere" from the sentence: "The Soviet Union maintained a neutrality agreement with Japan,[140][141] and exempted itself from the principle of self-determination.[122] " The USSR was one of primary signatories, so this statement is simply illogical. Moreover, I found no indication in the cited sources that it "did not adhere to the Declaration". Moreover, I do not understand why do we need to explicitly mention Soviet decision not to declare war on Japan: the Declaration never required all Allies to declare a war on every Axis state. The Declaration stipulated two things: firstly, the signatories pledged themselves to continue the war against those Axis members with which they are already at war. The Declaration stipulated no obligation to declare war. Secondly, the signatories took an obligation not to sign separate peace. Therefore, Soviet decision not to declare war on Japan hardly should be mentioned in the context of the Declaration. In addition, the source 122 (p.224) says that Churchill saw significant problems with the principles of self-determination both for Britain and the USSR. Another author, Kenneth J. Twitchett (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 4, No. 1, Colonialism and Decolonization (Jan., 1969), pp. 167-185) says that "Churchill, however, maintained that the Atlantic meeting had been held to examine European, not colonial problems: 'At the Atlantic meeting, we had in mind, primarily, the restoration of sovereignty, self-government and national life of the States and nations now under the Nazi yoke ... So it is quite a separate problem from the progressive evolution of self-governing institutions in the regions and peoples which owe allegiance to the British Crown". In connection to that, I do not understand why the Soviet Union is mentioned as the only signatory that exempted itself from the principle of self-determination. Moreover, if you check the text of the Declaration, you will see that self-determination is not mentioned there at all. In connection to that, I remove that statement as contradicting to what the source say, and move the notion about Soviet neutrality to the more appropriate place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, from a purely empirical standpoint, the Soviet Union did everything to quash self-determination in newly controlled territories following WWII. So, from that standpoint, its adherence to the Atlantic Charter was totally non-existent. On the other hand, the Soviet Union maintained that, for example, the staged, fabricated elections in the Baltics were true votes representing the will of the people and Churchill, among others, found it convenient to accept that rather than start another conflict. When the Soviet violation of the principles was brought up on the floor of Parliament, the response of the "government" was silence. So, yes, the USSR exempted itself in practice but, at least in some cases, argued it fully adhered to the principles on paper. There is no reason to remove the text you removed, it is your WP:SYNTHESIS it does not apply. As for what anyone else did, that is utterly irrelevant to the text here. Such reasoning, sad to say, is a typical Soviet propaganda ploy (i.e., don't complain about the USSR, what about [fill-in-the-blank]?) VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stalin personally reaffirmed Soviet adherence to the Atlantic Charter on November 6, 1941: "We have not and cannot have any such war aims as the seizure of foreign territories and the subjugation of foreign peoples whether it be peoples and territories of Europe or the peoples and territories of Asia.... We have not and cannot have such war aims as the imposition of our will and regime on the Slavs and other enslaved peoples of Europe who are awaiting our aid. Our aid consists in assisting these peoples in their struggle for liberation from Hitler's tyranny, and then setting them free to rule on their own lands as they desire. No intervention whatever in the internal affairs of other nations." (my emphasis)

@Paul Siebert, I would trust you are not making the case for the truthfulness of Stalin's statement of intent (and that subsequent circumstances merely intervened). VєсrumЬа ►TALK 04:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that (i) this section is about the course of war, so the issue of independence of the Baltic states, British colonies, etc. hardly belongs to it, and (ii) the Declaration by the United Nations says nothing about self-determination. Therefore, not only this information is one-sided, it is simply irrelevant when we speak about the Declaration.

Speaking about the Atlantic charter (which is a separate document, which is not discussed in the context of the USSR in this article), both Churchill and Stalin did adhere to the principles of self-determination, although they interpreted this term differently. As you see from the above quote, Churchill spoke about self-determination of only those countries that were "under the Nazi yoke". Stalin saw no problem with self-determination of newly annexed territories because he pretended the annexation reflected peoples' own will. However, I see no reason to bring national issues to every article tangentially related to Lithuania. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I provided you (and others) an example of issues regarding the charter and its interpretation. My point was that your deletion of s sourced statement was wholly unjustified and based only on your personal synthesis of "illogic." I suggest restoring the prior content. And, alas, if you're going to slander me as a Baltic nationalist (as if that is naturally a bad thing), at least get the nationality right. I tire of these personal attacks that my editorial opinion is ethnically challenged or that I'm here to grind some irrelevant axe. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, keep in mind that the text we discuss is not about the Atlantic charter (sorry for wrong section title), but about the Declaration. The declaration says nothing about self-determination.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the removal of this material is justified on the grounds that it's unnecessary detail alone. This is a very high level article on the war, and shouldn't be going into the agreements various countries did and didn't adhere to except for where this was of considerable significance to the war. As Paul notes, Britain also paid little attention to the self-determination aspect of the Atlantic Charter (to the considerable frustration of some Americans), with Churchill seeking to hang onto India and the rest of the British Empire. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I also think that "which affirmed the Atlantic Charter" should be replaced with another text: "thereby taking an obligation not to sign separate peace with Axis powers". This obligation had much more significant practical effect, and this information is more relevant to the "Course of the War" section.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact this topic is presented in English should not preclude from a comprehensive, full and truthful coverage of the events leading to the commencement of the war. Where is information about US/UK financing the re-building of the Nazi war-machine, Hess negotiations with Britain, French and British delay and confusion tactics on the possible conclusion of a tripartite agreement with the Soviets in 1939? Most of all, one of the most prominent views in many parts of the world is that it was exactly UK and France who instigated the WWII by signing the Munich agreement in August 1938 thereby betraying the Czechs and the rest of Europe, why is that not reflected, at least as another historical stand? It is no secret UK were trying to push Hitler onto USSR, and it is very indicative how the Germany's refusal to occupy Western Carpathians in 1939 infuriated the British and, under their direct influence, changed the Polish position to a much more aggressive one towards their former Nazi friends. Sure enough, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did take place, but on the same level, if not more selfish, coward and underhanded, were Munich agreement, UK-Nazi pact on non-proliferation of the German fleet and even suggested concessions to share their colonies with the Nazis should Britain be left alone. This cannot be considered as an accurate representation of historical tragedy that wiped off over 50 million human lives, more than half of which were Soviet, but a futile attempt to deepen the deliberately fabricated and propagated view implying that USSR was as guilty in starting the war as Nazis were. 188.29.116.166 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources that hold these views?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I had raised a question of the quality and impartiality of this article. My assertions are obviously fact-based, but re-writing history, especially in the minds of multiple generations of russophobes, might not fall into the constraints of this written piece. Even within one project, compare Russian and English language based wiki-articles, and you will see how drastically differently they present the theme of the war reasons and start. The Munich betrayal is not denied, it gave Hitler the full legitimacy and backing of so-called great powers to occupy a sovereign entity, and yet this is not recognised as the start of the war. How is it different from Polish invasion a year later?

The reality was since 1938, when all countries were involved in bi- or multilateral negotiations and pacts, preparing for war, building their military arsenals, Europe was in the state of war. I can understand when official sources peddle corrupted views about their long-term enemy in schools, universities and media, but why in a supposedly free medium such as wikipedia, do I see the same bias and one-sided positions??? I guess the world is not ready yet to be honest with themselves...sad...188.29.116.166 (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, please, format your posts properly (I have done that for you, and I will be grateful if you will do that in future.

Secondly, try to avoid such words as "russophobs", which are hardly helpful in this situation.

