Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Inclusion of France

The list of main Allies in the infobox has been created in a strange way. Of course USSR, UK and USA undoubtedly belong on this list, I can hardly understand (more frankly: I can't understand) the reasons for including France and excluding Poland, Canada and other countries. I.e. what makes France a "more main" ally than Poland? Sir Wolf 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a long, long debate and discussion about who to put in the infobox. If you check the archives over at the Talk:World War II page, you'll see it in more detail. Personally, I don't believe France belongs there, my opinion has always been to leave it at Allies and Axis. Oberiko 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I feel to settle this problem, there can be no concensus. No one is going to agree, and we've tried at least 10 times. We can't keep waiting and saying 10 times is not enough, this needs to be settled, not let it fall into place. I am supportive exactly how the infobox is right now. --LtWinters 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
But why are you supportive? What criteria are you using to say that France (and which France?) is a major power? Why is the cut-off line where it is?
I'm kind of busy with an article and map I'm working on at the moment, but once I'm done with it I'm going to do a bit of research as to who the experts (various authors) consider to be the major powers; ultimately, none of us are qualified to make the decision. Oberiko 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
If we can agree to the simple "Allies and Axis" I'd have no problem with that. On the other hand, if individual states are listed then the Allied side at least has to list the five post war UN Security Council permanent seat holders. Not only does that arrangement within the UN demonstrate their importance for the Allies, but their wartime contributions were also greater then those of other countries (like for instance Poland or Canada). None of that is said to belittle the contributions of any states involved in WWII (well at least not Allied ones), I for one come from a state that contributed very little to the Allied cause.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
Apparently the Allies considered France enough of a power to be one of the 4 occupying powers of Germany after 1945. No other allied power, occupied or not (Canada, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, etc) controlled parts of Germany. The main allies are usually listed as: USSR, USA, UK and France (not Canada, not China). I would limit the list at those 4. Arnoutf 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Why would China, which wasn't involved in the European Theatre, be in any control of Germany? And, as shown below, France was given post-war power, at British insistance, to off-set the Soviets, not for their contribution (which is why the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and China were). Oberiko 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I would recall that you have not to pull up your own historical analysis. The question is not to know if France deserve his historical position, but if historian agree on the fact that France was one of the principal nations among allies. The answer is yes.--213.103.28.83 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is there was two France during the War... On the french Wikipedia, the infobox does not enlist any country, but links to Allies and Axis instead... I think it's the best for the infobox... -Ash_Crow 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Another issue USA, was involved in America, Asia, Oceania, Africa and Europe; the UK in Asia, Oceania, Africa and Europe; USSR in Europe and Asia, France in Africa and Europe, Japan in America, Oceania, and Asia. China only in Asia. That makes China the only combatant limiting its efforts to its own continent (and basically to fighting the occupation of its own country). What makes the difference there between China and for example Luxembourg (not often mentioned as an important ally)? In other words, this seems a fairly subjective issue, depending on POV. Arnoutf 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union fought only Germany until the very end of the war. Geographical location doesn't mean much of anything. For example, Polish soldiers fought in almost every theatre the British did, does that by default make them major? Oberiko 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

De Gaulle
How can he be considered as significant as Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill or Chiang? He was a figurehead. He never had operational control of Free French Forces, he barely even had a division until the end of 1942 (by which time the tide of war was turning anyway). He wasn't even a head of government until late 1944. Grant | Talk 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone you would prefer in his place? I agree that his role was relatively minor, but I think to an extent, it would be a bit unfair to list France amongst the major powers (which I myself disagree with, but this is neither here nor there), but not list a leader for them. Parsecboy 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not the point, dude. It doesn't matter if you disagree that he was an important figure, the fact of the matter is that he was the most important figure of France during WW2 following its defeat in the mainland, and since France is listed as a major country, it needs a leader to be listed to follow its template. There has never been a problem before, and since only YOU seem to have a problem with it, I will continue to undo your edits. Tribulation725 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Figurehead? There's a real scholar of World War II. French forces contributed in every theater of the war by the end of the war, including pilots and squadrons on the Eastern front and they were almost singlehandedly willed into being by de Gaulle like it or not. They both belong as major powers.Awotter (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's not make any alterations to the infobox until we have a rough agreement here.

IMO, it seems we have two potential solutions: either list France and De Gaulle (I don't think Paul Reynaud, Édouard Daladier, Philippe Pétain or any of the Vichy France prime ministers would be satisfactory), or don't list France at all. I'm personally in favor of the latter. Oberiko 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Oberiko; stop reverting eachother, it won't get either side anywhere besides blocked for edit-warring. I think my support of the latter option proposed by Oberiko is made clear in my earlier post. Parsecboy 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to have a leader for France. This "five countries = five leaders" thing is cartoon history (dude). It presupposes that a state is crucial in being a major military or political leader. Not that the comic opera figure, De Gaulle was either, before late 1944. By way of comparison, Gandhi and Chairman Mao survived without control of a state for much longer and even they were more significant in WW2 than De G (whom Churchill summed up as "the most ungrateful man since Judas Iscariot. Some ego, Winnie.)
Anyway I've long been on the record as opposing France's inclusion in the box in toto, so I support the Oberiko-Parsec plan wholeheartedly. Grant | Talk 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
And for what reason, exactly? The nations that are listed are listed because they are the five nations that were granted permanant veto power on the United Nations following the Second World War, ranked in order of importance and in their involvement. If you choose not to include France, then I vote we remove the United States or the Soviet Union, as they seem to be of equally little importance in this war due to the current context of our little situation.Tribulation725 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Emphasis on "following the Second World War"! As in: "not during". See also Dumbarton Oaks Conference.
Tribby you're at a disadvantage because I've debated this very issue on these pages more times than you've had hot breakfasts. Grant | Talk 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
For the sake of argument, Tribulation, in what campaigns were the French of vital importance? What crucial supplies and war materiel did the French industry produce? Where was their participation in the Pacific theater of the war? I don't see how the USA or USSR are in any way in the same category of France. Parsecboy 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, beyond the Norwegian Campaign and the immediately following Battle of France, the closest battles/campaigns I can think of where the French provided "significant" contributions was the Syria-Lebanon campaign (5000 French troops out of ~ 35000 Allied troops vs. ~ 35000 Vichy French troops) and the Battle of Bir Hakeim (with 3700 troops).
It looks like significant numbers of French troops didn't start to fight with the Allies until the formation of the XIX Corps (France) after Operation Torch. In the Free_French_Forces article it states that the FFF eventually raised 1.25 million soldiers by the end of the war, but there's no citation on it.
So, in comparison, do we have the figures for Canadian, Australian, Indian or Polish soldiers? Oberiko 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and I should correct myself, the most important thing for us to do is to avoid WP:OR find sources as to who the major powers are. I know that the sources will vary, but if we can determine a consistency among them, we can probably work it out from there. Oberiko 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics comparing total personnel are problematic, because there weren't single, official, distinct Polish or French military forces after their respective defeats by Germany.

