Talk:World War II

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 stevendavy 11:33, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Didn't World War II begin when Germany invaded Poland on 9/1/39? 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.--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.NSmyth15:40, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Oops. yeah, your right. Haha, silly me. Still, we do need to fix the main article.--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.NSmyth15:41, 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.--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.

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. 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. 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. Additioner 15:50, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

Britain staying in the war

I added a fact tag on the following line:

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

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.

• 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. --Sysop-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.) Boomcoach 12:59, 4 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. --Sysop-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.)AlanE 17:55, 4 June 2007 (EDT)