Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Wig

2007-12-31T01:22:38Z

Mssb57: grammar

[[Image:The Wig Maker 1889.jpg|right]]

A '''wig''' is an artificial covering of [[hair]], like a toupee or hairpiece. It could be used for political, aesthetic, stylistic, cultural or religious reasons.

== See also ==

*[[Cell]]

[[Category:Dictionary]]

User talk:DanH

2007-12-27T23:55:53Z

Mssb57: /* Dude, why did you block me? */

[[Image:Banhammer2.jpg|thumb|600px|left|'''DanH''' is hereby awarded the prestigious & coveted '''Banhammer''' barnstar for tireless vigilance against fascists, liberals, vandals & trolls.]]

'''Archives:'''

[[User talk:MountainDew]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive1]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive2]]

[[User talk:DanHarchive3]]

==Blocked User NW==

Sorry about that, I didn't know he was blocked yet. [[User:Lukecorlando|Lukecorlando]] 23:21, 21 October 2007 (EDT)

==Evidence of evolution==
What's with the moving my friend? It's intended to be an encyclopedic article about the subject, not an personal essay of some sort. [[User:Honestyandtruth|Honestyandtruth]] 00:00, 27 October 2007 (EDT)

== I have sent you an important email about communists and the gay conspiracy! ==

I sent one also to Rob. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 01:11, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

== Funny ==

I enjoyed [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User:ChavezFan&diff=324719&oldid=324649 this], and thought I'd let you know. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 16:09, 30 October 2007 (EDT)

==Endorse block==
I endorse to block on [[User:Maestro]] [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Maestro contribs]; we may have to review all these edits and consider other actions. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 17:32, 4 November 2007 (EST)

Hey, thanks for unblocking me. Never thought I'd say this to a Jayhawker, but you're okay. After that whupping your football team dished out last week, you might even get this Mizzou grad to cheer for KU. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:50, 6 November 2007 (EST)

Anything to keep my mind of the Rams. Jeez...BTW, any chance on getting my user page unblocked when my probation expires? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 08:55, 8 November 2007 (EST)

:If he is on probation he should have the opportunity to prove his quality having his talk page open to work. Is it truth? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 15:37, 8 November 2007 (EST)

*Joaquin, whenever any editor is restored, their pages should be unlocked and/or re-created. If that does not happen, it is usually just a mistake. --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 10:08, 9 November 2007 (EST)

== Wes Clarke. ==

My bad on the spelling. Sorry. [[User:Dewey|Dewey]] 21:50, 4 November 2007 (EST)

==[[User:Oi]]==

What, no warning? I thought you took the pledge. ;-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 17:46, 7 November 2007 (EST)

:All the pledge says is I won't block for no reason. :) Also, I think "Oi" is a term associated with skinhead culture. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 17:47, 7 November 2007 (EST)

::Jolly good. And here's an early Christmas present for you: [[Image:Dewtree.jpg|right|thumb|For Christmas time]] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 18:00, 7 November 2007 (EST)

Thank you! That should last me through the season. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 18:06, 7 November 2007 (EST)

*Ed is like Father Christmas! How magical...a tree made from Mountain Dew cans! :P --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:18, 7 November 2007 (EST)
==Contest==
Hey Dan! So one of the first questions for our team is what our team name should be. If you have any ideas just get word out to TK, thanks! (Oh, and remember: we're using a Machiavellian policy towards this contest, we must win - no matter what. lol, good luck!)--[[User:Iduan|I]][[User_talk:Iduan|Duan]]23:59, 9 November 2007 (EST)

==Vandal==

Block this vandal please, thanks. [[User:Lukecorlando|Luke]]

== Go, go, go ==

42 +++++++++++++++++ a lot more... gooooooooo --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 01:29, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Unblock Article ==

Hi Dan, could you please unblock [[Fascism]]? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 15:53, 13 November 2007 (EST)

== Kentucky ==

Hi, Dan, I just wanted to leave you a note about your edit to [[Kentucky]]. While Governor Fletcher lost the recent election, he still is governor. I have re-listed him as such, as his term does not end until next month. Thanks, [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:That sounds accurate. We just have to remember to change it on December 11! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

::Will do! [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 21:50, 13 November 2007 (EST)

:::Just thought I'd remind you of the Governor's expiration of term tomorrow, as I do not expect to be on Conservapedia much in the coming weeks. [[User:GregLarson | Greg]] 20:25, 10 December 2007 (EST)

== See also ==

I am sorry, but I '''do not''' agree in what you are doing in Salma and Elvis. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 16:24, 19 November 2007 (EST)

:Thank you for your reply. Salmas' links were discussed with TK at it's time. Elvis' are quite related as they send you to rock music. But, if you think it is better to change them let me know and I will find some ones more appropriated. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 08:59, 20 November 2007 (EST)

:*Joaquín, the issue was discussed with Mr.Schlafly, and the "See Also" should be as specific as possible. I think you would agree that "Rock Music" is breathtakingly broad, eh? Perhaps you could make sure they are more specific? Thank you for your patience, my friend! --[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]] 11:22, 20 November 2007 (EST)

::OK. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:33, 20 November 2007 (EST)

==Westboro Baptist Church==
Dan, Do you mind if we unlock [[Westboro Baptist Church]] to allow for adding some content? Thanks. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:46, 24 November 2007 (EST)

:Fine with me! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 12:48, 24 November 2007 (EST)

==MU vs. KU==

That's gotta hurt. Were you there? [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 02:01, 25 November 2007 (EST)

:Yep. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:14, 25 November 2007 (EST)

== MASS REMOVAL??? ==

Where exactly did I "mass remove" information as you allege on my page? All I have done has been to copyedit and work on clarity and presentation. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Check the edit history - that was someone else - the paragraph in question was not there when I edited. [[User:PaulH|PaulH]] 00:29, 28 November 2007 (EST)

== Page Move ==

Dan, could you please move [[Meningoenephalitis]] to [[Meningoencephalitis]]? The reference used to find the definition has a mispelling (it's missing a "c"). Thanks [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:41, 9 December 2007 (EST)
:Thanks. BTW your recent block comment was hilarious. Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door, you know. And divide by 0. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 14:51, 9 December 2007 (EST)

==Vandal Pages==
Howdy--You might want to boot these: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Hamidp--[[User:RossC|RossC]] 21:12, 12 December 2007 (EST)
:Done. Thanks. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 21:14, 12 December 2007 (EST)

== Superb blocks ==

Superb blocks, Dan! The break will arrive soon. :-) --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:03, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Protect ==

Hi Dan, can you protect [[genocide]] until a concensus can be reached? Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:05, 13 December 2007 (EST)

==Genocide==

This seems a fairly straightforward issue to me. I have seen no definition of genocide outside of this site's article that requires that genocide be carried out by a government. The UN has not defined genocide this way, and the State Department states explicitly that genocide occurred in Bosnia. [http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/2868.htm] Based on these facts, I think the definition in the article should be corrected, and the Srebrenica massacre should be reinserted as an example of genocide. What are your thoughts? [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:42, 13 December 2007 (EST)

== Thank you ==

Thank you for protecting the image of Frida Kahlo :) I appreciate your assistance -- [[User:Taj|Taj]] 01:33, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks for all your hard work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 01:35, 18 December 2007 (EST)

== User "Awesome" ==

DOH! You beat me to it... well, I don't have admin access either, so the best I could do was send a threating letter to him. :( I'm glad to see that someone is watching out though. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 22:01, 18 December 2007 (EST)

:Is there a way that I could raise these people to your attention faster? Like a template or something? It would likely save admins/sysops some time. --[[User:Puellanivis|Puellanivis]] 00:38, 19 December 2007 (EST)

I think what you did is sufficient enough :) Thanks for your help. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 00:41, 19 December 2007 (EST)

== Delete Article ==

Hi Dan,

Can you please delete [[hososcope]]. Someone made a spelling error in its creation. (I already created the appropriate article.)