However, comparisons can be made using military deaths (from World War II casualties).

China experienced 3,800,000 Nationalist/Communist military dead (including 400,000 taken POW) in 1937-45.

French (Allied) war dead = 210,000: 150,000 regular forces (1939-40, 92,000 + FF 1940-45, 58,000) + 20,000 French resistance + 40,000 French POWs in Germany.

Polish military deaths = about 160,000 ("66,300 in the 1939 Invasion of Poland, 10,000 in Polish Armed Forces in the West, 24,700 with the 1st Polish Army alongside the USSR and 60,000 Polish resistance movement fighters".) I guess that includes those who fought against the USSR in 1939. But I'm not sure if Polish POW deaths are included.

For India (inc present day Pakistan and Bangladesh), total military deaths were 87,040.

In WW2, the total number of Australian and Canadian veterans was about one million each, with 40,000 and 45,000 dead respectively. Significant contributions relative to their populations (just under seven million and just over 11 million respectively).

Needless to say, death and suffering is not proof of military might and the personnel of many other Allied suffered in similar proportions to the French resistance and POWs, especially in Asia.

In addition, the Free French contribution was clearly much less than that of Poles, Indians or Australians for three long years in 1940-43. (During which time the Canadian Army was mostly left champing at the bit and later suffered high casualties in Italy and NW Europe.) Grant | Talk 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough choice guys, but after consideration I don't think France should be listed as a major power. If this would be the case, I think we would have to list Poland and other Allies as well, and Romania and Hungary on the Axis side. Nevertheless, if France is listed, I think we have to list a leader as well, and this will be tricky! De Gaulle on the Allied side and Pétain on the Axis side? No, I vote for the "Big Seven" only: USSR, China, US, UK and Germany, Japan and Italy. After all, there are "et.al." links to the Allies and Axis below the "big ones". My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Something else to consider is that sources can be found for the U.S., British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R. for having critical contributions that won the war or prevented it from being lost. I haven't found any such item for France. Oberiko 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Checking the World War II casualties page, it looks like over 2 million Indians served in Commonwealth forces, more then the number of French soldiers at the end of the war. France's 1.25 million places it (if number of soldiers is our only metric for the moment) below India and just above Canada's 1.1 million. I think that's a pretty unreasonable cut-off point, especially considering the larger Allies (U.S., British Commonwealth, U.S.S.R., China) fielded over 10 million each (just over five million for the U.K. if discounting its Commonwealth forces). Oberiko 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Battle of France, by 1940 the draft had swollen the French armed forces to a peak of six million (presumably including forces in and from French colonial countries around the world). I would assume that a reasonable proportion of those were also included in that 1.25 million in 1945 (which also included a large proportion of the resistance). That makes for a total of about seven million French WW2 veterans on the Allied side. However, only 5-10% of those saw active service for more than a year, fewer than the comparable numbers of Polish, Indian, Australian or Canadian veterans. Grant | Talk 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, there was no major allied power called "France" between mid 1940 - mid 1944; there was occupied France, Vichy France and Free France... --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye, that's a kicker, we have 5 different political entities potentially called France.
Which one(s) is/are the ones in the Allied box? Oberiko 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we seem to have a lot of material as to why France shouldn't be included, anyone want to put forward some reasons why they should (more so then India, Poland and Canada)? Oberiko 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems there aren't any editors involved here that support France's inclusion, with the exception of Tribulation, but he/she hasn't posted anything here in a couple days. I posted a notice on the main WWII talk page several days ago, when this discussion started, and no one has responded from there. I suppose there are two options before us: make the change based on this apparent consensus, or we can post notices elsewhere, perhaps at the Milhist wikiproject and at the RfC:Hist in an attempt to bring more opinions to the discussion. Oh, and thanks for labeling the archive, Oberiko; it just slipped my mind :) Parsecboy 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No worries Parsec, and WP:MILHIST is always a good idea, I'll post a notification there. Oberiko 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? There are a few points I'd like to make. First and most importantly, we're in danger of slipping into anachronism here. It's not how we perceive France at 60 years' distance that matters, it's how France was perceived at the time: was it treated as one of the Great Powers or not? I think the evidence on this point is clear. If you look at the various agreements that ended the fighting and began the occupation of Germany, France was clearly treated as one of the four principal Allies: see for instance the German Instrument of Surrender and the Berlin Declaration (1945). None of the other Allied countries were included in these key agreements. On this basis alone, we must include France in the major Allies box. Second, France was a co-equal with Britain during the period between the fall of Poland and the Battle of France; it played an absolutely central role. Third, with regard to Oberiko's point above, what's not been mentioned is the fact that while metropolitan France may have been occupied, much of the overseas French empire (with a vastly greater area and population than France itself) went over to the Free French and was used to aid the continuing French war effort - there was never a point at which the French government lost all of its territory, as happened with Poland or Czechoslovakia, for instance. And fourth, I noticed the mentions of India, Australia, Canada etc - they're usually treated as being in the British column, since some were under the direct command of Britain - as in the case of India - while others like Australia (if I remember rightly) were effectively under operational control for much of the war. -- ChrisO 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this point by point.
  • France was not included in several major conferences, including:
  • Next, France was Britain's equal in the beginning, true, but most of that consisted of the Phony War, when no combat was actually being waged. France's contributions, militarily, are three demi-brigades, two cruisers and eleven destroyers in the Norwegian Campaign (compared to four brigades, four battleships, three aircraft carriers, four heavy cruisers, twenty-one destroyers etc. by the British) and in the Battle of France, where France indeed mobilized over two million soldiers, but only for a little over a month.
  • Regarding the overseas empire, most of France's colonies remained in Vichy possession, not aligned with the Free French and the Allies, but against them.
    • Even after Operation Torch, when many colonies joined France, they still can't have contributed significantly, as can be seen by the small figures of FFF strength at the end of the war, just over 1.25 million
  • While India was administrated by the U.K., Canada and Australia were not, see the discussion below on that.
  • France and the U.N.: As has been pointed out many times before, France on the U.N. really doesn't mean much, they were only there since the U.K. wanted a strong France to help keep the Soviet Union in check after the war:
    • Regarding the U.N., the U.S. State Department specifically states [1] "The major Allied Powers--the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China..." and later "The basic framework for the proposed United Nations rested on President Roosevelt’s vision that the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China would provide leadership in the postwar international system. It was these four states, with the addition of France, that would assume permanent seats in the otherwise rotating membership of the United Nations Security Council." Note that France is something special, and not considered a "major power".
    • Further "At the insistence primarily of the British government, France was accorded a major role in the formation of the United Nations Organization..." (A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, pg. 901)
    • "In 1943 at the Allied summit meeting in Tehran, FDR described his latest vision of internation organization: an assembly to which all states belonged, an executive committee of around ten membes made up of the Big Four plus two representative of Europe, and one representative apiece of Latin America, the Middle East, the Far East, and the British dominions, which would deal with nonmilitary subjects, and, as a distinct group, "The Four Policement" who would deal with all military matters... Unhealthy, and distracted by greater priorities, Roosevelt permitted the dilution of his original vision. During Dumbarton Oaks Conference of 1944, he agreed to the British suggestion that France be included on the Security Council, while suggesting that Brazil too should have a permanent seat" (The American Way of Strategy, pg. 180)
    • "The makeup of the conference raised eyebrows. Roosevelt insisted that China be included as the Fourth Policeman because he wanted to replace Japan someday as the power of Asia in the post-war world. The idea of China developing into a world power struck Churchill as ludicrous. He would have preferred France at Dumbarton Oaks, for he looked on a rejuvenated France as the vital balance in Western Europe against any westward moves by the Soviet Union. But Roosevelt, though he finally accepted the principle of France as Fifth Policeman..." (United Nations: The First Fifty Years, pg. 7) Oberiko 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