Thirdly, you have been asked about sources. Do you have any sources that support your views? I can name such names as Carr, Max Beloff et al, however, those authors worked in 1940-50s. I can name several contemporary authors who partially share these views, including Derek Watson, Michael Carley, Geoffrey Roberts, however, some other authors express totally different views. In any event, if you have any fresh sources to present, please, do that, otherwise, please, keep in mind that that is not a forum.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:22, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by properly formatting. The problem of russophobia began after Napoleon's defeat in Russia, and it originated primarily in the UK who feared the emergence of a world power, so it's no surprise English language articles are ambiguous or at times deliberately misleading. With sources, it's my personal, albeit limited experience with Wiki, that any challenges to Western views, however well-backed and articulated, are ridiculed, blocked and quickly deleted. You have named alternative sources yourself thus confirming the existence of difference of opinions, yet in the official version only one picture is painted - USSR/Germany pact, invasion of Poland, etc...Don't make this place a copy of CNN or BBC, don't you see the apathy and indifference of people that such clearly biased and corrupted sources created? 188.29.116.166 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant addition of needed amount of colons. Read WP:TALK for details.

Re the problem of Russophobia, I am afraid you are simply not familiar with English language articles. Try to read more before making general statements.

Again, if you have any sources to present, please, do that. If not, stop it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the Soviet Union was an ally of Germany until June 22, 1941, regardless of what the Soviet Union might have been "nominally." See the excellent description here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Non-Aggression_between_Germany_and_the_Soviet_Union which includes this:

"The Soviets also helped Germany to avoid British naval blockades by providing a submarine base, Basis Nord, in the northern Soviet Union near Murmansk. This also provided a refueling and maintenance location, and a takeoff point for raids and attacks on shipping. In addition, the Soviets provided Germany with access to the Northern Sea Route for both cargo ships and raiders (though only the commerce raider Komet used the route before the German invasion), which forced Britain to protect sea lanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific."

Yes, the Soviet Union suffered greatly during World War II. However, one could reasonably conclude that the Soviet Union's suffering, and perhaps that of at least the rest of Europe, was intensified and prolonged by the Soviet Union's actions up until June 22, 1941. Any reference to the Soviet Union's being "nominally neutral" should point out immediately that the Soviet Union acted as an ally of Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.79.87.246 (talk) 19:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All these arguments are old, and they had been addressed before. Foreign trade is not a sign of an alliance: thus, during 1937-40, the US supplied Japan with wast amount of oil, aviation kerosene and other strategic materials Japan desperately needed for SSJW. That does not make the US a Japanese ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Soviet Union invided Poland in September 1939 coordinating its activities and subsequent terror with Nazi Germany. Poland didn't declare the war against the SU to save lives but Polish Army and volunteers fought the Red Army till the end of September 1939.
• Polish partizan units fought the Soviets 1939-1940, eg. Jerzy Dąbrowski, Kobielno group (1500 soldiers in Lomza region).
• GB and France considered Soviet Union to be an enemy [4].
• SU invided Finland, annexed Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the northern part of Bukovina.
• Western and Soviet academy discovered that the SU didn't participate in the WWII till June 1941 and this POV is the only one allowed here. Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Most of that is a repetition of old arguments, and all of that had been addressed before.

1. There were no coordinated invasion of Poland (at least, such authors as Geoffrey Roberts provide convincing arguments in support of that thesis).
2. Re partisan activity, I do not see how that may serve an indication of any alliance with Germany. Could you please elaborate on that?
3. Neither GB nor France declared a war on the USSR. With regard to their plans, plans are only plans; following your logic, the USSR could not be considered as a German ally in any event, because in 1939-41 it was preparing a plan to (counter) attack Germany. That is a well known fact, by the way.
4. Invasion of Finland cannot be considered as any indication of alliance with Hitler, because Germany never considered Finland as an enemy, and even actively collaborated with it later. Regarding the Baltic states, taking into account that Germany was greatly displeased with their annexation, and even used that Soviet step as a pretext for Barbarossa, I simply don't understand this your argument.
5. Re your last thesis, I don't understand it. What do you mean?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

No coordination of the attack on Poland ? That was believed to be true for 17 days only. In the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement, and it's secret part, the former Nazigermany and USSR divided Poland, Finland and the three Baltic states between them. Stalin even ment that this dividing applied also after the war (Potsdam Conference). Today's border between Poland and Belarus is infact a part of the line that USSR and Nazigermany did agree on, on 23.August 1939. Neighter the Red army or the Wehrmacht tried to exceed the agreed new border. The fact that Hitler two years later attacked USSR doesn't change this fact. From 23.August 1939 (one week before the war began) until 22.June 1941 Nazigermany and USSR were allied. If Finland had not managed to resist the Red Army they had gone the sameway as the Baltic states and eastern Poland (as of 1939). After operation Barbarossa (the German attack on the Soviet Union) Finland not only got supplies from Germany, but troops. One division ("Engelbrecht") was moved from Norway through "neutral" Sweden to Finland. However at the siege of Leningrad, the Finnish stopped at the 1939 border. (But this was from German point og view "good enough"). The transportation of german troops from Norway is today concidered as one of my country's most discusting acts during the war. At the time it was though more dubios, the King, Gustav V. and the (socialistic) PM, Per-Albin Hansson were both in favour "in order to help Finland".

Arguments like "This is already discussed" - doesn't make the truth or Wikipedia any better. General appeal: Please learn history before distorting the truth. History is not a subject ment for political (or other) twisting! Boeing720 (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Whereas I always am ready to answer politely asked questions, I have no obligations to explain everything de novo upon request. If you want to be treated with due respect, please, show respect to others. The discussion you joined has long history, and elementary politeness rules require newcomers to familiarize themselves (at least briefly) with the arguments that has already been put forward in past.

Regarding learning history, that is a good advice, provided, but only provided, that all parties follow it. For the beginning, try to read the following: Geoffrey Roberts. The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78). Please, pay specific attention at the pages 73-75, starting from the words: "There was no specific agreement or intention on 23 August to partition Poland. This assertion cannot be definitively proven but there are a number of documentary clues which support it."

You may also be interested to read this: Gabriel Gorodetsky. The Impact of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact on the Course of Soviet Foreign Policy. Cahiers du Monde russe et soviétique, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1990), pp. 27-41, especially this passage: "The pact is still veiled in myth. To prove Soviet connivance in the German aggression, Western historiography has often resorted to anecdotes such as Molotov's toasts to the successes of the Wehrmacht, the joint parade of the Red Army and the Wehrmacht in Brest-Litovsk after the division of Poland, the handing over of Polish communists to Germany, the last train loaded with industrial merchandise crossing into Germany on the night of 22 June, etc. However, neither these, nor Molotov's hailing of the pact as "a turning-point in the history of Europe, and not only of Europe", should be taken at face value.4 Cynical and unscrupulous as Soviet policy may have been at the time, these episodes reflect the difficult position in which the Soviet Union found itself after the conclusion of the pact."

When you finish with these two sources, look at this: Jonathan Haslam. Soviet‐German Relations and the Origins of the Second World War: The Jury Is Still Out. The Journal of Modern History, Vol. 69, No. 4 (December 1997), pp. 785-797.

You should also keep in mind that the Baltic states were annexed by the USSR not after signing MRP, but after fall of France, when Stalin was alarmed with Hitler's military successes, and that Hitler considered considered that as a violation of MRP (Gorodetsky says that quite clearly; you may also be interested to read this: H. W. Koch, Operation Barbarossa-The Current State of the Debate. The Historical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 377-390.)

Re Finland, you seem to have problems with geography: Svir river was not a pre-war Soviet-finnish border, so your statement that "the Finnish stopped at the 1939 border" is only partially correct: they occupied almost all Eastern Karelia, so they did violate pre-1939 border.

One way or the another, I would be glad to discuss all of that with you after you will read the sources presented by me. Happy reading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, regarding the official collective terms for combatants/military forces from the UK, British Empire/Commonwealth since 1707, I am proposing to change references to:

• "British Empire", "Empire and Commonwealth" as the whole entity, including the UK, was the British Commonwealth following the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and;
• "British and Commonwealth", as it implies a distinction/difference in political/military command status, that did not exist after the Statute of Westminster (1931), between the UK and other members of the Commonwealth.

