Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

→

USSR

The proposed template shows the USSR in the camp of the Allies from 1941 to 1945.

But...

...the war began in 1939 and the Soviet Union invaded Poland on 17 September 1939 after having signed the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union ("Pacte germano-soviétique", en français) on 23 August 1939. It is only on 22 June 1941 (= 22 months later) that the pact was broken when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.

My question:

If army-poor & non-aggressive Vichy France is included in the Axis-Aligned belligerents through 1944 (!), on which side of the belligerents does the minor detail of its invasion of Poland in September 1939 leave the Soviet Union until June 1941 ?

Please forgive me if this minor point has already been addressed.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. In 1939-40, the USSR was an ally of Nazi Germany in all but name and unlike Vichy it did take part in agressive action. Yet including it in the list of "Axis-aligned" would be ridiculous and misleading. Vichy France's situation was very different, but including it as an Axis combatant would be equally laughable. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Jean-Jacques Georges: I imagine you meant to write 1939-41, not 1939-40 : 22 months is a long time and the Soviets went on a rampage in the neighboring countries they marched into, Poland, Finland (see Winter War).

--Frania W. (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, I wrote too quickly. Not to mention the fact that they took advantage of the time bought by their pact with Germany to annex the Baltic states. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Annexation of the Baltic states" is what was implied in my "Soviet march into neighboring countries".

--Frania W. (talk) 15:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I think we can consider the argument closed. Vichy clearly doesn't deserve inclusion anywhere in the infobox, unless any reputable sources say otherwise (and none seem to do). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe, you do not understand the full complexity of the issue. As I already pointed out elsewhere, the pact between the USSR and Germany was not a military alliance; when some sources mention the alliance, they mean de facto alliance. This "alliance" was mostly limited with coordination of the expansionist policy between the USSR and Germany, economic and, in far smaller extent, military cooperation. Let me briefly review all these three aspects.

Coordination was poor. For instance, the documentary evidences indicate that even after it invasion of Poland Hitler didn't know if the USSR was going to invade Eastern Poland. During the Soviet invasion of neutral Finland, Germany was neutral, although its public opinion was on the Finnish side, and Germany was definitely not satisfied with this Soviet step. Furthermore, Soviet annexation of the Baltic states and North Bukovina was accepted by Germany with great displeasure, especially, taking into account that it was partially a violation of the Nazi-Soviet pact. Starting from this moment on Germano-Soviet relation started to deteriorate quickly, and eventually lead to the notorious Hitler's Barbarossa directive.
Economic cooperation was extensive, but the USSR supplied Germany with just raw materials, whereas Germany exported high technology military equipment. Yes, this cooperation was important for Germany, but not as important as the pre-1941 cooperation between the US and Japan was for the latter. That does not sufficient, however, to list the US among the Japanese allies. And, finally, Soviet export had no significant impact on thg German successes in Europe.
Military cooperation was minimal: a couple of naval bases in the north + a couple of small war ships had been transferred through the Arctics with the Soviet assistance. Too unimportant to speak about any alliance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Seibert, thank you for your explanation; however, I still believe that even if they did not like each other to the point of becoming official "allies", they both worked in the same direction.

In lead of wiki article "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" (probably reading you would not recommend to prove one's point!):

The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, colloquially named after the Soviet foreign minister Vyacheslav Molotov and the German foreign minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, was an agreement officially titled the Treaty of Non-Aggression between Germany and the Soviet Union[1] and signed in Moscow in the late hours of 23 August 1939.[2] It was a non-aggression pact under which the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany each pledged to remain neutral in the event that either nation were attacked by a third party. It remained in effect until 22 June 1941, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
In addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries. Thereafter, Germany and the Soviet Union invaded, on September 1 and 17 respectively, their respective sides of Poland, dividing the country between them. Part of eastern Finland was annexed by the Soviet Union after the Winter War. This was followed by Soviet annexations of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia.

If two parties agree to "non-aggress" each other, i.e. the above case, then they are agreeing to laisser faire each other & look the other way when one is doing its little marching into neighboring countries. Looks to me like a contract between two mafia gangsters ! "Do whatever you want as long as you don't come into my territory or my sphere of influence." And, eventually, comes the time when they turn against each other →→→ Barbarossa.

P.S. My question is still valid: On which side pre-Barbarossa invasion of Poland, Finland & Baltic states put the USSR considering that WWII began in 1939 ? They certainly were not in cahoots with the Brits, or the US which had not yet entered the war. 1939 to 1941 is quite a chunk in which we are discussing the great battles conducted by Vichy France and the template puts the URSS in WWII in 1941. Mr. Siebert, don't you see my point?

--Frania W. (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear Frania, since I has been deeply involved in the last major re-write of the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" article, I am perfectly aware of all of that. In actuality, two different schools exist (generally speaking, four, but two of them became fringe now), the proponents of one of them argue that to align with Germany was a Stalin's genuine desire, whereas others are inclined to believe that Stalin never trusted Germany and played his own game even in 1939-41. According to them, the USSR had never been a genuine ally of Germany, and behaved quite independently (and frequently in concrete contradiction with German interests). Based on the amount of sources and strength of the arguments, the second school looks much stronger. However, for some reason, the weight given to the first school in this article is somewhat higher than it deserves.
However, if you want to discuss that in more details, we should move to another talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your P.S. If we answer this question formally, the USSR, as de jure neutral state that maintained diplomatic relations with both opposing parties, should not be listed at all. If we decide to go to details, the issue is more complicated.

By 1 Sept 1939 the USSR was a major participant of the full scale military conflict with Japan, a future second major Axis power. The armistice has been signed in 16 Sept. One of the major consequences of the Soviet victory there was the fact that during the whole WWII Japan was keeping almost a million Kwantung Army in Manchuria; you must agree that even a part of these troops could significantly shift a balance in Asia-Pacific in 1941-44.
In late Sept-Oct 1939 the USSR invaded the territory of the first Ally, Poland. However, that has been done without declaration of war, and no state declared a war on the USSR as a result. Soviet interference was not too significant, because Poland had been almost defeated by this time, and a scale of the hostilities was also not impressive.
In 1939-mid 1941 the USSR provided Germany with large amount of raw materials obtaining a military equipment in exchange. However, the USA also provided Japan with strategic materials, and these supplies (especially oil) were so vital for Japan that American embargo lead to the declaration of a war on the US. Does it mean the US were a co-belligerent in the SSJW?
In late 1939 the USSR started a war against neutral Finland, and the sympathies of Germany, which remained neutral during this conflict, were more on Finnish side. At least, after the war ended Germany started to provide expensive military help for Finland, thereby clearly letting know to the USSR that it a case if the conflict would be renewed it would support Finland.
In 1940, immediately after a fall of France, the USSR decided to fully annex the Baltic states, however, according to even Baltic scholars that had been done not by military occupation, invasion, or something of that kind, but by military intervention without any hostilities, declaration of a war, etc. It had been done illegally, but peacefully, so we cannot speak about all of that in a context of belligerence.
These acts were accepted with great displeasure by Germany, and were considered as a violation of the Nazi-Soviet pact, because the Germans argued that the term "sphere of influence" did not imply annexation in this case. That, as well as other events, including British-Soviet rapprochement, eventually forced Hitler to start active preparation for Barbarossa.

Regarding your analogy with the "mafia gangsters", let me remind you that all parties, including the western Allies behaved non-ideally during those period, which has been called "dishonest decade" by one (western) scholars, Michael Gabara Carley [1].
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The facts are that, even if "neutral" (I am sure the Poles appreciated its neutrality in September 1939!) & "not Axis-aligned", the USSR was quite a busy invader as of 1939 - fact not taken into consideration in a WWII template which lists it as entering the war only in 1941.

If its actions do not warrant its being listed as either this or that, then I do not see any reason to mention army-less Vichy France who tried to defend its own territory, not invade someone else's, anywhere in that template.

