Wiki Article

Talk:World War II

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Former featured article candidateWorld War II is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleWorld War II has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 18, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 22, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
January 26, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
April 13, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
May 18, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 25, 2006Good article nomineeListed
February 17, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 23, 2007WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
April 14, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
October 8, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
May 10, 2008WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
March 6, 2010Good article nomineeListed
April 25, 2013Peer reviewReviewed
January 13, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of December 18, 2005.
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article


Operation Himmler

[edit]

I would like to add some information about this operation because Hitler used it as a justification for the invasion of Poland. Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Such as? Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Germany needed a pretext to start a war with Poland and launched Operation Himmler. Gestapo forces brought a prisoner from a German concentration camp to a radio station located not far from the Polish-German border. This took place the evening before the scheduled day of the invasion of Poland. The prisoner was dressed in a Polish military uniform and was shot on the spot as the Nazis announced that they had stopped a Polish attack. Hitler used this incident to justify his own war. Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Too much detail for an overview article. Slatersteven (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or can I simply write that Hitler needed a pretext and therefore launched Operation Himmler? Like for example: "In order to have a pretext for the war in Poland, Hitler launched Operation Himmler the evening before invading Poland." Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We more or less do already "On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded Poland after having staged several false flag border incidents as a pretext to initiate the invasion". Slatersteven (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's part of the surgery. Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I want to write about the operation itself. Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't seem necessary given the article already notes it, and is a 'very high level article. It can't cover all details of the war. Nick-D (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I understand. Bavarian Wilhelm (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2025

[edit]

Under the "Commanders and leaders" section, change "Jospeh Stalin" to "Joseph Stalin" ~2025-34335-54 (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved I have reverted the edit that introduced the typo as it disregarded current consensus. Loytra 13:30, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearance request to add full participants/belligerents table including all WWII country participants

[edit]

It seems that the only text in the participants table is allies and axis. If it would help, I wish to add the full table with every participating country, also based on citations if required. I am here to request clearance to do so. Thanks! Samvielsona (talk) 02:20, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Samvielsona: This has been extensively debated! The short of it is that including all of the participants makes the table extremely long, which devalues the summary purpose of an infobox. Ed [talk] [OMT] 03:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is completely valid! However, providing a list of all of the participant countries (or at minimum the major participating countries) along with a division for allied and axis members (if required) could greatly help with visiting people wishing to get an insight into individual country participation via the list and further help in the conflict's understanding whilst providing although relatively moderate efficiency by staying on the same article whilst viewing the list.
Samvielsona (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the huge number of countries that participated in the war and the complexities around this (e.g. quite a few countries fought on both sides of the war) the infobox was vast and unhelpful when it used to include that. The current version reflects the long-term consensus. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have World War II by country for that. Slatersteven (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2025

[edit]

And France is a major country in ww2 Uifhkuerveveve (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 18:31, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ELA

[edit]

The word war ll was the second war the world has have — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-37595-92 (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2025

[edit]

Let me ass dots in the middle of a few pages to symbolise that they are an acronynm Oggy342109 (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not even... what? NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 03:44, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Chess enjoyer (talk) 03:45, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2025

[edit]

At the beginning of the page, « Main Allied leaders » is written. There, add Charles de Gaulle. Because France has won World War II, that’s why the country is one of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.

For ending, I’ll add that you never mention the Free Frenchs or Free France, leaded by Charles de Gaulle. Without their participation, it’s not absolutly sure that the Allieds win the War. ~2025-39655-17 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aston305 (complain/compliment) 22:57, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add Raising of the Flag on Iwo Jima to the lede photo mashup

[edit]

