Editor B makes a long diatribe about how much they know abut a subject, but with no concrete suggestion, other than to complain about something. Multiply this by, for some editors, hundreds of watched pages. Consider who gets read positively, and who gets skipped over, or read begrudgingly? ( Hohum @ ) 21:02, (UTC) re your above claim that i offered no concrete suggestion: I stated quite clearly that the sentence in question "is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading." In other words, scrap the sentence. Did I need to spell it out for you? "Meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. I do concede, however, that what I do need to spell out is that my posting pertained also to a separate and earlier posting (not by me now archived in archive 38, under the section heading "Self-determination for colonial peoples?
Can you provide a summary of, world, war
The false promises of the Atlantic Charter, all this cannot presentation be incorporated into a reworked version of the lede sentence in question. Suffice it to say, as i've done previously, and as paul rightly observes, the sentence " meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. " is neither correct nor entirely appropriate to the lede. In fact, it is downright false and misleading. Communicat ( talk ) 20:04, (UTC) Another WP:tldr. Ironically, you could have cut everything before "Suffice it to say." ( Hohum @ summary ) 20:18, (UTC) Are you the same guy who was earlier preaching to me about civility? Communicat ( talk ) 20:48, (UTC) Regarding the phrase questioned. Unless the main body reflects it, it has no place in the lead currently. ( Hohum @ ) 20:30, (UTC) no incivility was intended. Think a bit about what active editors do: make edits, patrol for vandalism, read talkpage edits on their watch lists. Editor A makes a succinct edit suggestion with a simple, readily available and reliable reference.
It was essentially a result of national independence / liberation wars of attrition, waged by indigenous people against the colonial powers, using Sino-soviet supplied weapons and/or training. In the case of Malaya, the weapons used against British writing commonwealth forces by the communist-led national independence movement, (essentially the former Malay peoples AntiJapanese Army or mpaja were the very same weapons that had been supplied to mpaja by British Sprecial Operations Executive (SOE) during. WW2, essentially the promise of freedom from colonial rule as contained in the Atlantic Charter, had raised expectations of national self-determination in other British colonies, such as Kenya, where indigenous people serving in the king's African Rifles had also actively supported the Allied war effort. When those expectations were not met, a violent rebellion similarly and eventually resulted in independence being granted reluctantly by Britain. It can and has been argued that America's advocacy and co-signing of the Atlantic Charter was motivated purely through self-interest in anticipation of gaining political, trade and economic influence, which it had previously been denied, in what would become independent former British colonies. America of course didn't have any declared colonies of its own (if one discounts haiti, cuba, puerto rico and Phillipines, which were de facto American colonies, and with the exception only of Cuba, still are de factor American colonies). In the case of south Africa, independence was not granted by Britain, but was unilaterally declared by sa's now officially redundant apartheid-fascist leaders, as in also the former Rhodesia. But anyway, i think while ww2 may have had some indirect influences on decolonisation,.
That Scheffel is an author and used in the wwii in hd series got a spot for him on the wwii in hd, with no information provided, yet. habap ( talk ) 20:36, (UTC) meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy. The sentence: " meanwhile, the United States' strong advocacy of the principle of self-determination accelerated decolonization movements in Asia and Africa. " seems not to be completely correct and relevant to the lede. Firstly, the main article devotes only one para to decolonisation, and the exceptional role of the us in decolonisation is not mentioned for there (we need either to bring the article in accordance with the lede or vise versa ). Secondly, i am not sure if a consensus exists that decolonisation was a direct and immediate result of wwii and, in particular, that the us advocacy of self-determination principle was crucial for that. Thirdly, it is not completely correct to emphasise the role of the us because other countries (e.g. The ussr) also made major efforts to support decolonisation in Africa and Asia.- paul siebert ( talk ) 15:48, (UTC) Decolonisation was not granted willingly by the colonial powers.