That's my point.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The point is correct. I would say the opposite is also correct: if we include Vichy, someone may argue that the USSR should be included too (you can see the example below). As a result, the USSR, which had been involved in a full-scale political rivalry with Germany since the beginning of 1940, and who was hastily preparing for a war against Germany during whole pre-1941 period will appear among the German co-belligerents. Nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re Poles, since the Tripartite talks, which would put an and to all Hitler's expansionism, failed primarily due to the position of Poland, the latter is also partially responsible for the subsequent events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with putting "USSR (1939-1941)" in a "Axis aligned" category in the box. So rather than taking Vichy out, perhaps we should consider putting 1939-1941 USSR in. Volunteer Marek 18:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not how these things are being done here. You unsubstantiated support is definitely insufficient. I expect you to address my ##1-6 and explain which battles against the Allies, or future Allies (except minor hostilities in Poland) the USSR had been involved in?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're hiding a lot behind this "except minor hostilities in Poland". In 1939 Britain and France did not engage in anything but "minor hostilities" with respect to Nazi Germany. That doesn't mean they weren't "belligerents" or "Allies". Add on top of that the USSR seized territory of one of the "Allies" and it has much more of a claim to being a "Axis aligned" "belligerent" than do UK and France in 1939. Your condition that I "explain which battles against the Allies the USSR had been involved in" is arbitrary, and is chosen specifically to prevent the inclusion of the USSR in this context - it is a self referential circular argument. OTOH, I can certainly point to an agreement between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union which divided up the territory of a particular "Ally". I don't see why that shouldn't be the relevant threshold for inclusion.

And I just reread your statement above "which would put an and to all Hitler's expansionism" - you don't really know that. And "failed primarily due to the position of Poland, the latter is also partially responsible for the subsequent events." - right, because refusing to allow a hostile foreign power with territorial ambitions to station troops on your soil (and which had used this very tactic as a means of partitioning your country on previous occasions) is somehow unreasonable and it makes YOU responsible for "subsequent events" rather than the hostile foreign power which is making this ridiculous demand in the first place. Volunteer Marek 21:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "In 1939 Britain and France did not engage in anything but "minor hostilities" with respect to Nazi Germany." They were engaged in a military conflict which was an official war declared in first days of September, 1939, and which later developed into the major naval clashes and then to a full scale land conflict. The Phoney War was just one episode of this war.

Re "Your condition that I "explain which battles against the Allies the USSR had been involved in" is arbitrary, and is chosen specifically to prevent the inclusion of the USSR in this context" No. No belligerency is possible if there is no battles. In that case, Vichy France is a stronger candidate for the right part of the infobox. If you can list any example of Soviet hostilities against the Allies, except the invasion of the Polish territory that took place without any war declaration (from neither side) and was accompanied by minimal hostilities, please do that. Otherwise...

Re " I can certainly point to an agreement between Nazi Germany and Soviet Union which divided up the territory of a particular "Ally"". Read Roberts works, please. It would be good if you read my previous post again: even Germany itself saw the occupation of the Baltic states and North Bukovina as unfriendly step and a violation of the pact. In addition, division of the spheres of influence is not a co-belligerence.

Re "you don't really know that" That is what the sources available for me tell.

Re "right, because refusing to allow a hostile foreign power with territorial ambitions to station troops on your soil" Poland itself was a hostile foreign power for the USSR, the power that defeated the later in 1920s and occupied a part of territory populated primarily by the Ukrainians and Belorussians. In other words, it is impossible to tell who started first.

Re "which is making this ridiculous demand in the first place" Taking into account the enormous pressure the French and British put of poland to convince her to accept these demands, these demands were not so unreasonable. In addition, taking into account that the USSR was supposed to deploy 100+ divisions against Germany vs several British and several tens French divisions, the arguments that the USSR had to have a possibility to attack Germany when it would be convenient for the USSR, not for Germany, were quite natural. In any events, the Poles got what they got. As the Polish National Remembrance institute states, the Poles lost 5+ millions from the Germans vs ca 150,000 from the Soviets. --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The "minor hostilities in Poland", i.e. the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939), were still important. But they are very hard to fit on this two dimensional table; in particular because neither did the USSR declare the war on Poland, nor did Poland declare war on the USSR. Nor did the Western Allies declare the war on USSR. That USSR acted as a German's ally is beyond doubt (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, German–Soviet military parade in Brest-Litovsk), but it was a weird conflict. I also note that the templates tends to list participants of the war, and not the sympathizers, so for example, Spain is not listed in the Axis camp; thus the USSR-Nazi good relations in the 1939-1941 period are not enough. That said, there were certainly battles fought between Poland and USSR in '39 (Battle of Wilno (1939), Battle of Brześć Litewski). The best way to deal with it would be to add another footnote to the template, like the current one about the British Empire, and note something along the lines of: "Soviet Union invaded Poland alongside Germany, acting on the basis of the M-R P., in 1939. However, neither the USSR nor Poland (nor its Western Allies) declared war on one another." --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

To reiterate what I said earlier, WWII is complicated enough (even relative to other wars) that it really needs a specially designed infobox of its own. Is this technically feasible? Volunteer Marek 08:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Piotrus for chiming in. Welcome. I also believe in explanatory notes. At present I don't have a position on USSR's inclusion under Axis-aligned. As it happens WP:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) shows that the USSR may have killed about as many Allied troops in 1939 as did Vichy France in the entire war, up to 7000. This does indeed include battles, e.g. Battle of Grodno (1939). The USSR then took 22,000 Allied officers as Prisoners of War. Within six months, these Allied officers, who included ethnic Jews and ethnic Russians, had been murdered at the Katyn Massacre, with Stalin's approval. Details aside, the overall principle at stake here is what Wikipedia defines as a belligerent. I concur with several editors, including MILHIST outside opinion, that a belligerent is an entity which engages in combat, not an entity which declares a war. I'm not willing to feed into increasingly acrimonious debates here until this basic principle is resolved, either way. If there is willingness to participate, I will file a WP:RFM on 'belligerence' to that effect. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Paul, per WP policy I'm formally giving you notice that I find some of your phrases disheartening, e.g.1 to Martin, "What you propose is completely incorrect..."; e.g.2 to Volunter Marek: "Sorry, but that is not how these things are being done here. You unsubstantiated support is definitely insufficient. I expect you to address my ##1-6 and explan...". We're all equal here and have more of a right to 'request' than to 'expect' things of our peers. You may have been right and you may be typing with enthusiasm; but Martin and VM are as intelligent and as rigorous as you are, and deserve the same respect that you do. In the interests of collegiality, I'm humbly requesting you modify your choice of language. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
VM, why not design the infobox on your mind at your user page? There are some unusual infoboxes at e.g. Bosnian War and Warsaw Uprising FYI. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Re your notice. I see no issues with the phrases you quoted. The phrase "What you propose is completely incorrect..." is a comment on a contribution, not on a contributor. If I see that the proposal is incorrect I have a right to openly write that.

Re my "Sorry, but that is not how these things are being done here. You unsubstantiated support is definitely insufficient..." I also see no problem here. I know Marek quite well, and I know that he is perfectly able to conduct concrete and intelligent discussion during which he supports his claims with concrete arguments. However, in this situation I had to remind him that, despite the fact that we all are equal here, our own opinion has a zero weight until we provided concrete sources and arguments to support it. And, in addition, do you think it is completely polite to put an unsubstantiated statements without even attempting to address the arguments from his opponent, as if no detailed arguments were provided? One way or the another, based on all said above it would be correct if you formally withdrew the warning you issued so formally.

Re MILHIST outside opinion, as I already wrote, the user whose opinion you cite has addressed none of the arguments put forward by me (or by others opponents of Vichy in the infobox); citing your own words, let me remind you that we all are equal here, and bare "I support" has zero weight independent on who concretely wrote that.

Re invasion of Poland, please, don't mix Soviet crimes and combat activity. Execution of Polish intellectual elite (btw, only a part of 22000 executed Poles were the officers) is a Stalin's crime; I would put it in the same category as the Hitler's Commissar order. However, execution of Soviet officers did not constitute combat activity.