Thanks,

[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:48, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Let's add [[December 2]] in there as well. Thanks [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 02:04, 19 December 2007 (EST)

Thanks for all your hard work! [[User:DanH|DanH]] 02:05, 19 December 2007 (EST)

:Thanks Dan. I've noticed you are still quite the workhorse yourself. ;-) How about if we add one more for deletion and prevent recreation [[Lulz]]. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:07, 27 December 2007 (EST)

::Could you also please delete article [[Transvestitism]]. I'm not sure if we want to prevent recreation or not. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:11, 27 December 2007 (EST)

== Thanks ==

Thank you Dan. I am checking at this moment all his contribuitions. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:52, 20 December 2007 (EST)

: THANK YOU AGAIN. I did a little mistake, now [[Barney]] is ok.

== Dude, why did you block me? ==

Please unblock [[user:FightPerniciousSwarm]]. You took a pledge, and then you blocked me for not using my "real" name. Dude, do you want help here or not? [[User:MichaelHunt|MichaelHunt]] 18:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
:I kind of agree, I mean, [[User:Karajou]], [[User:CollegeRepublican]], and heaps more. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 18:55, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Caffeine

2007-12-26T04:18:19Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 358112 by Special:Contributions/Paenoz (User talk:Paenoz)

'''Caffeine''' is natural plant [[alkaloid]] found in the coffee bean, the tea leaf, the [[kola]] nut, and the [[cacao]] podin. [[Coffee]], [[tea]], [[cocoa]], [[chocolate]], [[soft drink]]s, and some drugs all contain caffeine, and when consumed, it behaves as a central nervous system [[stimulant]]. Pure caffeine is odorless and has a bitter taste.

==Caffeine effects==

In moderate doses, caffeine:
* Increases alertness
* Reduces fine motor coordination
* May cause [[insomnia]]
* May cause anxiety and dizziness
* Potentiates the action of epinephrine causing increased heart rate and blood pressure
* Stimulates Dopamine secretion
* Enhances gastric acid secretion
* Promotes diuresis and may contribute to dehydration

Caffeine enters the bloodstream through absorption in the [[stomach]] and [[small intestine]] and, like other psychoactive compounds (e.g nicotine and ethanol), easily crosses the [[blood brain barrier]]. Caffeine's main biochemical affect is competitive inhibition of adenosine receptors ([[antagonist]] action). [[Adenosine]], which shares a similar chemical structure with caffeine, in the central nervous system is important for promoting sleep. Effects may be seen within 15 minutes of consumption. Once in the body, caffeine will stay around for hours: it takes about six hours for one half of the caffeine to be eliminated.

Some studies show that caffeine causes physical dependence (addiction). One way to tell if someone "needs" that cup of coffee or bottle of [[Mountain Dew]] is to take it away from them and then see if they have any withdrawal symptoms. Typical withdrawal symptoms associated with caffeine are the headaches, fatigue, and muscle pains. These symptoms can occur within 24 hours after the last dose of caffeine. One study has stated that the minimum consumption of caffeine for physical dependence is 4 cups of coffee per day. Other studies say that a few more cups of coffee are needed to develop dependence.

Excessive caffeine consumption over time can lead to kidney stones.

==Modern Consumption==

Caffeine can be found in many drinks, foods, and drugs. Americans consume about 45,000,000 pounds of caffeine each year. In the [[United States]], coffee drinkers drink an average of 2.6 cups per day. Total caffeine intake for coffee drinkers was 363.5 mg per day - this includes caffeine from coffee and other sources like soft drinks, food and drugs. Non-coffee drinkers also consume plenty of caffeine: former coffee drinkers get about 107 mg per day and people who have never had coffee get about 91 mg per day. <ref>Schreiber et al., Measurement of coffee and caffeine intake: Implications for epidemiological research, Preventive Medicine, 17:280-294, 1988 and Chou, T., Wake up and smell the coffee. Caffeine, coffee and the medical consequences, West. J. Med., 157:544-553, 1992</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Drugs]]

Caffeine

2007-12-26T04:17:35Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 358113 by Special:Contributions/Paenoz (User talk:Paenoz)

'''Caffeine''' is dangerous drug that turns normal god fearing Christians into raging lust filled zombies. It comes from the savage unchristian hinterlands of South America where the heathen forest dwelllers still worship potatoes and other satanic roots. Upon consumption, paedophilia is inevitable as the only thing more intoxicating than a caffeine rush is the sweet taste of creamy boy-thighs.

==Caffeine Addicts==
Known caffeine addicts include:
*[[Hillary Clinton]]
*[[Benjamin Disraeli]]
*[[Cerberus | Your Dog]]
*[[Eric Rudolph]]
*[[Al Gore | Captain Planet]]
*[[User:Will_N. | This Guy]]
*[Jesus | The leader of the secret Liberal conspiracy]
*Your Mother

==Caffeine effects==

In moderate doses, caffeine:
* Increases alertness
* Reduces fine motor coordination
* May cause [[insomnia]]
* May cause anxiety and dizziness
* Potentiates the action of epinephrine causing increased heart rate and blood pressure
* Stimulates Dopamine secretion
* Enhances gastric acid secretion
* Promotes diuresis and may contribute to dehydration

Caffeine enters the bloodstream through absorption in the [[stomach]] and [[small intestine]] and, like other psychoactive compounds (e.g nicotine and ethanol), easily crosses the [[blood brain barrier]]. Caffeine's main biochemical affect is competitive inhibition of adenosine receptors ([[antagonist]] action). [[Adenosine]], which shares a similar chemical structure with caffeine, in the central nervous system is important for promoting sleep. Effects may be seen within 15 minutes of consumption. Once in the body, caffeine will stay around for hours: it takes about six hours for one half of the caffeine to be eliminated.

Some studies show that caffeine causes physical dependence (addiction). One way to tell if someone "needs" that cup of coffee or bottle of [[Mountain Dew]] is to take it away from them and then see if they have any withdrawal symptoms. Typical withdrawal symptoms associated with caffeine are the headaches, fatigue, and muscle pains. These symptoms can occur within 24 hours after the last dose of caffeine. One study has stated that the minimum consumption of caffeine for physical dependence is 4 cups of coffee per day. Other studies say that a few more cups of coffee are needed to develop dependence.

Excessive caffeine consumption over time can lead to kidney stones.