(This is not a comment on ChrisO:s post above). Sorry if I complicate things, Oberiko, I sincerely don't want to...but has this vote been invalidated? (even though I am personally for a listing of major participants). Sorry for messing, I took no part in that voting, I just wonder if it was invalidated...--Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Howdy DNA, that vote was a straw-poll and never actually took effect. Revert wars began when it was attempted. Oberiko 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the inclusion of France and not in a mood to argue this over and over again. Note, don't forget the Saar Offensive of 1939 (minor indeed but still some action, particularly compared to Norway) and the Italian Campaign 1943/44 to France's credit. Back on leaders themselves it should not be forgotten that de Gaulle was already minister in the 1940 cabinet and on official mission to the UK at the Armistice and has a good claim for continuity. And I'm far from a Gaulist.--Caranorn 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The Saar Offensive was conducted by 11 divisions and met "negligable resistance", the same can not be said of Norway where Germany lost the bulk of her surface fleet.
  • In the Italian Campaign, "... the French Corps was French by name only, comprising the Second Moroccan and the Third Algerian Infantry Divisions, where only the officers were French. The French Corps also contained the Fourth Moroccan Division and the First Motorized Division, but both these these units were still in Africa." (Poles in the Italian Campaign, 1943-1945 - Page 38)
  • Continutity is very contentable. Vichy was legally recognized as being the state of France by the United States, who even appointed an ambassador ("The United States also found it expedient to maintain relations with Vichy France, which had averted occupation by collaborating with the Nazis. But even though the Roosevelt administration sent lend-lease material to areas under Free French control, it refused to recognize the government of "Free France," then in exile in London and led by the imperious Charles de Gaulle. The U.S. ambassador to Vichy France, Admiral William Leahy, authorized shipments of coal, sugar and cotton to persuade the French to withhold naval assistance from the Axis." -- Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897, pg. 195) Oberiko 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who wants to venture a contribution to the discussion? If not, I'd like to take it to a straw poll to further gauge the level of consensus. Oberiko 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources regarding France's status as a major/minor power