To summarise. Although inclusion of formally neutral states into the belligerents infobox of such a hight level summary style article as the WWII article would simply discredit Wikipedia, I agree that the infobox in its present form provides somewhat distorted view. To fix that, I propose

To add a footnote to the USSR flag that "During the period of Sept 1939 - June 1941 it closely cooperated with Germany" (not with the Axis, btw);
To add to the French flag, in parentheses, "(1939-40; 1944-45)", and to add a footnote that explains that "After the defeat of France in 1940 the pro-German Vichy regime did not officially participate in the war. Free French were officially recognised in Sept 1944";
Since the footnote section becomes too long, to make it collapsable;
To remove small Axis puppet states and pro-Axis regimes whose contribution was negligible. For instance, the flag of Iraq in such a summary style article would create an impression that the latter really fought a full scale war (which was definitely not the case). We have "and others" link, and the flags of Iraq and Croatia should go there.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Now, I am just an impartial observer here, but I think saying "it would be correct if you formally withdrew the warning..." is what got on Chumchum's nerves. Seriously, telling someone to withdraw comments about your conduct simply because you don't agree with them isn't very civil. --Plasma Twa 2 14:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I frequently participate in the discussions on highly politicised talk pages where some participants behave absolutely non-politely, I am quite indifferent to any comments on my behaviour. As compared to those editors, Chumchum7 is absolutely polite, reasonable and respectful editor, and for me it is a great pleasure to deal with him. However, in this case he didn't comment on my behaviour, but issued a formal warning to me. Usually, by taking such a step the users imply that the discussion will likely be continued at WP:ANI. Therefore, it is quite natural that my response was equally formal, and I equally formally request him to withdraw his formal warning.

Let me point out that I hate ANI discussion and try to avoid them whenever it is possible. I believe we will have no reasons to meet with Chumchum2 on the ANI page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

To reinforce some of the things said above, all things considering this is actually a very civil, though heated, discussion. Nobody report anyone anywhere please, that'd be excessive, unnecessary, and honestly, not at all conducive to resolving the basic dilemma. In fact, it would probably only polarize the editors involved. Once more I will reiterate my belief that the World War II was complex enough that a standard "military-campaign" infobox cannot do justice to the topic and that it really really needs a template of its own. Hence, once again, my inquiry as to the technical feasibility of making a special infobox just for this war. Anyone know? Volunteer Marek 02:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul Siebert came up with excellent suggestions.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fasces flag

If a belligerent is a country that engages in combat, and given the qualifications in note B, one option is to add 'note B' to a Fasces flag on the right, in 'puppet states' section with Slovakia, Croatia. Here it is, though I've no idea how to reduce it to icon size: Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

*Fixed the size as a 100px thumb. This is not an official flag, just the tricolour defaced with the (informal) État Français coat of arms. Anyway, its military effect towards or against both sides was marginal (the only one that could count as having any potential impact, the scuttling of the fleet in Toulon, would count in favour of the Allies). Its troops just locally defended themselves when attacked (the policy of "défense contre quiconque", "defence against anyone"). This policy of formal neutrality and the limited autonomy it had compared to Wehrmacht-occupied territories makes it unfit as either for the category "puppet state" or "co-belligerent" in the infobox. It is a nice looking flag though; albeit personally I'd prefer the stars on top. ^walk victor falk^talk 23:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this subject is debated ad infinitum above. Just on "the only one that could count as having any potential impact" - it isn't strictly true. See the source Colin Smith above, and Operation Exporter etc. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The actions in Syria, like Mers El Kebir, Madagascar, Dakar, and North Africa, were examples of local defence, as opposed to general war. Despite being attacked several times, Vichy did not declare war on Britain. In international law and the laws of war, one of the basics of neutrality is to protect territorial integrity against all belligerents. Had they not resisted, Vichy France could be considered no longer neutral, and Germany would then have had a legitimate casus belli against it. Cheers. ^walk victor falk^talk 07:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand your case, which others concur with above. I take a different view, as do about half of editors, that belligerence is defined as engagement in combat rather than declaration of war. Plenty of wars have been fought around the world without declarations. But this is not a debate that can be lost or won. It might boil down to a WP definition of what belligerence is, which may require a moderation cabal decision. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

@ ^walk victor falk^talk. The question is not if Vichy was neutral or not, but in if it was a belligerent or not. When some neutral country is invaded and it starts to resist, is it a violation of its neutral status? As you just explained, no. However, does the military resistance mean belligerence? Possibly, yes, because full scale hostilities mean de facto bellum. Therefore, the only thing which is important is if the criterion for inclusion is belligerence de jure or belligerence de facto. If we decide to include formally neutral belligerents that were involved in some bellum de facto, then we need to create a third column that will include the states that conducted their own de facto wars: Vichy (Battle of Dackar, Sirya-Lebanon war, French-Thai war, etc), the USSR (Nomongan incident, invasion of Poland, Winter war). However, taking into account a relatively small scale of these wars (as compared with the WWII proper) I believe that would be highly confusing for ordinary readers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not a full scale war or de factum bello. Those different actions were not campaigns or operations of a wider Franco-British war, but independent engagements. The case is exactly parallel with the invasion of French Indochina, which was not a Franco-Japanese war. I agree that regardless of whether of whether Vichy can be considered a belligerent or not, their military significance is far too small to merit inclusion. ^walk victor falk^talk 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read Operation Exporter? That's a major engagement, where Vichy France made a bigger impact than anything Slovakia, Croatia or Iceland got involved with. Note that Vichy France hosted the Luftwaffe in Syria, but shot down the RAF. If it really was as neutral as say Turkey or Switzerland, then why didn't it shoot at the Luftwaffe as it shot at the RAF? That was a clearly partial foreign and defence policy choice. Colin Smith has all this, detailing engagement in combat, which is my understanding of belligerence. Then we have the circa 7000 Allied troops killed by Vichy on the battlefield, including Free French. If (as I think you're saying) Vichy Indochina conducted an independent engagement, then its flag, per French Indochina, can be put on the Allied side. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If refueling a squadron is all it takes, then Sweden was a Card Carrying Axis Member. Exporter involved 40,000 troops on both sides, resulting in a thousand death on each side. Simultaneously, Italian East Africa was invaded. Syria was the sideshow of a sideshow, a mere irritating thorn to be removed. It was a corps-sized engagement lasting not even five weeks. A few thousand dead in a conflict causing the deaths of tens of millions is a mere skirmish in comparaison. Croatia had an army of 250,000 engaged in a bitter civil war in Yugoslavia. Plus Eastern front troops. Tiny Slovakia provided one front-line division, one anti-partisan division and one corps of occupation troops for the Eastern front. ~~Iceland provided vital whale-based condom lubricant without which the Allied war machine would have ground to a halt. And fermented shark supplies.~~ Perhaps we should have four French flags one for the third republic, one for the free french and two (wp:madeup on top of that) vichy ones? No, the footnote saying it was "formally neutral" (not "clearly neutral") is a much (infinitely) less ambiguous way of informing the reader. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:17, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The article shows Exporter had about 79,000 combatants engaged, of which up to about 13,000 were killed in action. It appears the Luftwaffe involvement went beyond basing; it seems to have given Vichy troops tactical support in combat against Allied troops, including Free French. Show me Swedish forces fighting against Allied troops, and I'll support inclusion of Sweden. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

13,000 casualties, not KIA. The Germans took the opportunity to try sinking British ships, naturally enough. And it's just a squadron. Some say this shows Sweden was a belligerant nation against the Axis. ^walk victor falk^talk 18:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy France collaborated with Nazi Germany, and engaged in notable combat, with bravery and commitment, against the Allies - not against the Nazis. A popular definition of belligerence is engagement in combat, and that definition is contested here for one reason or another. That's my case, you can have the last word if you want it. Resolution, based on a universal definition of belligerence, seems more likely at WP:MC and/or WP:MEDCAB now. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop trying to decide for yourselves whether "X" is a belligerent or not, or what defines a belligerent, and use sources which directly describe, or do not describe "X" as a belligerent. (Hohum ^@) 01:36, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