==Modern Consumption==

Caffeine can be found in many drinks, foods, and drugs. Americans consume about 45,000,000 pounds of caffeine each year. In the [[United States]], coffee drinkers drink an average of 2.6 cups per day. Total caffeine intake for coffee drinkers was 363.5 mg per day - this includes caffeine from coffee and other sources like soft drinks, food and drugs. Non-coffee drinkers also consume plenty of caffeine: former coffee drinkers get about 107 mg per day and people who have never had coffee get about 91 mg per day. <ref>Schreiber et al., Measurement of coffee and caffeine intake: Implications for epidemiological research, Preventive Medicine, 17:280-294, 1988 and Chou, T., Wake up and smell the coffee. Caffeine, coffee and the medical consequences, West. J. Med., 157:544-553, 1992</ref>

==References==
<references/>

[[Category:Drugs]]

File talk:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg

2007-12-26T01:25:03Z

Mssb57:

Poor dog. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:07, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:This picture needs a news article about it or something. The story is unclear. [[User:JenniferTabuena|JenniferTabuena]] 20:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Yes, the title points out it was in a newspaper or something, but which article? Maybe what date? Needs a link, I'm sure the New York Times has archives of its newspapers. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:21, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:::There is an assumption the dog had bitten someone, but even that lacks evidence for it to be certain and it could be something else. [[User:JenniferTabuena|JenniferTabuena]] 20:22, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::::Yes, that would probably be the case as usually dogs in a place like this have attacked someone. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:25, 25 December 2007 (EST)

File talk:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg

2007-12-26T01:21:13Z

Mssb57:

Talk:Dog

2007-12-26T01:19:45Z

Mssb57: /* Dangerous Animal */

This article most likely needs a rewrite sometime in the next couple of weeks. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 16:26, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:A rewrite would be very good! I'm nominating this over at the Article Improvement Drive. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

::Please Vote for this article on [[CP:AID]]. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Lets start thinking about the direction we want to take this article. What areas do you want to add and expand on? [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 16:49, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

:I would make the first two paragraphs the introduction, and then make the uses of dogs its own section. From there, we can simply add on sections on a variety of topics such as types, training, showing, common diseases, etc. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] [[User talk:SharonS|Talk!]] 16:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

== Dangerous Animal ==

Why would dogs be considered part of the dangerous animals list? They are domesticated animals that aren't very dangerous. If dogs are on the dangerous animal list wouldn't almost all animals be on the list?--'''[[User:Staple|Staple]][[User talk:Staple|Talk]]''' 16:45, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
:There's a reference in the article to the frequency of dog bites. Though domesticated, they are still dangerous animals. [[User:DrSandstone|DrSandstone]] 16:47, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Wouldn't all animals be considered dangerous to some extent?--'''Staple[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Staple Your comments are welcomed!]''' 14:02, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Dogs don't bite; their owners do. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 04:55, 23 May 2007 (EDT)

:I live in the ghetto and most of my neighbors have pitbulls, rotweilers, etc. and these dogs runs stray and attack me. The mailman, UPS man, FedEx, etc. are terrified when they have to come to my door to delivery or have my seen for something. I really like the emphasis on dog attacks in this article. [[User:JenniferTabuena|JenniferTabuena]] 19:53, 25 December 2007 (EST)

I can't stand it when people accuse poor defenseless dogs of "bad" biting when usually they are only trying to help by defending the house! Dogs don't understand that biting someone too much and attacking them will harm them, to them it is doing their job by keeping the owner safe (even if the victim wasn't a threat). I think the so called "experts" on dogs do not know anything about how to handle these things. If I ever made it as one of these "dog experts" I sure wouldn't do anything like the "experts" do now! --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:06, 25 December 2007 (EST)
:That doesn't explain why dogs sometimes attack their own owners/owners' families, though. Face it, dogs ''are'' a wild animal; it is the owner who "domesticates" them, they don't arrive pre-packaged to be non-wild. Leave a dog untrained, it will become feral and dangerous. [[Image:User Fox.png]] [[User:Fox|Fox]] ([[User talk:Fox|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Fox|contribs]]) 20:11, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::Interestingly, the domestic cats species don't attack humans unless corned. [[User:JenniferTabuena|JenniferTabuena]] 20:16, 25 December 2007 (EST)

:Well, my neighbor's dogs have attacked me on my doorstep so I don't think that's defending their house. I have friends who have dogs like bichans (sp?) and those dogs never will attack anyone ever. It's partly a breed thing as some breeds won't attack and cats won't attack, and partly an owner thing, though bad owners like to get attack dogs. It is true many dogs don't understand right and wrong, though the attacking ones can't be considered "defenseless" since they're pretty deadly. Many dogs are fast enough to take down a person with a gun before they can shoot. Again, dogs that attack are pretty good at attacking and are not defenseless. The tiny ones are pretty defenseless and those don't usually attack. [[User:JenniferTabuena|JenniferTabuena]] 20:14, 25 December 2007 (EST)
::I know, that would be attacking, but on the dog's property it is really just defending. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:19, 25 December 2007 (EST)

File talk:Dog - Jay Paul - The New York Times.jpg

2007-12-26T01:07:51Z

Mssb57: New page: Poor dog. --~~~~

Poor dog. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 20:07, 25 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:Dog

2007-12-26T01:06:28Z

Mssb57: /* Dangerous Animal */

User talk:CSGuy

2007-12-22T23:08:06Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356943 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

{{welcome}} [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]][[User_talk:Geo.plrd|Complain!]] 19:40, 26 November 2007 (EST)

== Spellcheck ==

You are a fiend!! Good job! [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:22, 20 December 2007 (EST)

==Allison Kolb==
User Bhathorn was the author of the article in question from Wikipedia; this and other articles he wrote were given permission by Aschlafly to upload and post here. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 14:22, 22 December 2007 (EST)

User:SimonA

2007-12-22T23:06:50Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356937 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

Greetings and felicitations,

I'm me. I don't fall well into any one political categorization. so… don't try to sort me into one. I mean, I have my leanings, but I don't find them relevant. Let my contributions stand for themselves.

Axiom

2007-12-22T23:04:41Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356917 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

An '''axiom''' is a statement which is assumed to be true and is often used as the [[premise]] of an argument or proof. The axioms of [[plane geometry]] came from [[Euclid]] but were challenged in the late 19th century with [[Non-Euclidean geometry]].

[[Category:Geometry]]

Journalistic bias

2007-12-22T23:03:37Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356918 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

*... [[journalists]] and major [[news]] outlets sell more by reporting [[sensationalist]] headlines than by carefully examining the [[evidence]] for such claims. [http://www.amazon.com/dp/1596985011?tag=disgruntledhouse&camp=211493&creative=379969&linkCode=op1&creativeASIN=1596985011&adid=0GC22HQS11RHXGRYR7N2&]

[[Category:Media]]

User:TerryH

2007-12-22T23:03:01Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356915 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

{{Userboxtop|TerryH}}
{{user Sysop}}
{{User straightforwardbiblereading}}
{{User American}}
{{User progun}}
{{User Christian}}
{{User lordshipofchrist}}
{{User Youngearth}}
{{User 6000YearOldEarth}}
{{User ComingBigBang}}
{{User free software}}
{{User Wikipedian}}
{{User Political Compass|3.13|4.15|help=''x'' and ''y'' refer to the results of the test at [http://www.politicalcompass.org/].}}
{{Userboxbottom}}

TerryH is a registered user and administrator of Conservapedia.

He is an experienced editor on at least two Wiki forums. They include [[Wikipedia]] and [[CreationWiki]].

His areas of expertise include [[medicine]], [[United States]] [[history]], [[Bible]] [[history]], and [[culture]].

Write him [mailto:temlakos@gmail.com here].--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 18:24, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Statement of Acceptance of Administrative Position ==
[[Image:Sysbad.JPG|thumb|100px|right]]
<div style="width: 550px; text-align: center; border: 1px solid #999; background: #ccc; margin: .5em auto .5em auto; padding: 5px;"><big>'''Sysop Pledge'''</big> As a Conservapedia Sysop, '''''I will never arbitrarily block anyone who is not in violation of the [[Conservapedia Commandments]], and related CP Guidelines.''''' </div>

I thank the founder, and the Webmaster, of Conservapedia for their recent promotion of me to the rank, title, and privileges of an administrator.

