Talk:World War II

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the World War II article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite, and welcoming to new users Assume good faith Do not attack other users For disputes, please see our guideline	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

It's biased to mention "6 million Jews" but not all the Soviet Union's civilian casualties. Surely the stats of all losses are out there?

. . . I don't know if it's "biased", but we should probably include the Soviet Union's casualties and others. The writer probably just mentioned "6 million Jews" because he or she remembered this number without lookng it up.

On June 28 2004, the article uses the word "mankind". I think we should try not to use this word, because of questions about sexism. I think it would be better to say "humanity" or "human beings".

Oh come on. This is SIMPLE wiki, not a politically correct arena of fights sourced from bias.

The despot Stalin should also be mentioned, he was given Europe on a platter!

And your point is..., kid?

The article is biased... as usual. Considering 80% of all Germany forces (and allies) were concentrated on the Eastern front, you would think there would be a couple paragraphs about the Eastern Front.

Agree

First off, the infobox seems way off. I'm always surprised when I hear a person from the US/UK even mention the 80% figure- on normal Wikipedia it is buried WAY down into the Results subsection of the article on the Easter Front. Patriotism demands that we keep it out of the main WWII article, I guess. I've got a National Review (UK version) from 1943 that says after really intense scouting, the Brits counted 84% of the Wehrmact (Nazi soldiers) divisions to be on the Eastern Front, including most heavy armor units. They also say that all of the veterans were over there, leaving 16% of their forces - almost all barely trained greenhorns - on the Western front. So it was just like WWI, aka "Alls Quiet on the Western Front". At least when compared to Stalingrad, etc.

I'm not going to push that on you, but I would really like to see this article's editors at least *try* to be internally self-consistent. So for instance that chart, which is also in the Main English Wikipedia's article on WW2 losses - it shows about 5.8 million Wehrmacht were killed. Not 3.3. A few percent difference is understandable, but what is shown at the end of the article here is 57% the number shown in the chart for Germany.

There sentences here like this: "Around 7.5 million people were killed in China by the Japanese. " Try 4 million soldiers, 16 million civilians. Its in the chart. It seems to me that maybe this article should maybe just be started over from scratch. Or maybe an adult from the upper echelon of W'pedia could come figure out whether it is worth it to salvage, or not.

Here is a little present from George Orwell for those kind enough to read my above blather:

"By "nationalism" I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled "good" or "bad." ...The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. ... If one harbours anywhere in one's mind a nationalistic loyalty or hatred, certain facts, although in a sense known to be true, are inadmissible. ... There is no crime, absolutely none, that cannot be condoned when OUR side commits it."

-George Orwell, _Notes on Nationalism_ (1945) Know Einstein (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-G

June 1944 - January 1946[change source]

why January 1946? What happend there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.205.4.73 (talk • contribs)

Hi, I agree, it was weird, I've changed it to September 1945 (VJ day) --NigelJ ^{talk EN} 05:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yah...who did that anyway!!! ...Vandalisim? Lila 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not simple[change source]

Technically, Infantry, and Deployment are all not BE850 words and could easily be replaced or better explained. - FinalWish.

Revert back to IP edit[change source]

Many of the changes by the IP are correct.

Great Britain is incorrectly used. The term technically only refers to the island itself not the UK, it excludes Northern Ireland. Britain is a more valid term as it is a shortened form for "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". UK would probably be better though as Britain can also be used for just Great Britain, but Britain is more correct than Great Britain.

Changing they to she is grammatically correct. As the article states the country did something (ie. Germany was made to.. Poland had to..) and not the people (German people did this, Polish people did that) the plural form "They" is not correct. "It" would be most correct as it is singular and non-gender specific, but "She"/"Herself" tends to be acceptable.

The original treaty after WWI did limit the size of Germany's military to an army no larger than 100,000.

When Japan attacked, it attacked (the US) at Pearl Harbor, not "them too". Besides the "they" issue, coming after the statement Because they thought the United States would eventually decide to help Britain, "Them" is ambiguous and could refer to either the US or Britain.