  • The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison
    • The book focuses on the following on the UK, the United States, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR.
    • China
      • "a low-income great power"
      • "Between 1938 and 1942 the UK was joined by the USA, USSR and China in the alliance which would eventually become the United Nations"
    • France (Ally)
      • The author refers to France as a great Allied power in the beginning.
      • In his "Armed forces of the great powers" table, he includes France for the years 1939 and 1940.
    • France (Axis)
      • Post 1940, the author puts their resources at German disposal.
      • "France provided Germany with as much food as all of the occupied USSR and more industrial materials... German occupation policies successfully extracted 30-40 per cent of the wartime national products of France, the Netherlands, and Norway." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) September 17, 2007
  • The Chinese Army 1937-49: World War II and Civil War
    • "It has been estimated that in the period 1937-45 some 14 million Chinese served in the armed forces, losing about 1400000 dead and 1800000 wounded." Oberiko 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The Transformation of Southeast Asia: International Perspectives on Decolonization
    • "France had lost its great power status during the Vichy period of occupation and collaboration and was then only reinstalled as a great power because of Britain's desire to concentrate more on its empire and less on the European continent."
  • The Rand McNally Encyclopedia of World War II
    • "France was refused representation at Yalta, due to the United States, who did not agree with England's desire to build France into a Great Power again. However both Allies supported giving France a zone of occupation in Germany."
  • From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s
    • "France had been occupied and never again achieved great power status." Oberiko 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to say that there is a mistake in the post by Oberiko in saying that only the officers of the French Expeditionary Corps were French. That is untrue, despite modern popular opinion (influenced, for example, by the new film "Indigenes"). The divisions, though indeed composed in Africa (the re-Allied French North African Army), comprised a very significant proportion of ethnic French (as opposed to North Africans). In fact, this French portion was about 48% of the total French Expeditionary Corps composition; the other 52% were primarily North Africans. Although most of the officers were French, that in no way comprises even close to a majority of the 48%, and, in fact, there were also a few North African officers as well.
I personally am a supporter of the inclusion of France in the infobox primarily because, as others have mentioned, the inclusion of France in the UN security council, but also because, to a lesser extent, military contribution. Ignoring the famous Free French, one could say that the French government was Allied in the periods of 1939-1940 and the end of 1942 until the end of the war. (If you are confused, that is because the Germans invaded the free zone of Vichy France following the cease fire in North Africa, breaching the terms of the armistice and therefore re-establishing an active state of war between France and Germany; when Admiral Darlan declared for the Allies, it is because he had the right to under French law, which stipulated that there can be no recognized French leader, i.e. Petain, under the captivity of an enemy state. Since no peace treaty had been signed, this meant that the cease-fire was null and void, and authority passed to he of highest rank who was allowed to govern, i.e. Darlan, who was not under captivity of an enemy state. Again, for those who are confused, the United States, who indeed had Darlan captive during all this, was not defined as an enemy state. Neither was, for that matter, the United Kingdom. The irony of course, is that Darlan declared for the Allies in the name of Petain, since Darlan thought, arguably rightfully, he was fulfilling Petain's private wishes as had been expressed to him in private. In any case, the resumption of armed warfare between France and Germany and the return of France to the Allied war effort at the end of 1942 is a sentiment universally shared, not only in primary source editorials in American newspapers, modern historical books, such as An Army at Dawn, but also on a governmental level, where the United States no longer recognized the occupied Vichy regime in mainland France.)
Besides being not only instrumental to, but also by far the primary Allied force during the May 10th campaign, France, upon rejoining the war effort in 1942, fought at one point or another in every campaign of the war in varying degrees. The French were a primary and very important force in the Tunisian Campaign (again, not even including the Free French, who were both integrated in the 8th Army and fighting within the Leclerc column) and the Italian Campaign, where they provided the breaking of the Gustav Line during the Fourth Battle of Monte Cassino. France was also the primary force in Southern France following the often overlooked Operation Dragoon, where, after the initial landings, France provided about half the soldiers (French First Army, initially called French Army B) and liberated the crucial port towns of Marseille and Toulon, which would provide 1/3 of Allied supplies to the northern Allied armies until the liberation of Antwerp.
In addition to these major French actions, one could also mention the minor actions (little things like Ouistreham, liberation of Elba, etc.), but of particular note are the Normandie-Niemen airforce regiment, which fought on the Eastern Front, and the March 9th 1945 coup by Japanese forces, which pitted hopelessly out-classed French and Indochinese forces in French Indochina against the Japanese in some particularly bloody fighting (for the small size of the battle; this is not to mention earlier fighting against the Japanese in 1940, and the related French-Thai War of the same year to 1941). Thus, France fought in essentially every campaign of the war, not including the Gaullist Free French of 1940-1943.
And yes, France fought against the Allies several times from the fall of France to 1942. However, it should be noted that at each of these occurrences, the cause of the fighting was the Allies themselves, who attacked/invaded French territory. The French military in particular, remained anti-German in morale, and indeed this was a theme of many French commanders, including General Weygand, who saw the resumption of conflict with Germany and Italy as inevitable and thus proceeded to build up the French African Army accordingly. In short, the primary motivations behind resisting Allied invasions were the following:
-A sense of honor; i.e. a sentiment like the following: "we have been attacked, we will fight"
-A need to stick to the terms of the armistice; a term of the armistice was that the French would resist ANY invader (including the Axis, as shown by fighting with Japan and Japan's soon-to-be ally, Thailand, though technically the Tripartite Pact wasn't signed until a day after the fighting in Indochina, 1940, began to die down). Failure to comply to this agreement would have resulted in repercussions from the Germans and probably a breach of the armistice, as happened in 1942 when France re-entered the Allied side.
Finally, it should be noted that casualties taken by Vichy forces fighting the Allies is nowhere near the level of casualties taken from fighting the Axis post-1940. To put this in perspective, under 3,000 (almost the exact same number of dead Indians in the Indian National Army that fought against the Allies) opposed to 58,000, and I am unsure if that under 3,000 even includes Vichy Indochinese forces fighting the Japanese and Thai. By contrast, that 58,000 death count alone (which does not count Resistance deaths; these are military deaths only), not including the 92,000 of the May 1940 campaign, is greater than the death counts of Canada (45,300), Australia (40,400), and even post-1939 Poland excluding resistance fighters (34,700). And while an exorbitant death count may be an indication of bad leadership or deployment, those 58,000 troops who died post-1940 were neither very poorly led (as opposed to the failures of the May 1940 campaign) as they were under a unified Allied command (Anglo-American) nor poorly supplied (supplied primarily by the British, then the Americans), except in the Tunisian Campaign of 1942-1943 or the Indochina campaign of 1945, where French forces used entirely outdated French equipment. Nevertheless, even removing the death counts of those two campaigns, the French death count post May 10th would still be above that of Canada's. (Of course, these are all from a military perspective and not necessarily from an economic one, where Canada, for instance, played a very large role.) India sustained more deaths during the war than the French 58,000 post 1940, but it was a British administration, as opposed to an independent country, and therefore is represented by the UK's inclusion of the infobox.
As for Charles de Gaulle, I believe he is the closest France had to a unified leader. Putting Daladier would be like putting Chamberlain. Reynaud ruled only for the May 1940 campaign. Petain wasn't in charge of an active war state, since he was in recognized power only from the end of the May/June 1940 campaign until the end of 1942. Darlan was shortly assassinated. Giraud lost his power to de Gaulle by 1940. Thus, for the crucial end-of-war phase, as well as the occupation of Germany and UN representation, it was de Gaulle who was in charge.
Nevertheless, I like many others, support mostly an Allied/Axis infobox as opposed to one that lists individual nations. - Jean de Pied (not sure how to sign my name here...)
You sign like this ~~~~. There are two main issues here:
France. No-one is doubting that the contribution of the Free French forces was substantial, especially for a country under occupation. Nevertheless, it was not anything like the scale of the Soviets, USA, UK or China, except for a brief period in 1939-40 (and no, I wouldn't say it was in the same league in 1944-45). The UN Security Council reflected post-war military strength, not wartime strength.
De Gaulle. He — unlike Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill or Chiang — did not have operational control or French forces. De Gaulle was purely a political leader and really only a symbolic one at that. Grant | Talk 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of France's status is original research

