Talk:World War II

Archives
Archive Index
2004/5: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
2006: 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17
2007: 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28
2008: 29
Topical Archives
Combatants (8/06 - 12/06)
Combatants 2 (1/07 - mid 2/07)
Article Length
Photos
Casus Belli
Infobox

Infobox talk is at Template talk:WW2InfoBox.

• WT:MHSP - special review link

Date of start and definition

I know the issue had been discussed, bur still, i cannot resist the question: Is there a date when this event can be deemed as having started. Also, related thereto, is the current definition ("Second World War,[1] was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. The first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. ") attributable to any sources? And the question remains: when did this global "merger" happen?Muscovite99 (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to point out that some consider the War to have started in 1931 when the Japanese took Manchuria. Emperor001 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk section at the bottom, right at the end of the Sino-Japanese war section; it's more fully discussed there and you can contribute if you wish. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Currently in the WWII section, there is a... fish.

Source: This global conflict split the ... most costly war in capital as well as lives. [Image:fish.jpg] The Allies were victorious, ...

British Mandate of Palestine

It wasn't split into Israel and Palestine, it was split into Israel and the Kingdom of Jordan. "Palestine" in the modern sense came later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.70.81 (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

WW2 Combatants:

I believe this is what the infobox SHOULD look like:

World War II
Date 1938-1945 Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies (Communist): Soviet Union Mongolia Yugoslav Partisans Polish Communists (Armia Ludowa) Chinese Communists	Axis Powers: Germany Italy Imperial Japan Bulgaria (until 1944) NDH Albania File:National flag of Serbia.svg Serb collaborationists Finland Romania	Allies (The West): United Kingdom United States French Resistance fighters Nationalist China Polish Home Army

Just my humble opinion.--SergeiXXX (talk) 03:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I screwed something up. Somebody please fix this.--SergeiXXX (talk) 03:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got several problems with your proposed version of the infobox. First, why is the start date 1938? That seems a bit odd; most historians place the start either in 1937 or 1939. Now, to the meat of your proposal, the countries listed and the breakdown into three groups. Mainly, there has been a long-standing and stable consensus to keep individual countries out of the infobox, mainly because consensus is seemingly unreachable as to what countries should be listed. I also think splitting the Allies into Western and Communist is misleading, as the Soviets never really cooperated with the various insurgent forces, indeed, they actually abandoned the Poles in Warsaw. Many of the other countries are more or less insignificant, such as Albania, Serb collaborators, and Mongolia. In any case, I favor keeping the links to Allies and Axis, and let those articles explain the exceedingly complex alliances. Parsecboy (talk) 04:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re."they actually abandoned the Poles in Warsaw" Wrooooong! We abandoned the Polish Home Army (Armija Krajova) in Warsaw, true, but the Armia Ludowa, the People's Army of Poland, the Polish Communist militia group was always Russia's good friend, we alawys helped them out, anyway we could.--SergeiXXX (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Sergei, I agree with you. I actually like your proposed version of the infobox. It makes sense to me except for the start date. It should read as 1939-1945 instead of 1938-1945. Parsecboy, I completely disagree with you. How is splitting the Allies into Western and Communist misleading? CadenS (talk) 05:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Re.Date. Personnaly, I believe WW2 started in 1934, as soon as Hitler came to power, but that's just my opinion. Besides, the Anschluss of Nazi Germany and Austria happened in March 1938, and then came the Sudeten Crisis. That pretty much started the War. Poland was just one more step. --SergeiXXX (talk) 07:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine to believe what you like. However, WW2 did not begin in 1934. It was Poland that set it off. CadenS (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with splitting it into Western and Communist Allies is this: most of the combatants listed (i.e., all except the USSR) were fairly insignificant (despite what Mao alleged), so you'd have a third column, with only the Soviets in it. Also, why place China in the Western column? They only participated in their war with Japan, and only received somewhat minimal support from the Western countries (which gave immeasurably larger support to the Soviets). I'd like you to read through some of the previous discussions about this topic, including some of the more recent discussions: Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Belligerents, Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Listing_main_combatants_in_infobox, and here. If consensus does change to include countries, I'd say it should be a strong consensus, with more than just the three of us talking about the issue.

As for the date, 1938 is highly problematic, as there was no real fighting that year. Poland was the lit match that detonated the powder keg. Again, it's highly Eurocentric, as the Asian theatre started in 1937, and can trace it's root to the Marco Polo bridge incident in 1931. Keeping it at "Late 1930s" is the best option. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Parsecboy for the links on the previous discussions concerning this topic. I really appreciated that. For now just listing "Allies" and "Axis" as opposed to individual countries works for me. Until consensus does change to include individual countries, I think we should just leave it at that. I also agree that the date is problematic. Most sources have the date as 1939. CadenS (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Most Western sources have it from 1939, and even then there is a divide between using September 1st (when Germany invaded Poland) and September 3rd (when the U.K. and France declared war on Germany). The official Japanese histories list 1937, as do, I believe, the Chinese ones. Additionally, many prominent works focusing on the Asia-Pacific theatre do the same: The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II is a quick example. Oberiko (talk) 03:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why it's best to simply leave it at "Late 1930s", which is ambiguous enough to cover both the European start date and the Asian start date. Parsecboy (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Most sources have the starting date as 1939. I stand by this. CadenS (talk) 07:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree all you want. Your 1939 start date is a Euro/Western point of view. Most English speakers will have learned the 1939 date in school--we're all products of our upbringing. Despite what we heard in class, it remains the case that 1937 saw a major escalation of Japanese violence in China. Binksternet (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the motivation for spliting the Allies into two groups. Other than the USSR's invasion of Poland in 1939 (which the Communist Chinese, Yugoslavs, etc, didn't participate in) they fought against the same enemies with roughtly the same war aims (eg, to enforce the total surrender of Germany and Japan) and their war efforts were inter-related and partially coordinated. I think that the current simplified infobox works well. Nick Dowling (talk) 11:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the Allies into two groups: A resounding no, this is original research and does not belong in this article.

Starting date: The date should be either September 1 1939 or September 3 1939. This is about WWII, not about the Sino-Japanese War. The reason why WWII can only have started in 1939 is that the Asian conflict did not go global until 1941 with the attack against Malaya (not with Pearl Harbour which still only meant a war involving two continents). On the other hand, with the entry into war of France and the UK on September 3 1939 all continents except probably Antartica were involved in the war. So the most logical choice would probably be September 3. A compromise might be to state September 3 and then have the start of the Sino-Japanese war in parenthesis plus a link explaining the various dates, preferably in the body of the article.

And yes, consensus still seems to be against listing individual combattants. This proposal clearly shows why as the inclusion criteria are very subjective. Just as an example, Yugoslav partisans are listed but Yugoslavia is not. Note, the French Resistance is listed under Western Allies when it was in majority socialist and communist, the communist Italian Resistance is entirely missing... We will never agree on such a list I fear.--Caranorn (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been trying to say here. The date should be 1939. Either September 1st or 3rd makes no difference. WW2 began in 1939. As for the list, I believe you may be right on that. CadenS (talk) 01:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is far from that simple. Just saying that it is 1939 doesn't make it so.

• "The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II" (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945: 1931-1945, pg. 30)
• "...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China..." (Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence, pg. 281)
• "The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937." (The Rise of Modern Japan, pg. 132)
• "Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia." (A Companion to the Vietnam War, pg. 124)
• "What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II." (American History the Easy Way, pg. 236)
• "Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia." (Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching, pg. 946)

The 1937 view-point is pretty well sourced and hardly fringe. Oberiko (talk) 03:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thus, the best course of action is to use "Late 1930s" in the infobox, as it encompasses both perspectives that the war started in either 1937 or 1939. Parsecboy (talk) 04:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it might be best to just stick to the "Late 1930s" in the infobox. CadenS (talk) 13:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Causes of WWII

I think there should be some discussion of the causes of the War. Or at least a separate article on the subject. Nice article otherwise. Jordalus (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Causes of World War II is probably what you're looking for; it used to be linked in the article, but apparently was removed during the article overhaul a few months back. Parsecboy (talk) 17:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've linked to the article in the beginning of the "Background" section, which should make it easier to find. Parsecboy (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Replace last section: Impact of the war

I'd like to replace our existing impact section with the following. Any objections or suggestions? Oberiko (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

==Impact of the war== Casualties and atrocities Main articles: World War II casualties and World War II atrocities Between 50 and 70 million people were killed as a result of the war, with about two thirds of them being civilians. Many of these deaths were a result of genocidal actions committed in Axis-occupied territories and other war crimes committed by German and Japanese forces. Widely considered the most notorious of German atrocities is The Holocaust, the systematic purging of Jews in Europe which resulted in the murder of roughly six million Jewish people. In addition to this, the Nazi's also targeted other groups, including Roma, Slavs and homosexuals, exterminating roughly five million additional people. For the Japanese, the most well-known atrocity is probably the Nanking Massacre in which several hundred thousand Chinese cilivians were raped and murdered. Limited Axis usage of biological and chemical weapons is also known. The Italians used mustard gas during their conquest of Ehthiopia, while the Japanese used a variety of such weapons during their invasion and occupation of China and in early conflicts against the Soviets. Both the Germans and Japanese tested such weapons against civilians. While many of the Axis atrocities were brought to trial in the worlds first international tribunals, incidents caused by the Allies were not. Examples of such actions include population transfer in the Soviet Union, ethnic internment in the United States, the Soviet massacre of Polish citizens and the controversial mass-bombing of civilian areas in enemy territory, most notably at Dresden. Large numbers of deaths can also be attributed, if even partially, indirectly to the war, such as the Bengal famine of 1943. Home fronts and production Main articles: military production during World War II and Home front during World War II In Europe, prior to the start of the war, the Allies had significant advantages in both population and economics. In 1938, the Western Allies (United Kingdom, France, Poland and British Dominions) had a 30% larger population and a 30% higher gross domestic product then the European Axis (Germany and Italy); if colonies are included, it then gives the Allies more then a 5:1 advantage in population and nearly 2:1 advantage in GDP. In Asia at the same time, China had roughly six times the population of Japan, but only a 89% higher GDP; this is reduced to three times the population and only a 38% higher GDP if Japanese colonies are included. Though the Allies economic and population advantages were largely mitigated during the initial rapid blitzkrieg attacks of Germany and Japan, they became the decisive factor by 1942, after the United States and Soviet Union joined the Allies, as the war largely settled into one of attrition. While the Allies ability to out-produce the Axis is often attributed to the Allies having more access to natural resources, other factors, such as Germany and Japan's reluctance to utilize women in the labour force, Allied strategic bombing, and Germany's late shift to a war economy contributed significantly. Additionally, neither Germany nor Japan planned on fighting a protracted war, and were not equipped to do so. War time occupation In Europe, occupation came under two very different forms. In western, northern and central Europe (France, Norway, Denmark, the Low Countries, and the annexed portions of Czechoslovakia) Germany established economic policies through which it collected roughly 69.5 billion reichmarks by the end of the war; this figure does not include the sizable plunder of industrial products, military equipment, raw materials and other goods. Thus, the income from occupied nations was over 40% of the income Germany collected from taxation, a figure which increased to nearly 40% of total German income as the war went on. In the east, the much hoped for bounties of lebensraum were never attained as fluctuating front-lines and Soviet scorched earth policies denied resources to the German invaders. Unlike in the west, the Nazi racial policy encouraged excessive brutality against what it considered to be the "inferior people" of Slavic descent; most German advances were thus followed by mass executions. Although resistance groups did form in most occupied territories, they did not significantly hamper German operations in either the east or the west until late 1943. In Asia, Japan termed nations under its occupation as being part of the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere, essentially a Japanese hegemony which it claimed was for purposes of liberating colonized peoples. Although Japanese forces were originally welcomed as liberators from European domination in many territories, their excessive brutality turned local public opinions against them within weeks. During Japan's initial conquest it captured 4 million barrels of oil left behind by retreating Allied forces, and by 1943 was able to get production in the Dutch East Indies up to 50 million barrels, 76% of its 1940 output rate. Advances in technology and warfare Main article: Technology during World War II During the war, aircraft continued their roles of reconnaissance, fighters, bombers and ground-support from World War I, though each area was advanced considerably. Two important additional roles for aircraft were those of the airlift, the capability to quickly move high-priority supplies, equipment and personnel, albeit in limited quantities; and of strategic bombing, the targeted use bombs against civilian areas in the hopes of hampering enemy industry and morale. Anti-aircraft weaponry also continued to advance, including key defences such as radar and greatly improved anti-aircraft artillery, such as the German 88 mm gun. Jet aircraft saw their first limited operational use during World War II, and though their late introduction and limited numbers meant that they had no real impact during the war itself, the few which saw active service pioneered a mass-shift to their usage following the war. At sea, while advances were made in almost all aspects of naval warfare, the two primary areas of development were focused around aircraft carriers and submarines. Although at the start of the war aeronautical warfare had relatively little success, actions at Taranto, Pearl Harbor, the South China Sea and the Coral Sea soon established the carrier as the dominant capital ship in place of the battleship. In the Atlantic, escort carriers proved to be a vital part of Allied convoys, increasing the effective protection radius dramatically and helping to seal the Mid-Atlantic gap. Beyond their increased effectiveness, carriers were also more economical then battleships due to the relatively low cost of aircraft and their not requiring to be as heavily armoured. Submarines, which had proved to be an effective weapon during the first World War were anticipated by all sides to be important in the second. The British focused development on anti-submarine weaponry and tactics, such as sonar and convoys, while Germany focused on improving its offensive capability, with designs such as the Type VII submarine and Wolf pack tactics. Gradually, continually improving Allied technologies such as the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and homing torpedoes proved victorious. Overland warfare changed drastically from the static front lines experienced during World War I to become much more fluid and mobile. An important change was the concept of combined arms warfare, wherein tight coordination was sought between the various elements of military forces; the tank, which had been used predominantly for infantry-support in the first World War, had evolved into the primary weapon of these forces during the second. In the late 1930s, tank design was considerably more advanced in all areas then it had been during World War I, and advances continued throughout the war in increasing speed, armour and fire-power. At the start of the war, most armies considered the tank to be the best weapon against itself, and developed special purpose tanks to that effect. This line of thinking was all but negated by the poor performance of the relatively light early tank armaments against armour, and German doctrine of avoiding tank-to-tank combat; the latter factor, along with Germany's use of combined arms, were among the key elements of their highly successful blitzkrieg tactics across Poland and France. Many means of destroying tanks, including indirect artillery, anti-tank guns (both towed and self-propelled), mines, short-ranged infantry carried anti-tank weaponry, and other tanks were utilized. Even with the large-scale mechanization of the various armies, the infantry remained the backbone of all forces, and throughout the war, most infantry equipment was similar to that utilized in World War I. Some of the primary advances though, were the widespread incorporation of readily portable machine guns, a most notable example being the German MG42, and various submachine guns which were well suited to close quarters combat in urban and jungle settings. The assault rifle, a late war development which incorporated many of the best features of the rifle and submachine gun, became the post-war standard infantry weapon for nearly all armed forces. In terms of communications, most of the major belligerents attempted to solve the problems of complexity and security presented by utilizing large codebooks for cryptography with the creation of various ciphering machines, the most well known being the German Enigma machine. SIGINT (signals intelligence) was the countering process of decryption, with the notable examples being the British ULTRA and the Allied breaking of Japanese naval codes. Another important aspect of military intelligence was the use of deception operations, which the Allies successfully used on several occasions to great effect, such as operations Mincemeat and Bodyguard, which diverted German attention and forces away from the Allied invasions of Sicily and Normandy respectively. Other important technological and engineering feats achieved during, or as a result of, the war include the worlds first programmable computers (Z3, Colossus, and ENIAC), guided missiles and modern rockets, the Manhattan Project's development of nuclear weapons, the development of artificial harbours and oil pipelines under the English Channel.

Comments

• I'm thinking that I need to expand more on the "Casualties and atrocities" section. I would like to fill out the Holocaust section a bit more, but I'd like to keep ambiguous enough not to get mired down in conflicting definitions (i.e. includes Gypsies, homosexuals and other victims of German purging; or specific only to Jews?). Any suggestions?
  • I agree that the casualties and atrocities section needs to be filled out. It is a bit small at the moment, though I understand why you don't want to get too complicated. I would include more information on the Holocaust and I think the main victims should be included. The rest of the impact section looks great. Woody (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
• Oberiko, I disagree with your "Casualties and atrocities" sub-section. I think your proposition removes much important facts and, most of all, is to much related to Europe. One of the srenght of the actual version is that Europe and Asia are equally covered. Prisoners, chemical and biological weapons, bombings, war trials are all important topics. A reader should find here all the links related to these. However, I like the other parts. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Alright, I've expanded out the section a bit to include an example of Japanese atrocities (Nanking) along with Axis usage of bio/chemical weapons. Any other suggestions? Oberiko (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
• If there are no other objections, I'd like to go ahead and replace. Oberiko (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
• Sorry, I know you've done much work on this article in the last months, but this time, I simply fail to see how your proposition of "Casualties and atrocities" is an improvement of the current version... There is still not any mention of the war crimes trials, neither of the fate of civilians or prisoners. I suggest we keep your part on the holocaust AND the current sub-section and add your three other sub-sections after it. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you give an example? For the most part, IMO, I don't think we need that here at the summary level. Right now I believe that those elements are given undue weighting within the article. Oberiko (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, my point is that this article is, most of the time, the first door by which an user is giving access to infos about WWII. So, there should be a summary about War trials like this one : From 1945 to 1951, German and Japanese officials and personnel were prosecuted for war crimes. Charges included crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, waging wars of aggression, and other crimes. The most senior German officials were tried at the Nuremberg Trials, and many Japanese officials at the Tokyo War Crime Trial and other war crimes trials in the Asia-Pacific region. Many other minor officials were convicted in minor trials, including subsequent trials by the Nuremberg Tribunal, the Dachau Trials, and the Khabarovsk War Crime Trials. No significant trials were held against Allied violations of international law (notably the Soviet Invasion of Poland in 1939), or against Allied war crimes, such as the bombing of civilian areas of Axis cities or alleged Soviet atrocities in Eastern Europe.

There also should be a short summary/list on all the articles about bombing in WWII such as Strategic bombing during World War II, bombing of Dresden, bombing of Chongqing, Bombing of Berlin in World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Bombing of Dresden in World War II

We should also find here some summary and statistics about death rates in Prisoner-of-war camp, labour camps such as the current one. On biological weapons, there should at least be a link to unit 731 which is the most important producer of bioweapons in the war...