Hitler lead the Nazi Party, not necessarily Nazis in general (there could have been Nazis which were not part of the party or even german). Japan captured Taiwan, it didn't attack China own Taiwan. It owned Taiwan after it captured it, but not as a result of attacking China ("Japan attacks China, get possession of Taiwan for free! News at 11".) When it came to defending Poland, both Britain and France did refuse ("were unwilling") to commit to the act (invading Germany). It is not that it just didnt happen, they chose not to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creol (talk • contribs)

Start of War[change source]

SMILE!!!!!!!!! Japanese aggression started before the invasion of Poland, with full invasion in 1937. This is considered the actual start of war. Is this left out for simplicity, or is the article just wrong?71.244.119.250 (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Looked at the article again, with the same problem later on. The war in the Pacific and South East Asia started in 1937, before the attack on Pearl Harbor. 71.244.119.250 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All Continents?[change source]

It says in the beginning it is called a World War because nations in all continents in some way, shape, or form participated. What about Antarctica? It is a whole continent, and I'm pretty sure no country has any kind of absolute rule over it. I don't think there are any armies there either. What gives? Alex Bieser (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, the Antarctica is a continent, but isn't a country with an army. I think the Antarctica is devided in several pieces, means several countries, but I am not sure. We could change the articles: all continents (without the Antarctica) or so. Thoughts? Barras (talk) 19:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a bunch of south american nations got involved in the war(it only helped really in the defending of the panama canal) they had militaries. 96.4.180.39 (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Store[change source]

I would like to store this part of information. I may use them later, but not now. --Horus (talk) 13:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Japan also wanted resources from Southeast Asia, which was made up of British, French, and Dutch colonies. The US controlled islands between Japan and Southeast Asia, especially the Philippines had made Japan unable to attack the colonies. To stop the United States from defending its islands and other countries in the Pacific Ocean, Japan attacked the naval base on Hawaii named Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Because of that USA declared war on Japan.

France[change source]

China is included as an Allied participant, but why is France left out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.157.222 (talk • contribs)

After France fell to Germany in 1940, the new French government that was set up, Vichy France, was technically neutral, but its government worked with Germany. I nonetheless have seen some people list France as an Allied nation, but I personally would lean against listing it. Other opinions are welcome. Great question, by the way. Kansan (talk) 05:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review[change source]

Well, only a brief start for now: The lead section is not really that simple. Not actually by the words used but using several forms of passive language which is not considered to be simple. I know that this can not always be reformed, but sometimes it is possible. Everything else is fine with the lead section. -Barras (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC) I think that the fire bombing of Tokyo deserve mention in the opening graph. Those raids killed a least as many as the 2 atomic bombs.[reply]

we should also include the reason the japonese surrendered was not the atomic bombs but soviet entry into the war 96.4.180.39 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Combatants[change source]

Combatants in the template should put in only major countries. It is clearly stated that there are more! --Horus (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Casualties (in the infobox)[change source]

I wonder these numbers from English Wikipedia for a long time. They don't have any references. So do they reliable or even necessary to put them in? The sentence "Between 50 and 70 million people died" should replace them, since this is short and referenced. --Horus (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nah we should include them

Nonsense[change source]

The summary on the Battle of the Bulge is "it was made clear to them that the war could not be won quickly, since the German had immense defense efforts". The comment is unsourced, and not self-evident, so I take it out. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.[change source]

Para about Austrian feelings changed to "many". We can be fairly sure that Jewish Austrians did not welcome Germany. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nationalist china[change source]

why is nationalist china a major they had a lot of involvement but but never accomplished much of anything if you are going to include the nationalist you kinda have to include the communist and some major warlords 96.4.180.39 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finland[change source]

Finland was not an axis power the Finnish and germans (after Barbarossa) where just fighting the same enemies the Finnish later declared war on the german (around 1945 they joined the allies) 96.4.180.39 (talk) 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]