As everybody noticed, Vichy France fought defensive campaigns against Britain, Free French, USA, Thailand and Japan. But also Vichy France participated in Germany's aggression against Soviet Union. Of course, its participation couldn't be so large as, for example, Romanian one due to restrictions imposed by Germany in 1940 on French Armed Forces. Sometimes Spain is included in participants of Great Patriotic war of Soviet nation. Always USSR is included in participants of Spanish Civil war. Always USSR is included in participants of Korean war.
I don't propose anything about inclusion of Vichy France. But I think I should remind you about it. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 08:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There were volunteers that fought as a Wehrmacht unit. We don't include Spain because of the Blue Division, or Denmark, Sweden and Norway because they volunteered for Waffen-SS Wiking. Stop clutching at straws. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There were Soviet volunteers in Spanish Civil war and 2nd Sino-Japanese war - it doesn't prevent you to include USSR in those comboboxes. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

You should keep in mind that, by contrast to Soviet volunteers, the Spaniards (and the French) took a personal oath to Hitler. Spanish Blue division was just an ordinary Wehrmaht division, French Charlemagne was a WaffenSS division. As regards to the SSJW, there were no war de jure between China and Japan at all until Pearl Harbor, so all de jure considerations do not work here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't go back on the subject, which has been discussed in detail : pretending that Vichy France was a full-fledged Axis belligerent is totally wrong, and denied by every single reputable source. What I'd just like to add is that the so-called "fasces flag" was not the flag of Vichy's French State, which just used the regular tricolor flag as a national flag. The fasces flag was the personal flag of Philippe Pétain. So the "francisque flag" should not be used in military conflict infoboxes of any kind. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in. What did you dislike about the wording in the infobox before you changed it? To my mind it is less accurate now than it was before. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it more precise (and hence more accurate). The same precisions should be added regarding the situation of Poland. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:46, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Just added a footnote for Poland. Just as an afterthought : the english wikipedia should have separate articles for Free France and the Free French Forces, which were two different things (the FFF were Free France's armed forces, but Free France gradually developed into an actual organization not limited to its military forces). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, in case consensus is still being formed, here was the previous note on France:

After the French Third Republic surrendered in 1940, the Free French government operated from exile in London. It was recognised by the Allies as the French provisional government in September 1944. Collaborationist Vichy France (July 1940—November 1942) engaged in combat, while never declaring war.

Added detail and precision doesn't necessarily increase accuracy. Sometimes it can reduce it, per WP:COAT, specifically WP:CHERRY; also WP:CHUNK. For example, the addition of Africa (Operation Torch etc) makes the absence of the Middle East (Operation Exporter) look like an omission. The solution would not be to add yet more detail about the Middle East, but to keep the information more general. Moreover, the addition of "while never declaring war nor being a military partner of the Axis" feels like the point is being pushed too far in what is meant to be the compact infobox, not the article. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we have to mention Vichy military operations in the infobox, these precisions have to be included, no matter how WP:WHATEVER can be interpreted. Indeed the Middle east should be added. Engaged in combat make it sound like they took part in offensives, which was never the case. November 42 means that after that date, they didn't take part in any fighting (although one may count the Milice's operations against the resistance of 1943-44) but it may read as Vichy was not in existence after november 42, which was not the case (I actually came across a wikipedia user who asserted this, so we have to be careful). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On your user page you say: I am a French user and occasional contributor to the English-language wikipedia. Feel free to correct my grammatical mistakes, I won't take offense from it. So I take it English is not your first language. Your proficiency with English happens to be excellent; but please trust me as a native speaker, Engaged in combat does not make it sound like they took part in offensives. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC) If you're going into detail, then how do we decide where to draw the line? For example, what's the rationale for not adding the detail that Vichy France was responsible for about 7000 Allied casualties during WW2? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I trust you on the english language. Anyway, I think the precision does no harm, on the contrary : the fact that the military position of Vichy was always a defensive (if not passive) one is crucial to the understanding of its history. The fact that Vichy resisted Allied invasions clearly implies that it caused Allied casualties, unless you expect les wimpy Frenchmen to fight back by throwing croissants and camemberts at Allied troops. However, if we really want to go into detail, we could remind that allied bombardments caused far more civilian casualties in mainland France in 1944 : does that mean that the Allies were bombing France as an enemy state ? I have already mentioned what all the sources say : Germany did somewhat hope that France would become a real ally of theirs in 1940, but they were disappointed, and by 1941-42 Hitler had lost all interest of that. I think the current infobox is precise enough. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Did Vichy France defend itself against Nazi occupation as well? -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Case Anton, it doesn't look like it. If, as you say, the Vichy reaction to invasion is crucial to understanding Vichy, then let's add the detail about all invasions equally, including the response to Nazi occupation in 1942. Vichy did not engage in combat against the Nazis, it did not defend itself, and seems not to have caused Nazi casualties. It did sink its own ships at Toulon, to keep them out of Nazi hands. If we are emphasising that Exporter and Torch were defences against Allied invasion, it is an omission to exclude that in Anton there was no defence against Nazi invasion. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

@Hohum, I agree with you that verifiable reliable sourcing is always what we strive for. In the case of infoboxes, unfortunately editor choice is necessary. For example, we don't have a source that infoms the rank of e.g. South Africa in the infobox, so we must decide ourselves, without a source to rely on. By the same token, should we understand the word 'belligerent' in the box as the dictionary definition of the word (engagement in combat), or the international relations jargon use of the word? Was the Confederacy a belligerent in the US Civil War? Was the IRA in the Troubles? This is, unfortunately, for infobox editors to make a decision on. IMO Infoboxes do impose artificially simplistic categorization on complex historical events. I reckon that ultimately, and because of these problems, the word 'belligerent' might get changed to 'combatant'; and/or infoboxes might get replaced with cloud diagrams and other forms of representation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions to the West

I have some pictures and photos, which are used by some history falsifiers in Russia. [2] [3] [4] It's interesting to me, were these pictures used in Western countries? If yes, in what context? --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No idea. You might be better off raising question about photos at a noticeboard about copyright, etc, where there are photo archive specialists. Secondly, its best if you can show verifiable sources indicating that these photos were falsified rather than simply asserting it yourself. Third, its in your interest for you to get a username. Right now you are displaying your location in Kaliningrad, and people will prefer to leave personal replies to your enquiry at a user page rather than at an IP address. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Look. 1st photo is often used to illustrate Katyn massacre by Soviets. According to version of Josef Goebbels, it was in 1940. However, shoulder straps were introduced in Soviet uniform only in 1943. I guess, you know about it?

2nd photo is often used to illustrate "Soviet-German Alliance in Poland". But Soviet officer has uniform of 1940 model, and this photo if from Soviet propaganda leaflets of 1941. German officer had been taken prisoner. And propaganda leaflet tried to persuade Germans to end war and surrender to Red Army, which will provide its guests with food (as shown at the photo).