Stalin, on the other hand, ordered his soldiers to rape german women as a sort of humiliation.- ( talk ) 21:07, (UTC) to be useful here, your assertion must have an expert source. What author wrote that? Binksternet ( talk ) 21:28, (UTC) The nazis organised a system of military brothels where captured women were forced to work. Source: Kaputt by curzio malaparte, 1943. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 14:46, (UTC) so did the British and the us army. But Stalinist crimes were different, because it was supposed to terrorized and extinquish the population and slavinize the conquered areas accourding to the yalta stipualtions - as negotiated with the us and. ( talk ) 12:15, (UTC) Missing wwii people pages for Decorated Veterans While searching for biographical information, i found that wikipedia has no reference for Decorated wwii veteran Charles Scheffel, is anyone working on filling gaps in wwii content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil lindsay ( talk contribs ) 18:03, (UTC) If he meets the relevant notability criteria (see wp:bio ) then you may wish to start the article - diy normally works best! . regards, nick-d ( talk ) 08:48, (UTC) Not every decorated veteran is 'notable' in an encyclopedia.
Big picture analysis overview of, world, war
( Hohum @ ) 20:54, (UTC) Axis Belligerents even if Vichy France was is some aspects a puppet state of Germany, vichy France was legally a neutral state that did not participate directly in the hairdressing war actions after. As so, it should not be among the axis belligerents. The actions of the army of Vichy France in dakar, Algiers or Syria were essentially acts of self defence of french territories against foreign troops (in these cases, the Allies). As was the scuttling of the french fleet in toulon (against the germans). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 06:58, (UTC) Mass rapes When I worked on the mass rape of German women by soviet Red Army article i found some sources that claim that the number of rapes of soviet women by german military ". Was at least of the same scale as mass rapes of German women by red Army.
In connection to that i am wondering if we need to make a stress on the 1945 rapes leaving German and Japanese crimes beyond the scope.- paul siebert ( talk ) 01:47, (UTC) I might be missing something, but why would the rapes conducted. The soldiers of both countries conducted rapes on a huge scale, and the japanese government ran a massive sex slavery operation until the end of the war. Nick-d ( talk ) 08:55, (UTC) This might be different, because in this case these crimes were supported and appreciated by the panslavic Stalinists ( talk ) 12:08, (UTC) The nazis forbade the raping of Eastern European women, as they considered it demoralizing for the. Besides nazi ideology felt superior towards Slavic people. It was considered a racial shame. So maybe there were not so many rapes.
Again, this is an overview article that doesn't go into any issue in any detail, yet it is still rather long, because even when being very concise on each issue, wwii was extremely complicated. Yes, detail should go to the relevant articles. The Atomic Bomb article is mainly about the bomb itself, there are various other articles about the politics and conflicts of the period, by region, pre, during, and post wwii. Talk about details on those pages? Hohum @ ) 20:27, (UTC).
The length of my "flood of text" is more or less consistent with the epic length of the overview article itself. Why doen't anybody complain about that, huh? Communicat ( talk ) 20:43, (UTC) I refer you to my previous post, which answers your question before you asked. We try and keep it as short as reasonably possible. Indeed, nobody forces us to read it, but don't be surprised when less people do because its unnecessarily long. You are posting in the hopes that people will read your comments, but people have finite time and active editors often have many articles on their watch lists.
Bbc - history - world War Two : Summary outline of key events
Timokhovich, world War ii decisive battles of the soviet Army, moscow: Progress 1984,.452; david m gordon, "The China-japan War, 19311945" journal of Military history (Jan 2006) Vol.1, pp 13782. Maybe all this should go into the Atomic Bomb or similar article. Communicat ( talk ) 18:05, (UTC). Communicat, you should probably read, wP:tldr :p, direktor (. Talk ) 19:05, (utc nobody's forcing you to read. However, those few discerning individuals sufficiently brief interested to read it might consider its length to be appropriate to the significance of its contents. Communicat ( talk ) 20:43, (UTC). What, exactly, is the point of a flood of text, and references, without any suggestion of a change?