I pledge to perform my administrative functions as an administrator should--with justice, with discretion, and with honor.

Internal e-mail is enabled on this account--and, of course, my Talk page is always open. Please do not hesitate to contact me.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 13:47, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

== Selected Contribution List ==
Click [http://faleg.org/cgi-bin/conservapedia/editcounter_Tool1?username=TerryH here] to see how many edits this user has made, with a complete breakdown as to namespace.
=== Science ===
* [[Chemical compound]]
* [[SMILES]]
* [[International System of Units]]
* [[US Customary System of Units]]
* [[Metric system]]
* [[Panspermia]]

=== Philosophy ===
* [[Objectivism]]
* [[Sin]]
:* [[Sin (Fundamentalism)]]

=== Culture ===
* [[Music]]
* [[Theater]]
* [[Motion picture]]
:* [[Motion Picture Production Code]]
* [[Television]]
* [[God-substitute]]
* [[Saint Nicholas]]
:* [[Santa Claus]]
* [[Extraterrestrial life]]
:* [[Essay: Extraterrestrial Life and the Bible]]

* [[Prohibition]]
:* [[Prohibition in the United States]]

=== Novels ===
* [[Ice (novel)]]

=== Ancient History ===
* [[Egyptian chronology]]
* [[Egyptian plagues]]
* [[Exodus of Israel]]
* [[Sothic cycle]]

=== Recent History ===
* [[Strategic Air Command]]

=== Bible Study ===
* [[Biblical chronology dispute]]
* [[Biblical units of measure]]
* [[Talent]]
* [[High place]]

==== Bible history ====
===== Events =====
* [[Battle of Zemaraim]]
* [[Fall of Samaria]]
* [[Fall of Jerusalem]]
===== Buildings and Artifacts =====
* [[Temple of Jerusalem]]
* [[High place]]

==== Prophets ====
* [[Elijah]]
* [[Elisha]]

==== Kings of the Divided Kingdoms ====
===== [[United Kingdom of Israel]] =====
* [[Saul]]

===== [[Northern Kingdom]] =====
====== Early kings ======
* [[Jeroboam I]]
* [[King Nadab|Nadab]]
* [[Baasha]]
* [[Elah]]
* [[Zimri]]
====== [[House of Omri]] ======
* [[Omri]]
* [[Ahab]]
* [[Ahaziah of Israel|Ahaziah]]
* [[Jehoram of Israel|Jehoram]]
====== [[House of Jehu]] ======
* [[Jehu]]
* [[Jehoahaz]]
* [[Joash of Israel|Joash]]
* [[Jeroboam II]]
* [[Zachariah]]
====== The Regicides ======
* [[Shallum]]
* [[Menahem]]
* [[Pekahiah]]
* [[Pekah]]
* [[Hoshea]]
===== [[Southern Kingdom]] =====
* [[Rehoboam]]
* [[Abijam]]
* [[Asa]]
* [[Jehoshaphat]]
* [[Jehoram]]
* [[Ahaziah]]
* [[Athaliah]]
* [[Joash]]
* [[Amaziah]]
* [[Uzziah]]
* [[Jotham]]
* [[Jehoahaz I]] or '''Ahaz'''
* [[Hezekiah]]
* [[Manasseh King of Judah|Manasseh]]
* [[Amon]]
* [[Josiah]]
* [[Jehoahaz II]]
* [[Jehoiakim]]
* [[Jehoiachin]]
* [[Zedekiah]]

==== Kings of non-Hebrew powers ====
* [[Nebuchadnezzar II]]
* [[Herod]]

Journalistic bias

2007-12-22T23:02:32Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356913 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

Axiom

2007-12-22T23:02:12Z

Mssb57: Undo revision 356911 by Special:Contributions/LiberalsEatBabies (User talk:LiberalsEatBabies)

Category:Louisiana

2007-12-18T06:52:01Z

Mssb57: you can make these empty you know

Debate:Should all access to Conservapedia be banned on Sundays?

2007-12-15T23:51:14Z

Mssb57:

My understanding of Biblical teaching is that the Sabbath should be kept as a day of rest and prayer, free from work. Surely this precludes even the Godly work being carried on by the editors and administrators of Conservapedia. I suggest that access to Conservapedia be barred on Sundays, and that this bar should take account of changing time zones - ie it should begin when the first part of the world enters Sunday (Western Pacific, Fiji etc) and ends only when the latest part of the world enters Monday (Eastern Pacific, Hawaii, etc).

:I don't think the wiki software on which this website is based is even capable of doing something like that short of locking every single page every Sunday which would defeat the whole purpose of your idea since it would be a whole lot of work. Not to mention the idea that Sunday is the Sabbath Day is a matter of some debate. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:29, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

::Can't the server(s) just be disconnected from the internets? Or turned off? [[User:Human|Human]] 22:09, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

If that is so, then maybe the front page could ask people not to edit or use Conservapedia on a Sunday. Or administrators could set a lead and example by not working on Sundays.

:The problem with that is if the administrators don't work on Sunday than it would essentially be a free for all day for vandals. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 05:36, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

How do you mean vandals? This is an encyclopedia. (And how do you get your 'signature' on the end of each posting, please?)

:Which version of the Sabbath should be kept though? Many sects believe it to be a Saturday rather than a Sunday. Making ''everybody'' stop on Sundays, would be good as it would force the semi-believers to do the Right Thing; I suspect they might complain about it though. (Signature: The swirly thing in the buttons, tenth button from the left.) --[[User:Jeremiah4-22|Jeremiah4-22]] 06:15, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

To make a signature use this <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. From [[Wikipedia]]:

<blockquote style="background: #F9F9F9; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA; padding: .3em;">

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.

The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot.

</blockquote>

While Wikipedia and Conservapedia do have many [[Conservapedia:Differences with Wikipedia|differences]] their basic definition of vandalism is applicable here. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]] 06:34, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you. [[User:John11:35|John11:35]] 09:48, 18 April 2007 (EDT)

==No, but...==

There should be an edit rule (suggested but not enforced - a guideline), that after six days of frantically creating, improving and discussing articles, and contributing to these magnificent debate topics, an editor should take a day of rest and go outside. Sysops and admins could work out a rotating schedule so they don't all accidentally rest on the same day. [[User:Human|Human]] 22:07, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

== OY ==

<pre>
1. Well for one your question is flawed the sabbath is NOT sunday.
2. its a long story but you'll need to read your bible on what happened to the sabbath.
3. again read your bible..is it okay to do good or evil on the sabbath or sunday?
</pre>
--[[User:Wally|Wally]] 20:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== For who? ==

The Sabbath was instituted for the nation of Israel and was contained in the Mosaic law (Exodus 31:16, 17). Observant Jews, especially Orthodox Jews, continue to observe the weekly Sabbath (usually from sunset Friday until sunset Saturday).
*Christ Jesus set the standard for doing good work on the Sabbath when he healed the sick, much to the chagrin of the Pharisees who tended to be rigid in their interpretation of work. Jesus responded that just as his Father continued working, so he continued working. (John 5:5-17)
*Romans 10:4 states that Christ is the end of the Law (see also Galatians 4:9-11 and Ephesians 2:13-16). This means that Christians are no longer under the multitude of rules and regulations associated with the Law, but can have an approved standing with God based on Christ's sacrifice.
**Christians are still bound by the ''principles'' contained in the law as noted by Jesus himself when answering a Pharisee's question as to the greatest commandment (Matthew 22:34-39). Where the moral standards set out in the Ten Commandments, and other portions of the Mosaic Law, are restated and thus binding on Christians in the New Testament; the sabbath law was not included.
[[User:BibleBrown|BibleBrown]] 18:37, 15 December 2007 (EST)

