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??:

• 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

Richard Jensen 21:28, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

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)