Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-13 World War II

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	World War II
Status	closed
Request date	00:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Too many to name; see below
Mediator(s)	Seddon
Comment	Mediator doing research, on hold for now

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|World War II]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|World War II]]

Request details

Protracted argument over 1939 as only start date for World War II.

I have some questions/comments at the bottom of the page

Who are the involved parties?

What's going on?

Several editors believe that 1939 outbreak of hostilities in Europe should be marked explicitly as the start of World War II. Others believe that (at least) a significant minority of reliable sources exist using alternate start dates, and thus stating one version as "true" would be against WP:NPOV.

What would you like to change about that?

The discussion is no longer productive, and has become something of a shouting match. I would like to gain further input as to if the sources provided equate to significance or not.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

Ok guys, I have read over the previous discussion thats occured. I think tis time we got this show on the road. From what i have read it seems there are 2 views. Firstly that the date of september 1939 is the most widely accepted view, and the second that it is inaccurate and that there are other dates that need to be taken into account. We have alot of work involved in this case. We have alot of sources to deal with and also many views we must take into account. I must ask that we make sure we stay polite, civil and teach each with decorum. Mediation is a not an easy ride and having cooperation from all parties is absolutely necessary. Now atm i dont need require to see sources regarding the september date. Firstly I would ask you all to look for and provide sources that state the beginning of WW2 being earlier that 1939. The more that is provided the easier the mediation will be although it may not seem that way at first. The more we have to work the less we avoid circular arguments. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 12:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a third point? My point of view is that Sept 1 1939 is correct. Nevertheless, (and it is evident even from the present article) there is a considerable difference between WWI and WWII. In the first case there were no hostilities before Sarajevo and full scale hostilities had started after that (with a comparatively short lag) almost simultaneously at all theatres, and between all major belligerents (besides the US). For WWII there were hostilities before sept, and invasion of Poland didn't trigger major hostilities at major theatres (they started at different time within one or two year after that). In summary, if we state that Sept 1, 1939 is a sole and accurate start date and then explicitly state what I wrote above, then we reconcile both points of view you mentioned. By the way, it is rather close to what is written in the article now, so it requires only a minor modification. And there is no need to provide additional sources: all those facts are well known. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"invasion of Poland didn't trigger major hostilities at major theatres" - as stated above. If Germany hadn't invaded Poland and succeeded in this and its attack in the west, France would not have been in the position it was in 1940-1941, i.e. army militarily defeated, a navy bottled up and crippled, under a puppet regime (Indochina remained loyal to Vichy) and totally unable to react in strength to the Japanese invasion of French Indochina, the Japanese would not have contemplated such a move, especially aswithout a European war in progress, Britain would have been able to direct considerable military resources to the far east. Thus there would have been no oil embargo from the United States and no attack on Pearl Harbour, no attack on British Empire territory and the regional conflict between China and Japan would have remained just that. Jooler (talk) 20:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jooler. There would be no world war if USSR and the USA were neutral. Neither of those states declared a war on Germany, Italy or Japan as a result of invasion of Poland. And there was (theoretically) an opportunity for Britain and France to make peace with Germany during a Phoney War. Let us imagine that after Sarajevo Austria and Turkey invaded Serbia, and Russia declared a war on Austria without starting any hostilities. And then Austria invaded Ukraine, for instance on March, 1915, and only after that Germany entered the war. Which date would be a start date of WWI in this case? I would say invasion of Poland was unlimbering a gun for action rather than pulling a trigger.

Sooner or later, WWII was inevitable. This was a direct consequence of Hitler's internal social and economical policy. It caused a serious crisis in Germany just before occupation of Czechoslovakia, and some researchers think this occupation simply saved Hitler's regime. Would Czechs try to resist (even, probably, without French or Soviet support) this might cause a collapse of Nazis. Fast and easy occupation of very economically developed Sudetes (almost all military industry of former Austro-Hungary was there) had helped Hitler a lot, however, it had only a short effect and Hitler needed to expand further. He simply couldn't stop: both Hitler's and FDR's new policy were very similar, the major exception being that FDR was focused on state sponsored large civilian projects, whereas Hitler was doing investment in a war, so the only possible payoff could be a territorial expansion. He simply wasn't able to stop, and after Czechoslovakia he got a physical opportunity for large scale expansion.

Although the US, USSR and Japan were neutral that time, I don't argue about Sept 1, 1939 as a start date: the war was inevitable. However, there is a huge difference between Sept 1939 and Aug 1914, so additional major events should be mentioned also.

Let's speak concretely. The phrase in the preface: The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 should be replaced with: Officially, WWII started with German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939 (or something like that). And after that all other events (Perl-Harbor, Marco Polo Bridge, etc) should be removed: just a general statement that tension was growing gradually before that, and that other major belligerents entered the War within two years after that date.

