Talk:World War II

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Gallery [?]
Gallery [?]
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition (1931–1945) global war killing 53 million people, with the "Allies" (UK, US, Soviet Union) eventually halting aggressive expansion by the "Axis" (Nazi Germany and Japan). [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup categories Military and History [Editors asked to check categories]
 Subgroup category:  World War II
 Talk Archive none  English language variant American English

Name: World War Two or Second World War or World War II

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:
  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. Ward, John. "Passions High in Senate Hearings on Film about Canadians in WWII," Toronto Star, 29 June 1992, A8;
  9. Harper, Tim. "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
Richard Jensen 13:51, 4 January 2008 (CST)
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:
  1. Stacey, C.P. Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War. Volume I. Six Years of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific (Queen's Printer, Ottawa, ON, 1955).
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 I" Their online bookstore uses World War I and World War II. Richard Jensen 15:51, 4 January 2008 (CST)

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)

Suggestion on Usage

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 II".

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)

Revisit to this Question (6/10)

What do you prefer to call the damn war? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think at this point the issue is settled. Second World War and World War Two both redirect to World War II. Robert King's point above is well taken and the debate between Dorosh and Jensen to me was inconclusive. I use all three terms pretty much interchangeably, and, for CZ authors writing CZ articles, all three terms could be used in text. I think we could find ourselves in a perpetual renaming hamster wheel. Let's just stick with what we've got. Jones 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


A collection of photos of the Americans in Normandy after D-Day:

Fresh Start

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)

[this thread is in reference to this version]: I have a beef with the opening categories. Strategy assumes US strategy to win the war. Logistics (just a map at this point) shows how the US supplied the war effort. If these categories are to be perpetuated, we should include sections on Japanese strategy, Soviet strategy, Finish strategy, etc., etc. Similarly, this article should have sections on how each nation supplied its troops in each theater (if we are going to talk about supply). While some of these topics are necessary (i.e., Japanese strategy), I don't see how leading off with this helps carry the story. Following this outline means that we won't get to the story until after a few thousand words. This article should be an overview of a lot (and I mean A LOT) of sub-articles (i.e. Pacific Theater >> Solomons Campaign >> Guadalcanal >> Bloody Ridge; all should have articles). But going into analysis in the first section just blunts the greatest story of the twentieth century.
Let's tell the story!! Save the analysis for sub-articles. Just my beef. --Russell D. Jones 21:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I can't resist -- I'd tend to say I have a cow with some of the existing historical articles. Unfortunately, while this article does talk about US strategy, it doesn't really get into other nations' views, and this is a problem with other military history: a US-centric view that distorts even US contributions to a coalition. You may have seen the interview with George Pickett in Why the Confederacy Lost; the interviewer had asked him why Gettysburg failed — was it Stuart's lack of reconnaissance, or Longstreet's lack of enthusiasm? Pickett, if nothing else an honest man, suggested (from memory) "I always thought the Yankees had a bit to do with it."
The Vietnam War article, on which I've been working, again was massive, but the main prior author specifically said that it was being written from an American perspective. Personally, I always thought the Vietnamese had a bit to do with it. While that's still a work in progress, perhaps it will give you an idea how I'd see overhauling topics.
Now, one can get a little too terse. Who was it that claimed that Ernest King believed that there should be one news release, following the defeat of Japan: "We won."? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
But as an overview article, this article can not, and indeed should not, get involved in the details of the war. That is what the sub-articles should be for. So, perhaps, this article should offer more of a global perspective and direct a reader to the relevant sub-articles (German strategy on the Eastern Front, Soviet strategy on the Eastern Front, etc., etc.). I don't have a particular opinion about whether the approach should be top-down or bottom-up. But article and sub-article should be consistent. I'm also contemplating moving the material about the name and the discussion on this talk page about the name to some other place. Maybe there could be a separate sub-page on this. >>> Russell D. Jones 14:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
If we aren't in violent agreement, we are close to it. To establish the global quality, may I suggest agreeing on dates is necessary in the main article, whatever its name may be? At least in the U.S., the assumption is everything started in 1941; we hope they haven't seen the wrong movie and think that the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor. :-( Just staying US-centric to emphasize the dates as critical, I can remember U.S. students saying they wanted to concern themselves only to when the U.S. was attacked on dubious logic that the war wasn't "world" until then. Bringing up the USS Panay or USS Reuben James causes great confusion to someone's early assumptions.
You're a better judge than I am, since you actively teach, but should the lead, at least, link to articles that define grand strategy, military strategy, operational art, and the various levels of tactics? You speak of sub-articles on such things as strategy on the Eastern front, but, variously, somewhere fairly early, should we not have, minimally in the main article with pointers to subarticles, on how the decisions were made on what fronts to have? Question: where should a context be set that explains that it made sense, with the governments involved, to have a fairly close Moscow-Ribbentrop Pact and Operation Barbarossa? The grand strategy of the U.S. certainly involved Lend-Lease and mobilization issues such as the Louisiana Maneuvers and the draft. Operational thinking was relatively new paradigm, mostly from Germany and the Soviet Union. Perhaps the longest build-up to a war decision, with no bluffing as for the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia, but with the issue being Strike-North or Strike-South, China and Manchuria as "local matters", and then the very complex issues of Vichy, Indochina, the U.S. conditional embargoes, etc.? Even with the U.S. and the U.K., the European vs. Pacific initial emphasis does probably need to wait until 1942, but it's essential in setting the scope, just as is the Tripartite Pact.
Some basic proposals:
  • Start with a rough timeline that brings in belligerents and major supporters. Grand strategic vs. strategic vs. operational decisions, not actions, may come from this.
  • Identify the key ideologies, perceived national interests, and other reasons for going to war, however vague. I'm thinking of some of the excellent writing about this in Fred Ikle's Every War Must End.
  • Stylistically, consider the storytelling aspect by introducing many top-level subsections of top or high-level articles with a quote or vignette. While it's far too long, I'm reminded, as a matter of style, of the opening chapter, "One Day of Magic", in David Kahn's The Codebreakers.