It is a good thing not to have undue weighting, however a summary article should at least be the first step to more specialized topics so a newcomer user would not have to go everywhere to find related infos. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's far to much information. That's more then we have on major operations/battles like Operation Barbarossa, the Battle of Stalingrad and the Battle of France. We list that there were war crime trials (with a link to the list of them), there were controversial/war crime Allied actions (with link) and that bioweapons were used by who and when. More detail is not needed to provide a summary. Oberiko (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So, where a newcomer is gonna find those infos if he/she doesn't know the title of the main articles ? What sould be the goal of a summary article like WW II ? You argue that ii is "too much info" but your proposition of an Advances in technology and warfare sub-section is much more detailed... --Flying tiger (talk) 20:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps from either

• The internal links
• The "Main articles" header link
• The see also section
• The summary template at the bottom
• The category tree
• Other articles, like international law and so forth.

Having an all-in-one is exactly what led to the unreadable mess that we had last time. As for the techonology, you do realize that WWII contained and led to some of the greatest changes in military practices in human history right? Right now I have a paragraph for each of the major areas (land, sea, air, communications/intelligence, other), with most things quickly blurbed on, and then moved past. Considering this was a war which, by nature, revolved around warfare, how it changed the very nature of human conflict itself I think has enough to warrant, IMO, the barely (and not always) sentance-each for the quite major revolutions. Oberiko (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also realize that we are refering to an article about war and that in a war, there are prisoners, civilians and that criminal acts where committed against them and that for the first time in human history, the victors established international tribunals. The human aspect is much more important here than the technological one. There is already an article about Technology in WW II. Advances in technology and warfare should be a part of it.

I also realize that your argue about "undue weighting" but your proposal is 2 235 characters long while the actual section is 1 577 characters long.... --Flying tiger (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added a bit on the International Military Tribunals, but I fail to see how the human aspect isn't covered, both by the main article (which barely touches on technology) and the sections here; we are quite clear on the number of people killed. Oberiko (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If there are no other objections I'm going to replace the last section with this. Oberiko (talk) 13:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I object to your proposal for the reasons above.--Flying tiger (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I believe have been rectified. If we can't agree on this, I suppose we should take it to MilHist to try and get some third opinions. Oberiko (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I support. It is alway interesting to have the input of a third party. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to carefully examine FlyingTiger's objections to the inclusion of the above insert. My first worry was that the war crimes trials are insufficiently linked. That seems settled, just as long as all the main trials are in the list (I haven't checked each one). Oberiko, the fact that this was the first time international trials took place is an important point, and you might consider adding the phrase 'for the first time,' with, if you're aware of a source, a source further reading discussing of the nature of the victor's justice imposed (Yamashita & Homma being shot at MacArthur's instigation, despite apparently not being proved to be involved in any crimes, is the worst example I'm aware of. (Y&H were MacArthur's chief opponents)(William Manchester, American Caesar, Hutchinson, 1978, p.484-488)). The other point was coverage of all strategic bombing, and FlyingTiger's point about a link to the bombing of Chongqing was a worry. The strategic bombardment article does cover that, so that's OK too. So my vote would be to include the above section, but there should be some further views expressed, and this international tribunals for the first time phrase should be considered. Great work everybody - this is a really hard topic to get right. Buckshot06(prof) 22:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot. I've addressed that concern of Flying tiger's with the following "While many of the Axis atrocities were brought to trial in the worlds first international tribunals...". (emphasis mine). Oberiko (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Minor nit-picks, possibly aBritish/American thing, but I personally hate "Likely" being used instead of "Probably". Also since the leigh light is named after its inventor, shouldn't leigh take a capital? David Underdown (talk) 09:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Addressed. Oberiko (talk) 10:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thans to Buckshot06 and David Underdown for their input. I however have a question for them and all the users interested, which I think is the main point here : Is Oberiko's proposal really better and more useful than the current section ? I personnally do not see the need to entirely replace the current section with a complete new proposal which, to my mind, is not better... Why not add to it instead of deleting all the stuff ? --Flying tiger (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally I do prefer the new version. It covers more ground, and makes better use of summary style. Sometimes you can only make limited progress by tweaking the existing version, and it's better to step away and start again from scratch. David Underdown (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also endorse the replacement with the new proposal, for the same reasons. Which particular points do you believe are covered less well in the new proposal? If you can point them out, we can improve and fix them up. Your other point was on size. The article is 81k at the moment, and this will raise it to about 82k. However once the links list at the end is properly chopped down, this will fall off again, and 85-90 I believe would be entirely appropriate for a topic of this magnitude. Buckshot06(prof) 04:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One last point I should make. This proposed framework section was agreed upon quite some time ago with quite a bit of input from other editors. Considering that we've had this planned for about eight months and we have some additional supporting third-opinions, I'm going to replace. Oberiko (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple list of section title is not an explanation of changes forthcoming.... user:El C's reaction proves that not everybody understood that it would mean deletion of ALL the section. I take notice of Buckshot06 and David Underdown's advices. Even if this is not mine, I however made some changes as a kind of compromise. --Flying tiger (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Expansion of North Africa

There seems to be only one sentence on North Africa. Should more be added? It was fairly significant; it occupied Allies for almost a year. NuclearWarfare (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? Right now, we discuss the events in North Africa in Axis advances, The war becomes global and The tide turns. What do you note as being missing? Oberiko (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Inadequate summary

The World War II series
Causes  · Timeline  · Aftermath  · Casualties  · Consequences of Nazism

I don't believe the following is in any means a useful summary box and just adds clutter. For example, of the five articles selected, three deal with the aftermath (with a focus on the European theatre). Considering we already have Template:World War II, Template:WWII history by nation, and Template:Campaignbox World War II , I would like to see justification and agreement before including an additional one. Oberiko (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an semi-unrelated question: why doesn't the Campaignbox World War II template have the Winter War in the "contemporaneous wars" section? I was going to add it in, but it's fairly late where I am, and I don't feel like sorting through the somewhat messy template at the moment. Parsecboy (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We quote: [Create a] "navigational template to connect the subarticles among themselves, and with the 'Summary style' main article"----and, according to WP:SUMMARY, such a nav boxes' purpose is basically to enable readers to access subarticles possessing unwieldy names. World War II is a name everybody knows but subarticles' titles such as Causes of World War II, Aftermath of World War II, are ideosyncratic. Readers generally find WP "subs" giving such individual topics their full treatments via their simply typing in "World War II" in the WP search box and then looking over toward the upperright corner of the main article for a nav box including links to all its series of subacticles. So, [editorial we], having read WP:SUMMARY, made such a box for the World War II article and placed it as expected toward the upperright of the page.

Then a deletionist said in his edit summary that the existing omnibus template is better----but, alas, the two simply have distinct purposes: the series' template is to facilitate readers' finding specific subarticles and the omnibus template is to link to WW2's many and varied, localized military campaigns.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To me, those topics in the series template could more easily be included way down at the bottom in "See Also". That's where I go when I'm looking for an article's related and tangential topics.

You'll note I changed the section header. It was unwieldy. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool wid dat. :^) (And will move the template to the See also section then... ) — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't see at first Oberiko's argument directly above. (I just combined these two talk page sections into one.) What he seems to be saying is that the subarticles aren't really subarticles per se but just random pieces? If true, maybe the [non-]"sub-"articles really shouldn't be linked to in this case. Still, I'm confused, 'cause WP:SUMMARY actually cites the World War II article as its example of a main article that links in turn to constituent subarticles. — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I took the template's contents and added them to the list of "See Also" stuff. I didn't think it necessary for there to be a series list of topics in a box while other, perhaps similar topics listed under "See Also". I feel that the various related and tangential topics should be treated relatively equally. The reader doesn't have to bounce around the page trying to find their intended goal. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, sounds reasonable, Binksternet. Und Danke shoen for pointing out the additional articles there for inclusion in the current version of the nav box. — Justmeherenow (   ) 08:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why there's a "current version" of the small template navbox. Why are you continuing to work with it? Your excellent editing efforts have been at cross purposes to this page's careful development. Instead, please work to expand the usefulness of the existing WWII navbox. Please check out this page -- Template:World War II -- and add your considerable two cents. Binksternet (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, it seems what had happened here is that the World War II article has develped into an overview that itself doesn't have to follow the exact structure of the articles in the omnibus template overly stringently.... (And that's no doubt perfectly fine.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 22:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem with templates

Hello. Ummm, something went wrong with a recent change to this section. It looks like it's part of Justmeherenow's edits to the See Also and box/templates and things.

As it stands now, "See Also" is split into two columns. The first column starts with a ugly plain text short list. Then below that is the References. All in the first left hand column, which in most people's browsers is going to be squished to 1 inch wide due to the second column's contents. THe second column contains only the "WWII Series" box/template (which itself contains the actual properly formatted things that are in the plain text short list I first mentioned).

Then, way way way down below (because when all the references are squeezed into a one inch wide column they go on a ways) is the "External Links". Below that is the "History of World War II by region or sovereign state" box and finally after that is a DUPLICATE "World War II" box/template, which is itself already inside the "WWII Series" box/template.

This template stuff is a bit beyond me, and this is probably your work "underway", and this is a mainstream/high-profile article, so I'm going to leave it to you guys to fix :)

(I should say - spectacular job all! Great article. I'm sure this is just a small glitch.) CraigWyllie (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out Craig, it's now fixed. Oberiko (talk) 17:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wanna round up stray subarticle links

WP:SUMMARY says basically that any main article (such as this one) links to all its subarticles (in our case, Events preceding World War II in Europe, European Theatre of World War II, Pacific War and the like), from out of which everyone hereabouts has supposedly abstracted the contents of this article's sections. Thing is, at some point a great many of these beginning-of-section links have been deleted. So, before I go to the trouble of recorralling them, I'm just here wondering if it had happened all of one piece via an [[[WP:IAR|"IgnoreAllRules"]] rationale? Or if, more likely, it had happened only 'cause they'd fallen piecemeal to the wayside through the normal back and forth of edits? Anybody know? — Justmeherenow (   ) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles relating to World War II. Where possible they are linked within the article itself, but we can't possibly have all of them. We rely on on a recursive structure where we contain our main parts and the linked article contain their main parts and so on. For example, the article on the Pacific War should naturally contain considerably more detail on events within it then this one does since it only has to cover the European theatre in the briefest of terms.

Were we bound to contain everything, large "super" articles like human history or Universe would be unwritable. Oberiko (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY talks about the possible existance (it doesn't say it has to exist) of a discreet series of articles internally connecting via a series of links to the various components of its related main article. So, the World War II main article's structure of

1. Background
2. Course of the war (2.1 War breaks out - 2.2 Axis advances - 2.3 The war becomes global - 2.4 The tide turns - 2.5 Allies gain momentum - 2.6 Allies close in - 2.7 Axis collapse, Allied victory)
3. Aftermath
4. Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities (4.1 Concentration camps and slave work - 4.2 Chemical and bacteriological weapons - 4.3 Bombings - 4.4 War trials)

----would produce a series of interlinked articles (per suggestion in WP:SUMMARY) whose primary-factor members would number a half-dozen up to I think no more than a dozen or so....

(But maybe you're right and maybe the plethera of linked articles within the existing omnibus template is fine as it is.) — Justmeherenow (   ) 21:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the additional template again. I haven't seen any consensus to use it and having two summary templates right beside each other makes no sense. It's also screwing up our references. Oberiko (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Just doing a quick check. We have the following already:

• World War II "main" template
• World War II campaigns template
• World War II infobox
• World War II nationality template
• World War II infobox
• World War II category tree
• World War II "see also" section
• World War II portal

Please justify an additional template to put on this page. Right now I've seen nothing convincing. Oberiko (talk) 11:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect information and a bit of misleading one

Germany didn't lost all territory in Versailles. It already lost control over Poznan in uprising by non-German population and in similar way over Upper Silesia. Also the current version has 'national territory' which would indicate that it was German-inhabited. That's a bit misleading. Majority of territories were settled by non-German population. The current version needs to be corrected and made more clear of demographic and historic situation that led to loss of those territories. Of course a short passage or sentence is in order. But we shouldn't make impression that Germany was wronged because it lost a territory that was in 60% non-German for example. --Molobo (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First, we'd need sources. Then, can you explain how this has an impact on World War II? In any case, I've removed most of the material there as it isn't needed and gives Germany far more weight then Italy, the Soviet Union and other nations. Oberiko (talk) 00:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Aftermath

It seems to me that the logical place for this is between Bombings and Trials.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We have a new impact section (above) that I'll be putting up once I get general consensus on it. It should make more sense with that layout. Oberiko (talk) 04:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese war

This is bordering on a joke, every single historian will tell you world war 2 started in sept. 1939. Japan only entered WW2 when they declared war on america and allied the axis. Until pearl harbor and operation barbarosa no asian country was a part of WW2. Many people laugh at this page when i tell them that wikkipedia is a good source of information. Please stop pushing some pro-chinese POV and exclude the second Sino-japanese war from thi article. China was not major power and it did not have an effective military, resistence nor armament idustry and it was not part of the Allies when WW2 broke out 66.24.119.247 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC) American dood

Speaking of jokes, that's funny, because Oberiko provided over a half dozen reliable sources that state just the opposite as far as the start date is concerned, right on this very page. As for their military being ineffective, that was primarily due to lack of supplies; once they were properly equipped, they were actually quite effective, if you look at the last few months of WWII in the Pacific, they drove the Japanese out of northern Burma (the Brits finished up in the south), and retook much of southwestern China from Japan. Parsecboy (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that despite references the basic proposal by the IP66.24.119.247 is true. The commencement of hostilities between China and Japan did not spur ANY of the future WWII Allies to enter the war on its side, and it continued for years without their participation. So, in effect China only became an Ally when the final alliance was formed with the Japanese attack on the Pearl Harbour. Therefore the Sino-Japanese war cannot be seen as integral to the Second World War as a whole, but only a conflict that may have reflected general Japanese expansionist strategy which later came to include the war with the United States and the British Commonwealth.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the reason Japan attacked the US, Britain, and the Netherlands in 1941; because all three countries were enforcing an embargo in an attempt to stop Japan's aggressive war in China; I'd say that's a direct link right there. Had the SSJW not occurred, there would've been no Pacific theater of WWII, because Japan would have had no motive to strike the European/American holdings in the Pacific. Parsecboy (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Not forgetting that at all. The problem is - how do you define Second World War? If we say that economic warfare, which is what what an embargo is, also forms an integral part of the conflict, then Sweden who was trading with Germany is no longer neutral--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:06, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Parsecboy, one could find several dozen reliable sources stating the opposite. In the end I have to maintain my logic approach that WWII could only have started when the war went global, that means when forces from all continents except Antarctica became involved. The date for that is September 3 1939 (out of respect for Poland I tend to say September 1, but for actual globalisation it's obviously September 3), on that day France (which brought combattants from Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania and the Americas into the conflict) entered the war. So even if one considers the delayed entry into the war of some Commonwealth countries, the global requisite for WWII is already met on September 3. But note, it's not Pearl Harbour that made the Pacific conflict global, it's the attack on Singapour as the US and Japan alone did not have globe spanning forces. Obvipously the annon was incorrect about asian countries, if no Asian country or territory had been participating in the war before December 1941 then it would not have been a world war. But we have at least India and Indochina as active participants and a number of other territories at least as nominal participants. I also disagree with the annon about China not being a major power as it alone occupied the largest share of Japanese land forces as well as important air assets and of other resources. Also, even if the Sino-Japanese War does not constitute the start of WWII it's neverless a part of said war and therefore belongs in the article. Even if it were a war entirely separate from WWII it would still merit at least mention here.--Caranorn (talk) 10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I generally agree with you about the start date, Caranorn, although I somewhat prefer 1 Sept. Regardless, there are a number of reliable sources that disagree, and they do need to be represented, hence my preference for "Late 1930s" in the infobox. In regards to what made the Pacific war global, one could make the argument that since Germany declared war on the US after PH, that could be used as well. But it all happened in the span of a few days, so in the end, does it really matter? As for China, FDR included it along with the UK and USSR as the "Four Policemen" in the Declaration by United Nations, which would seem to indicate to me that it was a major power. Parsecboy (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I also think the start date should be given as Sept 1939 (not to say we don't talk about the Sino-Jap war) for a very simple reason - some poor bastard of a high school kid is going to use Wikipedia's 1937 start date in their essay on WWII, and get a failing grade. At least we should say in the intro something like "most Western historians count September 1939 as the start date of World War II". DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the first two lines of the article sum it up well: "World War II or the Second World War was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. The first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland." I'm not really sure what we're even arguing about anyway, other than perhaps the infobox start date. Parsecboy (talk) 21:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, the "poor bastard" will put up a bit of a fight and show their sources to the teacher. The teacher may be exposed to a different version with backing references as a result. If the teacher adjusts, it's a win; if not, perhaps the kid's experience will serve as a wake up call about trusting standard textbooks. Correcting misleading information in textbooks can't begin any too soon. Binksternet (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to be an agent for change (that's one of the common misunderstandings about Wikipedia). And a much more likely scenario is that the teacher says "Wikipedia was wrong" and shows the kid the hundreds of sources that back up her view. Then the kid vows never to use Wikipedia as a source again.

Majority view among English language historians is clearly that WW2 started 1939. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's remember that Wikipedia isn't supposed to do anything except report facts. All this interpretation is completely missing the point. Most historians (English language or not), would give the invasion of the Poland as the start date, thus that's what should be reported here. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 20:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a passive agent of change whether it wants to be or not. I didn't find the common misunderstanding quoted by DJ Clayworth at the WP:NOT page. Readers who search wiki to find answers may come away with a different viewpoint than before. For instance, the article about the Invasion of Poland (1939) concludes with the busting of four Myths that were standard fare back when I was putting pencil to ruled paper. Readers who received a similar education to mine would be very interested to see the myths busted. I think it's our job to provide an ideal balance of views and to offer new information as it appears. If that balance disrupts a standard text for students then too bad.

Like Parsecboy, I favor a 1 September 1939 date for the conflict going global. The German attack on that date was expected to trigger violent reactions from Britain and France, bringing in fighting forces from around the globe. It remains a very great question, though, whether the USA would have taken a frontline role in the conflict if there had been no Second Sino-Japanese War to lay the groundwork for Pearl Harbor. Both China and Poland added fuel to the fire. I'm okay with "late '30s" and yet I wouldn't be upset at 1 September 1939 in the infobox. The supporting text will elucidate. Binksternet (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Being an agent for change implies an active role - that's what agent means. I have no problem with Wikipedia reflecting a changing view - what was called above a 'passive agent for change' - and no problem with people changing their viewpoint on reading WIkipedia if their previous viewpoint was wrong; it's only a problem when people try to use Wikipedia to effect change, which was what I meant above.