And than, in the Chronology chapter (that is absolutely unsatisfactory), all major events should be given with brief description of their importance and references to corresponding Wikipedia articles should be done. I already wrote what these events should be. I am ready to provide additional arguments for that. If someone would like to change/extend this list, let's discuss it.

The end date should be clarified also. The present version is completely American POV. What does the phrase The treaty with Japan was not signed until 1951 mean, for instance? The treaty with whom? Soviet Union didn't sign a treaty with Japan at all. The peace treaty with Germany is not mentioned at all, by the way. So if we decide to mention a peace treaties, let's write about all treaties or, better, write it somewhere else. Otherwise, we mix a surrender and a peace treaty. What do you think about that? --Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's time for other people to speak. I can'#t be bothered with replying to this properly. Jooler (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my notes above. According to all textbooks, this war began in Sept. 1939. Please note that Great Patriotic War and World War II are different wars per Russian and other textbooks. Great Patriotic War is completely irrelevant in this discussion.Biophys (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stick to what I have asked for and not get into the circular arguments we have been before? What I want to see reliable sources that state that WW2 had a start date before 1939. Lets leave the end date for now. I need you guys to work with on this please. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 13:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right. That is exactly the point. I have never seen any Western or Russian sources that tell "WW II started in 1937". Even if there are such sources, they contradict all history textbooks and therefore represent a negligible minority view.Biophys (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets deal with that view at a later date, lets simply see whether they exist first. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 15:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just to clarify, we need to take into account a global view not just a western one, after all it was a World war. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any. Not that deal with the entire conflict. As has been pointed out innumerable times. Oberiko appears to have gone AWOL and he was the main person arguing for non-1939 dates. He had a list of sources quoting other dates but none of them were histories of WWII on a global scale and most of them were not even about WWII at all, but just mentioned some other date as the start of WWII in passing while talking about some other subject. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oberiko/Sources - Apologists for this position haven't bothered to keep up with the debate. Jooler (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found several sources, including scholarly articles where the phrase "WWII started in 1941" is present, but most of them can hardly be considered history books, e.g. one of them is a "The Evolution of Psichtherapy" (http://books.google.com/books?id=T74ZuzLOhZ8C&pg=PA59&lpg=RA1-PA58&ots=76BSwFskZQ&dq=%22world+war+II+started+in%22+&lr=&sig=ACfU3U0pAQnVUnGDia1DSs840L45XGAdqw#PPA62,M1). Several websites, mostly American, mention WWII outbreak in 1941 (see, for instance, http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=1582). Many sources tell about "start of World War II in Europe". However, I got an impression that they they recognise the place where the War started, not that in 1939 the War started for Europeans only.
It worths mentioning, however, that many sources state that WWII only formally began in September 1939 (something like http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/1939-1942.htm, or several Oberiko's sources). Therefore, I would propose to end the discussion about the formal start date. What is more important, we need to reflect the fact, that although overwhelming majority sources agree about the start date, many of them also agree this date is formal.
Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize. Your third source tells it started in Sept. 1939. Two other sources are about psychiatry and gardening, not about WW II. All textbooks I have seen tell "WW II started in Sept. 1939".Biophys (talk) 04:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. A small comment. My third source, among many others states it formally started on Sept. 1939. Therefore, my point is that formally should be reflected.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oberiko's list and argument on the Reliable sources noticeboard - here (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Reliability_of_sources_for_World_War_II_start_date) Jooler (talk) 00:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were clearly 2 arena's with this war, the pacific and europe. They had seperate start dates and seperate end dates. We need to take these into account. Prehaps this is an option. Instead of having very vague dates that leave views to be interpreted in different ways eg. 1930's, in the infobox have 2 seperate items, War in the Pacific: (date1) - (date2) and then War in Europe: (date3) - (date4). Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 12:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is one point where I agree with Jooler: the formal start date of WWII is unique, similarly to the uniqueness of the terrestrial globe. Beginning of the world war already means the involvement of the whole world, so any other (formal) dates are senseless. For me it is obvious that Asia/Pacific alone could hardly be a seed for the world war: before Munich/occupation of Czechoslovakia there still was an opportunity to defeat Nazis comparatively easily, in that case a Sino-Japan conflict would remain a local one. I also looked through the war time NYT archive: Roosevelt, Hitler and Hoebbels considered the big war (they didn't call it WWII, similarly to ancient Greeks didn't call themselves ancient) to start on sept 1. Even if we leave Japan, China and the US behind the scope, after Phony War Nazis allies and satellites occupied a territory that almost coincided with the present border of the EU - taking into account colonies that meant almost whole world had already been involved, so Japan declaration of war on UK and US didn't add much.