Howard C. Berkowitz 15:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


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)

Thanks, Peter, fixed that gaffe. --Russell D. Jones 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


But now I have issue with characterizing the Poland campaign as "blitzkrieg." The Poland campaign was conventional in its operation: infantry with armor and artillery support. The difference with Poland, however, was the extensive use of close air support; that was novel. Blitzkrieg does not rely upon foot infantry. The foot soldier can not run fast enough to keep up with a tank. The better example of Blitzkrieg is Guderian's breakout in France in 1940.--Russell D. Jones 14:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg is really a soft term. Nevertheless, if one looks at the combined air-armor penetrations, for which radio communication was an essential, primitive but oft-ignored part, there was still a role for foot infantry. After the Panzer groups broke through Polish lines, the foot (and horse) mobile infantry secured the flanks of the penetrations. That was critical for the continued spearhead operations, so they had secure supply lines. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Logistics is meaningful at the grand strategic, strategic, level of operational art, and tactical for different unit types and sizes contexts.

Can we agree to remove logistics as a major heading? Industrial mobilization, for example, is properly a subset of grand strategy and, to some extent, strategy. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps "See Also" >>> Jones 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Apply everything I said about logistics to "Economics". Economics, of course, is more grand strategic and strategic.
In fact, maybe a good step is to figure out the minimum necessary but sufficient, and consistent, top-level headings. The current set doesn't really seem to define a conceptual framework. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


Cryptography and cryptanalysis were rather important in WW II. The mainly British ULTRA project broke German ciphers while the mainly American MAGIC hit the Japanese. The success of these affected almost everything and arguably won some major battles such as Midway. I think this needs mention here. Sandy Harris 05:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Organizational Outline

Please edit as appropriate so that we can arrive at a master outline. Each name should be an article name:

World War II

  1. High command organization
    1. United Nations
      1. International Conferences during World War II
        1. Atlantic Conference
        2. Casablanca Conference
        3. 1943 Cairo Conference
        4. Tehran Conference
        5. Yalta Conference
        6. Potsdam Conference
    2. U.S., U.K., and Commonwealth
      1. Political
      2. Combined Chiefs of Staff
      3. Theaters
        1. European Theater of Operations
        2. Mediterranean Theater of Operations
        3. China-Burma-India theater
        4. Pacific Ocean Areas
        5. Southwest Pacific Area
        6. (strategic bombing organization)
    3. German
      1. Oberkommando der Wehrmacht
      2. Oberkommando des Heeres
      3. Oberkommando der Luftwaffe
      4. Oberkommando der Marine
      5. SS
        1. Waffen SS
    4. Japanese
      1. Imperial General Headquarters
      2. Imperial Japanese Navy
        1. Commander-in-Chief, Combined Fleet
    5. Soviet
    6. Italian
    7. French (pre-1941)
    8. Colonial & Minor powers
  2. World War II in Europe
    1. Military Operations in Europe
      1. Poland Campaign (Case White)
      2. DKM Bismarck sortie
      3. Channel dash
      4. Winter War
      5. Phony War
      6. Norway Campaign
      7. Battle of France
      8. Operation Sea Lion
      9. Battle of Britain
      10. Dieppe Raid (Operation Jubilee)
      11. Battle of the Atlantic
        1. Operation Paukenschlag
        2. Bruneval Raid
        3. Submarine Tracking Room
      12. Battle of Normandy
        1. Operation Cobra
        2. Operation Goodwood (there were actually at least two independent Goodwoods)
      13. Operation Market Garden
      14. Remagen Bridge
    2. Strategic Warfare in Europe
      1. Covert operations in Europe
        1. Secret Intelligence Service
        2. Special Operations Executive
        3. Office of Strategic Services
        4. Clandestine human-source intelligence and covert action
      2. Strategic deception in Europe
        1. Double-cross system
      3. Strategic Bombing of Europe
        1. German strategic air defense
    3. Home Fronts in Europe
      1. Resistance movements
      2. Holocaust
  3. World War II in Eastern Europe
    1. Military Operation in Eastern Europe
      1. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (or would you prefer the Wise Peace Policy of Comrade Stalin)
      2. Operation Barbarossa
      3. Southern Campaign (1942)
      4. Sieges of Leningrad and Stalingrad
      5. Battle for Berlin
    2. Strategic Warfare in Eastern Europe
      1. covert operations on the Eastern Front
      2. Russian Liberation Movement
    3. Home Fronts in Eastern Europe
      1. Resistance Movements
        1. Polish Resistance
          1. Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
          2. Warsaw Uprising
  4. World War II in Africa and the Mediterranean
    1. Invasion of Yugoslavia
    2. Invasion of Greece
    3. Invasion of Crete
    4. Operation Torch
      1. Kasserine Pass
    5. Invasion of Sicily
  5. World War II in the Pacific
    1. Opening Phases
      1. attack on Pearl Harbor or attack on Pearl Harbor
      2. Conquest of the Malay Peninsula
        1. Sinking of HMS Repulse and HMS Renown
      3. Battle of the Java Sea
      4. Battle of Wake Island
      5. Indochina and the Second World War
      6. Aleutian Islands Campaign
      7. Doolittle Raid
      8. Solomons Campaign
        1. Battle of the Coral Sea
        2. Battle of Guadalcanal
          1. Bloody Ridge
          2. Battle of Savo Island (Savo Strait?)
          3. Battle of Cape Esperance
          4. First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
          5. Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal
          6. Battle of Tassafaronga
          7. Battle of Rennell Island (hey, my grandfather-ex-in-law commanded the jeep carriers, and probably was the scapegoat for Giffen. Still, I've read all the logs of the battle, small as it was) Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    2. Central Pacific Campaign
      1. Attack on Truk
      2. Northern Mariana Islands (Operation Forager)
        1. Battle of Saipan
        2. Battle of the Phillipine Sea
        3. Battle of Tinian
        4. Battle of Guam
    3. Southwest Pacific Campaign
      1. New Guinea Campaign
      2. Philippines
        1. Guerilla operations in the Phillipines
        2. Leyte landings
        3. Battle of Leyte Gulf
        4. Battle of Manila
        5. Raids on POW Camps in the Phillipines
    4. Western Pacific
      1. Battle of Iwo Jima
      2. Battle of Saipan
      3. Battle of Okinawa
    5. Final phases of the Pacific War
      1. Operation Downfall
        1. Operation Olympic
        2. Operation CORONET
      2. Submarine operations against Japan
      3. Strategic air operations against Japan
        1. Early B-29
        2. Fire raids
        3. Mine warfare against Japan
        4. Nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
      4. Surrender of Japan
        1. Potsdam Declaration
        2. ...something about unconditional surrender and factions
        3. The Voice of the Crane
  6. China-Burma-India theater
    1. Second Sino-Japanese War
      1. Marco Polo Bridge Incident
      2. Panay Incident
      3. Battle of Shanghai
      4. Sack of Nanking
    2. Japanese biological and chemical warfare
    3. Etc.
  7. World War II and war crimes
    1. International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg)
    2. Nuremberg Military Tribunals
    3. International Military Tribunal (Tokyo)
    4. U.S. intelligence involvement with World War II war criminals
    5. Soviet intelligence involvement with World War II war criminals
    6. Hitler's final disposition
  8. Industrial and logistic
    1. Lend-lease
    2. U.S. industrial mobilization
    3. Army Ground Forces
  9. Technology
    1. Radar
    2. Direction finding
    3. Convoy
    4. Escort aircraft carrier
    5. Jet engine
    6. Katyusha rocket and multiple rocket launcher generally
    7. Mobile warfare
    8. ULTRA and MAGIC
    9. Seatrain (underway replenishment?]]
    10. Nuclear weapon
      1. LITTLE BOY (nuclear weapon)
      2. FAT MAN (nuclear weapon)
    11. Kamikaze
    12. Fritz-X
    13. V-1
    14. V-2
    15. V-3
    16. Explosively formed projectile
    17. Proximity fuze


