Talk:World War II

The article currently does not mention Great Depression, which I think nearly all historians would agree was a major contributor to the outbreak of the war. I think it is warranted to mention how the economic crisis fueled the rise of the Nazis in Germany, expansionist imperialism in Japan, as well as isolationism in the US. Also, many historians consider the economic mobilization of the war itself to have effectively ended the Depression. — Goszei (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it is the consensus of modern historians that the Great Depression was a major contributor to the outbreak of WWII. It sounds like a High School essay question: one of those things that are impossible to prove or disprove. The US turned to isolationism well before the depression; Japan became expansionist before WWI; the Nazis came to power because a handful of conservatives put them there and the depression was the last thing they were thinking about; war broke out in 1939 when the worst of the depression was over; et etc. Simplistic economic determinism went out with the Trabant. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I propose the following set of changes to the lead. By my count, if all of these changes were made, the length of the lead would increase by just 8 words. The first five are more substantive proposals, followed by five more minor/copyediting ones. Please indicate which numbers you support below.

1. Add the clause with the great powers engaging in total war on an unprecedented scale. to the end of the sentence "Nearly all of the world's countries participated." Almost every nation participated, but it was the great powers who initiated and ultimately dominated the conflict. WWII has been the most "total" war we have yet seen, in terms of: erasing the distinction between combatant and civilian, the mobilization of economies and populations and science, level of global destruction, scope of industrial warfare, sheer scale of mass atrocities, etc. This is worth alluding to in the lead.
2. in history, causing the death of 60 to 75 million people. Millions died as a result of massacres, starvation, disease, and genocides → in history, with an estimated death toll of 60 to 75 million people, a majority of whom were civilians. The war saw mass starvation, strategic bombing, massacres, and genocides. The sheer scale of the civilian casualties of WWII is a notable feature of the conflict, by some estimates making up two-thirds (!) of the death toll. As noted before, this was the result of a truly total war and the technologies used in it, notably the systemic strategic bombing (including atomic) of cities, which deserves a reference in the lead. Also add a wikilink to the World War II casualties article.
3. and Nazi German and Imperial Japanese leaders were tried for war crimes. Moving the "Nazi" mention up front from later in the lead, and likewise adding the word "Imperial" to Japanese.
4. the Western Allies invaded France at Normandy, opening a new front, Adding this clause to indicate that this was a new (and important) front of the war.
5. Move the part starting with The war in Europe concluded... from the concluding paragraph to the third paragraph. This is part of the synopsis of the war, the last paragraph should be reserved for its ultimate effects/legacy.
6. Poland was also invaded by the Soviet Union in mid-September and was partitioned between Germany and the Soviet Union under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. → Poland was also invaded by the Soviet Union in mid-September, and was partitioned between the two states under the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. Reducing redundant language.
7. By mid-1941, Yugoslavia and Greece had also been defeated by Axis countries. In June 1941, → Yugoslavia and Greece also came under Axis occupation in early 1941. In June 1941, Linguistic variation.
8. An Allied invasion of Italy in July resulted in the fall of its fascist regime, and Allied offensives in the Pacific and the Soviet Union forced the Axis to retreat on all fronts. → An Allied invasion of Italy resulted in the fall of its fascist regime, and other offensives forced the Axis into retreat on all fronts. Reducing redundant language.
9. Japan also suffered major setbacks, including the crippling of its navy by the United States, the loss of key Western Pacific islands, and defeats in Burma. → Japan's navy was crippled by the US as it lost control of key Pacific islands and suffered defeats in Burma. Reducing redundant language.
10. The war in Europe concluded with the liberation of German-occupied territories and the invasion of Germany, → The war in Europe concluded with the liberation of German-occupied territories and an invasion of Germany itself, Cleaner wording.

— Goszei (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Just some responses:

1. It wasn't just the great powers who were involved though, so this is factually wrong. I think that this is an important distinction, given that some smaller countries who were caught up in the war such as Poland and the Netherlands East Indies suffered among the highest proportional casualties.
2. I don't agree with listing strategic bombing alongside war crimes. Strategic bombing is a broad term, and includes precision bombing of military targets as well as attacks targeting civilians which were - awfully - legal at the time (but not now)
3. Germany was Germany, not 'Nazi Germany' and I don't see what's gained by adding 'Imperial' to Japan. This is also factually wrong, as many of the Germans prosecuted after the war were not members of the Nazi party or even particularly fond of it (e.g. military officers, etc).
4. Seems sensible
5. Seems sensible
6. Seems sensible
7. I don't see the rationale to not acknowledge that these were contested invasions, not just occupation, especially as resistance continued after the Germans and Italians took over
8. The current text is better - it's odd to only single out the invasion of Italy here
9. This seems factually wrong - the Japanese Navy was crippled ahead of the US invasions of the Central Pacific (largely at Midway and the Solomon Islands campaign), so the current text is better
10. Seems sensible Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

1. Fair point. What about dropping the mention of the great powers, and simply adding , with many engaging in total war on an unprecedented scale.?