This discussion is all original research. Never mind interpreting the facts about various countries' participation; never mind even sourcing those facts.

Which countries do the important historians list as major participants or "great powers" of World War II? That's the only question which needs be answered to settle this. Pull out your big history books and see what they say. —Michael Z. 2007-09-19 04:41 Z

Did you see Oberiko's last post? He provided several sources, all relegating France to a secondary position, behind the Big Three and China. Those who favor France's inclusion on this list have provided no sources to support their position. Parsecboy 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
One should look at the opinion of the majority of WWII historians. What do they say? While France's role in victory is only marginal, being the fifth power and one of the largest armies at the time of the declaration of war (that made the conflict global) is surely not secondary. 132.248.81.29 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, Oberiko has provided several sources that relegate France to a secondary position. Those arguing for its inclusion have produced zero sources, but speak in vague terms about "the majority of WWII historians". Either provide sources, or your comments are pointless. Parsecboy 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That is not fully correct. Oberiko has provided some informations and quotes but nothing overwhelmingly convincing. I mean, most his quotes refer to the formation of the UN and the fact that France would have received the 5th permanent seat only at the insistance of England. Interesting, but remains the fact that when the 5 permanent seats were granted, France got one.
Oberiko has also interesting arguments regarding Yalta and other conference where France was not represented....well, China was not in Yalta either :-)
Very convincing argument on the other hand brought by ChrisO, mainly: "If you look at the various agreements that ended the fighting and began the occupation of Germany, France was clearly treated as one of the four principal Allies: see for instance the German Instrument of Surrender and the Berlin Declaration (1945). None of the other Allied countries were included in these key agreements. On this basis alone, we must include France in the major Allies box." That is a very good point I think (by the way, I am not French, in case the information would interest anybody): the discussion on why France was treated as a main allie is interesting, but it appears it was treated that way at least for a good deal. Bradipus 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Read the last three sources provided by Oberiko above. They explicitly state that after the French defeat, they were no longer a major power, and only regained that status after the end of the war, at the insistence of the British. Parsecboy 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Allies/Axis vs. Nationality in the infobox (2nd attempt)

Below is a vote on whether to use "Allies" and "Axis" or listing of the major participants in the "combatants" section of the war info box. The first option will be that the only listed combatants will be the "Allies" and the "Axis" with links to the appropriate articles. The second option will indicate a preference for major participants instead of only Allies and Axis.

Each Wikipedian is allowed one vote in each poll. For the sake of clarity, discussion and opinions beyond simple name-tagging are requested to not to be added to the voting section, but instead to an attached "comments" section.

Each poll will have a duration of one week unless otherwise specified.

The following applies if, and only if, the nationalities option wins in the vote
Should the second option win in the first round, it is suggested that discussions commence to attempt consensus on three (with possibly more added later) issues prior to discussion the metrics of individual nations:

  • The upper limit of combatants per side to list (not which combatants, but how many)
  • If Axis and Allies should still be listed in addition to the major powers (ie: Allies: Nation X, Nation Y; Axis: Nation A, Nation B).
  • Discussions on how nation "groupings" should be handled (ie: France vs. French Third Republic, Free French, Vichy; British Commonwealth vs. U.K., Canada, Australia etc.)

Note
WP:!VOTE states that polling is not an alternative to consensus. This poll is initiated by myself (Oberiko) as it appears to me that consensus is not a possibility in the matter. The results are, therefore, not binding. This is more of a means to gauge editor directions.

Allies/Axis or Nationality listings poll (Started: September 26, 2007 - Ends: October 3, 2007)

Support Allies / Axis

  1. --Dna-Dennis 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. --Grant | Talk 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. --Oberiko 11:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. --Parsecboy 12:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. --FactotEm 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. --wbfergus Talk 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. --Eron Talk 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. --Staberinde 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Nationality listings

  1. --Ko Soi IX 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. --96T 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I've previously been for nationality listings, but now I vote for Allies/Axis only. Why? Well, for starters, we will avoid a lot of controversies and continued "wheelgrinding" on who, why and how to sort etc. Let's delegate the matter to the articles Allies and Axis - "they knew what they were into, I say: Let 'em crash!" :). Regards, --Dna-Dennis 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we limit the list to major players only. With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
As shown in many places, the issue of who major players are is highly debatable. The only ones who we (and every source I've ever read) universally agree on are the U.K. (and sometimes its Commonwealth), the United States, the Soviet Union, Germany and Japan. Powers that I've seen sometimes, but not always, labeled as major (depending on the author and theatre or nation the book focuses on) are China, Italy, Finland, France, Romania, Poland, Canada, India and Australia. Oberiko 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
"Four policemen" pretty much defines who the major allies were. France and Italy - is a little bit shaky. Thus it could be either 4 vs 2, or 5 vs 3. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably if Allies/Axis only is settled on, the 'Commanders' info box will become irrelevant, or will the discussion simply leak over into that section? --FactotEm 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is an Allied leaders of World War II and an Axis leaders of World War II. If we do decide to just list the Axis and Allies in the combatants table, these will go in the commanders section. Parsecboy 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Using Allies and Axis for the WWII infobox (and probably WWI as well), makes perfect sense. It's short and sweet. Additional detail on who was in which camp can clearly and much more eloquently be stated in either a section or another article. No sense in cluttering up the infobox more than is neccessary. It also avoids any problems that may arise in cases like France. Though I don't have any references that I can readily quote, I do remember seeing in the past some references that listed France as both an Allied and an Axis partner, since France was against the Axis, but after falling, many in France collaborated so that 'historian' decided that at that time, they became an Axis partner. Things like this (whether true, documented or otherwise), can clearly be more accurately stated in someplace better than an infobox. wbfergus Talk 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I do like it the way it is now, though I could be perfectly fine with simply listing "Axis" and "Allies" as a compromise towards avoiding the inevitable debates over which countries were involved, what order they should be listed in, etc. LordAmeth 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw a ball out there, what if we listed the combatants as:

This would encompass everyone (sans Vichy France, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia and probably a few other small nations) and keep the who-was-fighting-who slightly more accurate (SU didn't fight the AA until the end, China never fought the EA etc.). The main problem I can see is that the terms European Axis and Asian Axis aren't often used (though I have found them in a few sources). Thoughts? Oberiko 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko. I think you're on to something here. However, I would leave the Axis as just the Axis, or I would describe its branches as Axis, Europe Branch or Axis, Japan. From my reading about WW II , I do not believe that Japan ever had any ally other than Germany, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prospertiy Sphere was just another name for the temporarily expanded Japanese empire. Identifying the Western Allies separate from the USSR would set forth their positions correctly in view of what happened before, during and after WW II. By the way, see this discussion from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#New_map>. 69.239.87.23 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)IMS
That infobox is cursed anyway, I am confident that no matter how vote ends, result will be stable only for short time before argument restarts :) --Staberinde 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, but a strong enough general consensus should give us a "solid" version that we can actively protect and maintain until general consensus shifts direction. Oberiko 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It should be in a different order though, SU, Western Allies, China. The USSR took out more axis troops than all other allies combined. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Having watched several previous discussions on this, it is clear to me that the only thing people can agree on is that it was the Allies against the Axis. If we decided "no countries" then the Infobox should become stable. If we include a list of countries, it will never stabilize as there will never be agreement. There are no clear, universally accepted criteria for who should and should not be listed. Anyone favouring the inclusion of one country, or the exclusion of another, will be able to pick the criteria that support their position. That complexity suggests that a discussion of who were the major players is best left for the Allies and Axis articles. - Eron Talk 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like pretty strong consensus to change to just Allies and Axis. I'm going to make the change. Oberiko 17:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Combatant ordering

Currently the table suggests that the USSR was the first of the Allies - and doesn't even mention Poland. I'd add the country that was the first to become an ally (Poland) and move USSR somewhere down the list. Otherwise an uninformed reader might think that the WWII started between USSR and Germany, and other joined later. Sure, to some extent that's true that the war was started by USSR and Germany, but since we have USSR listed among the Allies... //Halibutt 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The countries are listed after military contribution, not chronologically. 96T 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Who is determining military contribution? And isn't putting the USSR first under that criteria a tad bit Euro-centric? What about the whole Pacific Theater? Parsecboy 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems pretty biased to me then, as we exhaustively discussed earlier, there are dozens of ways to determine contribution. I say we either have it chronologically or alphabetically. Something based on an indisputable fact instead of someone's personal metrics. Oberiko 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why this insignificant issue is so damned intractable. I think alphabetical would be a good way to go; with chronological order there's the issue with "Do we use 1937 or 1941" for China and Japan, etc. Parsecboy 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Alphabetical is fine with me, much better than the current one. Especially that the very concept of "military contribution" here is a tad absurd. Does it mean that the USSR should be listed before Germany on the list of Axis powers? After all Stalin had more soldiers in 1939 than Hitler. If we are to use chronological order (which is also fine with me provided we don't include - with all due respect for contribution - states like Ecuador or Panama), I'd go for listing China and Japan under 1941, as the war became a world conflict only in 1939-1941 period. Otherwise we'd have to include other similar conflicts into the war (say, Ethiopia vs. Italy) as part of WWII, which is not what most history books do. //Halibutt 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If the idea is to base it on when the war became global, I'd argue that that didn't happen until 1941, when the two separate theatres became joined into one conflict. Up until then the fighting in Europe was just that; fighting in Europe, with a few scattered battles in North Africa. Parsecboy 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and put it in alphabetical order, as no one has voiced any objections thus far. I also removed some redundant wikilinks to Axis and Allies. Parsecboy 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the alphabetical order, it seems like the most logical and neutral choice.--Caranorn 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why it matters which nation is listed in what order. I mean, it's not like we said ok, the ones at the top did the most, and the ones at the bottom did the least. I'm fine with alphabetical order. --LtWinters 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an accuracy by implication type of deal, people tend to assign order of import based on ranking in a list. The best way to counter this is by putting that order in some kind of context, like chronological. We are also dealing with a rather limited amount of space, as we are writing an infobox not an article. This inherently limits our ability to truly explore the nuances of national alignment. For example: I wholeheartedly agree the USSR was not an Allied nation when it invaded Poland in mid September 1939, but then again neither was France after 1940 nor was Italy an Axis power after 1943. (There's also Finland, a co-belligerent till 1944 because they were resisting Soviet efforts to invade.) We can't go into these intricacies in the space allotted, so we're better off arranging them by date they entered (Soviets not included in 1939 since war wasn't declared on them) like this example or not listing specific countries at all and leaving it as Allied vs Axis nations. Anynobody 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
I've always supported just having a link to Allies of World War II and Axis of World War II. However, if countries are to be listed, chronological order has flaws too. What about China? Do we use 1937 for the date? Or 1941? I think plain old alphabetical order is the best option here. There's no question whether "A" comes before "Q". Parsecboy 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That the Russian armies should stand on this line [i.e. in the middle of Poland]
was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against
the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is
there, and an Eastern Front has been created which
Nazi Germany does not dare assail (Winston Churchill, September 1939).
Oh, I didn't know that Churchill is one of wikipedians now :/ - and he was generally veeery "non-NPOV" regarding Central and Eastern Europe... --EAJoe (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant | Talk 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd like a listing according to military casualties, but for the sake of NPOV and in order to deflect further controversies as stated above, I vote for an alphabetical order. --Dna-Dennis 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I for one am against the alphabetical order. The previous one, that listed countries according to their war effort (ie. the number of enemy personell/material taken out), was better, even though it did provide room for many arguments on who did more; while in my opinion it's safe to say that the Soviets took out more axis troops than all other allies put together, the other nations are not as clear cut - plus, how does one compare, say soldier casualties and destroyed aircraft?
Regardless of the above, I support the previous order (SU, USA, UK, China, France). With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record I'd also rather support such an order. Alæxis¿question? 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I also support the previous order. Tribulation725 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt 2