Russell, your point about social history vice home front is well taken, especially if it's supplemented either with war support OR resistance. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Really, a history of a homefront is the social/political/economic history of nation during the period 1939-1945. Certainly the war was a huge factor in all of these aspects of a nation's history at that time, but the question is should CZ categorize that history as a sub-topic of World War Two or as a sub-topic of a national history. (both really, as we have the technology to do that). For me, homefronts should be discussed as a major topic in a national history. The World War Two cluster should point an interested reader to the relevant sections of our national histories. I think, also, that we should come back to this question when we have someone writing an article on the social history of a particular people for 1939-1945. Jones 15:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Howard, your recent additions about command structure do not follow the guidelines that each heading be a link. What do you propose for titles for these articles? U.S. High Command Organization during World War II, German High Command Organization during World War II, USSR High Command Organization during World War II, etc.? Jones 15:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But they were all redlinks. :-) There does need to be something that addresses the highest policy level. While Roosevelt didn't tend to involve himself in war management, with a few exceptions, Churchill, Hitler, Stalin and apparently Hirohito (as well as Tojo and successors) did. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at the Old Place to see how they do their articles on home fronts and they handle it via Categories. See for instance: [1]. Jones 01:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Hirohito? I always understood he was just a figurehead till the very end, when he took advantage of a deadlock in cabinet to order surrender. Peter Jackson 16:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No, an increasing amount of information has come out that he had a significant behind-the-scenes role. One excellent source is Herbert Bix's book, Hirohito and the making of Modern Japan." In 2009, Mainichi also said a number of archives, both Palace and military, would be released -- I haven't seen a note yet, but I don't know if they were translated. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

United Nations?

I do not understand Russell's addition of "United Nations" as a heading. My understanding is that the UN was founded after the war. The correct terms for the sides during the war would be Axis and Allies. Sandy Harris 15:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

They called themselves (in propaganda, at least) the United Nations before the United Nations Organization was formed. It was in this colloquial sense that I was using the term. I have some reservations about the term "Allies" as Stalin was more foe than friend, in spite of FDR's spouting of "Uncle Joe" or "papa Joe" as if he was some sort of harmless family bumpkin. And there were a lot of anti-Nazi or anti-Japanese nations in the war that did little fighting or other contributions aside from a declaration. And really was there any joint planning aside from "unconditional surrender" and "Germany first?" So, what exactly does "allied" mean besides that they all had a common enemy? There was no formal alliance unlike the Axis, but there were collective pledges made during the war that united them. And similarly with "Axis": the term implies that there was some sort of cooperation and coordination between Germany and Japan. The only thing they had in common was that they were fighting the Allies. "Axis and Allies" makes for a catchy board game title, but I think it was more complicated than that.
But, also, realistically, "allies" is the usual term for describing the nations that opposed the Axis. When I use the term I usually use it in reference to the U.S.-U.K. relationship and not so much in reference with the USSR. Then again, Churchill called the three of them the "Grand Alliance." We don't have articles or Allies in World War Two or Axis.
In an earlier draft, Howard had "Allies" but I changed this to "U.S., U.K., and Commonwealth" as the material under it obviously did not include the Soviet Union.
Sorry, this probably isn't clear and rambles a lot. Jones 16:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you are saying about no joint planning -- there certainly was in the European theater between the US and UK, as, for example, the complementary approaches to strategic bombing or the joint ground operations. There were critical technology and intelligence exchanges. Agreed there was little joint planning with Stalin. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's mostly my point. The "allies" weren't all that allied except the U.S. & U.K. and others that staged out of GB. Stalin was fighting his own war. And, really, Chile? to what degree to we say that Chile or Peru were part of the "Allies" and participated in joint planning? Jones 19:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we want more articles on the joint organizations, including Combined Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff, Supreme Allied Commander (COSSAC)/Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces, etc., as well as organizations that did coordinate (intelligence, special operations, deception, technology). While King didn't like it, there was a British TF in the Pacific. The strategic bombing campaigns against Germany were coordinated, although not under joint command. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Here's my point. Jones16:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)