Talk:Military history of the United States during World War II

hiroshima and nagasaki

I can't see a legitimate reason for removing the note that most of the people who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. It's indisputable, and it's a matter of some historiographical importance. The main article probably isn't the place to go into the disputes about whether the Japanese were going to surrender anyway, etc etc, but at the very least the reason for the controversy should be mentioned. And it's a little obscene, I think, to discuss what was, by any definition of terrorism that doesn't include the get-out-free "non-state actor" clause, history's biggest single act of terrorism, without even mentioning the innocence of the victims. Kalkin 05:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I would rather this article that I've worked very hard on not turn into a political debate. This article is intended to be about the American military during WWII, and I really don't have the stomach to deal with semantics. Yes many were civilians, but "history's biggest single act of terrorism?" That is why I hesitate to even get into discussion, leftist rationale. This wasn't the Vatican that the Americans bombed, it was the Empire of Japan, guilty of immeasurable atrocities against POWs, the Chinese and civilians. Does that justify so many civilian dead? No. But this was war, a war that had already claimed 250,000 American lives. The bombings were a calculated effort intended to end the war sooner. Its easy to look back now with a new liberal moral understanding, but in a war, you're mens lives are always worth more than those of the enemy. That's war, its evil, what else can I say? Rmt2m 15:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the bombings be described as terrorism in the article. That would be a bad idea - terrorism is on the list of words to avoid for good reason. I'm only suggesting that since they were, in fact, terrorism, we ought to include the facts which would enable a reasonable but previously uninformed reader to conclude this. Any fact that has that kind of moral bearing is crucial for an encyclopedia article, whether or not the article is an appropriate place to discuss its moral consequences.

I also don't want to argue (here, let alone in the article) that the bombings were necessarily unjustified. But they were terrorism. The evil of the Empire of Japan, and the strategic benefits of the bombings, are neither here nor there. You don't think that the basic problem with Ward Churchill's statements about 9/11 victims was that the history of U.S. crimes is exaggerated, do you? The innocence of the particular victims, and the fact that they were targeted knowingly, remains regardless of the context in which the act took place. Kalkin 20:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood your intentions. Sorry. I don't know a whole lot about Ward Churchill, but the whole "little Eichmanns" thing kind of turned me off. Rmt2m 00:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Kalkin 03:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I should say also, apologies for any unclear language, and thanks for being reasonable. Kalkin 02:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah it was just a little misunderstanding, no biggie. Rmt2m 22:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Kalkin - your definition of "terrorism" certainly falls under the heading of point of view, which clearly does not belong in an encyclopedic work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Front side of OWI notice #2106, dubbed the "LeMay bombing leaflet," which was delivered to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and 33 other Japanese cities on 1 August 1945. The Japanese text on the reverse side of the leaflet carried the following warning:

"Read this carefully as it may save your life or the life of a relative or friend. In the next few days, some or all of the cities named on the reverse side will be destroyed by American bombs. These cities contain military installations and workshops or factories which produce military goods. We are determined to destroy all of the tools of the military clique which they are using to prolong this useless war. But, unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives. America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people. The peace which America will bring will free the people from the oppression of the military clique and mean the emergence of a new and better Japan. You can restore peace by demanding new and good leaders who will end the war. We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked but some or all of them will be, so heed this warning and evacuate these cities immediately."

(See Richard S. R. Hubert, "The OWI Saipan Operation," Official Report to US Information Service, Washington, DC 1946.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Okinawa

Wanted to clear it with everyone before I did it but I think that Okinawa should have its own paragraph in the Island hopping section. It was the largest battle in the Pacific theater and the tenacity of the Japanese defense on Okinawa was seen as a foreshadow of how things would go during the invasion of the main land. This was part of Truman's reasoning for dropping the A bomb as well. If no one has any objections, I will create a paragraph and add appropriately.--Looper5920 00:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would love to have a paragraph for Okinawa. I meant to get to it, but haven't had time, so add whatever you can. I was also hoping to get one for Saipan as well. Rmt2m 19:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you made any headway on how you want to do the Okinawa paragraph? Rmt2m 23:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I will work on it today. I got sidetracked trying to finish up a few projects and helping make some articles reach GA status. Thanks for reminding me that I needed to get on this. Give me a few hours to throw something together and then you can chop away at it. --Looper5920 00:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Okinawa paragraph for vetting