I don't think so. I already find it hard enough to get time to do stuff before the stupid editing locks come on. --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 18:51, 15 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:AndySphan

2007-12-15T04:10:07Z

Mssb57:

Hey, I was just wondering if what you said on [[User talk:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic's talk page]] (which he/she has now deleted) was true. Are our user names really meant to be our real names? --[[user:mssb57|m s s b 5 7]] // [[user talk:mssb57|blah !]] // [[special:contributions/mssb57|this was my fault]] 23:10, 14 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:AndySphan

2007-12-15T03:22:20Z

Mssb57: New page: Hey, I was just wondering after what you said on ModerateCatholic's talk page (which he/she has now deleted) was true. Are our user names really meant to be ...

Hey, I was just wondering after what you said on [[User talk:ModerateCatholic|ModerateCatholic's talk page]] (which he/she has now deleted) was true. Are our user names really meant to be our real names? --Options: [[User:Mssb57|Option 1:Vandalise user page.]] || [[User talk:Mssb57|Option 2:Tell me I created a useless category.]] || [[Special:Contributions/Mssb57|Option 3:Find proof I have vandalised.]] 22:22, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Category:Wikis

2007-12-14T23:33:10Z

Mssb57: New page: Wikis, like Wikipedia, on a particular subject.

Wikis, like Wikipedia, on a particular subject.

Category:Quotes

2007-12-14T22:06:28Z

Mssb57: New page: Famous or non-famous quotes on certain subjects or other things.

Famous or non-famous quotes on certain subjects or other things.

Talk:World War II

2007-12-14T21:26:50Z

Mssb57: /* What about australia? */

==Discussion==

This needs a huge amount of work. It is rather euro-centris at present, I would many American contributors would be able to add discussion on the war in Asia [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, not quite, it actually pretty much started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Austria. Still, huge mistake. I'll fix it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::Wrong war. WWI was started with the death of Ferdinand. It was September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Polan that started WWII.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.
:Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.
[[Image:India5.jpg|right]]
Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says something like: ".....no law hereafter passed by the Parliament of Great Britain shall extend to any of the said dominions otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.") (2)The Australians were not involved in any "war in Asia" until after Pearl Harbor. Australian forces were in action against the Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting; maybe we can fit this image in the text somewhere to clarify India volunteers fighting to liberate themselves from the British Empire. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Where are the sources? ==

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overhaul needed==
This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my [[American Civil War]] series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Idea?==
I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the [[American Civil War]] has. Just an idea. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Britain staying in the war ==
I added a fact tag on the following line:
<blockquote>
Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard
</blockquote>

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.
*I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

*Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:*''Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.''
::*Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*Goodbye. You "thought" nothing of the sort, as your last edit clearly shows many changes, not just the addition of citation. Your argumentative tone here, clearly reveals your intentions. Troll somewhere else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
*''opening the way for invasion''
::yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Utter rubbish, Hitler knew he had to conquer the British. I agree that Dunkirk was more down to the Luftwaffe wanting to destroy the BEF on the ground than anything else, but the main victory at Dunkirk was the initing of the British people in a common belief that despite the lack of ANY help from anywhere, we must carry on the fight against Hitler and win the war. With the USA still seeking to appease Hitler in anyway they could, the British people assumed we would fight alone. [[User:Scrumpy|Scrumpy]] 15:31, 12 Dec 2007 (GMT)

:*''the main victory at Dunkirk was the initing of the British people in a common belief that despite the lack of ANY help from anywhere, we must carry on the fight...''
::*Huh? Main victory? A total route is a main victory. Yes, recycling wartime propaganda for domestic consumption once again. Fact: Hitler spared the lives of these soldiers. Is that utter rubbish, too? [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk [[total war]] to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. [[User:Order]] June 7.

:::I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the [[Battle of Sadowa]], probably in Gordon Craig's, ''Politics of the Prussian Army'', a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=%22frisch%2C+froehliche+krieg%22][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=5163652657573392149] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also [[sabre rattling]] is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",
:::*''On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of '''short, freshmerry war''''' [http://www.maffersdorf.de/chronik/band_05/maffersdorf_anhang_12.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in ''Mien Kampf'', marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

:This brings us to a discusssion of the [[Arsenal of Democracy]], and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

:That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
*Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

:::Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans ''knew'' it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

:In ''Goebbels Diaries'', speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to ''come to the aid of Portugal'' in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know ''he'' was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.
:::As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 10 August 2007

::::I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's ''an not'' take them '''all''' POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed ''both'' its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism ''in the Soviet Union''. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liddell Hart is ''the'' primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

:::One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::::...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)[[user:stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

== Immediate Causes ==

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

According to the insular American view, WW2 only happened because Pearl Harbor was bombed.
Although remember they hid for 2 years, 3 months & 4 days from the original start of war, and were more than happy to appease Nazi Germany even after 7th December.

Despite the sinking of the Reuben Jones the US never wanted war with Hitler. It was Hitler who declared war on the USA.

==Outline==
Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the [[untied front]], i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The [[united front]], as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== What about australia? ==

It seems you have no information on Australia during WW2, this is quite dissapointing seeing as Australia comitted around 300 thousand troops to the war and at one stage held 1/3 of the line in europe against nazi germany, they also fought in africa against italy, as well as in the pacific against japan. Where was the information about the battle for PNG where 800 australian soldiers defeated 10 000 japanese?

Yours truly Ben.

True. I am Australian and hearing this, I'm not happy, I'm sure there should have been something about that a long time ago! --[[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 00:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

:Then add it. Easy.
::Number one: Please sign your posts by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> after your post. Number two: I would add it, but unfortunately I do not know enough about WWII to add any half-decent information in. --[[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 16:26, 14 December 2007 (EST)

Talk:World War II

2007-12-09T05:11:16Z

Mssb57: /* What about australia? */

==Discussion==

This needs a huge amount of work. It is rather euro-centris at present, I would many American contributors would be able to add discussion on the war in Asia [[User:stevendavy|stevendavy]] 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? [[User:Testing|Testing]] 15:35, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:Well, not quite, it actually pretty much started when Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Austria. Still, huge mistake. I'll fix it.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::Wrong war. WWI was started with the death of Ferdinand. It was September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Polan that started WWII.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I did a small fix that should work for now, but anything that you or anyone can add to it, please do.[[User:NSmyth|NSmyth]]15:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::If you want to get hyper-technical, you could make the case it started with the Japanese invasion of China. But I don't think we need to get that in-depth, at least for now.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