We seem to be actually pretty much agreed that the start date for WW2 should be given as Septermber 1939. Is that currently the consensus? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Exactly, the issue should be best explained in the text of the article, which I think it does pretty well already. That doesn't mean wording can't or shouldn't be changed, but I don't really see anything wrong with it as is. Parsecboy (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally see no problem with the current wording which means that the war, having begun in Asia, became a "world war" after the invasion of Poland. However, I would see no problem, as suggested by User:DJ Clayworth, for the addition of a sentence in the first paragraph of the intro like "Therefore, most Western historians count September 1939 as the official start date of World War II". I do not support more rewording. --Flying tiger (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How dare you people contradict Oberiko. Shame on you all. Don't you know how much work he's put into this article? Duck of Luke (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can safely say that most if not all of the editors here are grateful for the tremendous work Oberiko has done for this article, much of it singlehandedly. However, no one owns this article, and people are free to express their opinions. That's how Wikipedia works; there are disagreements, and usually discussions that lead to consensus. Parsecboy (talk) 03:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Parsec, putting in some effort in no means gives me, or anyone, a stronger opinion.

With that said, using 1937 as a start date is hardly fringe. It is not just some pro-Chinese propoganda, it is used in many books, including those listed above, the best-selling The Rape of Nanking: The Forgotten Holocaust of World War II and even Britannica categorizes the SSJW as part of World War II. Also, keep in mind that the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, which was set up to try Japanese war crimes during World War II, include actions pre-1941 such as Nanking and the occupation of Manchuria.

Perhaps most importantly the Senshi Sosho (official Japanese military history of World War II) includes actions from pre-1941; the first volume actually focuses on operations in China up to 1938 while the last volume (Riku-kaigun nenpyō fuheigo, yōgo no kaisetsu) is a complete chronology starting with the 1937 outbreak of war in China up to the end of the war.

To say that it's 1939, no ifs-ands-or-buts is, to me, untenable. It completely discounts historians (acting in offical capacity or not) from two of the great powers of World War II and over-simplifies a complicated issue. It is popular here because most our histographical material from the war is either British, American or German; naturally it's going to focus on when the war started for them. I see no need to change a date range that is almost inargueablely accurate (a few written works use 1931 or 1936) for a specific date that uses only opinions that we find familiar. Oberiko (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Though it's not really a point I should be refuting here, I'd like to state that Chinese inefficiency is quite debateable. Chiang's policy is known as trading space for time, he conserved his troops by avoiding direct combat with superior (in terms of training and equipment) Japanese forces, preferring to let them get bogged down in the quagmire of Northern China, which was basically exactly what happened. Oberiko (talk) 11:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the first six months Chiang lost most of his own central troops in fighting needlessly stubborn battles with the Japanese. He tried again in the 1939 winter counteroffensive, but this time the formerly warlord armies didn't fight as hard because they wanted to conserve their own strength. Blueshirts (talk) 04:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's very simple. The Sino-Japanese war began in in Asia in 1937. The Second World War began Europe in 1939. The Sino-Japanese war merged into the Second World war in 1941. Both conflicts ended in 1945. Throughout history there are multiple cases of wars overlapping and merging into one another. Just look at the whole mishmash of the French Revolutionary Wars. Another example is the War of Jenkins' Ear which began in 1739. From 1742 it merged into the War of the Austrian Succession which had begun in 1740. Jooler (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

May I also point out that some historians consider WW2 to start when Japan invaded Manchuria and some consider both World Wars to be part of the same conflict. Emperor001 (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can be an historian. Some historians (the late Stephen Ambrose for example considered that the World War began in 1914, there was a truce of sorts from 1918 to 1939 and that it only concluded with the collapse of the Soviet Union. See European Civil War. This is not the consensus view. Jooler (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As an historian - and I mean a REAL historian with a PhD - , I feel that its very important to take into account that the Japanese invasion of China, aka Manchuria as it was a province of China, indirectly led to Japanese hostilities towards the United States as the US embargo of Japan was implimented. Please, I beg you, as a Professor of History, do not seperate this so-called "Sino-Japanese War" with that of the Second World War. If anyone desires a better understanding as to why, please read the book "Retribution" by Max Hastings. 207.191.184.194 (talk)Dr. Owenby —Preceding comment was added at 23:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Owenby, I'm Colin Robinson, a New Zealander with an MA in War Studies from King's College London, who has been trying to assist bringing this article more toward academic standards. Would you mind contacting me through the 'e-mail user' link on the left side of my user page, and/or consider making some comments at WT:MHSP, where we need an academic structural framework for the revision of this article? Kind regards, Buckshot06(prof) 20:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

According to most authors World War Two started in September 1939. See for example 'A World in Flames' (1990) by Martin Kitchen, 'World War II' (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger, 'The Times Atlas of the Second World War' (1989) and 'A World at Arms' (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg. The Sino-Japanese conflict was a separate war which merged with the global conflict in 1941. Colin4C (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Doctor Owenby, the start of the Second World War as a military conflict has to begin after the commencement of the Sino-Japanese conflict. All military conflicts are preceded by the economic and diplomatic, not to mention social conflicts that give them cause in their lack of reconciliation. If the economic conflict with the United States and Japan is used to define the Second World War, then it is true as some historians have argued that the First World War in Europe had never really ended, and that the roots of the Second can be traced all the way back to the first Great War of Europe with Napoleon. After all the Great Depression and the rise of the Nazi Party in German can also be traced to the economic relationship between German and United States.

It is indisputable that the cause of the conflict between Japan and the USA was economic, but that was evident even in the 19th century, and Japanese participation on the side of the Allies during the First World War was more opportunistic then idealistic given the was no question of fighting for the democratic ideals of the Western Allies. The social differences between the USA and Japan before the Second World War would probably have been enough to start it if the economic and diplomatic conflicts were not. I would support Oberiko's treatment of the start of the Second World War in Asia-Pacific from the actual start of combat actions between Japan and what almost immediately became the Allied cause. Maybe the next big special project will be the accompanying article on the Causes of World War II (although it seems fairly comprehensive

I'm sure all those contributing to the article are aware of the high chance of it being used by history students World-wide, and the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source for them, and that is what the extensive process of discussion and referencing being undertaken is for--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 21:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Brits in pics

There are two pictures of the British at war in this article: One as prisoners after Dunkirk, the other as prisoners after Singpore. Quite illuminating! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.224.147 (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You missed the one of British infantry at el Alamein in the infobox montage :p In all seriousness, when the article was rewritten, it was decided that there should be a minimum number of photographs, to avoid issues with text sandwiching and so forth. There are just too many photos for all the different participants of the war; the point is illustrating different aspects of the war, not emphasizing one nation over another, or making sure each country gets an equal number of photos. Parsecboy (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

His point does have some merit though. For the unitiated, we tried to keep photographes balanced as much as possible between the Soviet-German War, the European-Atlantic Theatre and the Asia-Pacific Theatre. With that said, I think we do tend to have more of the Americans over the British in the later part of the war. Perhaps we should replace the one in "Allies gain momentum" with either (A) or (B)? Both are fairly dramatic photos of British troops engaged in jungle warfare; this would cover the same territory as the American one used now. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I like the second photo. The 14th army, turning defeat into victory, is arguably Britain's greatest achievment on land in the war. Certainly Bill Slim is Britain's greatet general since Wellington so some sort of representation of their efforts in the far east would be welcome, rather than just the debacle of singapore. You could change the picture of the german bomber into a piccy of a spit - a highly iconic image of the war - certainly from a UK/Commonwealth perspective - and improve the German picture showing the assault on crete. There's got to be a clearer image of German paratroopers somwhere, yes?88.110.243.252 (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Either of the two photos Oberiko suggested would be fine, I'm not too hung up about the current picture there anyways. However, I really don't care for images with the "Imperial War Museum" and such on them, I just think it looks trashy. Do you think it's possible to find a different version of them? I do like the photo of the Heinkels however. Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The "Imperial War Museum" text isn't a problem, most images we use from there we trim to get rid of the watermark. I'm hesitant to change the other images though. The Heinkels is our only image of strategic bombers, while fighter aircraft are shown for the Battle of Midway. If you can find a better image, with a useable licence, for Crete, I have no problem with potentially replacing it. Oberiko (talk) 10:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion of the spit was an attempt to redress the balance. If I didn't know better, a quick glance at this article would suggest that the British spent 6 years surrendering. 79.71.192.99 (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I do see the author's point above about having two photos of British soldiers surrendering. Are there any Battle of France-in-action photos (Frankforce?) we could substitute - bear with me for going over arguments you've probably had several times before. Buckshot06(prof) 04:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but that wouldn't really match the content of the article. Our section on the Battle of France is, by necessity, very short (basically, Germans came, Germans conquered.) Having a picture of the British / French forces putting up a fierce fight is less in-tune with our content then that of one showing a sweeping German victory. I think having a picture of the Brits-in-action at Assam should be enough to fix any problem. I'll swap them as soon as I can. Oberiko (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive changes need discussion

This is too high traffic of an article for you to rewrite a third of it in a few edits, without discussion, Oberiko. Thx. El_C 09:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please attempt to give us an outline of what you're trying to do — so other contributors can keep up. Thx again. El_C 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean like the discussion earlier on this page for a replacement we've had planned since last October? Oberiko (talk) 09:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Did that undertaking include removing the Concentration camps and slave work subsection? El_C 10:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering it was, as the name stated, replacing the section, yes. Oberiko (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been 9 months since "last October," after all. It's not unreasonable to expect a more detailed explanation. El_C 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

And what explanation do you need that's not already covered above? We agreed earlier to replace this article section by section with the new framework, this is just the last piece. Oberiko (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it just caught me by surprise; those are sweeping changes, and the edit summary did little to clue me in. El_C 10:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I can accept that. I'll add "as per discussion" next time so as to better inform article-watchers and those on the CVU. Oberiko (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thanks again for taking the time. El_C 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko's ownership

You have surely made a great job on this article but other have too. After reading the advice of two users, I agreed with your proposal. However, you seem to claim ownership of the page. [[1]]. Me changes were read by user:David Underdown, one of the users who agreed with your "consensus"... --Flying tiger (talk) 05:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't see any discussion. All I saw was your adding specific, minor units in the war and adding undue weight for what appears to be your personal area of interest. You attempted to add Unit 731 not once, but twice; consider that we don't include other, much more prominent organizations like the Schutzstaffel. You attempt to disrupt statistics that are specifically sourced to 1938, making them inaccurate. You add slavery (which is still there), but you wanted it, again, twice. It's not ownership, it's just retaining summary style and attempting to stave off bloat. Oberiko (talk) 05:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this article throughout it's re-write, and at no stage has Oberiko claimed ownership - quite the opposite in fact. Every major change to the article has been first discussed here, even to the extent of drafting text and seeking comments on relevant projects' talk pages. I don't think that I've seen a better example of consensus editing and it's important that it not be disrupted. Nick Dowling (talk) 07:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to state here that I've never noticed Oberiko claiming ownership of this article or acting in any way as if he did own it. While I occasionally disagree with him, his edits or comments here, I feel he has been doing great work on this article and has sought consensus whenever necessary or possible.--Caranorn (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree as well, I've long been watching this article for some time now, and never have I seen Oberiko acting as if he owned the article. There's nothing wrong with undoing a good faith edit if it is unhelpful to the article (i.e., to preserve summary style, etc.). Parsecboy (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks we were both wrong as we were both blocked... I should have proposed my adjustments earlier on the talk page, but I would have appreciated if user:Oberiko, as noted by user:Nick Dowling would have discussed about those instead of deleting ALL my stuff, which he finally included in part (slave work) after three deletions. Meanwhile, I fail to see how simple changes like internal links to Battle of Khalkhin Gol and Second Sino-Japanese war are "unhelpful to the article" : The Italians used mustard gas during their conquest of Abyssinia, while the Japanese Imperial Army used a variety of such weapons created by Unit 731 during their Second Sino-Japanese war-invasion and occupation of China and in Battle of Khalkhin Gol-early conflicts against the Soviets. However, they were deleted by Oberiko without discussion. --Flying tiger (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Beginning of World War Two

According to most authors World War Two started in September 1939. See for example 'A World in Flames' (1990) by Martin Kitchen, 'World War II' (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger, 'The Times Atlas of the Second World War' (1989) and 'A World at Arms' (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg. The Sino-Japanese conflict was a separate war which merged with the global conflict in 1941. Please provide references to books which say that it started at any other time. Colin4C (talk) 09:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have many such references listed right on this very page, twice. Oberiko (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please cite them in the article. You have provided no citations in the article stating that the war started in 1937. Asserting things in an article without providing sources is against wikipedia policy. I can cite four books and could cite a lot more. The vast majority of books on World War Two state that it started in 1939. Who else here believes that the war started in 1937? Note that editorial silence is not a 'consensus'. The wikipedia Timeline of World War II has World War Two starting in 1939. Is it wrong? Colin4C (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you point to a hard date where we say when it starts or not? We've kept it quite generic so that we cover all plausible scenarios. Check the archives and the discussion on the infobox template, we achieved consensus on this quite some time ago. Plus, since you're bringing up wiki-policy, I assume that you're quite aware wikis are not considered a reliable source, which would include the timeline article; and that you're well aware of WP:NPOV, which specifically states "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." Oberiko (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources you have cited such as "Searching for an American Jurisprudence" and "Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching", "American History the Easy Way" and a history of the Vietnam war are not histories of World War Two. In fact none of your cited books is a global history of World War Two:

"The case that Japan's 1931, (or 1937 at the latest) major resumption of imperial expansion was the true beginning of World War II can be made based on several factors. These invasions constituted the first major violations of the Washington Conference Treaties and the Kellog-Briand Pact. While Japan was condemned as an aggressor by the League of Nations and the United States, the West's reaction was restrained, due to post-World War I pacifism and the worldwide depression. The lack of a more forceful reaction likely contributed to Italy's decision to invade Abyssinia in 1935 and Germany's decision to attack Poland in 1939, thus expanding World War II from Asia to Europe and Africa. It is thus argued that 1939 was not the true beginning of World War II" (Imperial Japan's World War Two, 1931-1945: 1931-1945, pg. 30)

"...World War II would not begin in Europe, like the first, but in Africa and Asia, with Italy's invasion of Ethiopia and Japan's invesiture of China..." (Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence, pg. 281)

"The global conflict we call World War II was in fact 'many wars, occurring at different levels and in widely separated places'... For Americans, World War II began in 1941 with the explosive Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. But for the Japanese, the war began much earlier-in 1937." (The Rise of Modern Japan, pg. 132)

"Japan invaded China in 1937, effectively beginning World War II in Asia." (A Companion to the Vietnam War, pg. 124)

"What became World War II began in Asia in 1937 when Japan invaded China. Actions taken by Germany and Italy during the 1930s led to war in Europe in 1939. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in December 1941, the United States declared war on Germany and Japan linking the Asian and European wars in what is known as World War II." (American History the Easy Way, pg. 236)

"Aggression in Manchuria, 1931, followed by establishment of puppet state and Japan's withdrawal from the League of Nations, signals the beginning of the 'fifteen-year war.' The end of multi-lateral diplomacy as Japan decided to 'go it alone' as territorial imperialist in Asia; instigation of all-out war against China in 1937, with atrocities such as the Rape of Nanking and without victory-1937 as the beginning of World War II in Asia." (Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching, pg. Colin4C (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the Sino-Japanese war remained a regional conflict, confined largely to the eastern and southern China for a decade. Even the clash between Japan and Soviet Union did not escalate into a wider conflict. And this, is the point. There is a vast difference, in military, economic, diplomatic and social terms between a regional and a global conflict--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong Colin4C, but are you evaluating which sources are valid or not? I think that's a bit beyond the role of an editor to say that one source/historian is superior to another. Oberiko (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pictures for impact section

Since the last section is up, now all that's left is to get the images for it. Here's what I'm thinking:

• Home fronts and production: I think we'd be best suited to have a graph showing the oil/coal, iron ore and GDP for each of the major nations for each year. Either that or total planes, ships and AFVs for each nation by year.
• War time occupation: Considering the sizeable contribution of Vichy France to the Nazi economy, I think this image would be best.
• Advances in technology and warfare: We have, I think, a few choices here: either a two-four picture montage for each paragraph, or a gallery at the bottom. I lean towards the former myself. Oberiko (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I think that a graph of just GDP for the main powers would be better - this would tell the same story in a much simpler way. 2) Given that the dominant experiance of occupation was humiliation and oppression, a photo showing day-to-day life for civilians would be better (eg, German/Japanese troops in the middle of a city, etc) 3) I like the gallery option, perhaps showing early-war and end of war technologies? (eg, a Me-109 and a P-51D) Nick Dowling (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the GDP, especially since we already have that one and getting the others would be a pretty massive task. Any suggestions for which items we should show in the tech gallery? Oberiko (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think a photograph of a radar tower would be good, perhaps this one. Most definitely an Me 262, maybe this one. How about a photo of a Hedgehog? Another suggestion could be the King Tiger or Jagdtiger or another late-war heavy tank. Also, maybe a picture of B-29s, which were the pinnacle of heavy bomber development during the war. Parsecboy (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For the tank, I'd like to put the T-34 since it is not only often cited as the best over-all tank of the war (usually by cost-effectiveness), but it is also the most heavily produced tank of the war as well. Also, I'd like to try and use non-German tech were possible, since we could potentially use them for most pictures anyway. Oberiko (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

One other issue for the technologies, we should decide if we're going to use black and white or color. I'm going to suggest color, as most items are still around and modern, higher quality, photographs exist. Oberiko (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko's last edits

I disagree with your last edit about slave work.[[2]] We should also refer to Germany but the fact about the number of people were important. We are talking about "millions" and I think it deserve a mention. You deleted Colin4C's edits [[3]] arguing he "did not reach consensus" while I do not see any talka about your move. I also want to know why you deleted my links here :; The Italians used mustard gas during their conquest of Abyssinia, while the Japanese Imperial Army used a variety of such weapons created by Unit 731 during their Second Sino-Japanese war-invasion and occupation of China and in Battle of Khalkhin Gol-early conflicts against the Soviets. --Flying tiger (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection adding the word "millions", and thus propose to use my text, which puts slavery into production (which is what it was intended for) with the following:

Both Germany and Japan attempted to increase production rates through the usage of millions of slave labours.