(Unless they are part of a proper name or in direct quotations.) Grant | Talk 11:24, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in this article reflects the sort of "common knowledge" that the famous Marshall Plan helped U.S. enemies (like Germany) rebuild their economies in "miracles," while the European allies perhaps didn't do so well and wasted away for decades. Very few people know that the U.K. got more of the "Marshall Plan" money than any single nation--over a quarter of the total and more than twice as much as Germany. France got more than Germany also. Helping enemies rebuild was a such a laudable thing that history has forgotten that the plan helped allies rebuild even more. One can look for reasons why the UK languished post WWII, but this isn't one of them, and the article shouldn't even hint or imply that it was (which I think it did). SBHarris 02:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

As the Marshall Plan has its own article I would suggest that any detail regarding it belongs there rather than in the already crowded World War Two article. Britmax (talk) 09:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Then remove mention of it entirely, here. Better that, than a false implication that builds on an already-common myth. Don't say "Europe" got the the Marshall plan and recovered miraculously, while the UK didn't recover for decades. Those two "facts" given together with nothing else implies that which is not so. Especially when the widest misconception about the Marshall plan is precisely that it benefitted former enemies, not allies. The previous wording only encouraged that view by implication. If the Marshall Plan is important enough to mention at all, it's important enough to say who got most of it, if that fact is not widely known, which I think it is not. Did YOU know the facts of this before reading here? Comments from other editors welcome here, please. Do I misrepresent the average reader and editor, here? SBHarris 17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to put these signs † on Hitler and Mussolini? They both died during the war did they? Hitler from suicide and Mussolini from resistance? 70.118.39.222 (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Would it be accurate to put these signs † on Hitler and Mussolini? They both died during the war did they? Hitler from suicide and Mussolini from resistance? 70.118.39.222 (talk) 04:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

That mark indicates a person who died in battle, it would not be appropriate for either Hitler or Mussolini as neither died in combat with their enemies. Mediatech492 (talk) 05:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

In that case there cannot be many of this Christian symbol in Wikipedia articles about famous people after 1815 (the Vienna congress, and end of the Napoleon wars). Infact I think it's a bad sign to use for "killed in battle". Reason is simply that it's a Christian symbol, and Jesus Christ didn't preach war (on the other side Jesus didn't tell us to use a cross eighter, but anyway) Boeing720 (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's a dagger, so no Christian symbolism is intended. FallingGravity (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added links to 'Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War' (1945) and 'The German Question' (1946). Both of these are reprints of historically significant texts. Both were published as the war came to an end or just after and both were economic and cultural analysis of statism that were instrumental in forming policy after the war and "The German Miracle". Rothbardanswer (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that this article doesn't have links to any of the thousands of books which were inspired by or written about the war, why link these obscure books? I note that you've been spamming these and similar links from http://mises.org/ all over the place - this looks a lot like POV pushing (not least as the period after the war was dominated by Keynesian-type economic policies rather than the Austrian school). Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think they are appropriate external links. They are for links to websites not articles. The appropriate place to include them would be "Additional reading", including full reference to the books, e.g., author, original publisher, with an optional external link. But I doubt any of these books are significant. Usually if an historical book is significant, such as Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations in liberalism articles, it is mentioned in the text of the article with an internal link to its own article. Then that article can have an external link but usually to the best sites available. I notice that the Mises copy of Wilhelm Roepke's book is already linked to mises.org in his article, which I believe provides adequate assistance for interested readers. TFD (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sorry chaps! I hadn't noticed the additional reading section. I think I'll find a link to the German edition of the General Theory as well. Keynes wrote in the introduction that his economic ideas were better suited to national socialist governments. Why do you "doubt any of these books are significant"? I've already said they were actually instrumental in policy decisions of the German miracle. I only use mises.org because it's a big online library that's easy to remember and link too. Almost everything they publish is reprints. (obviously both these books were published before the press even existed). But I'll make sure to vary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wirtschaftswunder took place after 1948 and this article is about the war that ended in 1945. Here is a link to Keynes' German intro, which you have misrepresented. In any case it has nothing to do with the war. TFD (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes exactly :) The Wirtschaftswunder (German Miracle) happened after the war, in large part thanks to these books and their effect on policy. As I said I've included them because they were written around the end of the war. You don't think economic ideas have anything to do with war TFD? I'm glad you mentioned the Ropke page because it has a long list of links to the mises online library. I think that shows that people just use it for convenience :) Rothbardanswer (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am fine with linking to liberal thinktanks that have complete copies of books. I just think that the links should be made where appropriate. Rebuilding Germany after the war is a separate subject. The Mont Pelerin Society, ordoliberalism, etc., is not even mentioned in this article. TFD (talk) 11:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A map thumbnail on the aftermath states: "World map of colonisation in 1945. With the end of the war, the wars of national liberation ensued, leading to the creation of Israel, together with the decolonisation of Asia and Africa."

I am confused as to why the lone nation of Israel merits specific mention, in a sentence regarding the vast decolonization and independence of the Middle East, Africa, South Asia, and Indochina?

24.43.193.2 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Gee, you're new to Wikipedia, aren't you? Let's just say it's a little like the New York Times, but more so. SBHarris 05:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

? I don't understand what that means... 208.57.65.41 (talk) 02:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you think this material should read? This is a wiki, and the content isn't set in stone. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think mention of Israel is justified because of the outstanding situation of Jews during the WWII. They were the ethnic group that suffered more then any other nation. I think no changes are needed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"They were the ethnic group that suffered more then any other nation."... That's a debatable opinion, no? 208.57.65.41 (talk) 02:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The establishment of Israel should be mentioned but the wording is confusing. TFD (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought more chinese and russian civilians died during the war than jews, wouldnt that make slavic and chinese ethnic groups the ones who suffered more? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.170.121 (talk) 02:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In the "Client and puppet states" or "Belligerents", should France not be mentioned? Between 1940 and 1944, the Vichy government was the officially-recognised government of France by the Allies (not to mention the Axis). Surely they can be on both sides of the box to reflect that France was on the side of the Allies for 9 months of the war and on the side of the Axis for 4 years? Even if the distinction is made of "France (Third Republic)" vs "France (Vichy)". Currently the article is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Just checked, and the French language Wikipedia has both listed as above. Can we take a lead from that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.6.35.235 (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It is a grey area, the Vichy regime was officially neutral for its entire existence, though the Free French engaged in what was effectively a civil war with active British support for the entire duration. There was never any declaration of war against Vichy or by the Vichy regime against anyone, so it would be inaccurate to describe them as an Axis belligerent. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

In addition, Vichy fought against Japan and Japanese led Thailand in Indochina, which makes the issue of belligerence even more confusing...--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mediatech492 and Paul; Vichy France had a unusual position, and can't be comfortably fitted into the infobox as it was never a co-belligerent of Germany (aside from some tiny German forces which supported the Vichy forces in Syria in 1941). Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(Note that this is also being discussed at: Template talk:WW2InfoBox#Free French Forces?) Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it is a bit of a grey area, but Vichy was not just a silent partner.

The British (and most of the empire) were de facto at war with Vichy. Vichy bombed Gibraltar, the French fleet was attacked and other ships interned, there was fighting in the Middle East, Africa, and Madagascar that was not just part of the undeclared French Civil War (ala the Vichy and Free French fighting on another). In addition, Vichy provided arms and supplies to the Iraqi rebels during the Anglo-Iraqi War during 1941, as well as providing bases for German and Italian warplanes to interfere in that conflict too.

The article on Vichy Frances notes that the Vichy government "collaborated with the Axis powers during the Second World War. ... It lasted from July 1940 to August 1944. ... In November 1942, ... the southern zone was ... occupied. The Nazis now closely supervised all Vichy officials, who were little more than puppets."