It says: "relatively weak United Kingdom." This would be incorrect, considering it still owned the world's largest empire, ever, at or around its peak at the start of the war.
:Britain had a large Empire, but like a modern Monarch it had little power. Canada's alligence ot Britain is to their credit as they could have stayed out. India and Australia had little choice as they were involved by the war in Asia. Most of the remaining British possessions were in southern and eastern Africa will less direct involvement.
[[Image:India5.jpg|right]]
Two mistakes in the above paragraph. (1) The so-called Empire: the dominions, ie Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand were completely free to make their own decisions by 1939. (Statute of Westminster 1931, says something like: ".....no law hereafter passed by the Parliament of Great Britain shall extend to any of the said dominions otherwise than at the request and with the consent of that dominion.") (2)The Australians were not involved in any "war in Asia" until after Pearl Harbor. Australian forces were in action against the Axis by 1940, and heavily engaged against Rommel, and in Greece and Crete. Aust. forces were recalled to fight Japan, much against Churchill's wishes. I also know that East African troops were involved in 1940-42) (Can't cite that one...my mother nursed them, though, and had anecdotes). Japan did not attack south east Asia, Dutch East Indies etc. until AFTER Pearl Harbor.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting; maybe we can fit this image in the text somewhere to clarify India volunteers fighting to liberate themselves from the British Empire. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 22:35, 19 November 2007 (EST)

== Where are the sources? ==

Where are the sources? This article needs sources and is part of our article improvement drive listed on the main page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:24, 29 April 2007 (EDT)

==Overhaul needed==
This article needs an overhaul, and my suggestion would be to separate it into sections according to year, similar to my [[American Civil War]] series of articles. In short, I would gut this one, rename it "World War II: Prelude in Europe", then go into detail about the conditions which led to that war, and follow it by "World War II: Europe, 1940"; "1941", etc, with a separate series of articles concerning the Pacific Theater. It would be more than a dozen separate articles, which would take a lot of time, but it would be worth it in the end. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 01:44, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

==Idea?==
I think the article could be improved if World War II had a symbol of some sort like the [[American Civil War]] has. Just an idea. [[User:Additioner|Additioner]] 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

== Britain staying in the war ==
I added a fact tag on the following line:
<blockquote>
Indeed it would appear that the, seemingly foolish, decision of the relatively weak United Kingdom to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard
</blockquote>

I don't believe that there was ever any expectation that Britain would not remain in the war. Hitler and his generals understood that Fortress Europa would not be tenable without the conquering of Britain. If you have information to the contrary, I would like to see a cite about it.
*I will have to come back to you on this. However, there were incidents such as soldiers discarding their guns once evacuated from Dunkirk , they thought the war was over and they had lost. Equally, one of Churchills famous speeches at this time was telling people that the war was still on, as it was far from clear. [[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 00:49, August 2007 (EDT)

*Please sign all posts, and I reverted your last change due to misleading edit notes. If you state you add a citation, do so, but do not make other key changes in the article. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 12:54, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, forgot to sign the talk page. I thought that I did comment on each of the changes to show what each was. I also added a citation to the change of Alliance to Non-Aggression pact, which it certainly was. Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance. I will unwatch the article and leave it alone, as apparently making good edits and adding citations are less important than signing a talk page post (which I was correcting as you undid my edits, btw.) [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 12:59, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
:*''Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.''
::*Huh? [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:49, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

*Goodbye. You "thought" nothing of the sort, as your last edit clearly shows many changes, not just the addition of citation. Your argumentative tone here, clearly reveals your intentions. Troll somewhere else. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk:TK|/MyTalk]] 13:01, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

The Battle of Britain and The Blitz were sort of contemporanious although the Blitz lasted longer.Put simply; the B of B was the attempt by Germany to wipe out the RAF, so opening the way for invasion. The Blitz was the saturation bombing of London and other major cities. They overlapped. Sept 7 1940 is the day Goering assumed command and ordered the switch from airfields to cities. Yet the B of B went through October. The Blitz never refers to Allied raids into Germany. (I'm scanning Churchill's memoirs here.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)
*''opening the way for invasion''
::yes and no; Germany simply never had enough ships to put the size of a force needed across the Channel, neither was it in the budget to do so. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:22, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:The English would know that. They were aware of "Sea Lion" and the build up across the channel; and Whilst Churchill stated his increasing confidence that an invasion would not take place, or would not then succeed; if the RAF had been wiped out there was real danger of it being on the cards. The opening sentence of Chapter XVI "The Battle of Britain" in Volume II is: "Our fate now depended upon victory in the air." [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 01:18, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::Yes, this is all the "coulda woulda shoulda" school of historiography. In the final analysis, it was obvious when Hitler allowed the Brits to escape at Dunkirk he had no intention of ever invading England with land forces; what sense did it make to allow them to escape, when they had their back to the wall on the shores of Dunkirk, only to go fight them again on their home turf? If the Germans had destroyed the British forces on the beaches of Dunkirk, or captured them all, yes, then an invasion of Britain with limited manpower was possible. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:31, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Good morning. Yep...Hitler hesitated. That's been chewed over many times by people infinitely more knowledgable and better recourced than I am. And smarter. Hitler did beeall for six weeks after Dunkirk. He didn't want to invade. He hoped the Brits would yield. He gave them every chance to. Yet, on July 16 he issued "War Directive No. 16", ordering preparations for an invasion - in effect initiating 'Sealion". He still hoped that Britain would sorta, um, disappear. The effectiveness of the RAF over Dunkirk had given everyone pause for thought. Was Sealion and all the memos and diary entries and directives some gigantic feint, or hoax? Within weeks the Germans were grabbing barges from as far away as the eastern Baltic and anything else that could carry troops across the Channel. I think he had to have a go. As much as he could hope that America would stay away, he realised that the "Bases for Destroyers" deal would strengthen Britain and sooner or later America would become an active belligerant. And at the same time he was desperately working towards a "Tripartite Agreement" (Germany, Italy, Japan) to keep the US looking over its shoulder, and working just as hard at persuading Spain to join up. (But let's not mention Portugal -:)) Yeah. Hitler was ambivalent about an invasion, but all the preparations were put in train, and also....why would he have unleashed such a storm at the RAF and the Channel installations if no invasion was planned. I can see a bit of both sides min this. Maybe i'm a shoulda woulda shoulda sorta bloke. I like the "on the other hand" view of history.(Oh and one more thing. My mother was in a medical unit in the BEF and was strafed more than once on the way to the coast. She was taken off with the last of the wounded a few days (I think) before the final evacuation. Two or three weeks later she was at the set up of one of those great manors as a hospital for the sick relatives of VIPs. A month after it was operational it was suddenly abandoned, and everyone ended up in the Midlands somewhere. News of an impending invasion? Or just of an impending air war? Probably neither, but who knows. [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Continuing the "coulda woulda shoulda" school, Sea Lion was all bluff, and diversionary. Hitler overruled the Generals who recommended finishing off the British forces at Dunkirk, cause otherwise it might turn around bite you in the butt, which it eventually did. But Hitler was fighting a propaganda campaign; he knew Britain did not want War, the people did not, Chamberlain didn't, nor the Duke of Windsor. To Hitler at this point, the skirmish was a "frisch, froelich krieg" with Britain, and the two would eventually see eye-to-eye on Soviet Bolshevism. He already had the continental French manpower which made up the SS Charlemagne Division, among others, working for him. Hitler did not anticipate the stubbornness of a Churchill, who would risk [[total war]] to the finish. Until the day Hitler went down in the basement and blew his brains out, he never understood why Britain opposed him. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

::[[User:RobS|RobS]], where did you get the expression "frisch, froelich krieg" from? You used more than once, but I have never encountered this phrase anywhere else before. It reminds me of the mood at the beginning of WWI, but not exactly of WWII. If you have a source for this expression, I'd be more than grateful. [[User:Order]] June 7.