3rd reference is famous "General agreement of NKVD-Gestapo". Our (Russian) falsifiers created this "document", full of rude mistakes :) -95.52.65.146 (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

This is still the wrong place to discuss this, and this is still you making the observation. Take a look at WP:NOR and WP:V. Without secondary sourcing, one could just as easily say the photos were made by someone attempting to prove that falsification is rife, in order to discredit genuine evidence. I could produce tons of obviously faked pictures of white American cops beating black Americans, to give the impression that all pictures of white American cops beating black Americans are fake. That's why we editors cannot draw conclusions such as this ourselves, but can refer to sources doing so. Please do that. And please do so elsewhere. And please get a username. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes in infobox

Do we really need a note on Poland's status during the war? It seems like a bit much, to be honest. All this information can be found in other articles; the infobox is simply supposed to give an overview of the war, not explain a part of it. Adding Poland's status to the infobox doesn't make much sense to me; why not add the Netherlands? Their army surrendered after the invasion by Germany, but the government when into exile in London and they continued to fight until the Canadians liberated the Netherlands. --Plasma Twa 2 06:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I see no need in all of that, because all these details can be found in the Allies of World War II article (the link is already in the infobox). In my opinion, the infobox is supposed to provide the most basic information, so redundant detalisation just leads to confusion. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. IMHO, and with respect to JJG, the addition of this note on Poland, and the change to the note on France (which may be in part due to an English-language issue as discussed above), isn't especially helpful. Provided there is consensus, I'd support a restoration of the article to what we had before JJG's round of changes. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The note on Poland does seem unnecessary - while the Polish political situation was a complex, both the UK and USSR-based governments in exile contributed forces to the Allies, which is all that really matters for the purpose of the infobox. The note on the French situation also seems unnecessary. As Paul notes, there's an article which discusses this kind of thing centrally as well as many other articles which provide more detail. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

In the end these notes will contain whole article about WWII. --178.68.0.226 (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

As there seems to be no support for retaining the note on Poland I've removed it. I've left the wording on France as-is as there seems to be a discussion about how it should be phrased, but I'd also suggest removing it as well. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I added the note on France because of the dispute over Vichy. Some editors proposed to add Vichy to the right part of the infobox based on the fact that it was engaged in significant combat against British and US troops, whereas others argued that it was formally neutral. I personally believe that inclusion of formally neutral countries into the WWII infobox discredits Wikipedia; however, since Vichy was the only legitimate French government during 1941-44, since the hostilities between its troops and the Allies did take place and since the role of Free French was not significant before invasion of Normandy, it would be incorrect to have a French flag in the left part of the infobox as if France (like Poland) never surrendered and it never participated in combat against the Allies. I added a note to the flag (1939-40; 1944-45) and supplemented it with the footnote explaining that France surrendered in 1940 and then Free French joined the war as officially recognised provisional government in 1944. In other words, two questionable cases (Free French and Vichy) nullified each other during the period of 1941-44, and we got an opportunity not no mention Vichy in the right part of the infobox. However, I was partially reverted, so currently I see no reason in a footnote (its major role was to explain the "1939-40; 1944-45"). We can remove this footnote, however as a result of this revert and of removal of the footnote we leave the Vichy issue open.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My suggestion, if we must keep the note on France, is to say something like: 'from the surrender to the Germans in 1939 until the Battle of Paris in 1944, the de facto government of France was the German-installed Vichy regime, which remained neutral throughout the war. The Free French resistance movement was based in London and was recognized as the offical government of France by the Allies in 1944.' Or something similar. I find the current blurb somewhat troublesome as it seems to be heavily based in pro-Free French POV. --Plasma Twa 2 06:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That was essentially similar to what I proposed, however, it has been reverted to the present text.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

See higher up this page, where I discussed this with JJG. He'd actually edited my text, and I had edited Paul's text. I always have a concern about the word 'official' (similarly, with 'liberated' and 'freedom') because what the Allies saw as official, the Axis saw as illegal, and vice versa - it is a subjective word that Wikipedia shouldn't take a position on; it is less accurate than other possible phrasing. For that reason, I edited the text to: After the French Third Republic surrendered in 1940, the Free French government operated from exile in London. It was recognised by the Allies as the French provisional government in September 1944. Collaborationist Vichy France (July 1940—November 1942) engaged in combat, while never declaring war. I'd support restoration to this version for reasons of enhanced accuracy. Now that I see it, still more accurate would be: After the French Third Republic surrendered in 1940, the Free French operated from exile in London. They were recognised by the Allies as the French provisional government in September 1944. Collaborationist Vichy France (July 1940—November 1942) engaged in combat, while never declaring war. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My problem with your suggested (and the current) item is that it seems like a violation of NPOV. Regardless of when the Free French were recognized by the Allies, the de facto government of France between 40-44 was the one in Vichy. If we must have a item on France in the infobox, I believe that needs to be mentioned, and in fact I believe the status of France under the Vichy regime should take precidence in any proposed blurb as that was the government for the majority of the war. --Plasma Twa 2 08:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Plasma, you are absolutely right. There are editors who will disagree, but indeed there is no good reason for this explanatory note to be attached to a French flag on the left, without also being attached to a French flag on the right. Agreed, the note itself does not resolve the issue of Vichy France; at the moment the template is simply weighted in favour of editors who want the Vichy French role downplayed, while the rest shoulder the burden of compromise. The yellow French Indochina flag can be added to the left if necessary. We also still need to fix other problems such as the erroneous implication that Britain and France were at war with Japan from 1939. The underlying, unresolved question remains: what is Wikipedia's universal threshold for inclusion in the infobox? We all know each others' views on this, but we have to work toward an agreement somehow. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The French Indochina flag is a bad idea. Indochina had nothing like the kind of autonomy enjoyed by dominions like Canada, New Zealand etc that motivates their presence in the infobox. To say nothing about if we then should include French Equatorial Africa, New Caledonia, etc on the allied side? And again comes the question of military significance. I would also like to point out that Vichy France units were dissolved after November 1942 (replaced by the Milice that fought against the résistance but not in regular military operation). I think part of the problem is that not everybody realises how FDR really really really hated De Gaulle. He recognised Vichy while the US were neutral, and would have preferred a pig with lipstick as leader of the French government. He had to swallow the bitter pill and accept CDG in september 1944, as the de facto leader of liberated France. Winston Churchill, on the hand, treated it like the others government in exile in London and recognised him as leader of Free France on 28 june 1940, that is ten days after the appeal of 18 June. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that Victor hit the nail right on the head with his "FDR really really really hated De Gaulle".

Why, oh why did FDR recognize Vichy France, the regime collaborating with Nazi Germany??? That Pétain shook hands with Hitler is enough of a shameful thing, but that FDR put on that handshake his stamp of approval (= that of the United States) is another.

So, where does that put neutral US that day? Morally speaking, that is.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not long ago you referred to "the invasion of French Indochina, which was not a Franco-Japanese war," as if French Indochina was acting independently of France. Now you're saying French Indochina wasn't autonomous of France. One thing is for sure, that you want Vichy France entry excluded, for whatever the rationale. That's okay, but I can't see how we're going to form consensus. I feel it might help if we could focus on the universal principles at stake. And the longer this continues, the more I am wondering whether or not we should even have an infobox at all. Especially with the inaccuracy that France and Britain appear to be at war with Japan from 1939, it looks like the whole thing needs to be rebuilt in a new format, or else discarded completely. Right now it is so simplistic that it is just plain wrong. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Indochina was a colony. The troops fought independently (as in, independent from other military campaigns). I am only against the use of a flag as misleading, especially a non-historical one. I am for including Vichy in a footnote. I think Plasma 2's edit is a constructive step in the right direction. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have edited the France blurb a little in an attempt to make it more neutral towards both Vichy and the Free French. It is also shorter than the old blurb. I see no reason why we cannot use this one as it retains all the information of the old blurb while being decidedly neutral to both sides. --Plasma Twa 2 19:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I a am also for keeping it as short as possible. The current problem is that makes it sound as Vichy was the de facto government until 1944, while that was true only until November 1942 (and in southern France only.) ^walk victor falk^talk 19:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This edit fixes that. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately its not as easy as that. Japan fought the USSR in 1939 and 1945 but not 1940-1944 (volunteer Red Air Force pilots in China notwithstanding), so its still not quite right. Also China needs to be changed. On the French footnote, if you are going to say 1942 is the end date, then who took over from Vichy France in 1942? It appears the Vichy French chose not to fight the Nazis when they occupied Vichy France in 1942, but did choose to fight the Allies when they occupied French colonies. You can't have it both ways: 1942 is a de facto end of Vichy French power in France, but the Vichy French, in collaboration with the Nazis, appear to have continued the purported (formal, nominal, theoretical, propaganda or de jure) situation through to 1944, when they established an 'official' French government in exile in Nazi Germany which lasted through to 1945. If one argues that reality is bureaucracy (a principle which I dispute), then one could note that the Vichy French collaborationist state formally existed through to 1945, and had titular authority in Nazi-occupied France at least to 1944. The reality on the ground was that Vichy France lost real power in 1942, and it chose to conduct a defensive war against the Allies, but not against the Nazis. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy did not fight for the same reason that Denmark and Luxembourg did not fight: overwhelming military odds. I wouldn't agree this is reason enough to include them as Axis. After 1942, France was no longer "special", but in the same situation as any other country under Nazi military occupation (militärverwaltung). Regarding Khalkin Gol it is debatable whether it is military substantial enough to be included in the info box, though the strategic outcome (Soviet-Japanese neutrality) was important. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy did fight against overwhelming military odds, against the Allies. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

No, not really, I'm sorry. The most unequal battle, operation Torch, was 2:1 in favour of the allies, hardly overwhelming especially when talking about a seaborne invasion, even though they had air supremacy; anyway the resistance was mostly symbolic, in most cases surrendering after a few days. In theory (in theory), they could have drawn support from the Afrika Korps, while the metropolitan free zone could not have received help from the Allies. ^walk victor falk^talk 22:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Question on wording in note b of infobox:

The Free French Forces were based out of London and were recognized by the Allies as the official government of France in September 1944.

