Talk:World War II

We need a comprehensive article about WWII, not just a list of stuff. Yi Zhe Wu 19:33, 15 July 2007 (CDT)


 * Should we import the Wikipedia article? --Kjetil Ree 19:43, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * No I plan a wholly new article. Richard Jensen 19:48, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Ok, great! Kjetil Ree 19:59, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm thinking of a topical division--comments??:

Richard Jensen 21:28, 15 July 2007 (CDT)
 * diplomacy/ causes
 * land warfare [esp Europe]
 * naval warfare [esp Pacific, + subs]
 * air warfare [all theatres]
 * economics [finance, production & manpower]
 * war crimes [incl Holocaust]
 * resistance movements


 * Seems ok. Maybe we should add a section about the aftermath of the war (border changes, a divided Europe, the cold war, the end to the European colonial empires)? --Kjetil Ree 12:52, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * good idea! Richard Jensen 14:23, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

I'd like it more organized in chronological order myself. --Charles Sandberg 17:14, 16 July 2007 (CDT)

Name
I wonder if we might not establish a decent, scholarly groundwork for articles regarding this conflict by ruthlessly stamping out use of the acronym "WWII". It peppers a lot of articles at Wikipedia, and in my opinion it looks sloppy and is indicative of laziness.

I'll even go one further and suggest the article be named Second World War instead of World War II. Almost every nation refers officially to this conflict as the Second World War. The official histories of Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, India and South Africa all use that term exclusively if memory serves, in English. The Germans use zweiter Weltkrieg which translates directly as "Second World War". I believe the French and Italians use similar nomenclature? The Soviet Union referred to the conflict as The Great Patriotic War, though only in the context of their conflict with Germany. Only the United States uses the specific title "World War II", which should of course be recognized, but given that their title is in the minority, can we perhaps explore the possibility of using the nomenclature adopted by the majority of participants (at least with regards to their writing of "official" history), and avoid the perceived Ameri-centric bias of Wikipedia? Michael A. Dorosh 14:28, 3 January 2008 (CST)
 * On nomenclature, it's striking that the Oxford History of World War II (US title) is renamed Oxford History of the Second World War for the British market (I am a contributor by the way). This article uses American spellings and styles so opts for the first usage, according to CZ standards. As for other countries: In Canada both styles are used. (See Jean Bouchery. Canadian Soldier in World War II: From D-Day to VE-Day (2007)) Likewise both versions are current in UK. For proof see The BBC World War Two Collection (2005), published by BBC in London. Likewise the abbreviation is in common use: see Britain at War WWII and this listing of WWii titles-- these are links to Amazon.UK for sales in UK. Sometimes both versions appear in the same title: WWII: Time-Life Books History of the Second World War (1989). As for Russia, I note an official publication from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Correspondence Between Stalin, Churchill and Atlee During World War II Richard Jensen 16:58, 3 January 2008 (CST)
 * I struck out Bouchery because he is French, not Canadian. While some historians in Canada use "World War II" (Bercuson, for example), I would say it is because they are not true military historians - i.e. they are doing so out of ignorance.Michael A. Dorosh 13:10, 4 January 2008 (CST)
 * Let me demonstrate that leading Canadians editors, authors, dissertation directors and publishers of scholarly publications and of major newspapers use both "World War II" and "WWII"; the last item is an article I wrote: Richard Jensen 13:51, 4 January 2008 (CST)


 * 1) . Freund, Alexander.  “Troubling Memories in Nation-building: World War Ii Memories and Germans' Inter-ethnic Encounters in Canada after 1945. “ ‘’Histoire Sociale '' 2006 39(77): 129-155. ISSN: 0018-2257
 * 2) . Dissertation/Thesis : Poulin, Grace.  "Invisible Women: WWII Aboriginal Servicewomen in Canada."  Publication: Trent U.  2006. 238 pp.
 * 3) . Patrias, Carmela. Race, Employment Discrimination, and State Complicity in Wartime Canada, 1939-1945.  Labour  2007 (59): 9-42. ISSN: 0700-3862 : "One goal of this article is to examine the nature and extent of racist employment discrimination during World War II."
 * 4) . Dissertation/Thesis Arrowsmith, Emily.  "Fair Enough? How Notions of Race, Gender and Soldiers' Rights Affected Dependents' Allowance Policies towards Canadian Aboriginal Families during World War II."  Publication: Carleton U. '' 2006. 555 pp.
 * 5) . Dissertation/Thesis Caccia, Ivana.  "Managing the Canadian Mosaic: Dealing with Cultural Diversity during the WWII Years."  Publication: U. of Ottawa '' 2006. 448 pp.
 * 6) . Francis, Daniel. “The Sinking of the Athenia” ‘’'Beaver’‘ 2006 86(2): 30-33, 35-36. ISSN: 0005-7517  "In World War II German U-boats wreaked havoc in Atlantic."
 * 7) . Mike Boone, 'Canada's War: Montrealer's Documentary Series Recalls Valor and Horror of World War II,' Montreal Gazette, 10 Jan. 1992
 * 8) . John Ward, 'Passions High in Senate Hearings on Film about Canadians in WWII,' Toronto Star, 29 June 1992, A8;
 * 9) . Tim Harper, 'WWII Seamen Fear Loss of Promised Benefits,' Toronto Star, 2 May 1992, A19.
 * 10) . The Veterans Charter and Post–World War II Canada, ed. Peter Neary and J.L. Granatstein, 88 (Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1998).
 * 11) . Crooks, Sylvia. Homefront and Battlefront: Nelson BC in World War II. Vancouver, B.C.: Granville Island,'' 2005.
 * 12) . Jedwab, Jack. “Knowing War: Canadians Reflect on Wwii and the Possibility of Another Global Conflict. Canadian Issues  2004 (Wint): 14-16. ISSN: 0318-8442
 * 13) . Dissertation/Thesis Burianyk, Kathryn Vera.  "The `Home Front' in Regina during World War II."  U. of Regina  2004.
 * 14) . Jackson, Paul. ‘’One of the Boys: Homosexuality in the Military during World War II. ‘’ McGill-Queen's U. Press 2004.
 * 15) . Jensen, Richard. "Nationalism and Civic Duty in Wartime: Comparing World Wars in Canada and America." Canadian Issues  2004 (Wint): 6-10. ISSN: 0318-8442