As regards to Oberiko's sources, I wouldn't say we have to understand these sources literally(by the way, I found several other sources that state the same). I have a feeling that most those sources use hyperbolae to draw a reader's attention to the undeservedly forgotten war, and I fully agree with that. Nevertheless it shouldn't affect the start date.
Immediately after we accept two start dates, the question appears, which Asia/Pacific date is more appropriate: start of Sino-Japanese war or the attack on Pearl Harbour? I would'n say the answer is obvious. Similarly, the scale and importance of the Eastern Front would require to state June 22, 1941 explicitly - and so on. I wouln't say this way to be optimal.
As regards to the end date, all three major Allies were involved into the war in both arenas, so for all of them WWII lasted until Sept 2. I don't think earlier defeat of Nazis and Italy changes the picture.
In conclusion, my proposals are: Sept 1, 1939 - Sept 2, 1945 in the info box, heavy editing of the "Chronology" section and moderate editing of the "War Breaks Out" section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There were clearly 2 arena's with this war, the pacific and europe. They had seperate start dates and seperate end dates." - That's an overly simplistic view. The European arena had two major fronts and several minor ones. The Eastern war began initially in September 1939 and ended very quickly, but it began in earnest in June 1941 with the invasion of the Soviet Union. The June 1941 date should not be used as a separate start date of WWII any more than December 1941. In the Pacific the conflict from 1937 (or 1931) to December 1941 was not WWII. It was a regional conflict (the Second Sino-Japanese War). WWII came to the Pacific in December 1941. Out of Europe and the Pacific there was also conflict in North Africa, East Africa and the Middle East, and in every Ocean on the planet (see for example Axis naval activity in Australian waters#1939-940). In the 18th century Britain entered into the War of Jenkins' Ear and through this became embroiled in the War of Austrian Succession, but the start date of the latter isn't given as the start date of the former. Look at the French Revolutionary Wars or the Napoleonic Wars for wars merging and people changing sides. The war between Japan and China before December 1941 is covered in the Second Sino-Japanese War. It is not appropriate to call this WWII, Japan and China's war merged into WWII in December 1941. Jooler (talk) 18:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of interest who is against the current status quo? Is it just Oberiko? Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 18:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not absolutely clear: what starus quo do you mean? I support the start and end dates in the info box, I am almost satisfied with the War Break Out section and I am not satisfied with the Chronology and the introduction.
I disagree with Oberiko but I am against the current status quo. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To interrupt a long pause, let me propose something more concrete.
I. I already proposed to leave formal start and end dates unchanged. This agrees with a vast majority western and eastern (Soviet) sources.
II. My second proposal is to truncate the sentence "The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions" at this point without any mentioning of other events. This would put an end to the discussion about additional dates that deserve to be taken into account.
III. I would modify the Chronology part as follows.
1. It should be clearly stated that there was a full scale war between Japan and China (second Sino-Japanese war) before all other major belligerents entered the war.
2. The German invasion of Poland should be outlined as the second key point after which all Western countries (besides the US) declared a war on each others and the land and naval (in greater extent) hostilities started in Europe.
3. I would mention also the end of Phony war as a third key point (probably, invasion of Denmark and Norway should be mentioned there too). After that moment full scale land hostilities started in Europe that lasted almost continuously until May 11, 1945.
4. Invasion of USSR (operation Barbarossa) should be the fourth major event as a date when the major land theatre of war emerged.
5. The attack of British and American forces by Imperial Army of Japan is, obviously, the last major event that should be stated there.
6. The end of the war in Europe, i.e. the date of unconditional surrender of Germany in Berlin, May 8, must also be stated clearly, and
7. The end of the war, i.e. the formal surrender of Japan in the Tokyo bay on board of the Missouri battleship, Sept 2, 1945, must also be there.
I think that would be much more readable, because a reader go to a Chronology section to see major dates, not to read about various points of view.
This variant of the Chronology would be consistent with the Allies of World War II article with additional emphasis on pre-WWII hostilities in China. By the way, it would be consistent with the Second Sino-Japanese War article.
As regards to the War Breaks Out section, the major objection put forward by Septentrionalis is "that the section still implies that the war began in 1937, and omits the German, British, and French declarations of war". I would say that it does not implies that the war began in 1937 and it does not omit the war declaration, it simply is not completely clear. This section doesn't have to start with the invasion of Poland (if my suggestion were accepted). Therefore the only editing should be a moderate change of the paragraph in the middle. I would propose the following:

On September 1, 1939, the Germans invaded Poland. France, Britain, and the countries of the Commonwealth declared war on Germany but lent little support other than a small French attack into the Saarland.^[1] In mid-September, after signing an armistice with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland.^[2] (there is no need to mention the Khalkhin-Gol again, it has already been mentioned in the first paragraph of this section.)

I would appreciate if someone explain me what else should be added there and what concrete objection anybody has against that. Best regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This case will remain open for one week. If there are no objections or any problems this case will be closed. Oberiko has only made 5 edits in the last 2 months so Im assuming inactivity. If the issue is raised again in the future, contact me and i will proide assistance. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 00:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally support the status quo : The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions; some sources use other starting points, including the Mukden Incident, the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, and the Attack on Pearl Harbor. This version is a good compromise and give to the general reader the main opinion with the alternate interpretations. Thus, I oppose the latest change made by user:Paul Siebert. --Flying tiger (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current version is not a good compromise, because the Introduction is not the best place to discuss other sources that were chosen arbitrarily. Otherwise all other sources should be mentioned. If you propose to mention Mukden Incident, let's take old Stalinist textbook claiming that real war started on July 22, 1941 - I don't see any reason why they should be left behind the scope if you insist on Mukden incident as a start date. And how can you talk seriously about Pearl Harbour as a start date if by that moment the amount of countries already involved into the conflict was greater and georgaphy of the war was wider than during 1914-1917? I agree that both the start of the war in China and attack of Pearl Harbour are important dates - let us describe them in the Chronology. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are NOT arbitrarily chosen start dates. The previous discussions that raged on this topic for many, many weeks show that the invasion of China and the involvement of USA are frequently considered as starting dates by serious historians. The fact is there is a mainstream current but no consensus for the starting date. Thus, it is more useful for a newcomer to have a broader perspective by a short sentence on the lead, with a clear reference to the main opinion, than to wait for a description in the chronology. --Flying tiger (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through the history of this page you find that I had a long dispute with Jooler who insisted on Sept 1, 1939 as a sole start date. by the way, similar arguments were put forward during previous discussion and I am aware of that. To my opinion, since all major participants entered the war during 1939-1941 (or, if you whant, 1937-1941), the sole start date is senseless. Some local histories accepted that fact. For instance, even during Stalin's era Soviet historians (if I am not wrong) agreed that WWII formally started on that day, although the war in China, or Spanish Civil War started earlier, and although real full scale hostility in Europe started later.
Other researchers, however, (especially in English speaking world) are trying to invent something new, though the facts they operate with are quite common. You won't find any serious Soviet or post-Soviet research, besides the most chauvinist ones, stating that WWII started on June 22, although many respectable American writers claim Dec 7 as a start date. Nevertheless, you have to agree that both June 22 and Dec 7 are equally important and both of them, along with some others, deserve explicit mentioning. Marco Polo, Poland, Battle of France, Barbarossa and Pearl Harbour (if I am not missing something) were the days when real war started for majority of peoples in the world. Telling only about some of them is hardly a way to give a broader perspective to a newcomer. Conversely, if you make a stress on only some of them, you imply that these dates are more important than others. Do you really believe there are serious reasons for that?
Therefore, I propose: let's forget about sources and just write: The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions. However, majority of belligerents entered the war during a period of 1937-1941, as a result of other events, major of them are: Marco Polo bridge incident, start of Barbarossa Plan and the attack of Pearl Harbour and British colonies in South Asia. (I have no time to polish a style, so, let's do it if you agree about the major point).
As regards to Mukden - I disagree: by the moment it happened Nazi Germany simply didn't exist and Stalin hadn't taken a full power in the USSR. How can we speak about the war if, by the moment it started, its two major participants hadn't yet came to a historic scene? In addition to that, there was a long break between Mukden and Marco Polo, when no hostilities took place, that also characterize it as a separate event. Mukden incident, for sure, was a very important pre-war event, and, definitely, it should be described in the article (it has already been described), but not in the introduction. In addition, Mukden and Marco Polo relate to the same theatre - two starting dates for the same area and for the same belligerents is too much. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I support your proposal, maybe with this wording ? : The starting date of the war is generally held to be September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by the United Kingdom, France and the British Dominions. However, as a result of other events, many belligerents entered the war before or after this date, during a period which span from 1937 to 1941. Amongst these main events are the Marco Polo Bridge Incident, the start of Operation Barbarossa and the attack on Pearl Harbour and British and Netherlands colonies in South East Asia.--Flying tiger (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree. I am not sure if Japanese attack of Netherlands colonies was a real attack, not just an occupation. However, if you confident about that, feel free to change the introduction. And, probably, after that we can ask Seddon to close this case, can't we?
Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, well done; the mediation is over for me. --Flying tiger (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For me too (hopefully) :-) --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ May, Ernest R. Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France, pg. 93
^ Zaloga, Steven J. Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, pg. 80

[1] May, Ernest R. Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France, pg. 93

[2] Zaloga, Steven J. Poland 1939: The Birth of Blitzkrieg, pg. 80

[1]

[2]