Now, when you click on "Free French Forces" you arrive at the article describing "French fighters", and when you click on the "official government of France", you arrive at Provisional Government of the French Republic.

In my opinion, the Free French Forces did not become the Provisional Government of the French Republic.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I changed the footnote back to the Plasma's version, because the last Victor Falk's edit was simply factually incorrect: Vichy controlled not only Zone libre, but also most French colonies (at least, during 1941-42. With regard to the Free French vs Vichy controversy, I think we can safely leave this issue beyond the scope of the infobox if we assume that France did not participate in the war since late 1940 to september 1944: a more than moderate military contribution of Free French (and French resistance) was nullified by the collaborationism of formally neutral Vichy. However, we need clearly explain that fact in the infobox. That can be done if we split the time of French participation onto two parts: 1939-40 and 1944-45 (what I already did).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct about the colonial detail; I fixed that. However, what is incorrect, is to imply that pro-Allies French did not fight between 1940 and 1944 while others (Belgians, Poles, Dutch. etc) did. Also that Vichy had any more autonomy than other occupied territories after case Anton. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Norway

There seems to be no problem & no discussion on Norway which is shown on the Allies column of infobox. After defeat two months after invasion by the Germans in April 1940, there was a collaborationist government with at its head Vidkrum Quisling (Norwegian Pétain or Laval?/FW). In addition, on the one hand, there was a Resistance movement, while, on the other hand, 15,000 Norwegians joined the Waffen-SS. However, this does not keep having Norway in the infobox on the Allies side for the totality of the war with no footnote whatsoever.

The following is taken from en:wiki WWI & WWII section[5] of article on Norway:

Norway also proclaimed its neutrality during World War II, but Norway was invaded by German forces on 9 April 1940. Norway was unprepared for the German surprise attack, so military and naval resistance only lasted for two months. The armed forces in the north launched an offensive against the German forces in the Battles of Narvik, until they were forced to surrender on June 10 after losing British help following the Fall of France.
King Haakon and the Norwegian government escaped to Rotherhithe, London, England, and they supported the fight through inspirational radio speeches (like de Gaulles's?/FW) from London and by supporting clandestine military actions in Norway against the Nazis. On the day of the invasion, the collaborative leader of the small National-Socialist party Nasjonal Samling, Vidkun Quisling, tried to seize power but was forced by the German occupiers to step aside. Real power was wielded by the leader of the German occupation authority, Reichskommissar Josef Terboven. Quisling, as minister president (Pétain? Laval?/FW), later formed a collaborationist government under German control. Up to 15,000 Norwegians volunteered to fight in German units, including the Waffen-SS.[46]
There were also many Norwegians, and those of Norwegian descent, that joined the Allied forces as well as the Free Norwegian Forces (like the Free French?/FW). From the small group that had left Norway in June 1940 consisting of 13 ships, five aircraft and 500 men from the Royal Norwegian Navy who followed the King to the United Kingdom the force had grown by the end of the war to 58 ships and 7,500 men in service in the Norwegian Navy; 5 Squadrons of aircraft (including Spitfires, Sunderland flying boats and Mosquitos) in the newly formed Norwegian Air Force; and land forces including the Norwegian Independent Company 1 & 5 Troop as well as No.10 Commandos. (Leclerc's 2e DB/FW)
During the five years of Nazi occupation, Norwegians built a resistance movement (so did the French/FW) which fought the German occupation forces with both civil disobedience and armed resistance...

What makes occupied Norway not be considered like Vichy France, because in WWII, the Norwegian police also helped the naz in the deportation of Norwegian Jews: Jewish deportees from Norway during World War II.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying Vichy France should be added on the right on condition Quisling Norway is added as well? I'd agree to that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The Quisling government did not send regular norwegian units to fight the allies, as was stated above the Norwegians that fought the allies served within German SS units, not national norwegian units.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Iraq

If Finland and Thailand are to be listed as co-belligerents, than Iraq needs to be listed as well. They were the only 3 fully independent countries that sided with the Axis yet did not formally join it.XavierGreen (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, what is arguable is how much independence Iraq had. It became nominally independent in 1932, but had treaty obligations to Britain. The situation is in many ways parallel to that of nominally independent Egypt and the [[Anglo-Egyptian treaty of 1936 Anglo-Egyptian treaty]]. Many sources that those countries did not gain full independence until 1958 and 1950 respectively. The events following the coup are often described as an Iraqi "insurrection", "uprising", "insurgency", or "rebellion". ^walk victor falk^talk 02:45, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

After the coup, any obligations that Iraq had to Britain were ignored under Rashid's government.XavierGreen (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes but after the rebellion was put down and Rashid kicked out, Nuri as-Said resumed the previous policies I believe? ^walk victor falk^talk 06:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

And what about Manchukuo? --95.52.90.213 (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

The entrence of Iraq into the war opened up the the campaings in Syria and Lebanon, without Rashadi Iraq's entrence into the war the campaigns there might never have happened. Manchukuo did not generally deploy troops against Chinese and other allied forces, they were mostly used for garrison duties.XavierGreen (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Manchukuoan armed forces participated in Japanese attempt to invade Mongolia. And 200 thousand soldiers in Soviet-Japanese war of 1945 weren't the triffle. --95.52.89.210 (talk) 07:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Manchukuo should be dated (1937-1945). "1937" then becomes a clue for the reader to identify belligerents in the East Asia theatre. ^walk victor falk^talk 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The name Manchukuo is a clue. The date isn't needed. --Plasma Twa 2 04:30, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I would agree on the inclusion of Iraq, even though its role as an Axis co-belligerent was brief, as it illustrates the geopolitical importance of the Middle eastern theater. I have some doubts about Manchukuo, though : it had some activities on the Chinese theater, but wasn't its role too passive and local ? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

200 thousand Manchukuoan soldiers (Jowett, Rays of The Rising Sun, Pg. 36) participated in Soviet-Japanese war of 1945. Manchuria was very important territory in geopolitical sense. --95.52.89.210 (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont think a 3v3 is feasible, China needs to be included. Without the chinese in the war, the outcome could be very different.XavierGreen (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This infobox is a very long monster

I don't see why we can't remove all of the minor combatants in the war. We all agree that the infobox is too long, and removing these is the easiest way of shortening it; readers can see who else was involved in the war by clicking the link "and others" link. That's what it is there for, no? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah but the real quandry is what consists of a minor combatant.XavierGreen (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I suppose I'm arguing for the major combatants rather than a debate on what's "minor". To me, there are obvious choices for the Allies: the US, USSR, UK, France, and China. The Axis are a bit harder -- obviously Germany, Italy, and Japan, but do we include Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

USSR, USA, British Empire were in Big Three. China, France and British dominions were "second-in-command" - they weren't part of Big Three, but they were allowed to put their signs to accept German or Japanese surrender. Yugoslavia, Poland, Greece and Viet Minh had notable Resistance movements. If we include these combatants then there will be no questions which Axis was minor - the both columns' lengthes will be nearly equal. --95.52.89.210 (talk) 07:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