2. Also a fair point. I still think that it be mentioned somewhere in the lead (perhaps as "strategic bombing of cities", "aerial bombing of cities", or similar) because it concretely illustrates the meaning of a "total war". WW2 as a whole was not defined by restraint or by limited and precise strikes on military targets, but by mass destruction that deliberately targeted entire economies and the civilian populations that made them run. In an industrial war, everything is considered a valid "military" target, and technology finally had enabled direct attacks on everything. What do you think of the proposed addition of "a majority of whom were civilians"?

3. I agree.

7. Fair.

8. Fair, I just felt that the words "Pacific" and "Soviet Union" are overused in this paragraph.

9. Fair.

— Goszei (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I am a Second World War enthusiast who believes it started in 1937 as that’s when the second Sino-Japanese war began wich is arguably the start of the war as that’s when the pacific theatre started many other historians share this view Johnsmith2354 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that the Start and end dates section of the article covers this sufficiently, saying Most historians agree that World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 and the British and French declarations of war on Germany two days later, and going on to list other opinions including 1937. I think there would have to be a fairly significant shift of opinion (of which I've seen no evidence nor have you provided any) to change the existing text. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

How about

Most historians agree that World War II began with the German invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939 and the British and French declarations of war on Germany two days later, however many Chinese historians and a growing number of western historians place the start date at the start of the Japanese invasion of China in 7th of July 1937

Here is some evidence I found

https://retrospectjournal.com/2026/02/16/the-second-sino-japanese-war-why-world-war-two-began-in-1937/ Johnsmith2354 (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

also I appreciate you using simple language and not citing Wikipedia rules wich are really confusing I also little shop of horrors is my favourite play Johnsmith2354 (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of historians date the start of the war as 1 or 3 September 1939. There are always historians and governments who want to promote other dates but they are in a minority. The problem with 1937 (ie the start of Japan's undeclared war on nationalist China) is that it didn't drag the other major powers into a general war. The UK, British Commonwealth, France, Soviet Union and US did not declare war on Japan in 1937. Germany and Italy did not join Japan in attacking China. China did not declare war on Japan, Germany and Italy until December 1941. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:38, 22 July 2026 (UTC)

I'll add a comment that while the 2nd world war has its origins in a number of regional conflicts (Italian adventurism, German adventurism, Japanese adventurism), these later merged into a single global conflict. The merger, which occured in 1939, is when it became a world war. I'll furthern note that Germany and Japan had little in common beyond a desire to upset the world order, so placing the merger earlier is dubious. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:35, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

What is the current reason for the order of particularly the Allied leaders in the infobox? I’m of the opinion that it should be done by length of time engaged in the war as leader; this is a much more impartial way of ordering them, is it not? J.Weir3 (talk) 11:04, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Please see the many, many, previous discussions of this topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, it would be brilliant if you could point me in the right way. J.Weir3 (talk) 23:47, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

See the search box at the top of the page. The short version is that, in line with the guidance for infoboxes of this type, the ordering reflects historians' views of countries' overall importance to the war effort on each side of the conflict. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps an FAQ is in order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:16, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

There is a line in the Pacific section of the war referencing a "Nagamo" as briefing Hirohito on the plans to attack Pearl Harbor - I think this is a typo and meant to be referencing Marshal Admiral Osami Nagano. He isn't mentioned anywhere else in this article so it might be worth also hyperlinking to his article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osami_Nagano Harkren (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Well, a link to the article about Osami Nagano has now been added. It's true that adding that link was necessary, and as I said, another user has already taken care of it. However, what wasn't there was a typo: I think it was more of a visual error on your part, since in both the previous version of the paragraph and all the older versions I checked (and there were quite a few), what was written in that paragraph was simply "Nagano," not "Nagamo." I'm afraid that typo never existed. Ulises Laertíada (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

(we also keep the redirectable lists, but add an expand/collapse section in the infobox) AverageAmericanG (talk) 21:31, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I would oppose this because the issue of who exactly counts as an allied state is complex and contested and not suited to the info box. The article on Allies of WWII includes co-belligerents, associated powers and major Axis powers that switched sides at the last minute but who were treated as enemy powers in the peace treaties. Furthermore there are dozens of states that joined United Nations in 1944 and 1945 simply because by then they knew which side would win so they wanted to join the UN on the winning side. For example, is it a key fact that Paraguay formally joined the Allies in February 1945 but never fired a shot in anger at any Axis power? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Aemilius. A key thing with World War II was almost every country, and colony of the various empires, in the world was involved in it, so any such infobox list would be vast and not hugely meaningful. Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2026 (UTC)