TAs an editor, I propose that Joe Rosenthal's iconic photograph, Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, be added to the lede photo gallery for content discussing the most impactful and recognizable images of World War II. This photograph is one of the most significant and globally recognized images of the entire conflict, capturing a crucial moment of the fierce Battle of Iwo Jima and serving as the direct inspiration for the Marine Corps War Memorial. Its immediate impact was enormous, winning the Pulitzer Prize and playing a key role in raising billions of dollars for the war effort through the Seventh War Loan drive. Furthermore, its status is fundamentally linked to the Soviet Union's equally iconic image, Raising a Flag over the Reichstag; the two photos serve as parallel symbolic markers representing the ultimate victories of the Allied powers in the Pacific and European theaters, respectively. Placing them both in the lede gallery ensures a balanced and complete visual overview of the war's most famous symbolic moments. I seek community consensus and confirmation to officially add this historically vital photograph. Ri5009 (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already have a photo of the A bomb (Nagasaki) representing the end of the Pacific War and I would argue that this is a more universally recognised image of the war than the Iwo Jima one, which is mainly US-oriented. We could argue about the photo montage endlessly but I don't think it's worth it. Maybe the Iwo Jima image can go somewhere else in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:59, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, though the rest of the article has lots of photos as well. Nick-D (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Iwo Jima was an important victory for American forces, but it was one battle in a war with many other events of equal or greater importance. The lede needs to show that the victory was due to efforts of all the allies, not just the US. Mediatech492 (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, is it more incomic than St Paul's engulfed in smoke or the Red army raising the Red flag over Berlin? Slatersteven (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:COLLAGE, a collage is only appropriate where overlapping or similar careful placement of component images is necessary to illustrate a point in an encyclopedic way. A collage here does not meet this criteria. A collage of the sort used is a photo essay. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we don't write the article in the infobox. We should not be adding to the collage. If anything, we should be removing it. The description as a "photo mashup" is why we shouldn't be using a collage of this type. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:20, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lead again

[edit]

@Bill L. Hal recently expanded the lead. The problem I have is that it tries to cram too much information into sentences that are already awkward and often ungrammatical. There is also a lot of subjective additions that are open to debate: yes, it can be argued that The Second Ethiopian war was a key event before WWII, but why not the demilitarisation of the Rhine or the Great Depression? And why are we listing key events before WWII anyway? Another problem I have is that rather than a well-written and concise summary of the article, the lead looks like an attempt to cram in as many links to other articles as possible. We don't have to include every possible link into the lead. We only need to include those links which are necessary to make the lead comprehensible. Links can find their place later in the article. Nor do we need to mention every event of the war in chronological order. But it seemed a bit odd to include the Soviet Union taking a piece of Romania while failing to mention the German invasion of the low countries. I am happy for my version to be further edited and discussed. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:06, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, these are valid complaints and I acknowledge that the additions might have been haphazardly put together, especially in regards to the word count. I remain open to discussion on the matter and don't have many objections in regards to your considerations. Best regards. Bill L. Hal (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Start date

[edit]

Hello all

I have deleted the following statement:

Others follow the British historian A. J. P. Taylor, who stated that the Sino-Japanese War and war in Europe and its colonies occurred simultaneously, and the two wars became World War II in 1941.[1]

The cited source (Hett, 1996) does not state that other historians follow Taylor's dating, does not state that Taylor said, "the Sino-Japanese War and war in Europe and its colonies occurred simultaneously", and does not state that Taylor said "the two wars became World War II in 1941." It merely states: "By then [1970] Taylor had decided that it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union that led to the real world war." This is based on a private letter Taylor wrote to his wife which was published after Taylor's death. This is hardly a sound basis for the Wikipedia content.

Taylor's mature view on the starting date of WWII was given in his 1975 book The Second World War: an Illustrated History.[2] He wrote, "If we wait until the war was being fought in every continent except the two Americas, the date must be 1942 or even 1944. … A number of small wars gradually coalesced into a great one. They did not coalesce fully, so much so that it is almost possible to write about the war in Europe and the Mediterranean without mentioning the Far East and about that in the Far East without mentioning Europe and the Mediterranean." (page 11). He also wrote: "If a formal declaration of war marks the starting point, the Second World War began in April 1932 when Mao Tsetung and Chou Teh declared war against Japan in the name of the Kiangsi Soviet." (page 11).

There probably are historians who argue that the 1939-45 war didn't become a world war until Japan attacked the US and British Empire in December 1941, but we need to accurately summarise scholarly sources which say so. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler started the invasion of Poland in 1939 and he invaded France in 1940 and invaded small countries like Belgium the Netherlands Luxembourg and also in 1940 he invaded Yugoslava so it did not start 1941 Cuteducky (talk) 21:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hett, Benjamin Carter (1 August 1996). "'Goak here': A.J.P. Taylor and 'The Origins of the Second World War.'". Canadian Journal of History. 31 (2): 257–281. doi:10.3138/cjh.31.2.257. ISSN 0008-4107. Archived from the original on 7 March 2023. Retrieved 14 September 2022. By then Taylor had decided that it was the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour and Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union that led to the real world war.
  2. ^ Taylor, A. J. P. (1975). The Second World War: an Illustrated History. New York: G P Putnam's Sons.

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2026

[edit]
~2026-59855 (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2026 (UTC) hi i wanna edit. I need to do some grammar fixes[reply]

 Not done, please state the grammar fixes you need to make, not state you want to edit and that you need to do such fixes. MosquitoDestroyer (talk | mosquitoes destroyed) 02:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]