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.

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.AlanE 22:45, 4 June 2007 (EDT)

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)

• Germany and the Soviet Union never had any sort of alliance.

• Huh? 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. --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)

• 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. 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." AlanE 01:18, 5 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.)AlanE 00:46, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

• Sure. Everybody was on the winning side once the War was over, even the neutrals. 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. 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. CheersAlanE 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. 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.....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. RobS 16:17, 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.

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. 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. RobS 16:26, 5 June 2007 (EDT)