:::I think I first heard it regarding the regarding the [[Battle of Sadowa]], probably in Gordon Craig's, ''Politics of the Prussian Army'', a book I'd recommend to any serious student. And even if I recall correctly, Craig says the term or idea was fluent in Prussian military thinking prior to Sadowa. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:03, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Correct spelling should be "frisch, froehliche krieg", also "frisch-froehliche krieg" is found in some search engines. [http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=%22frisch%2C+froehliche+krieg%22][http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&cluster=5163652657573392149] This may be a good subject for an entry. Also [[sabre rattling]] is another I'd like to do; the newspeak use of it doesn't have a clue what its original meaning is, and is distorted. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:20, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:::Order, you are absolutely correct. Look at this babelfish translation, for example, from a German language article entitled "First World War",
:::*''On 28 June 1914 Franz Ferdinand and its wife were shot in Sarajewo by conspirator hand. That became the trip the First World War. I do not want to describe its process here, but to mention nevertheless three things: 1. It did not become the dreamed of '''short, freshmerry war''''' [http://www.maffersdorf.de/chronik/band_05/maffersdorf_anhang_12.htm] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 20:28, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

You may well be right. I would have to do a lot of research to catch up with your knowledge. The thing is though...what should a Consevapedia article give as the causes of or the reson for The Battle of Britain? [[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:52, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Causes? Whew...I'm still just shooting from the hip off the top of my head decades old knowledge I haven't studied in awhile...I'd say Germany's attempt to bring England under submisssion after England decided to continue the war under Churchill, but I'd need good sources to explain that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 18:04, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I am almost tending towards the scenario wherein Hitler says to the Luftwaffe: "OK then, have a go. If you're successful we may invade. I'll get things going in case". One thing I saw was something about him giving them 8 days to wipe out the RAF. (Almost a "famous last words thing", eh?)I think later the Luftwaffe was thinking two weeks to a month. And certainly he would have considered that id he was successful and the RAF was destroyed, he would not have to invade....England may have yielded then. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:05, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:I think the whole matter of Hitler wanting to invade England (or for that matter the United States) is exaggerated. It never was in the cards. And the events at Dunkirk prove it. Had Hitler taken prisoners at Dunkirk rather than allow them to escape, he could have launched an invasion using basically a naval flotilla similiar to the one the Brits used to escape Dunkirk, to occupy Britain, probaly with less less 80,000 men. But the truth is, they simply did not have enough ships to mount a Normandy style invasion, under fire, against Britain. Hitler viewed it as a propaganda war, and always fully expected Britain to join the alliance against the Soviet Union, which in fact it did, after Hitler's death. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 19:32, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

I don't know. Sure, there was no way the Staes were under threat from him. But Britain? I don't know. I don't know enough, and it would take me too long to read up sufficiently. Some where between the two of us is the answer. Gotta go.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 19:39, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

:Hitler viewed it basically as a propoaganda campaign. He wrote a whole chapter on propaganda in ''Mien Kampf'', marvelling and admiring how effective British propaganda, without bullets, was in WWI. This was given high priority in Nazi Germany, Goebbels Ministry was built on, and modeled after British propaganda (state run BBC). Hitler could never understand why Britain didn't make common-cause with Germany against the USSR, always couldn't understand what they expected to gain. Many Brits as well, never thought the War was worth the effort expended, during it and after. And Britain had absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to loose. In fact, while being a victor, they lost everything, i.e. the British Empire.

:This brings us to a discusssion of the [[Arsenal of Democracy]], and Churchill's "give us the tools, and we'll finish the job" speech. In 1940, the US was adament about remaining neutral. The Arsenal of Democracy, for US domestic consumption, meant the US would get invovled in building weapons, but not supply manpower, i.e. bloodshed. This was extremely controversial at the time. Churchill's speech was intended as a reassurance, if the US would amend the Neutrality Act, and allow Lend Lease shipments, Britain had the manpower (which survived Dunkirk), but only needed the tools (weapons) from American factories (the Arsenal of Democracy). This was the propaganda sold to the American public, that the US could take sides, arm Britain, yet not expend any manpower or bloodshed of its own. Hitler evidently believed it as well, never thinking American troops would assemble in Great Britain to invade someday. Or if it did happen, it would take years and years to build the ships, ship the material and manpower, and finally mount an invasion.

:That is why, in 1940, Hitler let the British Expediationary Force slip away at Dunkirk. To him, it was only a "brisk, jolly little war", like a game of touch football where nobody gets hurt. And Total War against Britain was not in his mind. Total War against the USSR was, but he would have liked to have Britain as an ally in such a venture. And whether or not Britain was an ally, didn't disrupt his plans. And truth be told, Hitler always admired and respected Great Britain, but could not figure out why they would destroy themselves and their Empire to gain nothing. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:09, 6 June 2007 (EDT)

Portugal was neutral but benevolent TOWARDS Britain. Indeed, the oldest extant defence treaty is that between Portugal and England, made in 1373. At about the same time that America declared a demarcation line between the Eastern and Western Hemispheres with US patrolling the Western and keeping GB aware of all Axis sightings, (April 1941) Britain was organising, in response to requests from Portugal, a takeover of the Azores, with further plans for Cape Verde Islands and Grande Canary; all Portuguese territories that neither Portugal nor Britain wanted to fall into German hands. (Refer SBS World Book (Portugal) and Churchill’s War Memoirs: Vols. II & III.)[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
*Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:53, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Um...in 1943 Churchill himself visited Lisbon...not a place to be if it is pro-German. That is well over a year before the war finished and before an Allied Victory was assured. Before the Americans came in, Portugal had given the Allies "use" of their Atlantic islands. I am not sure what you are getting at. These pro-English gestures, and others were not "once the war was over".

:::Portugal was neutral and the seat of much espionage and disinformation activity. When the Goebbels wished to transmit a line of disinformation, Lisbon newspapers were always targerted knowing the Allies would pick it up in hopes it had some degree of credibility. Portugal figured prominently into the "Double Cross" cross system. The famous case how British intelligence handcuffed a briefcase with supposed invasion plans to a corpse and let it wash up on shore in Portugal, knowing the disinformation would get back to Berlin after Portugeese investigators examined the corpse is well known. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 12:37, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Agreed. And the Actor Leslie Howard died when a plane was targeted by the Germans between Lisbon and London as Churchill may have been on board. Lisborn was walking a fine line between London, Berlin, and Madrid. And many in authority were pro-Nazi. But the Portuguese Gov't did offer Britain the use of the Azores - of immense strategic value like Iceland. If you wish to revert my removal, do so, but surely a "pro-Axis leadership would preferred Germany to have their Atlantic territories, instead of Britain. Now, its not yet 5 am and the coffee has stopped gurgling. Cheers[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 14:57, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:Yes that's all true. I don't recall all the details how the Allies got to use the Azores, but after Stalingrad, virtually everybody in the know knew which way the wind was blowing and who was going to win anyway. Besides, the Germans never had sufficient naval forces to hold the Azores, the only interesting question would be was it before Stalingrad or after? and if before, what impact did it have in facilitating transport of troops & material for the North African campaign, and to what extend was Allied occupation of the Azores visiable (by visable, I mean that the Germans ''knew'' it was done with the consent of Protugal, OTOH, was it forcible in that Portugal was powerless to prevent it) so the Germans basically knew Portugal was abetting the Allies.