The article also notes Vichy help in the rounding up of Jewish people, and that its diplomatic relations with the various world powers changed over time (i.e. the Soviets recognized the French State until Operation Barbarossa).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

In the article, it says that France was one of the victorious allies along with Britain, US and the Soviet Union, But wasn't France invaded and infiltrated by the Nazis and not to mention Vichy France? (Slurpy121 (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC))

Yes, but the Free French continued to fight, and the country was almost entirely liberated in 1944, after which France fielded a large army. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

France wasn't just a European country at that time, it also had a global Empire. When Metropolitan France was invaded and occupied the rest of the Empire was largely untouched. Some colonies submitted to Vichy France but others refused to capitulate and remained active with the allies as part of the Free French forces. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The flag of Canada is wrong. It should be the flag they had during World War II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.205.29 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me at least - I've gone ahead and made the change. Anotherclown (talk) 10:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

It appears someone has changed it back to the incorrect modern flag. It should be this  Canada SaintDaveUK (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Of the 56 nations Germany went to war with and fought through either political constructs or aggression, only did Germany ever declare official War against any nation except - the United States of America, on 11 December 1941, as Hitler invoked the war article of the Axis Tripartite pact between Germany, Italy and Japan.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2QXWCMknDY Sveltica (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sveltica (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source, and I do not understand where you want me to add this request. For now, request declined, but feel free to reactivate the template once you have fixed this. It's a Fox! (Talk to me?) 20:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC) hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.106.17 (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

In 1942, in the midst of World War II, the United States government contracted with the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation to build a radio station capable of broadcasting its message around the world. The Crosley Broadcasting Corporation chose to build the installation on six hundred acres of land in Union Township, Ohio, approximately twenty-five miles north of Cincinnati, Ohio. The site became known as Bethany Station. The program broadcast from the site became known as Voice of America.

The company chose this site due to its relatively high altitude and also because of its flatness. These two conditions made the location ideal for constructing radio towers and for broadcasting. In 1944, the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation completed the installation's construction. The station originally required 3.5 million watts of electricity to operate and consisted of ten transmitters and twenty-two antennas. Once the Crosley Broadcasting Corporation completed the station, the radio program began to broadcast.

The station broadcast its telecasts in fifty-three different languages at first, hoping to provide people around the world with information on the United States' efforts during World War II. The United States government intended the Voice of America to provide hope to people around the world and to counteract the propaganda espoused by America's enemies in this conflict. When Bethany Station began operating, the broadcaster stated, "We shall speak to you about America and the war. The news may be good or it may be bad, but we will tell you the truth." Adolf Hitler, the dictator of Germany and one of the United States' main opponents in World War II, often referred to the Voice of America as "the Cincinnati Liars," hoping to convince his diminishing supporters that Germany still could and would succeed in the conflict.

The Voice of America continued to broadcast during the Cold War. During this conflict, Bethany Station focused on building support for capitalism and democracy around the world, hoping to prevent communism's acceptance. With the United States' victory in the Cold War and subsequent budget cuts, Bethany Station ceased broadcasting the Voice of America in 1994.

Since 1994, commercial development has occurred on part of the site, but other areas remain undeveloped. Part of Bethany Station is now under the control of Butler County MetroParks, which hopes to construct a museum in commemoration of the Voice of America. Miami University also operates approximately twenty acres of the site as a learning center. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victoriarosca (talk • contribs) 20:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

All very interesting, but very little of it is actually relevant to the article topic, which is World War II. Mediatech492 (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This footnote has a stray 'B' in front of the publisher's name, Alfred A. Knopf. 86.180.158.124 (talk) 14:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

the u.s. flag is wrong the flag should be a "48" star flag because at the time Alaska and Hawaii were still territories back then they became later states in 1949 or 1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamond oracle (talk • contribs) 22:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC) both were admitted in '59, but I don't think that there is a huge diff like with canada that requires it, especially for a size that small. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 05:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

There already is a 48-star US flag (used 1912-1959) in the infobox - or at least ought to be, I can't really tell the difference in this scale.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 15:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my Talk page. Remind me what a PR is, I've forgotten the jargon. If you are asking me whether I have any outstanding issues with this article, the fist thing that comes to mind is the controversial issue of France, which has tended to prompt a hot argument of two sides among editors. Note Slurpy's query above here on Feb 19, which would likely have been answered by re-reading the article but he may have been puzzled by the infobox. Plenty of scholars say listing France as a major winning power was a propaganda measure by the Allies with flimsy grounding in reality, the counter-thesis is that Vichy French troops never left their territory to support Axis campaigns. Unfortunately the issue much hinges on the infobox, which is a vast simplification of an intensely complex subject. We now have a section for Axis 'clients'. Vichy France certainly was a client and I'd support adding it there. Vichy French troops in defense of their territories in e.g. Morocco and Syria killed American, British and Australian troops even as some Vichy forces in Asia sided with the Allies. Tweaking note [b] to that effect would help. The infobox also gives other indications that afaik are untrue, for example that Japan and The United Kingdom were at war throughout the conflict. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

PR is peer review. see the template up in the header. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, so please note this problem with the inaccurate infobox. It's not just Japan and UK. China afair wasn't in a state of war against Hungary, etc. And others... -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Being a neutral country, Vichy France had a right to defend itself. Therefore, by merely fighting against Allied invasion Vichy didn't make itself an Axis client. However, I agree that France was hardly a major winning power. The problem is, however, that, to the best of my knowledge, majority of history books describe France as a major ally. I admit my knowledge may be incorrect or obsolete, so if you can support your claim that "plenty of scholars say listing France as a major winning power was a propaganda measure..." with the references to reliable and mainstream sources, we can return to this issue again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes to Template:WW2InfoBox.... think this should be talked about before an editwar ensues.