The participants at the punjabi yalta conference would also have been aware that the soviet Red Army, in sweeping through Mancuria and driving southwards down the Chinese mainland, would inevitably co-operate with mao tse tung's communist guerrilla forces, which had participated in the sino-japanese war since. Mao had succeeded in increasing communist party membership from 100,000 in 1937.2 million by 1945. The soviet presence in northeast China would enable the Chinese communists to move into liberated areas and arm themselves with equipment surrendered by the withdrawing Japanese army, serving in turn as as a catalyst in transforming all China into the world's largest communist state. To cut a long story short, that was arguably why Truman decided to drop the bombs,. To pre-empt Russian presence and communist post-war influence in the region. Sources: Gar Alperovitz, "Atomic Diplomacy the listener,.6.; Barton Bernstein, (ed. politics and Policies of the Truman Administration, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1970; Robert j butow, japan's Decision to surrender, Stanford: Stanford University Press 1954,.112; New York times, ; y larionov, n yeronin, b solovyov,.
to eject this occupation force at a time when America's own land forces were still no nearer to the japanese mainland than the two islands of Iwo jima and okinawa, where fierce resistance was. Russian intervention in the war with Japan appeared to be the only solution. Us intelligence was of the opinion that Russia's entry into the war against Japan would "convince most Japanese at once of the inevitability of complete defeat". Truman concurred, telling Associated Press that "more than anything else" the west needed the co-operation of the soviet Union in order to step up the assault on Japan and its conquered territories. Such a move had earlier been agreed between roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill during their historic February 5 meeting at Yalta, when Stalin acceded to western requests that a reinforced Red Army in the far East would declare war on Japan on August 8 by launching. A declaration of soviet participation in the war against Japan would certainly have tipped the balance and forced an almost immediate japanese surrender. In return for intervention against Japan, it was reluctantly agreed at Yalta that Russia would reacquire territories lost to japan in 1904, namely the strategic Kurile Islands and the southern half of sakhalien, as well as recovering a controlling position in the manchurian region. This would place the ussr in a dominant position in continental north-east Asia, having gained an assured stake in Japan's post-war affairs, and thus creating a decisive shift in the world balance of power.
White Shadows, nobody said it was easy 15:38, (utc while true and relevant, i think talking about disintegration dilutes the punch and clarity of the final paragraph of the lead. Details like that are better placed in the main literature part of the article. Hohum @ ) 02:34, (UTC). I agree with White Shaddows. Germany surrendered unconditionally and using different wording for the two main Axis powers suggests that they met different fates, when this wasn't at all the case (it seems relevant to note that Japan was facing near total economic collapse by august 1945 due to the. Nick-d ( talk ) 07:58, (UTC). In actuality, by may 8 more than million German troops were able to continue to fight. I don't think japan was in a better shape by 15 August, taking into account that Kwantung Army (Japanese primary fighting force) had been almost destroyed by that date, japanese air forces and fleet virtually ceased to exist and most important Japanese cities were destroyed. Paul siebert ( talk ) 15:11, (UTC) (To deviate somewhat from the current Section head despite the problems Japan was experiencing as referred to by paul above, japan's well-developed war industry on the Asian continent had remained intact.
Causes World War 2 second World War ii facts, comics, summary
Whether the germans surrendered or not was irrelevant, their fighting capabilities were rendered nearly nil by the time the western and soviet forces met at the Elbe river. This is my rationale for omitting the obvious in the intro and replacing it with 'disintegration of the german war effort'. I do not say the same for the japanese as their homeland was still in their hands and they still had the capacity to continue the war by the time they had surrendered. Ecko1o1 ( talk ) 14:27, (UTC). The point is though that both Germany and Japan essay surrendered. Whether one nation was "batter off" than the other in 45' does not make a difference. It seems a bit fair to single both Germany and Japan out as having one be labeled as "disintegration" and the other as "unconditional surrender".