This has several advantages:

• It is more summarized
• It gets more information across, as you don't mention Germany
• Doesn't go into needless details about the ethnicity of the slaves (we don't say how many were Polish, Russian, French etc.) Oberiko (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering that in the sentence juste before : During Japan's initial conquest it captured 4 million barrels of oil left behind by retreating Allied forces, and by 1943 was able to get production in the Dutch East Indies up to 50 million barrels, 76% of its 1940 output rate., you go to such details of numbers of millions of barrels, I think the number of deaths deserve to be refered to. I propose this : «To improve its production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labours. Germany used about 12 millions people mostly from Eastern Europe while Japan abducted more than 10 million Chinese in Manchukuo and between 4 and 10 million Indonesians.» --Flying tiger (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't really compare the two, oil was the entire reason Japan attacked the Western Allies and started the Pacific War; it's the most important aspect of their production. One or two sentences on how much they got out from their primary objective can't be thought of as being excessive. If you're going to distinguish between Asians, I think you have to do the same for Europeans, and, again, that's to much detail. What about creating a Slave labour in World War II article which we then use as a link? Oberiko (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a bad idea but what about this : To improve its production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labours. Germany used about 12 millions people mostly from Eastern Europe while Japan abducted more than 18 million people in Far East Asia. » --Flying tiger (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that looks fine, though I'd copy-edit it a little to the following: To improve their production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labourers. Germany used about 12 million people, mostly from Eastern Europe, while Japan pressed more than 18 million people in Asia. Oberiko (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK; let's settle on this : To improve their production, Germany and Japan used millions of slave labourers. Germany used about 12 million people, mostly from Eastern Europe, while Japan pressed more than 18 million people in Far East Asia. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with your last proposal. Oberiko (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the link, I already had that text sourced when you deleted my source to replace with yours. I use that source several times (your replacement caused reference errors), so I wouldn't mind if you could justify its replacement. Is your source more accurate or appropriate? Oberiko (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are not talking about the same thing. I do not refer to a source but to the two internal links "SJW and BKG". --Flying tiger (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the links. We already have both those articles linked above, and I didn't feel we needed to link them again here, especially since we've got so many links already that we're getting close to Overlinking (see also here). Oberiko (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The choice has been made of a general article and so, there must be internal links for clear understanding, as you just add about homosexuals. I think we must not presume that the user has read ALL the article. This is a new section and invasion and occupation of China and early conflicts against the Soviets must be clarified at this stage. As for the source, I generally prefer using specialized studies instead of general encyclopedia with one sentence about a topic. I have not read your source but essays like Hal Gold, Unit 731 testimony, Tuttle, 1996 and Daniel Barenblatt, Plague upon humanity are very well documented about the use of such weapons.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The articles I linked to on Homosexuality and Roma are actually specific to the Nazi purging of both, not general links. I'm not very strongly opinionated on pruning the wikilinks though, so if anyone else also believes that they should be wikilinked, I'll acquiesce. Oberiko (talk) 14:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Naaa... There is no difference. As your earlier proposal showed (in which I had to call for users adivces and only two answered), nobody's interested in such details. I would use the traditional way : I propose these links and will add them if there is no claim against it in four days. --Flying tiger (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Oberiko (talk) 23:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutral

I see in the casualties diagram the Baltic States are listed as Allies. They should be listed as neutral. —PētersV (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Greece and Yugoslavia both signed the Declaration by United Nations, they are officially Allies. Oberiko (talk) 01:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He said Baltic, not Balkan :) Given that their participation in WWII was as constituent republics of the Soviet Union, it is probably correct to include them with the Allies. Really, they shouldn't be listed as separate entities; Ukraine and Belarus aren't. And yes, this will likely ruffle the feathers of Baltic nationalists, but Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were annexed (illegally or not) into the Soviet Union, and no one can dispute that simple fact. Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See, this is why I shouldn't edit while on jet lag. Apologies for that, and agreed with Parsecboy. Oberiko (talk) 10:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Baltic States were countries and neutral at the start of the war and should be represented as such. What we wish to represent about who swallowed up whom later is a different matter. They did not "participate" as "constituent republics". In fact, the Nazi occupation lasted considerably longer than the the Soviet occupations leading to the end of the war; Courland, Latvia, was never re-occupied by the Soviets prior to the end of the war.

   I'm sorry, but I do hope Parsecboy isn't using "nationalist" as a a dirty word implying biased POV pusher as opposed to simply being motivated to be fully informed based on reputably establish facts. Apologies, the New York heat wave has made me cranky. —PētersV (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, we probably need to rethink out the entire graph. Perhaps only including nations which had a significant role in the war (Germany, Italy, Japan, USSR, China, UK + Crown Colonies, US, France) and an "other" category. We could re-do the tallies with summarized causalities for "Allies", "Axis" and "Neutral" (taking into account shifting alliances), breaking the first two down by civilian and military. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that they were de facto part of the Soviet Union at the time of Barbarossa, whether they liked it or not. They had no participation in the events of 1939-1940, when they were still sovereign countries.

I wasn't implying anything about you of the sort. However, on similar issues, I've seen editors from the Baltics and Russia arguing over inane things like calling them "Baltic republics" (which apparently has a pro-USSR connotation), and "Baltic states" (which is supposedly anti-Soviet). Let's not pretend like there's not some serious bad blood between the two parties. That's all I was referring to. Parsecboy (talk) 02:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting a FAQ

I'd like to start a FAQ for this article so that we don't endlessly repeat going over the same issues (see here for an example in use).

The first entry I'd like to have would be the following:

Q: Why aren't we using a specific year for the start of the war?
A: Different historians give differing dates for the start of the war, with 1939 being most common in European and American sources and 1937 being prevalent among Asian sources. To adhere to WP:NPOV, we are not determining which is "true".

My supporting evidence is as such:

• Multiple authors and works (including those presented above) utilize 1937 as a start date
• WP:NPOV states the following

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. (emphasis mine)

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Great idea Oberiko. Go ahead and create the box and put a couple of first questions into it, then we can use it as a draft and revise it as required. I think it's a case of WP:BOLD for this. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 04:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. The FAQ should also stress the need for major edits to be discussed here first. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I might go start FAQs on other pages that always seem to be having the same discussions over and over again. Parsecboy (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I support; could a similar process be used for the Infobox also ? --Flying tiger (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Most definitely, our infobox could probably use this almost as much (if not more) then the main article. Oberiko (talk) 13:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

FAQ draft

Here's the first "draft" I've come up with. Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good start Oberiko. Do you want to add links to the archives which discuss the dating issue - probably not just this current page(!)(included Archive 9, it seems). Also, judging from the archives, you need a note on photos and a note on the article length. Buckshot06(prof) 22:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. I'll get to the date issue once the heat's died down a bit. Probably have to go fairly slow due to the sheer level of contention, make everything air-tight. I'm thinking we'll need to start at WP:RELIABLE and get confirmation that the various sources used to justify multiple-potential start dates are reliable. From there, we'll need to go to WP:NPOV and get confirmation that they form, at least, a significant minority. Once that's done (which I think it already is, the sources follow the guidelines) it'll be inarguable that we have to follow WP:NPOV policies and not determine which interpretation is "true". Oberiko (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend adding an FAQ point concerning the title of the subsections, with a thrust toward not changing these unless consensus is established. I suspect most visitors here are not aware of the fact that changing those subsections breaks links to them from other articles, hence the suggestion. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous

It is totally ridiculous and beyond a joke to draw the Sino-Japanese conflict before 1941 into WWII. Until then it was a regional conflict. You might as well also drag in the Winter War, the Spanish Civil War, the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Second_Italo-Abyssinian_War and Slovak-Hungarian War. WWII began in 1939 as pretty much every other article on the subject on Wikipedia states, leaving it ambiguous or stating otherwise is utterly ridiculous. Jooler (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, which do you disagree with? That there are significant sources which use 1937, or that we should follow WP:NPOV? Oberiko (talk) 11:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide one authoritative book which covers the entire war and which states 1937 please, an Amazon link would suffice. Note that NPOV does not mean that articles should pander to views that go against a broad consensus. Jooler (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion, this discussion, andthis discussion. Oberiko has on several occasions provided many reliable sources that use the 1937 start date. Also, see the section directly above this one, with the quote from WP:NPOV that states "significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one". Parsecboy (talk) 13:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jooler, the war became a "world war" in 1939 because it was already raging in Asia. Even if there is one major interpretation in Occident, there are many different interpretation in the world as emphasized above.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Flying Dagger -please see above regarding the War of Jenkins' Ear etc. Or look at Napoleonic Wars for wars that crossed over. The key word there is SIGNIFICANT. I said a single source covering the entire conflict. I.e. specifically about WWII and not some other subject like ("Asia in Western and World History: A Guide for Teaching", or "A Companion to the Vietnam War", or "Roscoe Pound and Karl Llewellyn: Searching for an American Jurisprudence" - The view that the war began in 1937 is a niche view. I hate to use Google for comparisons, but just FYI

• "world war ii began in 1937" Google: "world war ii began in 1937" - 6 hits.
• "world war ii began in 1939" Google: "world war ii began in 1939" - 622 hits.
• "world war ii began in 1914" Google: "world war ii began in 1914" - 2 hits.
• "world war ii began in 1941" Google: "world war ii began in 1941" - 706 hits. (LOL!)
• "world war ii began in 1919" Google: "world war ii began in 1919" - 5 hits.
• "world war ii began in 1938" Google: "world war ii began in 1938" - 5 hits.

Jooler (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Am I to assume that you are distinguishing between which sources are useable or not? If you do not think the sources I've provided are appropriate, please bring that up at the reliability noticeboard. Oberiko (talk) 13:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not into bureaucracy. Just please provide a single reliable source as per the remit above. Jooler (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

And I'm not really into fufilling somebody's very specific demands; either a source is reliable or it isn't. If you feel very strongly about it, then you're going to have to take the initiative and go through the steps as outlined per Wikipedia's policy. Oberiko (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Google searches aren't really suitable to prove anything one way or the other. On the otherhand, if you can provide me a comprehensive work on WWII that wasn't written by a middle-aged, well-off white male (you know, the people who write the vast majority of Western histories, and are prone to Eurocentrism and Amerocentrism) that states WWII began in 1939, well, it still won't matter, because we don't get to rank sources based on someone's personal criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100% with regard to Google searches. As I said above I hate using them. Infact you get more hits for "the world is flat" than for "the world is round". But at least you get some hits for "the world is round". Only 6 hits for WWII starting in 1937. Ohh so you're saying that the vast majority of the history community is systemically biassed. Well that sound like a POV to me. The bald fact is that as ColinC stated above "none of your cited books is a global history of World War Two'" - so niche and crank POVs should not be promoted above their due, re :NPOV Jooler (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Systemic bias is a very real thing. Whether it's a global history of WWII or not is irrelevant; they are reliable sources; you don't get to discount them because they don't fit a template. Parsecboy (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Lets say I want a recipe for Apple Pie. There are thousands of cookery books in the library with reliable apple pie recipes. I go to the library and look at cookery books not mechanical engineering. I wouldn't expect to get reliable recipes from a book about motorcycle maintenance, and why should I think that the apple pie recipe in the motorcycle book that disagrees with all the cookery books is correct So, why should I expect to get reliable military history from a book about Jurisprudence? Jooler (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, it is not within the scope of any editor to make conditions on what determines reliability. We follow WP:RELIABLE guidelines, which I believe the sources I provide (especially official Japanese histories) quite certainly make the cut. If you disagree, again, take it up at the the reliability noticeboard. Oberiko (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Again I am not in to bureaucracy. Please provide ONE SINGLE BOOK as a courtesy, as per the remit above. Jooler (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine, as a courtesy, here are a few other sources:

• The National Archives uses 1937 as its start date for its voices of World War II section
• Critical Perspectives on World War II - World War II started in Europe in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. But World War II had been raging in Asia since 1937 when Japan invaded China.
• A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945 - In 1937, when World War II started in the Pacific theater...
• The Library of Congress World War II Companion, pg. 632 - Throughout the total war that engulfed the world between 1937 and 1945...
• War and Empire in the Twentieth Century - The second Sino-Japanese war started in 1937, and it was really the beginning of World War II...

Those broad enough for you? Oberiko (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nationa Archives (US) - Firstly this does not state as per the remit above that the war started in 1937, it merely has content from 1937 that relates to WWII. the content being - the Quarantine Speech The full-text of the speech from 1937 can be found here. It has nothing to so with the Sino-Japanese conflict. It is about American Isolationism.
• "Critical Perspectives on World War II" - the book is a collection of polemic essays ("critical perspectives") The quote you have pulled from is comes from an essay called "Letters from the Manchurian Border" by Nora Waln. - it does not fulfil the remit.
• "A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945" - - it seems that all we have to go on here is the title of the book. Hmm.. well that doesn't really give us much to go on, it certainly doesn't fulfil the remit. As an aside if I Google ""world at war 1937-1945" "world at war 1937-1945" - I get only 4 hits, while if I Google ""world at war 1938-1945" "world at war 1938-1945" I get 154 hits and the book "The World at War 1938-1945 by Steve Waugh" - which covers 1938 as the lead up to the war in a chapter entitled "Appeasement". How can we say with any reliability that it isn't the same in "A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945" - it may well be the political lead-up and the Sino-Japanese conflict that is covered as a lead-up to global war.
  • More on this I've found a review for this book which gives more clues as to the content - "The far greater role of Japan and, to a lesser extent, China in World War Two than in World War One, in causes, course and consequences, helped ensure that the later struggle was more truly global in character. This is signified by the choice of 1937 rather than 1939 as the starting point for the study. Nevertheless, as Gerhard Weinberg makes clear in "Total War: The Global Dimensions of Conflict", it was the outbreak of war in Europe in 1939 that really started the global character of World War Two. He points out that the participation of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa guaranteed this, and that the wide-ranging nature of German commerce raiding underlined this global character. "
• The Library of Congress World War II Companion - The introduction to this book clearly states that 1937 date is a minority view, as much as 1931. It clearly states that it was a regional conflict.
• War and Empire in the Twentieth Century - this is not a book specifically about WWII - it does not fulfil the remit. Jooler (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to, seriously, attempt to devalidate every source provided which is against your personal opinion? That's well out of the capacity of any individual editor. Oberiko (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it my personal opinion or your personal opinion that we are talking about here? Jooler (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Mine is to adhere to the NPOV policy above, in that way, I suppose we're doing both. In any case, you have no authority to debunk anything, that's original research. Oberiko (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV has no room for crank or niche viewpoints. '"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not"' - where are the prominent adherents? Jooler (talk) 15:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is hard to demarcate very accurately. You can easily argue that the 1937 2nd Sino-Japanese war is part of the conflict. On the other hand, I have once heard a statement that there has only been one World War in the 20th century, although this war lasted from 1914-1990 and had several ceasefires; in other words there are also argument to join WWI, WWII and the cold war into one single long lasting conflict.
Coming back to the issue. If you read the World War article and the given definitions, you will find the following.

• The definition for World War itself is a very Western POV coloured one that asks for multiple military superpowers with global colonies to be involved. Obviously for the early / mid 20th century this requires at least two European powers to be involved as they were the only ones with this type of colonies (Italy, Germany, France, UK). So following this (very westernly coloured) definition the starting date can only be 1939 when France-UK declared war to Germany (in the aftermath of the Poland invasion). Of course another definition for World War could deliver another outcome there.
• The term was first used by the Western media, indeed referring to the 1939 start of the War. Again, if we want to reinterpret historical primary sources fine, but we will need very good arguments.

In brief, we need to be clear how to define World War as a concept before we can solve this. Arnoutf (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't demarcate. Doing so would be a violation of NPOV and choosing one group of historians POV as being "true" and another groups as being "false". We simply present the facts of what the various sources say (the start of WWII, as shown, is not a fact but opinion) and let the reader decide for themselves. Oberiko (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

NONE of the sources Oberiko has cited is a global history of World War Two with the dates 1937-45. Can you cite any global history of World War Two which gives the dates 1937-45? All the histories of World War Two that I have read and know about give the dates 1939-45. The article should be changed to reflect this overwhelming consensus. Colin4C (talk) 15:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You're saying the Library of Congress' World War II Companion isn't a reliable source? Again, you do not get to rank sources because they agree or disagree with your positions. They are either reliable, or not. Parsecboy (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Library of congres does not use the word World War but "the total war that engulfed the world between 1937 and 1945" Total war is not the same as world war. Arnoutf (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you're confusing writing style as meaning something other than it does. A "total war that engulfed the world" is just a more dramatic way of stating "world war." —PētersV (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To Oberike: But we do demarcate as the 1914-1990; 1941-1945; the 1938-145 World War are not mentioned; so we make a choice in the sources and hence demarcate (or perhaps even do original research). You say it is an opinion not a fact. But the opening line reads as fact, not opinion World War II or the Second World War was a global military conflict, the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts. The first began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War; the other began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland. If you are serious you need to rephrase that to something like World War II or the Second World War was a global military conflict, some historians consider this as the joining of what had initially been two separate conflicts; with the first beginning in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War. Other historians use the date the second conflict erupted in Europe, either in 1938 with the Anschluss of Austria or in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland as the starting date of the War. It can even be argued that the war only erupted on a global scale in 1941 when the USSR and the USA became combatants. There are even historians who argue that WWII cannot be seen differently from a second act of WWI with the interbellum merely being a ceasefire. Unwieldy, but phrased as an opinion not a fact. Arnoutf (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

We are about neck deep in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory. Oberiko has provided about a dozen reliable sources, and Jooler is still asking for "prominent adherents". The US Library of Congress isn't "prominent" enough for you? The German Historical Institute isn't either? There is a substantial number of sources that justify including the start date of the SSJW in WWII as a whole. Stop disrupting this article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please name just one global history of World War Two which gives the dates 1937-45. Here are four which give the dates 1939-45: 'A World in Flames' (1990) by Martin Kitchen, 'World War II' (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger, 'The Times Atlas of the Second World War' (1989) and 'A World at Arms' (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg. Colin4C (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Did you actually read what I just said? Stop pretending as if Oberiko hasn't already provided several. The Library of Congress' "World War II Companion" isn't good enough? "A World at Total War isn't global enough? Parsecboy (talk) 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From the above I gather there are basically 2 views. (1) Start at 1937; (2) Start at 1939. Can't we come to a compromise and say something like: Several historians consider the war started in 1937 with the Sino Japanese war, although others consider that the World War only started in 1939 with the start of the war in Europe after German invasion..... Etc. etc.