:In ''Goebbels Diaries'', speaking from memory, I recall one entry where Goebbels was all aflutter becuase some Lisbon newspaper picked up some disinformation they were trying to get Britain to act upon, but I don't recall the specifics. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 15:29, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

You are no doubt right again. I am looking at books I have hardly opened in 40 years! In a memo from "Prime Minister to Foreign Office" dated 11 Aug. '41, discussing talks with Roosevelt on the Atlantic Charter he writes (inter alia): ".....he (Roosevelt) would be willing to ''come to the aid of Portugal'' in the Atlantic islands...." (My italics) This implies Portugal desiring that aid. This is after the invasion of Russia but well before the rot set in.

Can we agree to differ on this. You seem to be anti Portugal. I suppose I am trying to balance that. Certainly, many Portuguese, including Government, were pro-German. Many weren't. We can go back and forth for ever. As I said; if you want to revert.....[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 16:08, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

:I'm just carrying this all off the top of my head, and have never really delved into the intricacies of Portugese neutrality. Certainly it was a popular vacation spot for continental Europeans during the Nazi occupations elsewhere to get away from the War, and more easily accessible than it was for Allies. Portugal I would assume was incapable of militarily defending the Azores if the Allies really needed it for the North African campaign, so they may have allowed the Allies to pretend to take it forcibly, while at the same time claiming neutrality. I rather doubt there was a back room agreement to allow it before the disaster for the Germans at Stalingrad, but it is plausible, I suppose. OTOH, the Germans certainly would have wanted Portugal for U-boat operations, but they saw certain advantages to respect neutrality. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:17, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Yes, yes, yes and , um, yes. I am trying to finish an article on King John before the day gets going and family takes over. (We all know ''he'' was a villain.) All I know is Churchill considered Portugal onside. As early as 1940 he was discussing Portugal as, if not exactly a friend but at least not an enemy. Portugal were also incapable of defending their Atlantic islands if Germany decided to invade - which they planned to do, but I don't know when. AhHA! Same letter as above (Aug. '41)says: "The President has received a letter from Dr. Salazar, in which it is made clear that he is looking to the Azores as a place of retreat for himself and his Government in the event of German aggression against Portugal, and that his country's age-long alliance with England leads him to count on British protection during his enforced stay on these islands". That can be considered in various ways, I suppose.[[User:AlanE|AlanE]] 17:01, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

::When I was looking for some information about the German opinions about Britain staying in the war, I found an interesting discussion about a book by Lidell Hart. He interviewed some of the German generals at Nurenburg. Several of them said that Hitler held the Germans back at Dunkirk, when the generals wanted to move in and finish off the Expeditionary Force. According to them, Hitler thought that, with France defeated, Britain might be willing to join with Germany against Russia. While these were comments made well after the fact, BLH points out that when awaiting trial, it would make more sense for the generals to put themselves in the position of saving the British troops, instead of giving that role to Hitler. I know that before the war broke out, there was a small group of Britons that supported the idea of fascism being preferable to communism. I wonder if Hitler, who clearly had agents in pre-war Britain, made a complete misread of this position.
:::As a side note, there were Nazi sympatheizers in high circles in Britain. Hitler himself had strong connections in Britain. This would certainly make sense. Also, in Hitler's way of thinking, way would Britain oppose Italy, Germany, USSR etc.... it would be and it would be easier to control the country quietly (as France or Denmark) rather than undertake an very awkward and possibly difficult (that was never test, of course) to control nation.[[User:Stevendavy|Stevendavy]] 10 August 2007

::::I hate to cite WP, but read their entry on Edward VIII of the United Kingdom (later the Duke of Windsor). This is why Rudolf Hess flew to England. Many Nazi's bosses thought they had enough influence in Britian to keep them out from continuing the war. As you cited above about Dunkirk, you're not really addressing the major historical question around that event: Why did Hitler allow them to escape? Why did Hitler counter the advise of his General's ''an not'' take them '''all''' POW's? Hitler never could understand in his mind why Britain took sides with the Soviet against the united powers of Western Europe. Contrary to what is taught in the history books, under the Third Riech, every single nation of Western Europe contributed ''both'' its manpower, and its defense budgets to fighting Soviet Communism ''in the Soviet Union''. When the War ended of course, we know what happened; they all blamed the Germans and claimed they were all part of the Resistance. The facts are, France contributed more to the Nazi war effort from 1940-1944 than it did to defend itself from 1939-1940. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:07, 11 August 2007 (EDT)
::I do not have the BLH book mentioned, and I don't want to add something to an article based on a second hand quote, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. [[User:Boomcoach|Boomcoach]] 07:35, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
:::Liddell Hart is ''the'' primary source we should be using for this article. And yes, Hitler never reconciled in his mind why the English, racial cousins, would not join in the fight against Soviet Bolshevism. (In fact, there was an SS legion made up of Englishmen, the Legion of St. George, had about 50 English speaking Brits who fought in Russsia).

:::One of the interesting things in Liddell Hart's book regards the occupation of Norway; Hart points out how the charge of "waging aggressive war" against Norway at Nuremberg was hypocritical, given that Britain at the exact moment itself was moving to occupy an indenpendent, neutral country, only the Germans got there first. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)
::::...and given the choice the Brits would have been welcomed with open arms, I would suggest. Britain did take over the Faroes and, whilst they took their guns with them, they were not unwelcome (as opposed to places where the British stayed longer...)[[user:stevendavy|Stevendavy]]

== Immediate Causes ==

"The immediate causes of World War II are generally held to be the Japanese attacks on China, the United States..."

What? How is the Japanese attack on the United States an immediate cause of WWII? Is this some kind of joke?

==Outline==
Perhpas we need to develop a larger outline for the war. What appears here, is larely what can be referred to as the [[untied front]], i.e. it only discusses the united front against axis powers, and moreless ignores the Soviet invasions of Poland, Finland, the Baltic States, etc. No discussion of the Soviet-Japanese front, Moaist and Comintern activities in the Far East, etc.

The [[united front]], as far as the Anglo-American schools go, date the war from the beginning of Great Britian's involvement, Sept. 3, 1939, although the United States was not an active belligerent power in either Europe or the Far East. So, what I would propose is an opening section which briefly lists all the various major belligerencies that occurred since the war to end all wars, i.e. WWI & the failed Treaty of Versailles. This would be various Japanese wars, what we have finally come to call the Second Sino-Japanese War, Ethiopia, Spanish Civil War, Anschluss, Treaty of Munich, Communazi pact, Finnish War, etc. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:24, 23 August 2007 (EDT)

== What about australia? ==

It seems you have no information on Australia during WW2, this is quite dissapointing seeing as Australia comitted around 300 thousand troops to the war and at one stage held 1/3 of the line in europe against nazi germany, they also fought in africa against italy, as well as in the pacific against japan. Where was the information about the battle for PNG where 800 australian soldiers defeated 10 000 japanese?

Yours truly Ben.

True. I am Australian and hearing this, I'm not happy, I'm sure there should have been something about that a long time ago! --[[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 00:11, 9 December 2007 (EST)

User talk:MichaelGaribaldi

2007-12-08T03:45:37Z

Mssb57:

Dude, check out the "watchdog's" WIGO talk page under "American Indian Genocide...." All will be clear.

Who is this anyway? [[User:Claude|Claude]] 21:57, 7 December 2007 (EST)

Boy, I sure hope I'm not reported to the FBI.

\/anda|_!$m much? stupid spam filter... make me use 1337... [[User:Mssb57|Mssb57]] 22:45, 7 December 2007 (EST)