• old version
• new version

So lets see what others have to say about all this...I personally would rather see the images removed long before the country content being removed....but thats just me.Moxy (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that the images, which are part of hooking readers into the article, are the problem; it's the twenty-one countries that are in a list down the left side of the infobox. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Am I allowed to like all the pretty flags? ;D LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, the flags aren't extending the infobox any farther vertically. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It's great that this article is so perfect that there's nothing left to do but edit war over the infobox! I personally think that it needs a fair bit of work, which would pay off with an A class and FA assessment in due course. But that's just me. (comment motivated by the history of this infobox, rather than Ed's changes which I broadly endorse). Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it would probably be much better off being merged back into this article; I think the extra scrutiny would lower the amount of conflicts when given a little time. But that's just me. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In the infobox there is an image of the Battle of Wanjialing from the Second Sino-Japanese War long before the time frame of WW2. This was mentioned over at Template talk:WW2InfoBox#China and Japan were the time frame for entry into WW2 for Japan is 1937 - and has lead to an edit war. What should be done is 1937 ok for the infobox for Japan and is the image from 1938 really about WW2? What do others think about this.Moxy (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - China and Japan had already been in total war starting in 1937, nearly two full years before the German invasion of Poland which widely agreed upon as the starting point of WW2. The point of the official start date isn't the rigorously limit active participation of nations by a rigid date, the point of the 1939 start date is to illustrate when total war erupt across the world's continent, and not to preclude the existence of total war in one region of the world, or another. esp. as the Second-Sino Japanese war is widley considered a major subset of the Pacific theatre of WW2. To suggest otherwise would set a dangerous precedent of characterizing history in grand black and white boundaries, which is the antithesis of how history usually unfolds.Phead128 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Question do you believe that we should change the dates of entry into the war for Russia (Soviet–Japanese border conflicts) or Italy (Second Italo-Ethiopian War) aswell?Moxy (talk) 22:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know why Soviet invasion of Manchuria is distinguishable from Soviet–Japanese border conflicts? One is full-scale declaration of total war, and the other is minor border skirmishes. Also, does Second Italo-Ethiopian War coincide with German invasion of Poland? How does Italian invasion of Ethiopia qualify as relevant to WW2 when it doesn't even overlap with WW2 dates?50.136.53.17 (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So to be clear in your opinion WW2 started in 1937 with the Marco Polo Bridge Incident correct? Do we have any sources for this?Moxy (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Red herring argument, as the issue at hand is whether to impose rigid dates of 1939 in a black and white boundary fashion at the expense of a major subset of WW2, not the official start of WW2 itself. As the Second Sino-Japanese war is a major subset of WW2 and overlaps with the entirety of 1939-145, you cannot exclude 1937-1939 just because China/Japan didn't initiate total war when Germany invaded Poland. Nobody reads history in such black and white boundary details, and it's a dangerous precedent to set such a standard now. 50.136.53.17 (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the recommended changes to the article by Moxy are redundant and unnecessary, as per stated above. Deadpoolfan77 (talk) 07:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok to be clear you think a date of 1937 for Japan and China is correct entry for the infobox - or the image is ok because we talk about that time frame here in the artice?Moxy (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese war merged into a global war of WW2 in 1939, but nobody in their right minds rigorously imposes the rigid date of 1939 as a cut off boundary for what to include/exclude in the WW2 article, as history does not neatly unfold in a black & white boundary fashion. What part of this do you not get?Phead128 (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Was wondering if you could take the time to read over Wikipedia:Consensus before you go reverting more editors again and again. We have basic conduct expectations from our editors. If you find the out come of the talk about the template needs more input from more people pls see Wikipedia:Requests for comment.Moxy (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Can anybody add pictures mainly the german reich pictures showing that way changes through 2. WW ? Maps after 2. WW are known as actual maps but many people don`t know map before also before A.H. ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.151.200.98 (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I think that would ruin the neutrality of the article. TehPlaneFreak! talk 03:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that, on the contrary, the addition of such pictures will contribute to the necessary neutrality of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.190.116.170 (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just reverted the recent addition of material claiming that the US deliberetly made the Japanese dependent on them for oil, and the decision to attack Pearl Harbor was undertaken "to preserve some hope of future economic and military autonomy". As far as I'm aware, this viewpoint sits outside the consensus on why Japan went to war, and is advancing a viewpoint of Japan somehow being a victim of the US. The Japanese leadership didn't have to go to war with the US - the oil embargo was an end result of the attempts by the US to reign in their aggression in China, and would have been removed had Japan agreed to withdraw from China. Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Nick. Well, from this editor's point of view, you have made a series of claims and yet have not provided any sources to back them up. My sources are both from scholarly journals, and David S. Painter is the leading expert on US foreign policy as regards the issue of oil. I have two RS backing up what I am saying; you have none to support your contentions. I feel that the ball is in your court. LudicrousTripe (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, where the Americans' use of the leverage stemming from Japan's 80% reliance on their oil is described as an "oil weapon" and that the "Pearl Harbor attack was [. . .] a countermeasure for the oil weapon. The episode suggests that if an importer's supply routes are vulnerable or if a single exporter can deny most supply, the oil weapon has power." LudicrousTripe (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The US wanted to lean very hard on Japan to get them to quit beating on China. This is very, very different than trying to force Japan into war. FDR and Churchill were instead in perfect agreement that the European threat of Hitler was the paramount problem to solve. War with Japan would have (and did, in the event) taken a great deal of US materiel and manpower away from the European conflict. FDR was never interested in starting a war with Japan, even if newspaper photographer Robert Stinnett argued so in his much-maligned book Day of Deceit. Binksternet (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I feel that a misreading of what Painter says has crept in, so I'm going to deal with it. Here's Painter:

The United States cut off oil exports to Japan in the summer of 1941, forcing Japanese leaders to choose between going to war to seize the oil fields of the Netherlands East Indies or giving in to U.S. pressure. This situation thus led directly to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and other U.S. bases in December 1941.

Nothing within that quote is in contradiction with what Nick said—"the oil embargo was an end result of the attempts by the US to reign in their aggression in China, and would have been removed had Japan agreed to withdraw from China"—so I do not see the issue.

The business about the US deliberately fostering an overwhelming Japanese dependence on American oil—for the purposes of having an "oil weapon" to use as a threat (or actually use, if it ever came to it) whenever Japan thought about threatening (or actually threatened) US in the Far East—is, you will perhaps agree, also not relevant here, either. All we are interested in establishing is the direct connection between the American oil embargo and the decision to Japanese decision go to war. That's all. The issue over whether war in East Asia was avoidable is a separate issue, one that we aren't dealing with. Perhaps this confusion is down to me, and if so I obviously must take the blame.

With these clarifications in mind, I'm not really sure where the controversy lies. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's next take the Lehmann quote: all it does is assert the existence of an American "oil weapon" aimed at Japan:

The Japanese attacked the United States to preserve some hope of future economic and military autonomy in the face of their economic dependence on the United States, which was purposefully created by the United States and based primarily on oil from the middle 1920s forward. The United States had the luxury of holding the 'noose' of an economic embargo around its enemy's neck because it built a controlling position over both its friends Britain and the Netherlands and its dependent enemy Japan in the 1920s.

You could argue the the first bit—"The Japanese attacked the United States to preserve [...] hope of [...] autonomy"—is not in line with this still yet unsourced consensus, but there is no reason to deny readers the opportunity to at least acquaint themselves with differing views, else Wikipedia descends into the realm of Pravda. The remainder of the quote simply seeks to inform the reader of how and why the United States came about this "noose" or "oil weapon" in the first place. You might not like its description of US policy, but I'm still awaiting an RS source that points out that its wrong. Even if an RS is provided, I refer you to the previous comments about denying readers knowledge of a plurality of views. We can re-phrase if you like—"According to some scholars, the Americans deliberately cultivated Japan's dependence on their oil so they would have an "oil weapon" available, if they ever needed it"—but the threat of Pravda otherwise looms large. In truth, I really don't see what the big deal is. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Painter's article is pretty standard (and provides an good summary of the role of oil in geopolitics during this era) It's the quote from Lehmann which is a bit out-there given that he seems be be arguing that Japan had no choice but go to war with the US as a result of American policies. There's no question that the US attempted to use oil as a means of halting Japanese aggression in 1941, but Lehmann's view that this forced war on Japan is dubious. Most historians note that the US put the Japanese leadership in a difficult position in 1941, but this came at the end of a lot of other warnings and sanctions and that withdrawing from China, playing for time or striking for the NEI without attacking the US directly were also realistic options, and much better ones than attacking the US given how this worked out over the longer run. Nick-D (talk) 08:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. So perhaps Painter can get an agreed tick. How do you feel about my way of trying to fit Lehmann into the article, add some caveats etc.? I guess I am happy to forgo Lehmann, since WWII article is perhaps not best place to mention the history of the American "oil weapon"? LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:39, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Historically, the approach to developing this article has been to stick to consensus views of events given that it covers such a huge topic, and leave the historiographical debates for the more specialised articles. I'd suggest that this belongs in the Pacific War article (which needs a lot of work). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so it's been productive working with you, and thank you for keeping your responses to me polite and constructive. As for the reasoning behind adding Lehmann's article about the American "noose" it had placed around Japan's neck via oil dependency, I was motivated by the (already sourced) bit about how some Japanese commanders saw the embargo as an act of war. The "noose"/"oil weapon" was meant to lend some non-Japanese-military support to the commanders' take on the embargo. LudicrousTripe (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It is well to remember that Japan would be losing 80% of its oil, not 100%. They figured that what they had left would allow them to continue on their major war footing in China for 18 more months. Which is quite a while, considering that most of Japan's oil use was going toward its Chinese war. The "oil weapon" wasn't going to make Japan starve or freeze, but simply give up its war of aggression, which it wasn't willing to do. The noose wasn't around Japan's neck but merely its weapons-- navy and airforce. [5].