Official
All of which miss the point entirely. The Official Histories in Canada use the term "Second World War". Granatstein is not the official historian, Stacey and Nicholson had that honour in their 3 volume works on the Army, as well as Stacey's political history, and the volumes more recently done on the RCAF and RCN See: the Second World War: Volume I. Six Years of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific (Queen's Printer, Ottawa, ON, 1955)
 * 1) Stacey, C.P. Official History of the Canadian Army in

Bouchery is a particularly horrid example; his book is a picture book poorly translated into English - useful for uniform collectors but not in any way a military history.

For other nations see for example:


 * 1) McClymont, W. G. Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War, 1939-1945: To Greece. Wellington: War History Branch, 1959
 * 2) L'Esercito Italiano alla Vigilia della 2a Guerra Mondiale. Rome: Ufficio Storico, 1982 "Italian Army on the Eve of the Second World War." 580 pages.
 * 3) Deist, Messerschmidt, Volkmann, et al. Germany and the Second World War, vol 1. The Build-up of German Aggression. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

These are all listed by Stone and Stone as "official" publications. South Africa appears to have used "World War II" in its titles, Australia dodges the question entirely in the titles; I'd have to review the text to see what they refer to the conflict as inline.Michael A. Dorosh 14:33, 4 January 2008 (CST)
 * CZ is not an "official" publication; however it is a 21st century publication and uses today's style not the naming conventions of 50 or 75 years ago. When Canada, for example, set up a "Virtual Museum" of Canadian history it chose the WWii designation, not the old fashioned terms. Likewise recent graphics from the Australian War Memorial use World War II. The War memorial 2008 Calendar is "- Photography of World War 1" Their online bookstore uses World War I and World War II. Richard Jensen 15:51, 4 January 2008 (CST)

Naming
Is the naming really that much of a contentious issue that it must surpass any and all other efforts to provide content and editorial guidance on this and other articles? Time and Energy can be better spent; this is splitting hairs. --Robert W King 14:59, 4 January 2008 (CST)
 * Yes, it is. It would appear Mr. Jensen wants to produce another bubble-gum version of history here which seems anti-thetical to the stated intent of what Citizendium was supposed to be about in the first place. I find his claim that the "official designations" of the conflict are somehow outdated and that ignorance and popular culture should win out over the practices of serious military historians. I'll look forward to the section on "World War II references in The Simpsons". I understand Abraham Simpson was in the Big One. :) Michael A. Dorosh 09:47, 7 January 2008 (CST)


 * There was no need for the last jibe in your post there. Frankly, no-one cares if it was called the 'Great war of Mother Goose'. The fact is that millions of people died in a conflict the likes of which will hopefully never happen again. I think its more important that we add more to the content side of things, and just make a redirect from 'Second World War' to this. Denis Cavanagh 10:01, 7 January 2008 (CST)
 * One final comment. The official histories are superb military histories by superb historians.  Those historians did NOT choose the title of their series. The series titles were chosen by higher level bureaucrats who were not military historians, and there is no way to privilege the very old views of these faceless non-scholarly bureaucrats today.Richard Jensen 11:57, 7 January 2008 (CST)

Recommendation
I recommend using the roman numeric nomenclature that has been used for thousands of years and is widely accepted around the world. However I would advise against excessive use of acronyms (e.g. "WWII"), and instead opt for "World War II" for title headings and "the second world war" as an alternative for context within a paragraph.

Also, grammatical rules suggest that low-valued numbers typically get spelled out when writing prose(e.g. "one" "two" "three") as opposed to "1" "2" and "3" so I would avoid such uses of "World War 2".

Any more arguments or mudslinging and I would defer to a constable, or the editor-in-chief. As previously stated, there is time better spent. In the end, as long as the usage is correct there really is no reason to continue this discussion. --Robert W King 12:08, 7 January 2008 (CST)

http://www.flickriver.com/photos/photosnormandie/sets/72157594552545298/
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/photosnormandie/sets/72157594552545298/

Cleanup
Anyone interested in working on this? Right now, it's primarily an index, in many cases to articles that do not exist. There are sub-articles on major topics, such as the air war in Europe, but there doesn't seem a consistent structure reflecting major theaters, major campaigns within theaters, and chronology. Howard C. Berkowitz 10:31, 5 September 2008 (CDT)

Poland
Article says it capitulated in August, which seems unlikely given that the invasion didn't start till September. Peter Jackson 15:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)