Alright, I don't think we're going to be able to get it by contribution / importance (no real way to decide between U.K., U.S. and Soviets, different metrics / authors support each), and it looks like alphabetical doesn't have overwhelming support, so why don't we do it by the date each of the Big Three powers officially declared war on the Axis Powers, then put China, then France? Oberiko 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What a can of worms. I would have to tend to agree with Parsecboy above, that "Allies..." and "Axis..." would be the best approach. It's far cleaner and avoids the "controversy of the day". It also avoids those funky looking flags in the infobox. The subsequent linked articles for "Allies..." can then go into the details of during timeframe each country was with which side, or casualties, or whatever. Making any other choices will just continue to fan the flames. wbfergus Talk 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese POWs

I'm going to have to find the books mentioned in that article on Americans massacring Japanese soldiers. My understanding, from numerous books on the subject, was that Japanese soldiers didn't even try to surrender, but instead took great pride in honorable death in battle. My understanding is that they were socialized to view surrender as cowardice, which also allowed them to treat American POWs as dishonorable and only worthy of torture or painful deaths.

In speaking about whether a murderer of 10 or 20 is more or less of a murderer, you're missing the point. When you look at the systematic murder of many thousands, sanctioned by the military leadership or of hundreds by men who faced justice administered against them by their own military for their crimes, we're talking about completely different issues. --Habap 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner. The problem though, is that very few Americans were punished for war crimes committed, especially in the Pacific. No, it wasn't organized from higher levels, like Katyn, but war crimes are war crimes, whether they were tried or not (and not to mention whether we'd like to think so, or pretend they never even happened). Parsecboy 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Habap, see Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Treatment_of_POWs. This matter has been the source of much debate on the talk page there.
By the way, the rate of prisoner taking by Allied forces in Burma was even lower than that in the Pacific. The Chinese Nationalists were not great prisoner takers either, whereas the Chinese Communists were the opposite and even recruited a large number of Japanese soldiers. Grant | Talk 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom to British Commonwealth

Can we change the United Kingdom in the infobox to the British Commonwealth? Oberiko 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tough choice, again. I remember that this has been discussed before, probably somewhere on Talk:World War II. On a first glance, I would say no, since the participants in the Commonwealth were practically independent, and thus not directly a part of a major power. I know the following example is a bit far-fetched, but Participants in World War II#Philippines states that the Philippine Commonwealth was a semi-independent commonwealth of the United States - thus we could argue for re-labelling "United States" to "US Commonwealth". But as I said, it's not a clear-cut matter; the label "British Commonwealth" has its advantages, since it encompasses more Allies. But, at a first glance, I'd say no. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Unlike the United States though, the British Commonwealth (India, Canada, and Australia primarily) provided roughly half of the British manpower (close to 5 million troops out of a total of 11 million). My personal opinion is that that would be significant enough to warrant using British Commonwealth without the risk of having to do the same for the U.S.; clearly the U.S. was not even close to being as reliant on its non-domestic forces. Oberiko 14:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I agree with Dennis. My reasoning is this: it makes a lot of sense to refer to British Empire in WW1, because not even the Dominions had official independence in foreign policy (or international trade) at that time. Their forces served within British field armies or smaller formations. However, there was more than a change of name between the wars: by 1939 the Dominions were fully independent and Eire (which was a Dominion at the time) proved this by staying out of the war. Australia and Canada, in particular, dealt separately with the US and Allied powers other than the UK. There was also no British Commonwealth command structure, separate from general Allied commands. While they were nor represented on the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Dominion forces frequently took orders from US generals rather than British ones. The British government sometimes represented the Dominions at Allied meetings, although that could cut both ways. I think we should leave it as "United Kingdom" and the Dominions as "et al." Grant | Talk 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it is a far-fetched comparison, Oberiko :) I have no strong opinion on this matter, there are clear advantages with the label "Commonwealth". I just stated some initial opinions. Oberiko's manpower arguments are very strong arguments. Grant65's arguments are very strong too. Hmm, I'm not sure...they were practically independent though... I think I rest my case for now, I'll have to consider it more. My regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I just came to think of another argument against the "Commonwealth", and it's a tricky one: if we replace UK with the label "British Commonwealth", who would be listed as leader/commander? Winston Churchill? I think Canada, Australia etc. would have a thing or two to say about this... Regards, --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm in favour of British Commonwealth, personally- large chunks of the Commonwealth weren't actually independent (India, anyone?), and they were all using the same equipment, wore similar uniforms, and co-ordinated their military operations to a greater or lesser extent. That's not to lessen the military acheivements, contributions, or prowess of any of the Commonwealth countries, but the reality is the only reason any of them even got involved in WWII in the first place was because Britain declared war on Germany (and later Japan). --Commander Zulu 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding their command structure, AFAIK it would be the exception, rather then the rule, that Commonwealth troops fought under the command structure of another nation other then the U.K.. Looking at the North African campaign, the Italian Campaign and the Western European Campaign (1944-1945), all Canadian, Indian and Australian formations were part of larger British formations. Prior to the formation of joint-command with American forces, this usually did indeed mean they were directly or indirectly ordered about by Churchill himself. Oberiko 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Myths abound...