It's well to remember that the US didn't just decide suddenly in mid-1941 to cut too Japan's oil to force it to withdraw from the 2/3rds of China it already held. The preciptating factor was France's fall to Germany in May 1940, leaving a power vacuum in French Indochina (today's Vietnam). Which Japan proceeded to fill, taking Saigon in 1941 and threatening Thailand, Philippines, Malaya, and Singapore. The US offered Japan (July 24, 1941) access to French Indochina's resources if Japan would simply stop taking over all of Southeast Asia, but Japan ignored the U.S. and of course bullied the powerless Vichy French. There was not much else to do but get Japan's attention by freezing their assets, which the Dutch and British were only too happy to help do. All Japan had to do was stop burning oil in continuing to taking over their part of the globe. The alternative to using an oil embargo was to allow Japan to continue to use that oil to take over China and Southeast Asia completely, including the remains of the Dutch and British colonies there. But from 1936 on, Japan was ruled by warlords and addicted to a war-and-pillage econonomy and wasn't going to switch to a trade economy. The die was really cast in 1937 when Japan embarked on that course, and wouldn't stop in 1941 in Indochina, despite all warnings. This article should probably point out some of that, and the cite above is a good place to get into the vast literature on the subject. SBHarris 04:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

The attack on Pearl Harbor was in direct response to the illegal US oil embargo. (JimRodgers1 (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC))

What are you-- today's troll? What is illegal about deciding you don't want to do business with somebody? Japan was fighting two wars of aggression in China and Indochina. Why don't you discuss the legality of that? SBHarris 15:32, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

How was that any different from the US annexing Cuba, the Philippines, Texas and New Mexico? (92.7.26.219 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC))

This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you really have to ask? Texas fought a successful war of independence against Mexico and came into the US by treaty, already an independent nation. However, Mexico irrationally considered Texas theirs, notwithstanding that they had lost Texas the same way they had gained it previously, having taken it (like New Mexico) from Spain in 1821. They attacked the Texas border and killed US soldiers in 1845 and got themselves a war. After the US took Mexico City in that war, it certainly could have simply annexed all of Mexico. Instead it took New Mexico, paid Mexico for it, and returned most of Mexico to the Mexicans. Does that sound like Japan’s actions to you?

Cuba and the Philippines were long time Spanish colonies, both undergoing their own revolutions at the time of the Spanish-American war, which these rebellions precipitated. In both cases the US promised them, even before the war, eventual independence after revolution. This promise was kept almost immediately in Cuba. Had it not been, there would be no Castro there now, but it would instead be US territory like Puerto Rico. However, Cuba didn’t want that and the US allowed Cubans their democracy. It would have been better for Cuba if it had asked to be US territory. It’s now a stagnant and unfree place (have you been there? I have).

The Philippines are your best argument, but have you noticed they’ve been independent since 1946? Though promised independence from Spain from the beginning of the Spanish-American war, the US indeed stayed far too long there, and did some terrible things. Partly this stay was due to the fact that there was no infrastructure for self-rule at all after three centuries of Spanish rule (which had been fairly direct). To its discredit, the US committed atrocities in the Philippines after the Filipinos fought the US (committing atrocities also). Partly that early war was a communications failure. To Philippine discredit, it did not realize that if the US had left in 1900, the Philippines would immediately have been snapped up by the other colonial powers in the region, first Germany, and then (after The Great War) Japan (much like New Guinea and the Marianas and other parts of South Pacific). Indeed, Japan DID take the Philippines from the US in 1941. But had Japan never existed, the Philippines would have been granted full independence from the US in 1944. The war delayed that by two years. Again, although late for independence, this hardly sounds like Japanese-style colonialism.

The US is a strange “colonial” power, inasmuch as most of the territory conquered by the US outside its present contiguous borders, has long since been returned to independence, like the Philippines and Malaya. Guam is an exception only because just 4% of Guam voted for independence from the US in 1982 (half want to be a US territory, which they are, and a quarter want to be a US state). Even Iraq, which the US gratuitously attacked in a fit of paranoia in 2003, will never be a US territory and will eventually be completely independent. By contrast, if not confronted, Japan would still now still rule everything it had taken at the end of 1941. Japan never voluntarily returned any territory for independence in its entire history. Like Spain, Germany, and France, they had to be thrown out by force. The US has never been thrown out of anywhere, with the possible exception of South Vietnam. And that was hardly a colony. SBHarris 21:27, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The US was thrown out of Canada during the War of 1812. (92.7.26.236 (talk) 09:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC))

This is a sockpuppet of banned editor HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually want to come back to this, since the more I read, the more I encounter the view. Here's another one, from a book by James Wood (Charles Keller Professor of History at Williams College) published by Rowman & Littlefield:

[T]he threat to Japan was not purely economic. Strategic moves by the United States, such as the adoption of a massive navy building program, the movement of the Pacific Fleet from San Diego to Pearl Harbor, secret military talks with the so-called ABCD group (America-Britain-China-Netherlands), and the belated but significant buildup of U.S. ground and air forces in the Philippines (as well as Commonwealth Malaya) also greatly alarmed the military. The threat to Japan's continued national existence as a great power and her preeminence in Asia could not have been clearer. [. . .] American hostility to Japan's position in Asia was manifest and, in retrospect, the conclusion that the United States was bent on war was in no way a misreading of American intentions. click

Is it possible to get mention of this point of view, however small, into a footnote? A literal "some scholars argue..." followed by a listing of the sources collated here (I have others I'd like to mention, but I reckon that'd be pushing it). Mainstream academic publishers like Rowman & Littlefield and things like the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America most assuredly count as reliable sources. LudicrousTripe (talk) 19:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Japan had already decided on war when it invaded China. It knew that meant real trouble with China's backers esp the USA. As for oil, indeed Japan could not be autonomous until it went to war with Dutch & Brits and seized their oil fields. One warlike act leads to another. As for US "forced" Japan ???? --the US was forcing Japan to be a peaceful nation & by late 1940s was remarkably successful in doing so. Compare the force against North Korea today. Rjensen (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that this material was added to the article without discussion, or even the use of edit summaries, I thought that it would be good to discuss it. I think that the material added by CJK (talk · contribs) is a bit too British-centric, and is written from a British point of view (for instance, "The British scored a much-needed public morale boost in May 1941 by sinking the German flagship Bismarck" and "Perhaps most importantly, during the Battle of Britain the Royal Air Force had successfully resisted the Luftwaffe's assault, and the German bombing campaign largely ended in May 1941."). The addition of material claiming that Hitler was willing to consider peace with the USSR in November 1940 is simply wrong - he'd already decided to invade the USSR by this time (in his book Fateful Choices Ian Kershaw states that the initial decision to invade was made in July 1940, and the invasion was locked in as unchangeable policy early December that year - see pages 84-85). I also don't think that we need an entire paragraph on the handful of small skirmishes between German and US forces prior to December 1941, interesting though they are. Do other people have any thoughts on this? Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Nick. And the article is fast becoming an ibiblio chronology of WWII. LudicrousTripe (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, you are not right. The directive No 21 ("Case Barbarossa") was signed in mid December, after Hitler-Molotov negotiations in Berlin failed, and most authors (Roberts, Koch, et al) directly connect its signing with the failure of the negotiations. The fact that Hitler was probably contemplating a possibility of the attack of the USSR before that date does not imply any real plans existed on that account. By the way, an indication that Hitler, sooner or later, would attack the USSR can be found even it his Mein Kampf, however, that is hardly relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Um, I didn't add any of the British material you refer to, I merely relocated it from one part of the article to another.

The major flaws I'm trying to fix is the almost total neglect of political and diplomatic aspects of the war. I clearly stated that Hitler was already considering to eliminate the USSR. However, it is a fact that the actual directive was not issued until after the failed November 1940 negotiations. I presume that the Germans would not be making these propositions if they were already dead set on war anyway.