Both are apparently common enough views in the literature, so to prevent NPOV is would suggest naming both. Arnoutf (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If global histories of World War Two with the dates 1937-45 are so common, mention one here. Just one. Colin4C (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Causes and Consequences of the Second World War: the Second World War - In contrast, the Second World War was much more complicated. Starting in the Far East in 1937, different conflicts started in different regions at different times. These gradually became absorbed into the global struggle.? Oberiko (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically addressing NPOV - where are the prominent adherents? Jooler (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Jooler, you are being exceedingly disruptive. Your refusal to get the point is disappointing. Please make good faith arguments, or stop participating in this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you accusing me of? I'm asking for a reliable source fulfilling a not unreasonable remit and none has arisen yet. Jooler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The book from the German Historical Institute is surely an example of prominent adherents that use the 1937 date. Parsecboy (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

What you've singularly failed to realise about this book is that it is NOT about WWII, it is about Total War. Yet again it does not fulfil the remit, and even if it did the review indicated below states that it makes it quite clear that the global conflict did not begin in 1937. The quoted text above is not a proper cite. What is the page number? what is the context? Jooler (talk) 20:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only thing I fail to understand is this policy or guideline, tucked away somewhere in WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:CITE that apparently says sources have to be 100% directly about a topic in order to be relevant. Also, how are you possibly saying the book isn't about WWII? The full title is A World at Total War: Global Conflict and the Politics of Destruction, 1937-1945. Explain to me how you get "not about WWII" from that. Was there some other total war going on at the same time? Parsecboy (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to show how the introductory line would read taking up my suggestion: "World War II or the Second World War was a global military conflict. It consisted out of two main theaters, the Pacific and the European theater. The Pacific theater began in Asia in 1937 as the Second Sino-Japanese War and is be some historians considered the beginning of the war. The European conflict began in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, and the Anglo-French response to this. The start of the European conflict has more tradtionally been considered the start of the war." Do you think a compromise along these lines is worth pursuing? I leave providing the refs up to others as I had not heard of 1937 before either (but am willing to reconsider) Arnoutf (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's much different then we have now, but I think you have a valid point. I don't want to clutter the intro with undue weight on the start date though, perhaps in the form of footnotes? Oberiko (talk) 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes would probably be the best way to address this issue. As Oberiko states, it's not all that different from the current version. Parsecboy (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It makes (IMHO) much clearer there are different opinions than the current one. Small changes are sometimes best ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 16:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From the introduction to The Library of Congress World War II Companion - "Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin. But Japan's military adventurism had as yet only regional implications. Arguably, Japan might have been appeased, and its provocations confined to one corner of Asia, by some recognition of its stake in China -- noxious as that might have been to recognized norms of international behavior, not to mention to the Chinese.But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939. In the context of Europe's disruption, Japanese cupidity expanded to include Southeast Asia, the Dutch East Indies, the Philippines, and India. The conflicts in Asia and Europe now fatefully merged, leading in 1940 to a formal alliance among Japan, Germany, and Italy -- thereafter known as the "Axis powers" -- and eventually to Japan's attempt to shield its imperial project in Asia from American interference with a daring attack on the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. With that act, and America's immediately subsequent entry into the war, virtually the entire planet was wreathed in violence." Jooler (talk) 16:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Which also proves our point: Some historians date the beginning of World War II to the Japanese incursion in Manchuria in 1931; others cite the full-scale Japanese invasion of the Chinese heartland in 1937 as the war's moment of origin.. We're not arguing that it did start in 1937, we're arguing that several historians believe it did. WP:NPOV has a clear policy for dealing with such a situation, which is outlined above. Oberiko (talk) 16:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's a niche view - as much as the European Civil War is a niche view. It is not shared by the vast majority of historians. You are giving it undue weight and you have yet to come up with a prominent adherent which would allow it into the article as per the NPOV policy. Kennedy passes over the 1931 date and the 1937 date with equal dismissiveness in the introduction the LoC book. If your using that intro as an argument for the inclusion of 1937, what about also including 1931? Jooler (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hardly fringe (check our page on WP:FRINGE), instead it is, at the least, a view point held by a significant minority (which is why we're treating it as such, due to the policy of WP:NPOV on such matters).

Your using the word fringe - not me. Still you have not provided any prominent adherents as per the NPOV policy page which comes from Jimbo Wales himself. Jooler (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if not fringe, you don't think the sources provided (including your own) qualify it as the viewpoint of a significant minority? If not, why? Oberiko (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've yet to see a single prominent historian cited. Jooler (talk)

Footnote solution

If we go with the footnote solution, then how about this for our intro paragraph?

World War II was a global military conflict which involved all of the Worlds great powers. Full warfare in Asia began in 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China, while in Europe it started in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland; in 1941 the two seperate conflicts were amalgamated into a single war that ended in 1945.

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Something like that, although the amalgation is perhaps a bit over the top as the theaters remained separated (e.g. difference in victory in Europe, vs victory in the Pacific). Early on there were perhaps even 3 theaters Western Front, Eastern Front and Pacific. War in Europe became one though when it converged on Berlin in 1945. The footnote sounds ok though, I would suggest that the footnote is heavily referenced. Arnoutf (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I agree the theatres were quite segregated, they were inarguably part of the same war after 1941. Oberiko (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking out the European Civil War link. Even if it were considered part of a single over-arching war, that wouldn't change its individual start date (much like the Vietnam War, being part of the Cold War, has its own start date). Plus, it's difficult to argue that the United States, Japan and China were such major participants in a European civil war. If anything, this view point can go on the European Theatre of World War II. Oberiko (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty much AJP Taylor's viewpoint isn't it? The larger war ramped up as several regional wars coalesced. DMorpheus (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Taylor's work, but his article here leads me to believe that he thought it was Germany which started the Second World War; so it seems like he's arguing something different. Oberiko (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

He has written that the various 'regional' wars (Japan vs. China, etc) each broke out separately, and coalesced into a genuinely global world war in 1941 when the US and USSR became involved. Yet he acknowledges the point we're arguing here, which is that different viewpoints would tend to date the war's beginning to different times. This isn't covered in his wikipedia article but it is in his history of WW2.

It seems to me that the NPOV policy would guide us to pretty much exactly what the article says now. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

AJP Taylor is probably THE most famous British historian (partly because of the numerous TV series). Re: becoming a World War in 1941. This neglects the fact that The "European" war was taking place in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and in the oceans of the World and involving troops from Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, and India and the Caribbean, and affecting the economies of a much greater part of the world before direct US involvement. Jooler (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this now covers all our bases. Any reasonable objections to my replacing the intro paragraph with the above? Oberiko (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No objection here. Jooler, you're right that Taylor is known for writing that 1941 is the most reasonable date for the start of World War 2. But he also neatly summarizes why others might consider other dates as early as 1937, and explicitly rejects the Eurocentric argument that 1939, and only 1939, makes sense as a start date. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 19:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course very few of his contemporaries agreed with Taylor with regard to his analysis of the origins of WWII, and there's no citation from him here about this 1937 issue to argue over. Jooler (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty straight forward: Most wars begin raggedly. In the minds of Englishmen 4 August 1914 is unshakably fixed as the date when the first World war began; yet by then France and Germany had been at war for twenty-four hours, Russia and Germany for three days, Serbia and Austria-Hungary for almost a week. The second World war is vaguer still in its opening; the Russians date it from 22 June 1941, the Chinese from November 1937, the Abyssinians [or Ethiopians, as we now would say], I suppose, from October 1935, and the Americans from 7 December 1941. The American date is the most sensible. The war truly became world-wide — much more so than the first World war — only after Pearl Harbor. (The Origins of the Second World War - Page vii). Oberiko (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that but it still doesn't support 1937 in favour of 1939. It only gives 1937 as much weight as 1935 and 1939 and June 1941. Jooler (talk) 22:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

New intro draft 2

World War II, or the Second World War, was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the Worlds nations, including all of the great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis powers. Full warfare in Asia began in 1937 with the Japanese invasion of China, while in Europe it started in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland; in 1941 the two separate conflicts were unified into a single war that lasted until 1945.

World War II involved the mobilization of over 100 million military personnel, making it the most widespread war in history, and placed the participants in a state of "total war", erasing the distinction between civil and military resources. This resulted in the complete activation of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort. Over 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history. The financial cost of the war is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide, making it the most costly war in capital as well as lives.

Alright, slight modification to the second paragraph as I put some of its text in the first. Any objections to replacing the first two in the article with this? Oberiko (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to include the Sino-Japanese war. There needs to be a clear distinction between regional conflicts and the global one. After all, the Fins even call the conflict with USSR from 1941 as the Continuation war, but in fact although it may have been a continuation in political terms, militarily it was quite distinct. Nope, when the conflict expanded out of a single region, Poland (Eastern Europe) into Western Europe, the Atlantic, the Med, North Africa, it became globalised--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. Jooler (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to strenuously disagree with mrg's point about the SSJW. Were it not for Japan's investiture of China in 1937, and the resulting economic sanctions imposed by the Western nations with Pacific holdings, there wouldn't have been a Pacific theatre of WWII at all. Not including the SSJW would be like starting the European theatre in 1941 with the German invasion of the USSR, as if it happened out of the blue.

As to the proposed re-wording, I think it sounds pretty good, and the footnotes work great. Maybe add at the end that the war resulted in an Axis defeat? Sure, most will know this, but we can't assume, can we? Parsecboy (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No objections Oberiko; as you've repeatedly said, there is a large part of the world for which WW II began in 1937. For my part, go ahead. (With one minor thing- World's instead of Worlds.)Buckshot06(prof) 23:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

My 2 pesos? First, I've got a gripe with "amalgamated into a single war", for it's inelegance, if no other reason. Second, it was a world war before the U.S. came in: far & away the greater percentage of the world's major powers were already involved directly or by alliance, & most of the globe was occupied or girdled (convoys, for instance). (Of course, by this definition, there have been as many as 9 world wars....) Still think it isn't? I'd say Arnoutf got it closest: "'There are even historians who argue that WWII cannot be seen differently from a second act of WWI with the interbellum merely being a ceasefire.' Unwieldy, but phrased as an opinion not a fact." Price, I think, for one, treats them so. It will probably be a generation before historiography really becomes clear on it. Meanwhile, can we agree we probably won't settle it here? And even if we do, no professionally trained historiographer will give a damn? Trekphiler (talk) 02:35 & 02:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC) (BTW, that definition of "world war" isn't mine.)

I've changed amalgamated into unified. I don't follow the World War point, we don't actually state at which point it "became" a world war (beyond the multiple alternate start dates in the footnotes), as there are sources with differing opinions. We're just presenting the facts. Oberiko (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is silly. The article is a part of military history of a conflict. Extrapolating starting dates from non-military activities such as diplomatic interactions and economic sanctions will take the article back to the early 18th century!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, take a look here. These are authors directly saying it started sometime other then 1939. We're not engaging in any original research and are, in fact, adhering to NPOV.

<--"we don't actually state at which point it "became" a world war" That's not my reading from the "unified into WW2", which implies it wasn't a world war yet. And the start date is far from clear, as noted. Trekphiler (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't say it was unified into "WW2", just that it was unified into a single war. No where do we state that it was or wasn't a world war. Oberiko (talk)

The first paragraph tells us that the joining of two conflicts, namely, the second Sino-Japanese war and the war in Europe resulted in the second world war, not those exact words, but that's how it reads. Therefore, it tells us that the global war began in 1939. Why give this information then omit the facts from the infobox? Joe Deagan (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Because that's an interpretation, not a fact. Check here for sources which use other interpretations. Oberiko (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, on reading the paragraph it's the only interpretation! Tell me, if France and Britain had not declared war on Germany, and Japan had not declared war on the US, would history books be telling us there was a world war in 1937?

Who knows? It might be known predominantly as the contemperous "Sino-Japanese War" and "European War". It might have been called "World War II". It might have been called the "Dark Time of Badness". It's not in our scope to say what "might" have been, that's original research. Oberiko (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious, when was the term world war first used and by whom or which country first used the term? I ask the question because it would be interesting to know when the world at the time first considered it a world war. Joe Deagan (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean when some people considered it a world war? The first use doesn't mean wide acceptance. For example, President Nixon himself wrote that World War III had started even before World War II ended. (Why the Cold War Ended: A Range of Interpretations, pg. 124) while some people have written of the Napoleonic Wars as actually being World War I. (Dreams of Empire: Napoleon and the First World War, 1792-1815). Having one person call it something doesn't mean it's instantly a global view. Oberiko (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, checking the World War page shows (with citation) that the first reference is in 1928. Oberiko (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I came to this article thinking the the discussion could easily be resolved (not by me) and found a discussion that could go on for some time.:) What I will say, at the risk of boring people, is that the infobox does not seem right in reference to wars beginning. If there is a consensus for giving two or three start dates for the war do you not think it should be reflected in the infobox, after all, the first paragraph and the infobox are the first two things people will read. Well, thats my humble opinion! Thanks! Joe Deagan (talk) 10:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Histories of World War Two

Feel free to add more global histories of World War Two or other dates. By 'global' I mean histories which cover the global conflict, neither Eurocentric or Asianocentric or Americanocentric but global.

I think this is an inane proposal. Who are you to say what can and can not qualify as a source? Why can't a book on the Asian theatre of World War II be used? Asides, there are thousands of books on World War II, I don't think anyone's going to go through enough of them to present a reasonable view, especially when an editor has a obvious bias (you yourself only provide sources for one side, all written by Americans or Europeans, ignoring other sources as mentioned above). I'm not participating and I would encourage others not to as well. Oberiko (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not about what can and cannot be used as a source it's about demonstrating the validity and extent of the viewpoint which you are espousing amongst prominent historians. Jooler (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This is clearly what this is about; Oberiko provided about a dozen sources that support the fact that a significant minority of historians consider the war to have started in 1937, and you have discounted every single one by complaining that they're not "global histories" or some other such nonsense. Please show me somewhere, in WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, or some other policy or guideline that states certain sources, along the lines you suggest, are more preferable to the ones Oberiko has provided. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't have a "significant minority of historians" - we have an insignificant minority of source texts about other subjects and not directly about the global conflict that offhandedly mention 1937 that have been found by trawling through Google Books. What we certainly don't have is a single reference from a single notable, internationally recognised historian. I.e. as per WP:NPOV we do not have a "prominent adherent" that can be directly cited. So there's your guideline. We don't have a scholarly work covering the entire conflict which gives 1937 in Asia as the start date for WWII as opposed to the regional Sino-Japanese war, or if we do we have it only with equal weight given to 1931. Jooler (talk) 20:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see a reference to any kind of policy or guideline that states sources have to be 100% directly about a topic to be valid. Also from NPOV, we have this, which Oberiko has already cited, but may have been missed:

"The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one."

As for prominence, surely the official Japanese histories are prominent? Parsecboy (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no citations from official Japanese sources given, so how do I know what "official Japanese history" says? What is "official" here anyway? Parsecboy you are digging out those apple pie recipes from the motorcycle maintenance book again. Jooler (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Try this WP:NPOV "We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views.'To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well."

In this context "experts on the subject" lends itself to historians who have written extensively about World War II as a global conflict. Scholarly works about the global conflict as listed below would seem to be a good guide here, and not books about Jurisprudence. Without such citations from "experts on the subject" you have no case for inclusion of the 1937 date. Jooler (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, to increase people's knowledge of history please list all and any books on World War Two which date the conflict 1937-45. As I guess there are a quite a lot, just four will do for a start. I want to read these books and as I know you are an expert on the subject I would appreciate you pointing out to me the four best global histories of World War Two which date it 1937-45. Thanks! Colin4C (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please do not be snide, Colin; it doesn't help anything. Parsecboy (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not being snide - I am genuinly interested in the possibly scores of books which represent the view that World War Two happened between 1937-45. What are your top four recommendations? I looked on Amazon but couldn't find any, so I'd be grateful to you for your recommendations of scholarly work by historians on the 1937-45 war. Please list them below. Colin4C (talk) 20:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just paid my first visit to this article and what do I see in the info box? The war started in the late 1930's. Mmmm, yes, that's me well informed then! If you tell me in the article that it started in 1937 then place it in the infobox (dubious to say the least). Either way, late 1930's is not exactly encyclopedic. Joe Deagan (talk) 22:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Much as I dislike the snide tone being taken by several editors in this discussion, I must admit that the infobox date is rather inprecise. I'm not sure what could be done about it, but something more precise could be nice. I do lean myself towards the more traditional 1 September 1939, but then that's just me. Skinny87 (talk) 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but it seems to me there is so much bickering going on here that people are neglecting the article. As I said previously the infobox has the war beginning in the late 1930's. This article is one of the most important and probably one of the most visited on wikipedia, and I have to say that any young people visiting here would have a quick look and think it would hardly be worthwhile looking at other articles on wikipedia. I don't mean to be over critical but this argument over when the war started has to be sorted out soon. Joe Deagan (talk) 09:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically the idea that the war started in 1937 is what is technically known as a fringe theory. Fringe theories have their place but should not be presented, as in this article, as normative and the overwhelming consensus that the war started in 1939 ignored. If the overwhelming consensus of opinion says that George Bush is President of the USA opposed by a small minority who see him as Emperor of Greenland, which view should prevail in the wikipedia? It is the same with World War Two - the overwhelming conscensus of historians dates it to 1939-45 and a small fringe of people, not all historians, it seems, have made off-the-cuff remarks mostly in books and articles about other subjects that the war was 1937-45. Which view should we adopt for this article, the overwhelming concensus of historians or the fringe theory? Colin4C (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Histories which date the conflict 1939-45

• A World in Flames (1990) by Martin Kitchen
• World War II (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger
• The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1989)
• A World at Arms (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
• The Second World War John Keegan
• Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II Len Deighton

Histories which date the conflict 1937-45

• Which only demonstrates a widespread monumental ignorance of the Chinese theatre or Sino-Japanese conflict by English-speaking (mainly American) historiographers. I'd accept the 1937 date, from Toland (Eagle and the Rising Sun?) & Kogun. To name just 2. Trekphiler (talk) 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Are these both global histories of World War Two? Colin4C (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the full title is The Eagle and the Rising Sun: The Japanese-American War 1941-1943: Pearl Harbor through ...; I think what is meant is The Rising Sun, 1936-1945 (1971) but that only claims to document the rise and fall of the Japanese empire, and the war in the Pacific. Kbthompson (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wasted discussion

This discussion is about the article, not its bibliography. If someone wants to start an article List of general works about the Second World War, they are more then welcome. The first sentence of the article defines the subject area as

Second World War, was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the Worlds nations

Other conflicts that were neither global, nor involving more then two belligerents were not a part of the Second World War--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This conflict was not global in the strict sense of the word. Southern America and much of Africa were not involved. Arnoutf (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Many of those conflicts became part of the Second World War; the above is not a strict definition, but attempts by us to describe the event, which may need tweaking. Buckshot06(prof) 23:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For example?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So, I just got "There is no consensus for this and WP:NPOV does not allow us to present one version as "truth".)"