Okinawa became the last major battle of the Pacific theatre and the Second World War. The island was to become a staging area for the eventual invasion of Japan as it was just 350 miles south of the Japanese mainland. Marine and soldiers landed unopposed on April 1, 1945 to begin an 82 day campaign which became the largest land-sea-air battle in history and was noted for the ferocity of the fighting and the high civilian casualties with over 150,000 Okinawans losing their lives. Japanese kamikaze pilots enacted the largest loss of ships in U.S. naval history with the sinking of 38 and the damaging of another 368. Total US casualties were over 12, 500 KIA and 38,000 wounded while the Japanese lost over 110,000 men. The fierce fighting on Okinawa is said to have played a part in President Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb and forsaking an invasion of Japan.

Looks like you hit all the main points there. I don't think any changes are needed to it really. Rmt2m 09:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

P-51

"venerable - commanding respect because of great age OR impressive dignity; worthy of veneration or reverence, as because of high office or noble character."

It doesn't just mean old. Rmt2m 01:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

31 Dec 1946?!

I have read, from several sources, that the official end of World War 2 was 31 Dec 1946. Anyone know what the story to this is? Check-Six 22:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It could be claimed that WWII has never ended as Russia(the former Soviet Union) and Japan never signed a 'truce' or 'peace treaty' ending the conflict.92.234.248.31 (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

From Army Regulation 600-8-22 Military Awards: "5–12. World War II Victory Medal

The World War II Victory Medal was established by the act of Congress 6 July 1945 (59 Stat 461). It is awarded for service between 7 December 1941 and 31 December 1946, both dates inclusive." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Split

I am thinking that perhaps we should split this article into more than one. Per example: U.S. Military hisory in WWII- Pacific theater, U.S. Military hisory in WII- European theatre, ext. Any I deas, oppasision or support? --Robin63 05:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Tough call... While I agree this article is fairly long it is a pretty good article. Then again splitting would allow for the addition of more materiel. I'm undecided. Would like to hear what others think.--Looper5920 11:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
• I don't really have a strong opinion, but I think it is nice to have a broad article like this one which provides links to other articles that can be more specific. There are European Theater of Operations and Pacific Theater of Operations articles, but they could both afford to be expanded. I'll sweep through this article and see if links are provided. Robbskey 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Eagle Squadrons

This article doesn't even mention the "Eagle Squadrons" of 1940. Perhaps this article should give some mention of that?

Climie.ca 16:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC) Cam

Pre War incidents

why no a word on US German "incident" before of Pearl Harbor?--79.49.212.46 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The US navy were protecting and also in a shooting war with German U-boats as early as June 1941. Who decided that the article should start from a totally unrelated date 6 months after? There's a part about volunteers like the flying Tigers but not a word about the many USN destroyers etc. actively taking part. Can someone point out a good reason for not adding this as the start date of the article? Otherwise I'll rewrite it to be factual. Dustie (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"as early as"?!?! "Pre War incidents" - um war started before 1941. You lot were late. 62.172.86.27 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Logistics of US military and industry in WW2

I have yet to see any pages on this topic, which I think is particularly relevant. Is anyone an expert in it who is willing to set up some groundwork? I'll pitch in to source and research whatever I can help with. Bagsc (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Occupied territories

Should there be a section about the Axis occupation of American territories such as the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Guam, Attu, and Kiska?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

American volunteers pre-entry

Should there be a paragraph added about the 'Flying Tigers' and the 'Eagle Squadrons' as mentioned before. I know its before America entered the war but still maybe it should be mentioned somewhere on the article?

That is a good idea. The Flying Tigers were not exactly "volunteers," they were regular U.S. Air Force officers and airmen who volunteered for an operation controlled, financed and operated by the United States government. (They nominally wore Chinese uniforms until the US entered the war in December 1941, but were not actually under Chinese control.). The Americans who joined the Eagle squadrons were indeed volunteers and were under British control; they were not encouraged by or sponsored by the United States government, so I do not think they should be included. Rjensen (talk) 08:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of the United States during World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205015354/http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml to http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.historyebook.org/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205015354/http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml to http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/germwar.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

American missing

It seems like 79,000 Americans went missing in World War II. And they are included in the lists of those killed and dead? As I understand it, the column "declared dead", these are the missing, who later, as it turned out, died, but there are only 6 thousand of them, it turns out that the United States lost 405k killed and dead, 73k missing? https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/Casualties/Casualties-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.145.61.199 (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)