The small skirmishes you refer to are of note not because of their military significance but because they describe the political and diplomatic process in which Roosevelt was drawing the U.S. into the war.

It is not an "ibiblio" chronology, I am merely using sources posted on ibiblio for convenience. CJK (talk) 14:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks go out to Nick-D who is rightly keeping such material out of this article. Binksternet (talk) 16:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

War is politics by other means, and all that, and I had the some wonderings as CJK. I checked the 'See also' section, but see no articles listed there for dealing with diplomatic history, and this draws no suggestions. Even if there are disparate articles on each of the conferences, not having one that draws them together is a major gap. It is obvious, but if this article is confined to the military side of WWII, that precludes some extremely elementary questions about the non-military side from even being raised. Is it unreasonable to suggest the article be renamed as Military History of World War II, for that is what it is and appears set to remain. Military history is an extremely stunted discipline, even though shelves and shelves of schlock of it appear in every public library, and, by itself, can only capture one aspect of WWII. If there is, indeed, no article that discusses the diplomatic aspects of the war in a comprehensive way, Wikipedia has a glaring omission on a major topic. Nothing profound in what I am saying, all obvious enough, but I am just curious, as a relative newcomer to Wikipedia, how things work and are supposed to work. I presume there is nothing to stop CJK and I and whoever else starting a beginning-to-end effort of the diplomatic and strategic aspects of WWII? LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

There were quite a few discussions of the inclusion of diplomatic negotiations in the article a year or so ago, and the consensus was to exclude all but the major developments and summits as including the various negotiations would greatly expand the size of the article beyond readable levels, and that the military events were generally the best use of the available space. I certainly agree that a Diplomatic history of World War II article would be worthwhile, and there are many thousands of references which could be drawn upon in writing it! CJK, in regards to the November 1940 negotiations, you need to remember that the Nazis almost routinely negotiated in bad faith during diplomatic meetings (hence the appeasement saga of the 1930s where the British and French kept trying to strike a deal with Hitler, only for Hitler to violate the spirit and/or letter of the agreements). Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for taking the time to explain things to me. Well, perhaps I will begin a diplomatic history, though it is such a major undertaking that I can't think about doing so just yet! Best wishes. LudicrousTripe (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Even a stub or a B-class article would be better than the not-very-much we have now ;) But, yeah, it's a huge topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not including all diplomatic activity, far from it. I'm including only summaries of the most relevant aspects of the record, without which the war is difficult to understand. Your point about Hitler not being reliable is neither here nor there. Hitler was proposing a direct deal with the USSR and there is no reason for him to do this if he was planning to attack in 1941 either way. Whether or not he intended to maintain it in the long run is outside the scope of short-term strategy that I am talking about. The Munich agreement was fundamentally different because it promoted aggressive German expansionism at Czechoslovakia's expense, and only stopped short of a full takeover because Britain and France agreed to Hitler's public demands. Hitler's aggressive demands on Czechoslovakia in 1938 are in no way comparable to his 1940 proposals to the Soviets which did not threaten the Soviets by demanding territorial or economic concessions. CJK (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure I fully understand you. You write that there is no reason to doubt that Hitler, who proposed a deal with the USSR, had no intentions to attack it, however, you admit that he probably didn't want to maintain peaceful relations with the USSR in the long run. However, that means that the deals Hitler was signing were dictated mostly by tactical, not strategic consideration. In other words, had Hitler been able to persuade the USSR to join the Axis as a junior partner (that was the essence of his 1940 proposals), he would probably not attach it in 1941. Does it mean he would not attack it at all? Who knows. Thus, Hitler did not attack Hungary, who, unlike the USSR, became a junior Axis member in 1940, however, he did attack it later. Your example does not refute the claim that Hitler was not reliable.

Regarding Munich vs 1940 deal, I am not sure it is correct. Firstly, whereas the Munich agreement was signed, the Soviet-German talks failed, so we can only speculate what the final text of this agreement would be. Secondly, in contrast to the Munich agreement, the prospective Soviet-German treaty would be a full scale military alliance (although, again, since it had never been signed, and even no draft had been prepared, because there was no agreement among the parties even about the basic principles, I see no reason to discuss it seriously). Therefore, I don't understand what concrete idea did you want to demonstrate by this comparison.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed the significant change of the "Course of the war" section has been made during last few days. In my opinion, that goes against the overall article's logic. The article's aim is to demonstrate a global character of the war, not to split it onto several sub-theatres. Since LudicrousTripe made many useful technical changes, it would be incorrect to fully revert all edits made without discussion. In connection to that, I propose LudicrousTripe to restore the article's structure he modified without discussion, otherwise I'll have to do that by myself, but in that case I cannot guarantee all recent technical edits will not be reverted too.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify: All I've been doing is gradually (just doing a few each day) changing the footnoting to {{Harvnb}}. The only additions I've made were: to a footnote regarding the upswing in Germany atrocities in Italy; the smallest rewrite of the Bismarck going down (again, that was essentially to the relevant footnote); and, the most recent one, when I switched to Evans (2008) for the VE Day sourcing, which necessitated a minor rewording, plus I deleted some superfluous detail. In terms of structural revision and major additions, I have made none. These large-scale additions and revisions without discussion, the ones of which you speak, and the attendant mass introduction of ibiblio, have all been performed by CJK. LudicrousTripe (talk) 03:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's "reliability" is neither here nor there, I am merely noting the thrust of his strategic thinking in 1940-41 with no implications as to whether he was "reliable" after 1941 or not. I split it into subsections because I thought it was less confusing and disjointed. Furthermore, I wanted to have the major strategic decisions of the Allies discussed separately. CJK (talk) 14:50, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The need in this splitting is still not obvious to me. I need to think about that, and, if I'll find that it is not an improvement, I'll have to restore the old structure. The main idea of the "Course of the war" section was to show a deep interconnection between the events in different theatres, so your splitting hardly serves to this goal. We already have separate articles devoted to each major theatres, so if a reader who wants to learn about each theatre separately can easily do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

They aren't interconnected to any great extent. That's why they are regarded as independent theaters. There is certainly no language in the article that would illustrate any impact of such large interconnectedness. The Western Allies and the Soviets planned their operations independently from each other and the Pacific and European theaters were, in all but name, completely separate wars. CJK (talk) 14:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with CJK. They were treated separately by the Allies: "The US deliberately chose to concentrate on winning the war against Germany before that against Japan, and to concentrate its resources accordingly. The calculation was correct. It took another three-and-a-half years to defeat Germany, after which Japan was brought to its knees in three months."
—The Age of Extremes, p. 41.

LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it was not the US, but the USSR who concentrated on winning the war against Germany, and this decision was fully supported by other Allies, who correctly decided that the European theatre was more important. Thus, Churchill said: "Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that Russians are confident that will not impair their Western Front".

Secondly, as you probably know, the US joined the was in Europe (I mean de facto participation in the hostilities, not formal war declaration) only after the most crucial battles (Battle of Moscow and Battle of Stalingrad) had been won by the Allies, and it became clear Germany could not win the war.

Thirdly, the US joined the European war as a result of Japanese attack of Perl Harbor. Japanese decision was a responce on the American oil embargo, which, in turn, was a responce on the Japanese activity in South East Asia, which was a result of weakening of European colonial powers (Britain, France, Belgium) due to German successes in Europe.

Fourthly, Japanese decision to expand to South East, not to Soviet Far East was a results of the Soviet victory in the European theatre (I mean the Battle of Moscow). Japan considered a possibility to attack the USSR seriously, and the Soviet defeat in the West would trigger Japanese invasion in the East. Clearly, there would be no Perl Harbor in that case.

All of that is a demonstration of the deep interconnection between different theatres of war in 1941.