China tied down a good portion of Japan's veteran armies for eight years, which is why I think they should be included. France I'm ambivalent on. Can we agree on four Allies and three Axis? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I propose Big Three, second-in-command countries and 4 countries with notable Resistance (of course, if I didn't mention any South-East-Asian countries you may include it). Therefore, there will be about 15 Allies. I think it will be enough. --95.52.89.210 (talk) 10:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

But, on the other hand, in former Soviet Union countries the absence of Romania, Bulgaria and Finlandia in the infobox as "countries which turned against Hitlerite Germany", absence of Free Czechoslovakia may be considered as very offensive moves against those countries. --95.52.89.210 (talk) 10:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

For my part, I think it is just too big of a hassle to try and define "major combatant". France and Poland are too close in signifigance to be seperated and I would oppose just having the Big Three + China because that gives the impression that China was on the level of the three major combatants of the war, which is completely false. If we are going to reduce the template to the major combatants, there is only one universal definition of "major combatant" in WWII and that is the Big Three of the USSR, USA and US/British Empire. We will never get enough people to agree that China/France deserve to be on the template while Poland/Canada/whatever don't; however, there is no argument that those three countries were the three most important of the Allies. As such, it is the only legitimate cut-off point if we're going to reduce the combatants. --Plasma Twa 2 14:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Exclude China at your pearl. THREE (3) MILLION Japanese Imperial Army soldiers were bogged down in the Chinese Pacific theatr since 1937, a full 5 years before US even entered the war. To exclude China would not be a wise choice.Phead128 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to summarise the content of the WWII article, which is a very concise summary style article. Accordingly, the infobox should be as short and as general as possible. I already proposed to use the "3x3 and others" scheme, because any other scheme would inevitably lead to spontaneous inflation of the infobox (what we saw during last months). Probably, "5x3" will also work, although it already contains seeds fro inflation: thus, it has been argued that military contribution of Poland was not smaller with that of France, so I anticipate attempts to add Poland. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Plasma Twa. Having only the major powers is a not good idea, it over-simplifies what was a complex conflict. About ten or a dozen a side as we have is not over-much. The problem is not one "inflation" so much as one one of "threshold", and this is unavoidable, whatever the cut-off level. ^walk victor falk^talk 19:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah but on the Axis side you have several powers that fielded armies greater than that of Free France, for example Hungary and Romania fielded larger armies and suffered a greater number of combat deaths than France.XavierGreen (talk) 20:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That is why a 3x3 system would be best. Hungary and Romania were not major Axis powers. Germany, Japan and Italy were. --Plasma Twa 2 20:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Victor, so we decide to confuse readers just because World War II was confusing? :-) I'd agree with a 3x3. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're the first one to mention the word "confusing" in this discussion. It is standard for most infoboxes of major conflicts (Thirty Years War, Napoleonic Wars, Seven Years war)to have many (half a dozen to a dozen or more) countries. The only difference is that there is not a lot of people constantly bickering over whether Holstein-Gottorp or Schaumburg-Lippe ought to be included or not, like here. I fear we are doing a great disservice to our readers if we choose the lazy way of "Have Only the Big Ones And Be Done With It". ^walk victor falk^talk 21:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Consider dropping nations & flags...let the simple listing of the belligerents be a single entry for the Allies and a single entry for the Axis. The reader can then follow the links to the separate articles to read more about who was who. This would allow the box to be shortened as well as allowing the complexities to be described and treated within article space. Complex issues don't do very well in infoboxes.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think this proposal is a solution. The purpose of the infobox is to provide essential information about WWII, not to confuse a reader. The statement that the parties were the Axis and the Allies carries no information in addition to what the lede already says. The infobox should clearly and unequivocally explain who were primary belligerents, and explicitly name them. The question is not in which countries should be added to, but in which countries cannot be removed from the infobox without significant detrimental effect on the reader's understanding of the course of the war. The answer inevitably leads us to the 3x3 scheme: the members of the Grand Alliance, UK (the oldest and the most persistent global opponent of Germany and Japan, which made an important contribution into the war and was a second or a third politically influential Ally), the USA (the most economically powerful and politically influential Ally, which made a decisive contribution in the Pacific and was a major fighting force in Western Europe in 1944), and the USSR (the Ally that bore a major brunt of the war against the senior Axis country, Nazi Germany, and the European Axis as whole); accordingly, three other belligerents are Germany (for quite obvious reason), Japan (obviously), and Italy (the oldest Fascist and Anti-Communist state, the second major European Axis power). Whereas I cannot imagine a situation when these six countries can be omitted from the infobox, all other countries can: France (de facto minimally involved during the most important period of WWII), China (regional conflict, insufficient political influence), Romania (acted under a strict German control, no political influence), etc. Of course, one can put forward both pro and contra arguments in each particular case, but that is per se a reason to remove these countries: whereas all these cases can be a subject of disputes, the the members of the big six cannot. That is why I simply see no other way to stop this dispute than the 3x3 scheme.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Having only 3 powers totally misrepresents the fact it was a world war. ^walk victor falk^talk 04:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what we have links for... it's not misrepresenting, it's reducing the length and complexity of what is supposed to be a broad summary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

@Victor Falk. I would say, the infobox in its present shape misinterprets the facts even more: in actuality, this "world" war was fought primarily between few powers which bore a major brunt of it. Majority of other states contributed in (and, accordingly, suffered from) this war in far smaller extent, therefore, by adding more and more belligerents we dilute a contribution of the most essential players, and just obscure the picture, not clarify it. By contrast, if we use a 3x3 scheme, a reader immediately sees what the major participants were. The short list of the participants will urge a reader to look for more details - and in one mouseclick s/he will get full information in specialised articles ("The Axis" and "The Allies"). By contrast, a long list would create an impression that it is exhaustive; this visibility of comprehensiveness is not what we need.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, Italy does not belong among the great powers. Being the urheim of fascism is no reason for inclusion, especially for an ideology that is the epitome of non-homogeneity. Would we include Bulgaria if fascism had been "invented" there? No. Its contribution to the eastern front was on the same scale as that of of Hungary's or Romania's. It was stopped by Greece. North Africa was a total fiasco until the Germans came and formed the hard core of the DAK, with Italian units relegated to the role of beefing it up. It only fought between 1940 and 1943. It was a power on the same scale as France, not Germany or Britain. ^walk victor falk^talk 05:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Italy is usually included by scholars as one of the major Axis powers. They were an original member of the Tripartite Pact and Germany's closest ally. Their equivelant on the Allied side is irrelevant. --Plasma Twa 2 13:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

France is usually included by scholars as one of the major Allied powers. At minimum until the armistice. ^walk victor falk^talk 12:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

That fact is muted, as France is not considered by scholars to be in the highest tier in terms of Allied importance. There is the UK, USA and USSR on the top, and then China and France. Why should we include more than just the top three powers? If we include France, why not Poland, because the Polish contribution was as important as the French? All these questions will come up if we include France/China. Having only the major three powers of the war is the only way to go. --Plasma Twa 2 22:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

One might call the 5-great-powers the "traditional" view, as documented by things such as the Berlin Declaration and the German instrument of surrender, plus UN permanent seats et cetera. Or you can have the "material" view, that some powers had an impact in a class above some others, UK, US, SU on one side, Germany & Japan on the other, with Poland, China, France and Italy as "medium" powers, and the rest "minor powers". Whatever the choice, it has to be consistent, so that the either the "traditional" or the "material" methodology is used in both columns. In short, either 5x3 or 3x2. Beware of the siren song very strong human instinct for symmetry and do not get lured by it. ^walk victor falk^talk 02:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It is strange you bring that up, because where I come from, the idea that there were five major Allied powers is relatively new, particularily in China's case. And correct me if I am wrong, but France was just a witness to the signing of the German instrument of surrender; the body clearly states surrender to the Allied Command and the Red Army with France as a witness. I would still argue that the signifigance of certain Allied countries cannot be used in an argument against Axis countries; the arguments are somehwat different because the structures of the two alliances are different. The Axis was much less coordinated than the Allies, and really the only proof I can bring up of Italy's status as a major Axis power is the Tripartite Pact, the treaty that created the Axis that was signed by the three major Axis powers. --Plasma Twa 2 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I should remind that in former Soviet countries the exclusion of China, Mongolia, Yugoslavia, Poland, France, Czechoslovakia as Allies, the exclusion Romania and Bulgaria as "converted to Allies" would be considered as the heavy offence against these countries. --95.52.66.248 (talk) 07:40, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Siebert,

Would it be possible for you to set up on this page your 3x3 proposal so that we all have a clear understanding of it?