Oberiko, the vast majority of Australian forces were under MacArthur's South West Pacific Area (command) from March 1942. An absolute majority of his forces were Australian for about a year. Anyway, the issue of which person of what nationality commanded which forces is neither here nor there, as they were all joint Allied supreme commands and it would have been counter=productive to have separate national operational commands. As for being "ordered about by Churchill", well he tried, but didn't always succeed. For example, the attempted diversion of the Australian I Corps to Burma in 1942, when it was on route to the Dutch East Indies (not Australia, as is sometimes stated), which was thwarted by the Australian government. (Even though it didn't have to, and was facing possible invasion, in the spirit of compromise two brigades were detached to garrison Ceylon for six months.) After the 9th Division left North Africa in January 1943, the only Australian units still under British command were several RAAF squadrons based in the UK and Mediterranean, and some destroyers and corvettes with the British Eastern Fleet.

Commander Zulu, in many cases, they weren't using the same equipment or uniforms and these are meaningless facts anyway.

The US, USSR and China also "co-ordinated their military operations" with the UK.

Your reasoning about Britain's declaration is incorrect. The Dominions were voluntarily supporting the UK in an hour of need. Eire, which was a Dominion at the time, never declared war and the issue of whether to declare war caused a purely internal political crisis in South Africa, culminating in the fall of a Prime Minister (J.B.M. Hertzog).

Grant | Talk 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To that I'll concede. I was focused on the European Theatre and not on the Asian one. Your right, quite the different story there. Oberiko 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the British Commonwealth at the time, but the article is Commonwealth of Nations. Thus, please use a direct link to it, this way: [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]]. It really saves effort in cleaning up the links. Hu 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up the discussion page

It seems that our discussions are all about either the image or the combatants. Would anyone object to having those discussions somewhat segregated from other discussions? ie. Template talk:WW2InfoBox\image and Template talk:WW2InfoBox\combatants? There certainly does seem to be enough discussion on the topics to warrant it, and it would make archiving much easier and more meaningful. Oberiko 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't object, I'm a mergist. Or at least, often. Or sometimes. Or rather, when I feel like it. I'd say, make it so. --Dna-Dennis 07:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to separate the 2 discussions. 2 archives would be good too. --Timeshifter 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Aye, the archive separation is what I'm now thinking. I don't think we need to separate out the discussion page anymore though, things have died down quite a bit. Oberiko 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing main combatants in infobox

I think that listing the main combatants in the infobox would be a good idea as an infobox is supposed to give a brief overview of the subject of the article. The way it is formatted now (Allies_of_World_War_II) & (Axis_powers_of_World_War_II) is confusing and unclear and these pages do not immediately list the main combatants. This revision is a lot better than what is currently on right now as someone who has little knowledge of WWII can immediately know the main combatants. The other reason why we should be listing the main countries involved is because it would make the page more consistent with the rest of the articles on Wikipedia that uses an infobox for the wars (Ex: WWI, Vietnam War, Napoleonic Wars, etc.) since they list out the countries. Anybody else think this change would be good? --Hdt83 Chat 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I have no idea why the major combatants were removed again (probably because the person who took them out are referring to some stupid agreement they made over in the archives...) but that shouldn't stop us from making a good, informative template for our article. I would just readd the major combatants again, but I don't want to be involved in another edit war.-- Penubag  07:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The agreement is not even in the archives, it's right here on this page. The main issue is that people can't agree on what combatants to list, and what order to list them in. 96T 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
"Below is a vote on whether to use "Allies" and "Axis" or listing of the major participants in the "combatants" section of the war info box. The first option will be that the only listed combatants will be the "Allies" and the "Axis" with links to the appropriate articles. The second option will indicate a preference for major participants instead of only Allies and Axis." Well, it seems that the link-list won over the major combatants, but, it did not win over having both a link and a short major combatant list in the template as it was before it was reverted. If I get enough support, I will revert it back to include both. And just because we can't agree on which to have listed and in what order does not mean we shouldn't list them at all. I'd rather discuss about it rather than just be lazy and just say, "oh we can't decide so...let's just not have any!". -- Penubag  00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you should review the literally hundreds of KBs worth of discussions and arguments (going back at least as far as 2005) in the archives at the WWII talk page before you call any of the editors who were involved "lazy". Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Apologies if it offended you, but I ment to say that I rather not be lazy and have a debate than not to, I wasn't reffering to anyone else. Sorry.-- Penubag  18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
No offense taken, but you never know how someone else might interpret what you say. That's my point. I'm really very tired of this debate, so I'll state that I do favor just listing "Allies" and "Axis" as opposed to individual countries, and leave it at that. If anyone has any questions for me directly, I suggest asking on my talk page, not here, because I won't be paying attention. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Start date

I've changed the start date to "Late 1930s" for a few reasons:

  • Numerous sources, including the official Japanese histories state that WWII started in 1937.
  • The actual start date of the European theatre is questionable, with some sources stating it as Sep 1 (German invasion of Poland), and some as Sep 3 (France and the U.K. declaring war on Germany).

Thus, with multiple sources stating different things, I think this would be the safer bet, especially since the page itself says that WWII is an amalgamation of the two conflicts in Europe and Asia. Oberiko (talk) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That does seem to be the best choice. The more ambiguous date can avoid issues with Eurocentrism, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the start date back to September 3, 1939 as this is the generally accepted date for when the war became a global one, and not a regional one. If anyone feels this makes the page too Eurocentric, they should try and remember that World War 2 was primarily a (Eastern) European conflict, and ignores the fact that the Asian and Pacific Theaters did not become a part of the larger conflict until December 1941. This deplorable state of this, vitally important, article as a result of this change reflects badly on Wikipedia as a whole. I note that a Mediation Cabal was set up to discuss this issue, and I also note that at the time of writing that that discussion has stalled for over a month, meaning that the participants have long since released themselves of obligation towards this matter. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I would favour September 1 over September 3. The spark that lit the flame was the invasion of Poland. September 3 is when Britain and France met their treaty obligations after the ultimatums ran out. Our WWI article gives July 28 1914 as the start date. This is when Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. You will also find , I think, that most sources would favour Sept. 1 over Sept. 3.Jooler (talk) 09:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II/Infobox/Archive_3&oldid=1142291925"