I'm officially pronouncing this silly. How can anyone get a consensus on something that we know hour and minute timing for? We know exactly when the Japanese begun their attacks on Hong Kong and Pearl Harbour, the first bullets and bombs started flying. We know exactly when the invasion of Poland begun, and when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Do I need to produce the times here? Why are we looking for something that is not there? The Sino-Japnaese war was part of the Japanese larger strategy, but that strategy became possible only after the defeat of France and Britain in 1940. There is no way that Japan would have attacked Britain, France and America in 1937, however, the history is self-evident, there as no global war in 1937! Japan didn't even manage to conquer China by 1941. It could not even go to war with USSR in 1942...there is a word for this, but I don't want to be accuse of anything again--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 10:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the whole point. All we should be doing is dating specific, factual, actions, not interpretations. WP:NPOV specifically states: The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.. You're stating that it started in 1939 is almost certainly the predominant point of view in Western sources, but I have many sources listed which use other dates. To pick one is a violation of NPOV. Oberiko (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, have mercy! One can not be neutral about the time of day!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 11:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No ones talking about time of day. I'm referring to your edit which stated "The war first began in Europe in 1939 with the German invasion of Poland, and later in Asia in 1941". Check here for a list of some sources I've found which state otherwise. Oberiko (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as I don't want to sound like a hippie, it's pretty "Eurocentric" to consider the Asian war began in 1941 when more than two-thirds of all Japanese divisions had been fighting in China by then. Blueshirts (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Basically the idea that the war started in 1937 is what is technically known as a fringe theory. Fringe theories have their place but should not be presented, as in this article, as normative and the overwhelming consensus that the war started in 1939 ignored. If the overwhelming consensus of opinion says that George Bush is President of the USA opposed by a small minority who see him as Emperor of Greenland, which view should prevail in the wikipedia? It is the same with World War Two - the overwhelming conscensus of historians dates it to 1939-45 and a small fringe of people, not all historians, it seems, have made off-the-cuff remarks mostly in books and articles about other subjects that the war was 1937-45. Which view should we adopt for this article, the overwhelming concensus of historians or the fringe theory? Colin4C (talk) 16:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically a fringe theory? I don't think you really understand what Fringe means if you believe that. There is a considerable difference between opposing views and something demonstratably false; especially when we're dealing with something that's an opinion to begin with.

In any case, posting here about doesn't accomplish anything; in my opinion, all your posts so far are original research as to what's valid or not. Since I'm convinced you will not accept another viewpoint as even being potentially valid regardless of what is presented, I won't continue with attempts to do so. I will, however, continue at the NPOV noticeboard. If you are serious about wanting an earnest discussion about the sources, that's the place to do it. Oberiko (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a fringe theory, there are dozens of works provided by reputable historians that support other start dates, it is clearly held by a significant minority. Not everyone uses the Eurocentric date, so we should reflect this. Get over it. Parsecboy (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not my original research that the war occured 1939-45 but one held by the overwhelming consencensus of historians on the subject. Here are just a few:

• A World in Flames (1990) by Martin Kitchen
• World War II (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger
• The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1989)
• A World at Arms (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
• The Second World War John Keegan
• Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II Len Deighton

So far nobody here has been able to produce a global history of the conflict dating 1937-45.Colin4C (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliability

As a heads-up, I've posted over at the reliability noticeboard a listing of the sources that seem to be under debate for reliability. Oberiko (talk) 00:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And I've started a second one pertaining to whether the opinion counts as a significant minority (at least) or not here. Oberiko (talk) 10:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Well done, that was a lot of work. Thank you. DMorpheus (talk) 14:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. You deserve an award for that. And those sources are worthwhile to anybody doing other research on the period (myself included). Trekphiler (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd ask that editors here leave a comment on the noticeboard as to whether they can be considered significant or not. The more feedback, for either case, the better. Oberiko (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

compromise proposal (start date)

Why not remove the start date entirely from the infobox and add a section to the article instead to which the infobox links. That section would then (as briefly as possible) explain the differing start dates offered by our sources. That way we could explain how 1) some (few) consider 1931 as start date, 2) some cosndier 1937 as start date, 3) some consider September 1 1939 as start date, 4) some consider September 3 1939 as start date, 5) some cosndier May 10 1940 as start date (while that is indeed the start date for my country I do disagree with that notion...), 6) some consider June 1941 as start date (sorry don't recall exact date, but you know what I mean), 7) some consider December 1941 as start date, 8) some consider WWII as just a continuation of WWI, 9) some think this wa really WWIX.V and 10) WWII was started in the year 1917 when the Marsians sent their supreme leader in the form of a dark haired Austrian maniac down to earth to foment discord and make way for their invasion of Earth in the year 2009. Though I guess we could leave out the less serious theories, of course assuming they cannot be reliably sourced.--Caranorn (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking along the same lines (somewhat, I'd rather leave the Martians out of it, due to both fringe and fear of laser-filled reprisal). What I'm thinking that we need an article on the Start of World War II which we would put in the intro and would have the various opinions and sources related to it. 1939 is easy and I think I've got enough to make serious cases for 1931, 1937 and 1941 as well a few for 1935. Oberiko (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko, is the starting date of World War Two in 1939, the consensus view of historians or just a fringe theory? Colin4C (talk) 16:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Oberiko has been arguing that 1939 is an important but not THE consensus view. A significant minority is not a fringe theory, but is sufficient to counter consensus.

Also consider that early histories of the war were highly Europe-centric; however history is as fluid as its recorders (historians). Therefore, I would suggest to use post 1995 publications about the global (ie not focussing on only one theater) conflict as the body of evidence to determine whether one of the views is fringe or both are significant. Arnoutf (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I rather like this one, among Oberiko's sources: "Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931." (Chang, 1997) —PētersV (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggested:

World War II or the Second World War was a global military conflict, the joining of escalating ultra-nationalistic expansions—encouraged by pacifist responses on the part of the international community—in two separate parts of the world.

In Asia, Japan had already attacked Manchuria and installed a puppet government in 1931, with little consequence to Japan other than its expulsion from the League of Nations. Japan escalated that initial foray into full-scale war with China, launching the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937.

In Europe, early successes similarly emboldened the fascist powers of Germany and Italy. By the time that Hitler—allied with Stalin in Eastern Europe—initiated full-scale war with the invasion of Poland in 1939, Germany had already annexed Austria and taken Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland—an act of French and British appeasement—in 1938, while Mussolini had invaded Ethiopia even earlier, in 1935.

The points at which full-scale war broke out in Asia and Europe, 1937 and 1939 respectively, are generally held to be the start of World War II in those two theatres of war, which were ultimately unified into a single global conflict with the U.S. declarations of war on Japan, Germany, and Italy in December, 1941.

To Flying tiger, personalities are equally important. Yes, Tojo was not prime minister in 1937, but he played a central role in the escalation of the Sino-Japanese conflict into all-out war and was later the one who pressed for war against the U.S. (I had that originally too, but it was getting a bit long.) He was as instrumental a force of personality in Japan's escalating war as were Hitler and Mussolini for Germany and Italy. But, leaving Tojo out for now... —PētersV (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi PētersV, I will surely analyse your proposal, but I just wanted to answer to you on that : You can not compare Tōjō with Hitler and Stalin. Tōjō was part of the Tōseiha and an "instrumental a force" in the holy war against China and the Greater East Asia War but no more than leaders like Hajime Sugiyama, Prince Kan'in and Osami Nagano. The Imperial General Headquarters which counseled Hirohito was not lead by one man. The proof is that the war continued for a year well after Tōjō was demoted by Hirohito who was looking for a tennōzan...--Flying tiger (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

agree with flying tiger. Konoe was the one who pushed the China war past the point of no return, when in 1938 he single handedly "refused to deal" with Chiang Kai-shek's government and broke off the German mediation. Tojo was responsible for other things. And since we're putting off a "commander" list in the infobox, I think it's okay to leave all that aside for now. Blueshirts (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Also agree, many historians consider Hirohito himself to be the primary decision maker for Japan in WWII, as oppossed to the figure-head he was portrayed as after the war. Oberiko (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that's way to much detail for the intro. Plus, we should avoid motives or reasons, that's drawing the reader to a conclusion instead of letting them decide for themselves. I think this kind of text would be better of in it's own article, the intro is already fairly large. Oberiko (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I rather stayed away from specifics of motives. I do think that it's important to capture key elements of the escalation to global conflict in a coherent narrative:

1. growing ultra-nationalism and militarism (all of Europe pretty much descended into nationalism and autocracy--seen as strength, even Roosevelt was offered U.S. dictatorship)
2. the pursuit of pacifism as a course to avoid war, so little if any consequences to Japan, Germany and Italy as they expanded; this only confirmed perceptions of weakness and lack of resolve on the part of the international community, which acted as an accelerant
3. the fact that on all fronts there were "seed" hostilities (some significantly before 1939) which escalated into all-out war

There's the whole angle that the conclusion of WWI and the punishment of Germany in particular set the stage for WWII, but that's another conversation.

   I don't believe 1, 2, and 3 are drawing readers into a conclusion, they are factual context.

   The other issue I was attempting to address was to bring all the key dates together into one stream so we can stop arguing about whether WWII started with the Japanese invading Manchuria, etc. etc. —PētersV (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

In the body of the article Sept 1939 is not given the smallest sub-heading - despite the fact that ALL global histories of the conflict date if from then. I repeat there is NO global history of the conflict which dates it 1937-45. Look on Amazon or elsewhere and you will find NO global histories of World War Two with the dates 1937-45. All we have a quotes from specialist studies and books about other subjects entirely. Colin4C (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Slave action?

Can somebody clarify the difference between "slavery" (as describing Japanese & German actions) & "forced labor" (as describing British & American)? It sounds alike to me... Trekphiler (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ARMY SIZES

There should be a extra article that shows nations that fought in war and percentage of soldiers compared to total population. Would help in comparing casualties & mobilized troops.

and someone archive this discussion page it's getting too big. Cheers

Kuhlfürst (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to start that article and achive this discussion page? Nick Dowling (talk) 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kuhlfürst. No doubt, that'd probably be a very informative article if we could have a comparative analysis of statistics like mobilization, oil, iron ore, manufacturing tonnage and GDP between the major powers. However, I haven't seen that many books on the logistics of World War II, as crucial as the area is. If you know of a good source, let us, or the editors at production of World War II know. So far as achieving, I believe we have a bot that does that for us; the current amount of discussion focused on starting dates is something of an exceptional case. Oberiko (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

"Atrocities"

Can this word ever be used in a NPOV manner? Does it ever need to be used? It looks to me like it could consistently be replaced here with either "war crimes" or "acts considered to be atrocities". There is no such thing as an objective atrocity. This is probably demonstrated by the deletion of World War II atrocities which has continued to be cited until today as a main article for the "Casualties and atrocities" section. The problem is: there is no defining line past which an act becomes an atrocity except its status as a war crime. Some might consider, for example, conscription as an atrocity, but it is not a war crime. BigBlueFish (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

September 1939 is not marked in the Text

I notice that the 1939 date of the start of World War Two has been glossed over in the text, with no mention that the majority of historians date the conflict from 1939. Anyone reading this would imagine that Hitler's War was of no importance. This is positively misleading:

Japanese forces during the Battle of WuhanIn mid-1937, following the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, Japan began a full invasion of China. The Soviets quickly lent support to China, effectively ending China's prior cooperation with Germany. Starting at Shanghai, the Japanese pushed Chinese forces back, capturing the capital Nanjing in December. In June of 1938 Chinese forces stalled the Japanese advance by flooding the Yellow River. Though this bought time to prepare their defenses at Wuhan, the city was still taken by October.[19] During this time, Japanese and Soviet forces engaged in a minor skirmish at Lake Khasan; in May of 1939, they became involved in a more serious border war.[20]

In Europe, Germany and Italy were becoming bolder. In March 1938, Germany annexed Austria, again provoking little response from other European powers.[21] Encouraged, Hitler began making claims on the Sudetenland; France and Britain conceded these for a promise of no further territorial demands.[22] Germany soon reneged, and in March 1939 fully occupied Czechoslovakia.

Soviet and German officers in PolandAlarmed, and with Hitler making further demands on Danzig, France and Britain guaranteed their support for Polish independence; when Italy conquered Albania in April, the same guarantee was extended to Romania and Greece.[23] The Soviet Union also attempted to ally with France and Britain, but was rebuffed due to western suspicions about Soviet motives and capability.[24] Shortly after the Franco-British pledges to Poland, Germany and Italy formalized their own alliance with the Pact of Steel; following this, in a move that shocked all other major powers, Germany and the Soviet Union concluded a non-aggression pact, including a secret agreement to split Poland and eastern Europe between them.[25]

By the start of September 1939, the Soviets had routed Japanese forces and the Germans invaded Poland. France, Britain, and the countries of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany but lent little support other than a small French attack into the Saarland.[26] In mid-September, after signing an armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland.[27] By early October, Poland had been divided between Germany and the Soviet Union. During the battle in Poland, Japan launched its first attack against Changsha, a strategically important Chinese city, but was repulsed by early October.[28]

All these historians see September 1939 as the start of the conflict. Why are their views being ignored?:

• A World in Flames (1990) by Martin Kitchen
• World War II (1970) by C.L. Sulzberger
• The Times Atlas of the Second World War (1989)
• A World at Arms (1994) by Gerhard L. Weinberg.
• The Second World War John Keegan
• Blood, Tears and Folly: An Objective Look at World War II Len Deighton

Colin4C (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm no historian but it seems to me you're partly right. The events before September 1939 clearly have some importance to many historians but September 1939 was also clearly important enough to denote the start of WWII as in your above sources. I see no reason to unquestioningly trivialise the war as a perfect bubble with a start date and a finish date if it isn't that simple—this is clearly the current stance as the infobox doesn't specify an exact start year/date. I think this is right but when describing the events of September '39 it should be stated something along the lines of "many historians consider this to mark the beginning of World War II". Perhaps this needs to be qualified as "many Western historians", but I don't know enough about any of this to say for sure. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sino-Japanese war was described by both parties as an 'incident' - war not being formally declared until the US entered the war. The importance of this conflict certainly needs to be made clear in the 'causes' section. The date of September 1939 is important as this is the date the various European empires declared war on each other. I agree, it is not possible to cement WWII as a 'bubble' - indeed the war also doesn't just stop - it peters out in a series of colonial conflicts and independence wars - lasting in the case of Vietnam into the 70s. Perhaps the infobox can be clarified by listing the start of the Sino-Japanese conflict and 1939 as 'War in Europe'. Different nationalities are going to have a different perspective on the history of World War II - they shouldn't be disappointed in their expectations of seeing key dates, but expansions in the article should make clear the complexity of determining any absolute start (or end date) for the war. Kbthompson (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's ignoring them. Between 1937-1939 is when full warfare broke-out in both Asia and Europe, hence why they're both in that section, making it a NPOV. Segregating the two (which isn't really possible due to chronological treaties and the heavy influence that the Japanese-Soviet conflicts played with the Soviet invasion of Poland) isn't really possible.

The SSJW being called an incident was due to political reasons, for both parties, to maintain relations with the U.S.. Consider also that the only power Germany formally declared war on was the United States, and there was never a formal declaration by either Germany or Poland on each other. Oberiko (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

September 1939 saw a global conflict erupt between The British Empire, The French Empire and Poland on the one side and Germany on the other. The participants occupied territory in every continent of the globe and the Oceanic War was global. Hitler's aims in this war were global: see especially Weinberg's scary account of the Corporal's unlovely strategic plans of world domination and mass murder in A World At Arms: A Global History of World War Two (1994). After World War One, Adolf wanted a re-match and got his wish. These facts are of some significance and should be marked with a sub-heading. (1994). And as has mentioned above the 1937 Sino-Japanese conflict was described as an "incident" rather than a war. Because of this weapons and supplies could be sold to the participants without breaking international neutrality laws. In 1939, by contrast the world was strictly divided up, by international law, between combatants and neutrals. In Sept 1939 the global Empires of Britain and France both officially declared war on Germany and vice versa. These facts are of some significance and should be indicated in the text. Colin4C (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly divided up? You're joking, right? What about the US providing military support for the UK and France? I'm no legal expert, but I'm fairly certain providing arms and war materiél to a belligerent is a pretty unambiguous violation of any declaration of neutrality. Parsecboy (talk) 14:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the Roosevelt Administration declared a state of non-belligerency rather than neutrality. This concept parses the status of a state that is not involved in combat with belligerents. The United States favored Britain and France and opposed Germany and Italy, but did not intend to fight either Germany or Italy. GABaker (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C, you can continue to post if you like, but you have not demonstrated in any way, according to WP:NPOV or WP:RELIABLE guidelines (not your ambigious "It's not global" arguement) that the sources used do not conform to Wikipedia guidelines or constitute, at the least, a significant minority. You can't use the terming "incident" (on a conflict called a war by the vast majority of historians no less) as some kind of basis; consider that the United States has never formally declared war since WWII (the Vietnam War, Korean War etc. are also termed "incidents", again for policital reasons). In terms of declarations, you are also aware that the Soviet Union and Germany never issued formal declarations of war on each other either, yes? In 1939 the world was divided up by international law? Powerful words; can you tell me what the law was and who passed it? And even if such a thing did exist (which would be odd, considering that Germany, Italy and Japan had all withdrawn from the League of Nations prior to 1939) all it would do is further prove that 1939 is considered a valid start date for World War II, something no one here is arguing against. Also, I believe Germany never formally declared war on France or the United Kingdom; again, only on the United States. Oberiko (talk) 17:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In September 1939 Great Britain, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand and Canada, France and the French Empire all formally declared war on Germany. If you look at your map you will see that the territories involved covered every continent of the globe. The Oceanic war which followed happened on every Ocean. You think that all this is so insignificant that it shouldn't get a sub-heading in the text? The United States was in law a neutral and maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until December 1941. The Sino-Japanese incident was thought of by nobody at the time as the beginning of World War Two, just a continuation of a series of spats between those two countries which had been going on since the 19th century. By contrast September 1939 WAS thought to be momentous at the time and since. All your sources which say that World War Two started in 1937 are not stating the consensus view but are explicitly reacting against it. These obvious facts should not be concealed from the readers of the wikipedia. To pretend that the 1937 minority view is the historical conscensus is misleading and POV. Colin4C (talk) 17:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is the core of the issue. Colin4C states above: "The Sino-Japanese incident was thought of by nobody at the time as the beginning of World War Two" (bolding added). However Oberiko argues that right NOW, there are several historians who consider the Sino-Japanese war the beginning of the war. Should we adopt the 1950's consensus, or should we include modern views. (I would go for the latter). Arnoutf (talk) 17:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we should include all reliably-sourced, non-fringe views. The article as it stands does a good job of that, providing several perspectives on when the war could be said to have become a world war. BTW, arguing that eveyr continent was involved by Sep 1939 is both incorrect and silly. Antartica is a continent; African and Asian colonies had no choice in the matter and thus are simply another way of saying that France and the UK were at war. It is highly eurocentric to claim Sep 1939 as the only possible start date. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The self governing Dominions of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa (none of which are in Europe) all had a choice and a debate (a very heated one in South Africa - where a minority supported Germany) and all declared war on Germany. And here's a modern view (1989) about the beginning of World War Two from the renowned military historian John Keegan from the Times Atlas of the Second World War:

"The Polish Campaign was the shortest and most decisive of all German aggressions of the Second World War, of which it marked the opening stage" (Times Atlas of World War Two: page 38). The Polish campaign was in September 1939. If you think that this is an unrepresentative view I can give you a hundred more quotes from modern historians stating the same thing. Colin4C (talk) 18:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem I see here is that there are innumerable numbers of books relating to the second world war, so you are obviously going to find a number of authors and historians who believe the war started in a year other than 1939. As a percentage though it must be a very small amount indeed, so finding a handful of references to back up this claim is not as impressive as it appears. I would go as far as saying that if the percentage is that small then it could very well be considered a fringe theory. Joe Deagan (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some significant miscommunication here:

• No one's saying that 1937 is the majority view, we are stating that it is demonstratably a view held, at least, by a significant minority.
• NPOV states that we can't play favorites and say one thing is "true" or not when differing opinions held by significant proponents exist.
• The start of war in Asia and Europe are in the same section because that section is about war breaking out. Asia is listed first only because it happened first.
• We can't have sections for everything, we agreed to abide by the rule of seven since there is a great deal of things which are very significant (Japan attacking China, Germany entering war against the Western Allies, Soviet annexation of Baltic States, German conquering of France, Italy joining the war, formalization of the Axis powers, Germany invading the Soviet Union, Japan attacking the Western Allies, Japan entering war against the United States, Germany and Italy declaring war on the United States (thus merging both conflicts), formalization of the Allies (UN), Italy changing sides, Germany surrendering, Soviet Union going to war against Japan, Japan surrendering etc.). Giving a special section for small period of the war would be thus be WP:UNDUE.
• In sources I provide, William G. Fletcher (instructor in international relations at Yale) wrote in 1942 that "the second World War broke out in Asia in 1931". Minority view at the time, but it was there.
• WP:Fringe really isn't all that applicable. Fringe is (for the most part) about having a very little-held view on something factual (moon landings were faked etc.). Something like this is a matter of interpretation and opinion. Oberiko (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Every book on World War Two, even the tiny minority which state that it began with the 1937 incident in China mark out Sept 1939 as important, with good reason. Germany had restarted a conflict which everyone was thinking had finished in 1918 and the war went global - with two global empires participating plus Germany and Poland. Thus ensued global naval etc warfare. A question: when assessing the global total of casualties is 1937-45 more commonly used for the conflict than 1939-45? Assesing the overall number of those killed in the conflict would vary according to when it started. Colin4C (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Every book I've read marks every event I've put up there (as well as others, such as Stalingrad, Midway, Torch, El Alamein, Overlord, Kursk, the atomic bombs etc.) as important; doesn't change the fact that we can't give special headings for everything, that's what daughter articles are for. As for casualties, what does that matter (though for the Chinese and Japanese, I usually see the rough estimates dating back to 1937)? That's grasping at straws at best. Oberiko (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound negative, but it all get's a bit silly when the opinions of a small amount of historians are given the same space in the article as the predominant view! By all means mention the alternative opinions, but please don't give it equal weight as quite frankly it does not deserve it. Joe Deagan (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV specifically states

“ The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. ”

And what space are you talking about? The one paragraph covering both the Japanese invasion of China and their border conflicts with the Soviets? Do you believe that it's taking up to much space compared to the three paragraphes detailing the outbreak of the war in Europe? Oberiko (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with Joe Deagan. The present presentation is not neutral; most seriously, it does not even mention either September 1 (or even the possibly less important September 3). Those may be what the reader is looking for; if I were a confused reader, I would not find them, nor where they might be in a subarticle. A section on the historiography of the war would resolve some of these issues, but folding the outbreak of the war in Europe (and consequently much of Asia) into the middle of a paragraph is disingenuous. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't mention the multitude of specific dates either, which also could be what the reader is looking for. They might also be looking for the size of the invading forces. They might also be looking for casualties of the various battles. We can't have all of them without abondoning our summary style.

• (Are you seriously contending that the change of state in September is no more important to the course of the war as a whole than the total causalties of any given battle?
• And if so, does anyone else agree with him?
• There is a clear path to the casualties of a given battle; the names are visible to the reader. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Considering several operations involved millions of casualties or changed the tide of the entire war, then quite possibly, especially since nothing actually happened in Europe for several months afterwards. But, it's rather WP:OR to say that one is more important then the other, no? Are you saying that the path to casualties is less clear, considering they would go to the same link (except the dates have more ways to get there)? Oberiko (talk)

No. First of all, claiming that "nothing actually happened" is special pleading; the existence of a formal state of war in the early twentieth century is a great deal; ask all those who were planning to leave Germany in October 1939. You would also be unwise to tell our Polish and Lithuanian editors that nothing happened in those months; they might actually agree on something for once. ;->

But from our point of view, it is not OR; it is what the overwhelming majority of sources tell us; repeating our sources is nor OR. (Find one that says that September 1939 is less important than an average battle, and I will reconsider.) This includes A. J. P. Taylor; he wouldn't have written a book on September 1, 1939, if he didn't think it important; but this deserves more space. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No one's arguing 1939 is less important. I think we all agree it's the dominant viewpoint in Western histories. What we're stating is that other view points are held by, at least, a significant minority. And what more space do you need? There are three paragraphs for the outbreak of war in Europe and one for conflict in Asia. What do you think, exactly, is missing? Oberiko (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? It doesn't mention the multitude of specific dates either, .... We can't have all of them without abondoning our summary style. sounds very like arguing that September 1939 is less important. But if this is an admission that historians regard it as being as important as anything else, then this article should include the phrase September 1939, and what happened then.

As for what is missing: let's start with the dates of the actual declarations and commencements of war: Sept. 1, 3, and 17, followed by an admission that this produced a general state of war in Europe and Western Asia. Cease dismissing the invasion of the Baltic states as "troop movements". And this should be a paragraph by itself, separate from movements at the other end of Asia. (And that's just that one paragraph.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many dates of declarations of war and they are not more important then most battles. Focusing only on Poland is WP:UNDUE, and the Baltics are quite clearly labelled, what exactly about "By mid-1940, the Soviet Union's occupation of the Baltics was completed with the installation of pro-Soviet governments." is insufficient? I find it odd that you'd push for that, along with the need to specifically label Sept. 17 though, especially as most historians don't consider the USSR to have entered the war until 1941. Oberiko (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That it omits the Soviet operations of 1939. Most historians regard the Winter War as being part of WWII, too, except Soviet apologists, of course.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are looking for specific dates, are you saying that none of the quite prominently linked Causes of World War II, Timeline of World War II or invasion of Poland articles would not strike you as a place to start? Oberiko (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to a reader, who is not looking at edit space; and many readers who will need to check the date will not know that the war in Europe began with the invasion of Poland. That is what this article is here to tell him — and doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you not catch the Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions bit above? We quite clearly state "...the Germans invaded Poland. France, Britain, and the countries of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany...". Is that somehow not clear enough for you? Oberiko (talk)

Omitting the facts in order to prevent the reader from forming an established opinion is not supported by WP:V; there are several rather unpleasant names for it. In this case the fact that much of the world changed from peace to war between August and October 1939 is simply elided over; it is of great significance to the history of the war and it is not here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV also states:

: From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

As of yet not a single prominent adherent has been found. If one is eventually found then it can be said with certainty that is was not easy to find. Jooler (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems that only people who have been arguing for 1939-only have dismissed all the sources as not prominent. I'm sorry, but you considering the official Japanese histories of World War II and several best-selling / highly influential books as non-prominent clearly shows bias against any source that doesn't stand by your personal view. Oberiko (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are "official Japanese" histories? Who are the historians involved? No evidence of such histories has been presented here. Jooler (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Check the sources I list, I include three which credit the "official Japanese histories of World War II" as using 1931 for the start date of World War II. Still doesn't explain why you consider every other source as not-prominent. Oberiko (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - a reference to a reference to something without specific details about who wrote it etc, is not a proper citation and in anycase as it says 1931 and NOT 1937 it doesn't really support your position anyway. What we are looking for is a claim from a prominent WWII historian an "expert in the field" (as per WP:NPOV) who specifically says that WWII began in 1937. It is 100% verifiable that in 1937 Japan and China were fighting a war that would merge into WWII in 1941. But that does not make 1937 the start of WWII. Until 1941 it was a regional conflict. This is the consensus majority view as has been demonstrated. What has not been demonstrated is that the non-consensus minority view, that WWII began in 1937, has a prominent adherent of the stature of well-known WWII historians such as Keegan and Deighton. Basically unless you can demonstrate a prominent adherent to the view that you are putting in the article about 1937, it does not belong in the article because you are giving it undue weight Jooler (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're saying the sources are wrong? Bold, but not your place. If you want to learn more, the Japanese official histories are called Senshi Sosho, written by the War History Section of the Japanese Defense Agency.

I didn't say anyone was right or wrong I said one is the view of the overwhelming majority. Now if the Senshi Sosho uses 1931 for the start of WWII (as opposed to the regional Asian conflict) that does not defend the prominent use of 1937 in the opening paragrpagh. Jooler (talk) 22:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No one doubts it's the date used by the majority of Western sources. Now, if it's just the intro paragraph that's bothering you, that's fine, we can redraft it. But, we can not go against NPOV and say that World War II started on a certain date. Oberiko (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

But this other bogus suggestion of racism does require comment: it is held by the great majority of all sources, and there is no evidence here (or elsewhere) that Japanese sources differ as a whole. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, we are not here to incorporate the POV of the Japanese General Staff; we are entitled to mention it as theirs, but that is a different proposal. Bowever, this raises the question of whether the Pacific War is entirely part of WWII, or only part of it is - essentially a translation issue; again, we can say that question is debateable, but we may not simply accept the minority view. (on this question, again, Taylor belongs to majority; he would not include any of it before the end of 1941. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems insultingly dismissive. Seperating them from, presumably, us, IMO, shows considerable bias against the Japanese. And, as stated, we've always been arguing not-1939 is, at least, a significant minority, not for any specific date. Inarguably, 1937 is when full-scale warfare broke out in Asia. Oberiko (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the unfounded cry of racism, I thought we should come that at last. What I said was mere emphasis on the necessity of prose attributions of minority points of view. But I see no further need to discuss the views unique to Oberiko. Unless someone agrees with anything he says expressly, I intend to ignore him; I will feel free to revert his reversions. I see no reason to waste more time than that on him. I will be glad to endorse an RfC on his use of attacks and his abuse of sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support the RfC and I would also support a charge of WP:OWN. Jooler (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

An inactive page that isn't related is hardly a rebuttal. And I did not accuse you of racism, I meant that your segregatation of Japanese historians is unwarranted. Stating "we are not here to incorporate the POV of the Japanese General Staff" would certainly imply that. Are their historians not equally valid? If not, why can't we use them? Aren't we suppossed to try and use all reasonable POV's? And by what do you mean abuse of sources? They're quite clearly labelled and the notice-boards I put them on seem to agree that they are both reliable and qualify as the view points of, at least, a significant minority.

Unless modern historians, of any nationality, agree with them, we should either quote them, and attribute their opinion "to them", or ignore them. Sources do date.

I've provided several sources, many of which are modern, which use their dates, along with attribution to them. I don't believe that ignoring official histories is doing any readers any just service either. Oberiko (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oberiko's ingenious Wikilawyering on WP:ATTFAQ ignores its history. Large parts of WP:ATT and its co-pages are consensus, and better phrased that anything elsewhere; but the merger for which it was designed was rejected - largely independent of the virtues of the page, but on the grounds that there should be no merger. This is one of those parts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If you feel that RfC is the best course, then we should probably do so. Oberiko (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't intend to spend enough time on you to write one; but I will gladly endorse it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly a minor correction I believe is in order, its Sir John Keegan, so titled for his contribution to military history.

Secondly, Sir John Keegan has published a very small, but in my highly biased opinion as a long time military historian, point of view, of a far greater importance here than his other works, namely The battle for history: re-fighting World War II. It has been available for over a decade, and can be had in the United States for under $5.

Quite simply the book asks all the questions being asked here, and has a staring point in the work of a relatively unknown New Zealand journalist Chester Wilmot back in 1951. I would firstly request that this discussion be adjourned until all current participants have had a chance to read this book, which is only 128 (A2) pages, and contains 10 pages of bibliography.

While you are all reading this book, you may want to ask yourself the additional question when the Second World War ended. If it begun in China in 1931 (and not 1937), then it certainly did not end in 1945 in Europe (are we forgetting Greece?) or Asia, where the Vietnamese civil war brought on by the Second World War only ended in 1955, and as some may argue the Second World War has never ended given the China - Taiwan relationship.

Hence, my earlier proposal that for the start of the Second World War, the record of armed hostility initiating global combat operations commencement and cessation be the only parameters used for consideration. Combat is of course far easier to define as the "fighting, is purposeful violent conflict intended to establish dominance over the opposition", and if set in a global strategy, than combat reflects projection of force beyond a regional position that was the (largely) eastern and north-eastern China. Certainly the contemporaneous building of the Imperial Japanese Navy (as the politically dominant service) over a decade before 1941 suggests its intended use beyond the confining itself to coastal bombardment of China.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, actually combat is much harder to define. Was the Greer engaged in combat? and if so, when did it start? (It is possible to argue its whole mission was warlike, although I would not.) This is why the declarations of September 1939 and the surrenders of 1945 are the conventional boundaries of the war. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't says that the Australian Chester Wilmot was unknown. I've got The Struggle for Europe in my loo library. Jooler (talk)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-13_World_War_II

The case is now open. I am the mediator. Most of the discussion will take place on the mediation page. Anyone who wants to comment can. Thanks.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  01:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I am reverting to 1939

Oberiko's sources are listed here.

Actually reading them shows that they are a conglomeration of three different sorts of claim, two of which exist for virtually all major wars; the third exists for most. Most of the proponents of the first two types do not dispute that the war began in 1939; they want to add something to that statement; and they disagree about what to add. Oberiko's argument, such as it is, is therefore against having dates for wars at all, and against having infoboxes. That is a possible argument, but this is not the place for it.

1. "In a sense", The War began when this underlying cause became visible in the year Y. Compare
   • In a sense, the American Revolution began in 1621/1676/1763
   • In a sense, WWI began in 1894/1905/1907
2. "For Foolanders", The War began when Fooland entered it Compare
   • WWI began in 1916 for Rumania, in 1917 for the United States.
   • For Egypt, the Revolutionary Wars began in 1798.
3. As a variant of this, about countries already at war when the Great War swept them up in it, "The Great War may be considered to have begun" when the pre-existing war did in Fooland.
   • WWI may be considered to have run 1913-1921 for Montenegro.
   • In India, the Seven Years' War began in 1751

All of the above have been claimed; some of them are consensus. But World War I still says 1914-1918, and it should. So here; the idea of a paragraph on the relation with the Pacific War is worth it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, these sources do not (mostly) dispute that the European War began in 1939. They all present reasons why, for the Second World War itself, it was or could have been a different starting date. Also we don't use Wikipedia, or other wiki's as a basis for judgement. I'm not against dates, I'm against using specific dates as the start of the war when clearly other sources state otherwise; that would be a violation of WP:NPOV. Oberiko (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mention the European War. Dragging it in is a red herring. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:31, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I invite anyone interested to examine Oberiko's collection. As for myself, I do not believe him; but the evidence invites a new section. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What do Oberiko's sources actually say?

Oberiko claims to have found many sources which deny that the War began in September 1939. As it happens, I had one of them to hand:

• R.R. Palmer: History of the Modern World.

Oberiko quotes, elsewhere:

• In a sense the Second World War began as early as 1931 with the Japanese seizure of Manchuria.

This is a type case for the first class above, in the main section. But when Palmer discusses the War itself, he says:

• The Second World War opened with the assault on Poland.

No words could be clearer. Palmer supports the statement Oberiko has been fighting these three months. I do not care how this arose, and shall make no conjectures; but Oberiko's report of the meaning and intent of his source is inaccurate, misleading, and unreliable.

This is the only one I've checked; I invite others to check what his other alleged sources actually say; the results may be of interest. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've already done the same analysis with The Library of Congress World War II Companion. The introduction by David M. Kennedy clearly states "But world war came only when Europe, too, plunged into the maelstrom with Germany's invasion of Poland in September 1939." Jooler (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that is a different class: historians who assert September 1939 themselves, but state that some others disagree. That is what I think we should do, and what Oberiko has resisted and reverted. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• 'Encyclopedia of World War II ed. Spencer Tucker, 2005; p.3, from the essay on Origins of the War, quoted (inexactly) and out of context:
• ...Japanese official histories of World War II begin in September 1931 with the start of the Manchurian Campaign
• Some historians date the war from 1937, with the Japanese invasion of China; Japanese official histories, however, start with 1931, when Japan's forces overran Manchuria. But perhaps the most accurate place to begin is with the end of World War I.

This does not assert that Japanese official histories say World War II started in 1931; although they may. It asserts that they find 1931 the best place to begin the story, as most histories of the American Civil War begin before Fort Sumter (IIRC the official history begins with the secession of South Carolina, the year before.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the footnotes?

I've largely been ignoring the discussion for the past few days, but what happened to the footnote solution? I thought we had a workable compromise to the start date issue. What happened? Parsecboy (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had created a draft here, but it seems to have been drowned out by the other discussions on source relevance. That said, I'm more then willing to continue and try to draft new ones. Oberiko (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro draft attempt 3

World War II, or the Second World War, was a global military conflict which involved a majority of the Worlds nations, including all of the great powers, organized into two opposing military alliances: the Allies and the Axis. The war involved the mobilization of over 100 million military personnel, making it the most widespread war in history, and placed the participants in a state of "total war", erasing the distinction between civil and military resources. This resulted in the complete activation of a nation's economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities for the purposes of the war effort. Over 70 million people, the majority of them civilians, were killed, making it the deadliest conflict in human history. The financial cost of the war is estimated at about a trillion 1944 U.S. dollars worldwide, making it the most costly war in capital as well.