Moreover, 1941 was the year when the two theatres, European and Pacific, merged together into a single world war. The stable article's version conveyed this idea quite clearly, and the splitting in hardly an improvement. I think I'll have to merge these sections back (I need to think how concretely that could be done).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Paul Siebert. I did not mean to give the impression—and I feel sure CJK would say the same—that I felt that there is no connection between the two theatres. If nothing else, a decision to focus on one theatre over another requires a comparison be made between the two, an event that instantly forges a connection between them.

I must next observe that you did not provide any sources for what you said. I provided a reliable source for asserting that the US chose to focus on Germany first, but your contradictory comment—"it was not the US, but the USSR who concentrated on winning the war against Germany"—was not supported with a reliable source.

In terms of the extent of the linkage between the two theatres—our topic for discussion—I am uncertain as to the relevance of your second point, since it only makes mention of the European theatre.

With regard to your third point—"the US joined the European war as a result of Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor"—you provide no source, and would you not agree that a key reason for the Americans joining Europe was Hitler's declaration of war, a few days after Pearl Harbor? And the American military build-up, though it accelerated after Pearl Harbor, began with Roosevelt's announcement in May 1940 (The Wages of Destruction, p. 405), well before the Japanese attack of December 1941.

The Age of Extremes, p. 39, ascribes the Japanese reluctance to attack the Soviets to the Imperial Army's being "badly mauled" by "the Red army in an unofficial but substantial war on the Siberian-Chinese border in 1939", not to the "the Soviet victory in the European theatre", as you suggest—and I must emphasise, again, that you did not cite a source for your suggestion.

I hope the tone of my remarks comes across in the way I intended them, just as polite discussion. And I will, unfortunately, be unsympathetic to CJK if his revisions do end up getting undone, since the article clearly states that editors should not undertake drastic revisions to the text without consultation. This he failed to do. LudicrousTripe (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts. Of course, I can provide needed sources upon request, however I prefer to do that only when my opponent really doubt in what I am saying. Do you really believe what I am writing is not true? If yes, please, read such authors as David Glantz or Chris Bellamy.

Secondly, yes, the US leadership correctly concluded that Japanese domination in Pacific posed no real danger for continental US, so the defeat of Nazi Germany was more important task, so they joined the Anglo-Soviet anti-Hitler alliance (after the most decisive battles had been already won by the Allies), however, I am not sure how that fact proves your point (that the Pacific and European theaters should be considered separately). By the way, although I fully agree that European theatre was more important than Pacific one, I don't think that fact is clear from the article.

Thirdly, regarding my third point, yes, I provided no sources, simply because we are talking about universally accepted facts: the US joined the war against Germany because Hitler declared a war on the US - Hitler declared a war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany, being Japan's ally had an obligation to do so - Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because it needed oil, which it could obtain either from the US or from South East Asia, but the US imposed an oil embargo on Japan, so the only thing Japan could do was to seize Indonesian oil and expel the US from East Asia - the US imposed an oil embargo because of increased military activity of Japan in East Asia - Japan's activisation was a consequence of weakening of the influence of European colonial powers there, as a result of German military successes in Europe. Tell me please, which of those facts is not universally accepted, and which of those facts needs a source?

--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hitler declared a war on the US because Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, and Germany, being Japan's ally had an obligation to do so. Sorry, but this is a widely held but historically false belief. The German-Japanese treaty obligated Germany to go to Japan's defense if Japan were attacked, but certainly did NOT if a war started because Japan was the aggressor, as in Pearl Harbor. Germany had no obligation to declare war on the US whatsoever. Hitler could have sent regrets about the Japanese attack and history would probably have been quite different, as the US would then have had to concentrate on Japan. Hitler declared war as an afterthought and without really thinking very hard about the long-term consequences. Clearly, however, it was his second-worst blunder (the first being Barbarossa). Hitler certainly did NOT expect that under any circumstances that U.S. would focus first on Europe, once they had been actively attacked by Japan. But very unwisely, he then proceeded to gave them the perfect pretext for doing so!

I should also answer the rather cynical view put forth above that: the US joined the was in Europe (I mean de facto participation in the hostilities, not formal war declaration) only after the most crucial battles (Battle of Moscow and Battle of Stalingrad) had been won by the Allies, and it became clear Germany could not win the war. This view presupposes that de facto participation in a full scale armored division war on the other side of an ocean, is something a country can decide on, then execute immediately. But that the US somehow didn't until it was sure of a German loss. That's complete nonsense. It takes any industrial nation a year to two years to prepare for a big war and take part in one without getting destroyed, and I know of no exceptions to the rule (it took both the USSR and UK that long, once THEY declared war). The US was two years behind the UK and there was no instant catching-up. The US spent 1942 and some of 1943 doing just this, and used North Africa as a training ground for European war because it really had no other choice. It had a hard enough time getting up to full readiness in North Africa (see Atkinson's _An Army at Dawn_ for a book length treatent of this [http://www.amazon.com/An-Army-Dawn-1942-1943-Liberation/dp/0805087249]). SBHarris 00:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is just a mistaken impression—if so, do accept my apologises—but your tone is becoming slightly grouchy. I'd ask you to check that, since I do not want our discussion to degenerate into into a heated polemic, despite the fun the latter may provide to any audience we may have here.

My reason for repeated use of Eric Hobsbawm's book is that, firstly, as a major historian, he counts as a reliable source, and, secondly, I thought I detected in you a certain sympathy with the Soviet Union's actions during the war. As you will know, Hobsbawm held the USSR in tender regard, and so he is my attempt at gaining immediate traction with you, a way of avoiding dismissal of my sources with ad hominem attacks.

Let us take your first point: "I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts." Well, regardless of how you feel about what you are saying—obvious facts or otherwise—one must still provide sources. I also regard my own position as built upon "obvious facts", yet had the humility to provide sources. I am simply asking for you to conduct yourself in a similarly humble fashion.

"I provide no sources because I refer to obvious facts … I provided no sources, simply because we are talking about universally accepted facts … Tell me please, which of those facts is not universally accepted, and which of those facts needs a source?" Following on from what I just said, I must insist that, the moment one enters into disagreement, however amicable, on some point or other, every statement requires a source.

"Do you really believe what I am writing is not true?" I mean to impugn neither your honesty nor your breadth and depth of knowledge. You obviously feel strongly about WWII, and that means you will have had, or developed, the motivation to read a considerable amount on it. Yet surely you must agree with me that something is not true because you or I say it is, but rather because that's what the experts tell us is so. Let us not get distracted with conjecture about my opinions and motives; let us stick to a fruitful exchange of sourced opinion. And the only properly sourced opinion so far is mine. Furnishing me with an imperative to go and read such-and-such a historian is not sufficient. I want the books and I want the page numbers. I am responsible for sourcing what I say; you are for what you say. Let us proceed in this fashion.

After saying that, "yes, the US leadership correctly concluded that Japanese domination in Pacific posed no real danger for continental US, so the defeat of Nazi Germany was more important task", you state "I am not sure how that fact proves your point (that the Pacific and European theaters should be considered separately)." Well, I will re-emphasise something I said before: "I did not mean to give the impression … that I felt that there is no connection between the two theatres." The only thing I am trying to defend in this engagement with you—and I am doing this partly by arguing that, after an initial assessment, the Allies treated the two theatres separately—is my original agreement with CJK that there is no real problem with his edits that have had the effect of downplaying the interconnectedness of the war in Asia with the war in Europe.

I agree with you regarding the US actions that precipitated the considerable expansion of Japanese aggression, and wanted to squeeze the background to this, and an emphasis of it, into the article, but I conceded defeat (see above). LudicrousTripe (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm swaying back, Paul Siebert! My views are tumbleweed in a breeze that won't make up its mind! Still, it does make for good entertainment. I'll post something to show what I mean later! LudicrousTripe (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"On 11 May 1943, … Churchill and his chiefs reached New York … [for] the Trident Conference … He suspected the Americans were quietly going back on their 'Germany first' policy."
—Beevor, The Second World War, p. 487

LudicrousTripe (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)