The actual starting date of the war is open to interpretation. Most Western histories use the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions in 1939; other sources often use the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931, the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War in 1937, or one of several other events. In 1941, the conflicts in Europe and Asia were unified into a single war that continued until 1945. The Allies were victorious, and, as a result, the Soviet Union and the United States emerged as the world's leading superpowers. This set the stage for the Cold War, which lasted for the next 45 years. The United Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The self determination spawned by the war accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa, while Western Europe itself began moving toward integration.

Comments
The last paragraph wasn't touched, hence the italics. Oberiko (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Much better, IMO. Did I miss Pearl Harbor? (I can't believe omitting that would get by...) Also, I'd del the ital (unless you used it just to show "no change". And I'd change "in capital as well as lives" to "in capital, as well." (I find the other redundant & inelegant.) OK, I'm quibbling. Trekphiler (talk) 06:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes made. Pearl Harbor, or more specifically, " 1941 when the European and Asian conflicts merged" is in the footnotes. I've added the references tag, though, due to the number of other references on this page, it's easiest to click "edit" on the section and then "show preview" to view them. Oberiko (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might wish to make specific mention - in that last paragraph - of the Middle East - (specifically, Palestine and the Suez Canal); as that became one of the roots of yet another conflict. The (relatively peaceful) transformation of the British Empire into the modern commonwealth (in 1949) might also merit a mention. The rapid division of Europe, by the 'Iron Curtain' into two armed camps is as important as the moves to economic unity in western Europe.

Ultimately, the war ended both British hegemony and economic power; and Germany and Japan became economic power houses, as their industry re-equipped in reconstruction - but that might just be a consequence too far.

Overall, a pretty good intro that incorporates much of the complexity in a succinct fashion. Kbthompson (talk) 11:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not get into anything nation-specific since there are eight powers that we've got to focus on (China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Soviets, UK, US); including details for one or two of them (barring the "super powers") would be, IMO, undue weighting. I'd also rather avoid naming any specific decolonization or following conflicts, as there are many of both and they're covered in the aftermath section (except Suez Canal, which should probably be added). Oberiko (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks good to me. Nick Dowling (talk) 12:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. Parsecboy (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me as well, though I'd add one to three references behind the 1939 date so it doesn't look unreferenced compared to the other entries.--Caranorn (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly prefer the approach used in the paragraphs Oberiko blanked:

The Second World War subsumed the Second Sino-Japanese War; several historians, especially in writing of the countries directly involved in that war, have treated it as being entirely part of the Second World War, which therefore, for them, began in 1931 or 1937. Conversely, A. J. P. Taylor argued that what began in 1939 was a second European War, which did not merge into a World War until 1941.

The end of the War is also disputable; some sources end it from the Armistice of August 14, 1945, rather than the formal surrender; in some European histories, it ended on V-E Day; the Japanese Treaty was not signed until 1951; the Six Power treaties were signed, formally ending the War in Europe, in 1992.

(Of course this could use revision; it can go in the header if people prefer, although I see no reason to.) We should acknowledge and include the prevalent division; we should not simply assume the minority view.

Oberiko's text is unacceptable. It can be read as implying that only Western sources use September 1939, which is absurd; even the implication that most Japanese sources use an earlier date when discussing the whole war is unevidenced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd figure that if their official histories use 1931, it'd have be a pretty widely held view. But, I won't really quibble about a single word. I have no problem with the following instead:

This is conjecture, original research, and is relatively unlikely. Official histories reflect official views; most historians then filter those out. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Conventionally, the start date of the war is set as September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions...

Thoughts? Oberiko (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be better:

"Traditionally, September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions is considered the starting date of the war. However, as the years preceding the war was one of occupations and offensives, while on the other hand some great powers only became involved in 1941 there is no perfect agreement among historians about the starting date." If the second line is not acceptable, I still would ask you guys to consider the rephasing in line one (traditionally instead of conventionally and considered instead of set) Arnoutf (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not really tradition, I can't see the Asian histories using that as a date. The word "conventionally" is actually the exact term both the sources I'm using use; I have no objection to changing "set" --> "considered" though.

The new would thus be:

The actual starting date of the war is open to interpretation. Conventionally, the start date of the war is considered as September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions...

Oberiko (talk) 19:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This entire line of discussion depends on Oberiko's OR about two off-hand statements about "Japanese official histories". Neither actually says that the Japanese official histories say "World War II started in 1931", and if they are in Japanese, they are unlikely to say WWII at all. Official histories may well begin before the start of the war, and the Great Pacfic War, contrary to our article, began in December 1941. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OR? I have quite sufficiently shown that the Japanese official histories start WWII in 1931.

• "Europeans date World War II from 1939 to 1945 and, with North Americans, date the Japanese part of the conflict from December 1941 to August 1945. The Japanese official histories date it from September 1931 and the start of the campaign in Manchuria" (The War With Japan: The Period of Balance, May 1942-October 1943)
• "We consider the Second World War in very narrow terms and with precise dates: 1939 and 1945. But Japanese official histories date the Second World War from September 1931 and the conquest of Manchuria." (When Men Lost Faith in Reason: Reflections on War and Society in the Twentieth Century) Oberiko (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I would not include the "The actual starting date of the war is open to interpretation" as that is implying there is really a non-consensus. I would rather see something along the lines of my suggestion: ie ""Conventionally, September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions is considered the starting date of the war. However, as the years preceding the war was one of occupations and offensives, while on the other hand some great powers only became involved in 1941 there is no perfect agreement among historians about the starting date."

This version also acknowledges there is some difference in interpretation but does not put undue attention to this fact. Arnoutf (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So what's wrong with Some historians, especially in writing on East Asia and the Second Sino-Japanese War, have treated it as being entirely part of the Second World War, which therefore, for them, began in 1931 or 1937. Conversely, A. J. P. Taylor argued that what began in 1939 was a second European War, which did not merge into a World War until 1941. ? (I do not insist on "subsumed") Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess you mean that sction to replace my proposed "However, as the years...". 2 issues First: Language wise it is problematic. For example the word "it" in this line can refer to both East Asia and the 2nd S-J war; but that is tweeking. Second: My version allows for the German occupation of Czechoslovakia to be considered an act of war; as well as allowing both 1931 and 1937 as starting dates in the east, and both the invasion of the USSR and Pearl-Harbor as involvement of the last great power. Being vague is sometimes not a bad thing ;-) Arnoutf (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the tweak, read that war instead. I know of noone who considers the occupation of Czechoslovakia the starting date, even though many consider it an act of war, it was a German-Czechoslovak war, quickly ended. The other secondary advantages we share. I dislike the claim of causality in your version; it would be difficult to verify. As for grammatical tweaks, I'll lob you one. What exactly does years preceding the war was one mean? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
• The firsr sentence would be better as The German invasion of Poland and the subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions in September 1939 are conventionally considered the start of the war. Simplify, withough any undue stress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Arnoutf: The starting date most certainly is up to to intrepretation, if it wasn't then wouldn't everyone be using the same date? Your text also doesn't include any other dates, implying that 1939 is the starting date. I think one sentance on quite valid alternatives is warranted. Your statement "However, as the years preceding the war..." implies that the other conflicts took part before World War II had started, which other sources say they didn't.

Re: Pmanderson: I don't think you can insist on requiring sourcing for "most Western historians" but then freely use "Some historians, especially in writing on East Asia" without any; especially when a quite considerable number of the sources I've provided are writing on the full-scope of the war. Oberiko (talk) 21:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

when a quite considerable number of the sources I've provided are writing on the full-scope of the war. This is as idiosyncratic in its definition of "quite considerable number" as it is in grammar; many of Oberiko's alleged sources are not discussing the start of the war at all, if read in context and with the natural sense of the English; most of those that are deal specifically with Asia. (The only exceptions I can think of offhand are Taylor and Lukacs; perhaps Rostow, if he is not simply discussing the Japanese view as distinct from his own.) I suggest we work out a compromise without him, and then ask if he is willing to accept it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Of the 40+ sources I've provided, you're ruling all but three of them out? I don't believe you have any kind of qualification to make such sweeping judgements. And, as I've stated elsewhere, I'm getting rather tired of your personal attacks; my presenting opinions you don't agree with and attempting to uphold NPOV doesn't warrant such behaviour. I'd ask you to remain civil. Oberiko (talk) 23:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No. I am observing that they mostly do not say what you claim they do. They are good sources to what they actually say; in many cases this is that someone other than the author begins the war, when treating of Asia, at some other date; in some cases it is nothing relevant to this discussion at all. Who these other sources are, except for the generality that they are Chinese or Japanese, is rarely stated; their number is never stated. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are observing direct quotes. All directly state that the war did start at another date, could have started at another date, or that it was plausible to start at another date. The consensus on the noticeboard is that they were reliable. Oberiko (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

• Doubtless, however, Oberiko will find some way to contend that as the Second World War began in Asia in 1937 does not "deal specifically with Asia". (I see I have omitted such sources as Dallin's citation of that reliable source Josef Stalin. If this causes any confusion, I regret it.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Cz invasion: an act of aggression, no Q, but not a cause; no fighting resulted (AFAIK). Trekphiler (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

And so not part of WWII. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We now have two proposals which say much the same things:

Conventionally, September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions is considered the starting date of the war. However, as the years preceding the war was one of occupations and offensives, while on the other hand some great powers only became involved in 1941 there is no perfect agreement among historians about the starting date.

And

The German invasion of Poland and the subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions in September 1939 are conventionally considered the start of the war. Some historians, especially in writing on East Asia and the Second Sino-Japanese War, have treated that war as being entirely part of the Second World War, which therefore, for them, began in 1931 or 1937.

We are each proud of our own words; could some third party iron out the differences? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I generally prefer the first version, because it mentions that some historians consider the World War to not technically have started until 1941, although the wording can be a little clunky, especially the first sentence. Perhaps lift the first sentence from the second proposal, and substitute the first part of the first version (of course putting the links and sources in). There are some issues with grammar in the rest of the first version though. "years" is plural, while "was one of..." is singular; these need to match. Maybe it would be better to say "The 1930s saw a series of occupations and offensives throughout the world..." Thoughts? Parsecboy (talk) 00:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with both. The latter attempts to segregate Asian historians from the rest of the world, while the former is basically my proposal except it mentions only 1939, glossing out all other dates. _Oberiko (talk)

Controversy is the wrong word to use. Per Chang's I mentioned earlier: "Americans think of World War II as beginning on December 7, 1941... Europeans date it from September 1, 1939, and the blitzkrieg assault on Poland... Africans see an even earlier beginning, the invasion of Abyssinia by Mussolini in 1935. Yet Asians must trace the war's beginnings all the way back to Japan's first steps toward the military domination of East Asia — the occupation of Manchuria in 1931."
Perhaps...
Because World War II included a confluence and escalation of prior conflicts, the starting date of the war differs according to combatant. ...
Something like that would be much clearer than indicating there's controversy where I really don't see any. —PētersV (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

The sentence " The Soviets attacked through Hungary, while the Germans abandoned Greece and Yugoslavia. " is not correct. See Yugoslav_Front_(WWII). Yugoslav Army, emerged from partisan movement continued the battle against Germans and their colaborators until May 15th 1945, even after the official capitulation of Germany. At the end of the war, Yugoslav Army counted 800,000 men [[4]]. Please correct it, I can not, the page is semi-protected. Megaribi (talk) 13:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you give us an alternate statement to use instead? Oberiko (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

" The Soviets attacked through Hungary, while the Germans were redrawing from Greece and Yugoslavia, constantly attacked by Yugoslavian Army."Megaribi (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't provide any sources for that, and it implies a larger role for the Yugoslavians then that of the Soviets and other partisans (such as the Greeks). Can you rephrase to it prevent WP:UNDUE and provide references demonstrating the signficance of Yugoslavia vs. that of other partisan groups and their impact at this point in the war? Oberiko (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you do not insist in English language sources, finding reliable sources is pretty easy for me, I have book "Stvaranje Titove Jugoslavije" (Creation of Tito's Yugoslavia) whose authors are nine doctors of science, three colonels, one general and one professor, as common project of Yugoslavian TV stations. The book has 589 pages, ISBN 86-385-0091-2. This book in detail describes war in Yugoslavia From this book I cite that in April 1945 in Yugoslavia there were as many Axis forces as in Italy or in Hungary, totally 600.000 (400.000 Germans and 200.000 quislings) (page 529), while NOVJ who in march 1945 changed name to Yugoslavian Army had 800.000 fighters in 63 divisions. Or that in 21. september 1941 (!) Fieldmarshal von Weichs, German Balkan commander, told that "Size, weapons, organization and operations of partisans units justifies German opinion to be considered as enemy at the same level as regular forces of the other peoples " (page 504). After liberation of Belgrade, Soviet front ended at river Drava (page 503), which is small percent of Yugoslavian theritory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaribi (talk • contribs) 20:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you try to find some in English? For FA's and the like, espeically on a topic as conentious as this, I wouldn't be surprised if sources will need to be verified. Plus, we'll need more then just the size, we'll need pretty solid evidence that they had a major impact in the time frame you specify. If it was significant, documentation shouldn't be difficult to come by. Oberiko (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's turn to the most cited book in this article (I just downloaded it) GERHARD L. WEINBERG A WORLD AT ARMS A GLOBAL HISTORY OF WORLD WAR II: First about notability of Yugoslavian resistance Page 430: "On a continent where,with the exception of Poland and Yugoslavia, most of the conquered peoples were quietly cooperating with the conqueror, those living in the occupied Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were reminded that big brother was watching, not from Moscow or some government in exile, but from a camp just outside the village." Then about abandoning Yugoslavia where it was clear that the Germans did not abandon whole Yugoslavia Page 758: "In Hungary, in the face of the offensive of the Red Army, supported by two Romanian armies, the Germans and some Hungarian units had built up a front after Romania switched sides, Bulgaria had been occupied by the Soviets, and the Germans had been forced to evacuate Greece, Albania and southern Yugoslavia." About continuation of battles in Yugoslavia and their role in Allies victory, page 820: "While beyond Bratislava (Pressburg) the Red Army headed for Vienna, at the southern end of the front they took the hungarian oil fields on April 2 even as Tito's army was pushing back the Germans in Yugoslavia, where they faced the possibility of being taken in the rear by the British advancing in Italy., ". Finally about Who liberated Yugoslavia: Page 906 " The liberation of the country was, however, largely the result of its own resistance forces so that the Soviet Union could not control Yugoslavia as it did its northern and eastern neighbors. ". So I have enough elements to change the sentence. Megaribi (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yugoslav partisan army had a pretty substantial role. Perhaps something like "The Soviets attacked through Hungary, while the Germans were redrawing from Greece and Yugoslavia, while being attacked by partisan army\ies." Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Army, I should think, and we can even name it; Mihailovich was not attacking the Germans. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Even Yugoslavian sources confirm that the final partisan offensive only begun in coordination with the offensive by two Soviet Fronts (including a Bulgarian Army) that steam-rolled into eastern Yugoslavia from Bulgaria. Their strategic goal was however limited to swinging north into Hungary, so much of former Yugoslavia was left to partisans by prior agreement between Stalin and Tito. Germans for their part tried to get troops out of Greece and Yugoslavia into Hungary and Austria via the 1-2 available rail lines, so did not offer much resistance elsewhere in Yugoslavia for fear of being cut off at Budapest, which made it possible for a rapid advance by the 3/4 of partisan forces to the Italian border, and consequently coming into conflict with the Italian troops serving with the Allies and the British troops in the area --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

temporary freeze of edits to dates during mediation?

Do we or do we not freeze any edits to the start and end dates to this article during the duration of mediation? I assume yes, it would certainly be conductive to finding a consensus. I have accordingly reverted PMAnderson's recent edit despite my general agreement with the 1939 start etc. Note also that I'm now apparently in dispute with PMAnderson on two articles (and five talk pages?), which is not a good sign, though in this article we seem to agree about history but not procedure.--Caranorn (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I should prefer not to, obviously. I believe a middle way is possible, acknowledging the convention that the Second Sino-Japanese War is part and parcel of WWII without affitming it in Wikipedia's voice. A freeze during mediation will only give incentive to those whose text is presently presented to delay, obfuscate and argue every minor detail; if the mediation continues, they win; if the mediation is abandoned, they win.

On the other hand, continuing editing here may make mediation moot; if mediation does resolve the issue, its compromise will prevail in normal editing by consensus of the participants. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Caranorn - I think it'd be best. Until some kind of agreement / resolution has taken place, it will just remain change-revert-repeat. Oberiko (talk) 22:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That renders this proposal completely unacceptable. Protect it if you like; protections are supposed to be temporary. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

TAGs on mainpage

I think the placement of 2 tags stating that the entire article is POV, and that it maybe not factually correct is overdoing it.
We are writing Wikipedia for its readers, not for our own petty disagreements. I agree there is a dispute, but as far as I have seen it is only about the Introduction. Furthermore, the disputed POV is that the 2nd S-J war is the start of the war. Apparently this is also the factual inaccuracy; but I tend to disagree there, as "the merging of two wars the earliest of which should count as the start of WWII" is clearly an analysis and not a fact in itself.
I have replaced the tags, as they are in my opinion over the top, with a single POV tag - referring explicitly to the introduction. Please do not give the signal the whole of the article is crap by putting up a list of non-specific warning tags . Wikipedia mainspace should be reader friendly and not a representation of the petty infighting behind the screen (ie here). Arnoutf (talk) 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Setting up the date of the beginning of the war is one of the most important questions, because it implies who is responsible for the world worst disaster in history, if you set it to 1937, Japan is guilty, if you set it to 1939, it is Germany. Megaribi (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Guilt?? That is a new, and in my opinion irrelevant approach. Anyway, what I try to say in this section is that we should be careful slapping multiple generic warning templates everywhere, where a single specific one will do. Arnoutf (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The intro effectively asserts that the war began in 1937; the section on the outbreak of the war implies that the Asian battles there mentioned were part of the war. Both are claims of fact, and disputed. (In addition, the claim that the Amur River battle of 1939 was a Soviet victory is questionable; contemporary sources treat it as a draw, which was (in the strategic situation) enough for Soviet security.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the blanket tags (which were later re-added) as they seemed over the top given that only some of the details in a few sentances are under dispute, but the current targeted ones are OK. Nick Dowling (talk) 01:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)