I am not Jeanne d'Arc, yet I am hearing voices... the voices of those who are going to rise against it.

In the upcoming battle which I foresee, it will be difficult to stay neutral when France, one of the first two countries that declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland on 1 September 1939, is eliminated from the WWII infobox, as I understand will happen if you gather a following. I predict a stalemate once this new argument/arrangement has gone through the wringer.

This is the best Russian wiki could do with its infobox [6]
Italian wiki chose something rather concise [7]
As for German wiki, it simply did away with the infobox altogether[8].

--Frania W. (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe the date a country declared war should mean it gets a spot on the infobox. The question, as I see it, is this: Can anyone reasonably argue that France was not a major ally? The fact the USSR, USA and UK were major allies is undisputable. China and France? Not so much, as four years of constant debate over this template will attest to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Plasma Twa 2 (talk • contribs)

The four years of debate is precisely my point. It could be done away with while achieving a neutral point of view by having no flags or country names but with simple links for the Allies and the Axis articles. There is no confusion as the reader can click through to articles which deal with the explanation of roles each of the countries have played. It would also help do away with flag creep. The infobox is a poor format in this case because it can't handle complicated issues...so we shouldn't force it to.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if reducing the lists to just Allies/Axis links will change anything, though. That was already tried several years ago after the same constant "bold China and France!/Reduce amount of flags!/Nepal ahhhhh!" arguments. --Plasma Twa 2 03:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, checking the archives, it seems that people expect flags in the infobox, which is perfectly natural. So instead of perennial requests for a particular flag we'd have perennial requests for flags in general. Also, I have the objection that the Axis and Allies articles do not quite have the quality required to give the readers a good (and "official" if is the sole mean of reckoning alliances) overview (I suspect a lot of factual errors, POV-pushing, etc, especially in the Axis one) ^walk victor falk^talk 02:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So how about an atypical solution – we create a list of allied countries and a list of axis countries (nothing more^{except possibly flags, I don't really care}) as subpages of the template and link to them in the infobox? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to give an example of what you are proposing? --Plasma Twa 2 00:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

China

China fought Japan since 1931 when Japan invaded Manchuria. That's 10 years before Pearl Harbor. Had China not bogged down 3 million Japanese soldiers, I'm dead sure these extra human manpower would have opened up a second USSR front in Siberia, or Japanese invasion of the British Raj and Middle East oil fields. So don't downplay the important of China in WW2!Phead128 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And I'm sure the Red Army would have destroyed an invading Japanese army. What's your point? --Plasma Twa 2 23:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Red Army in 1937 wasn't so professional as in 1945. In 1938 thanks to marshal Blucher Red Army lost a little more than Japanese Army at the lake Khasan (of course, nobody cares about it while telling fairy-tails about hellish Stalin who had weakened Red Army by the purges). In 1939 the battle and destruction of Japanese army took more time than elimination of whole army group in 1945. Only since 1939 Red Army became definitely stronger than IJA. Before that - nearly equal. --95.52.66.248 (talk) 07:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

True, perhaps, but the entire "if it wasn't for China Japan would have..." argument is pointless. No one knows what could have happened, so there is no way to back up those claims. To put China on the infobox per "what could have happened" would make no sense. --Plasma Twa 2 14:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

And I should also add that no one is downplaying China's role in WWII. They were an important part of the Allied war effor. However, to claim that they were on the level of the Big Three is completely false. --Plasma Twa 2 14:02, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

USSR as co-belligerent

Hello all. I have followed this debate, and I think having the USSR as co-belligerent in 1939 resolves the issue neatly without need for a note. Also, separating co-belligerents & puppets is important, as they had quite different type of relations with the Axis. Thank you. ^walk victor falk^talk 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You followed just POW of some users. -09:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.86.203 (talk)

First of all, and with respect, I'm not sure San Marino is warranted. Did they have more than a tiny police force? If you're going to include San Marino we'd have to include Montenegro, Denmark, Albania and Serbia etc. In principle I'm for more inclusion rather than less, and certainly support your inclusion of Brazil, for example, per Brazilian Expeditionary Force. -188.146.124.52 (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That one gave me a good laugh. ^walk victor falk^talk 14:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

USSR wasn't Axis-aligned. It has its own separate campaign. There wasn't military alliance between Germany and USSR. By the way, should we consider Poland as co-belligirent of Germany, if during 1941-1945 Red Army took more Polish prisoners of war than Italian ones? Or, maybe, we should consider Czechoslovakia as German ally, if we take into the account amount of Czech weapon in the Wehrmacht? Or, maybe, British Empire was German ally, when it invaded to the part of Danish territory (Denmark fought against Germany)? Or Thailand was British ally, when it fought against Vichy France? If A fights with B and B fights with C, it doesn't mean that C is an ally of A. So your point of view keep far from encyclopedia. -14:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.86.203 (talk)

Czech lands were part of Grossdeutschland (a.k.a "Nazi Germany" in the infobox) as the Protectorate of Böhmen-Mähren. Sources agree that Denmark was liberated by British troops in 1945, just as they agree that Poland was invaded by Soviet troops in 1939. The Franco-Thai War was a separate conflict (and a quite marginal one also), as is strongly hinted by its name, between France and Thailand.

Soviet liberation of Polish colonies was also separate conflict. -12:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I meant that British troops invaded Denmark in Iceland. In 1940. --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If A fights with B and B fights with C, it doesn't mean that C is an ally of A. It means C is a co-belligerent with A. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't you contradict with yourself? First, you're saying that situation "Britain vs France vs Thailand" didn't suppose "Britain and Thailand were co-belligerents", but then you're saying that situation "A vs B vs C" supposes "C is co-belligerent with A". What's a problem? When your country is in the place of C, then it's not co-belligerent, but when another country (particularly Soviet Union) is in place of C, then it's definitely co-belligirent? --95.52.66.96 (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Co-belligerency implies simultaneousness. Franco-Thai war was 1940-41 and "Anglo-Thai" 1942-45. Anyway Vichy and Britain were engaged in hostilities, not fully at war. See section below. And in theatres separated by thousands of kilometres, and none of them very important.

Hostilities of such extent is a war. --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I maintain that the Soviet invasion of Poland in September 1939, simultaneous with that of Germany of the same country, involving at least 33 divisions and more than 500,000 (800,000 according to some) men, was a full-scale war. For comparison, Germany had one and a half million men and 60 divisions against Poland. ^walk victor falk^talk 13:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

1 and 17 September - that's very simultaneous! --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Co-belligerence is the waging of a war in cooperation against a common enemy without a formal treaty of military alliance.

So - where was COOPERATION between Wehrmacht and Red Army? Where was joint military operation? Nowhere. It wasn't. And, therefore, there was no co-belligerence. --14:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.52.86.203 (talk)

Co-operation is not strictly necessary for co-belligerency, though of course they tend to co-operate out of practical reasons. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Cooperation is written in definition of "co-belligerence". Therefore, it is necessesary part of it. Without cooperation there will be no co-belligerence. Like in the case of Franco-Thai war and British-Vichy conflict. Like in the case of Xinjiang campaign of Red Army and Manchurian invasion by Japanese Army. Chinese communists fought with Kuomintang before 1937, Japanese army fought with Kuomintang - but they are not co-belligerents. China fought with Japan in 1939, Mongolia fought with Japan in 1939. But Mongolia and China weren't co-belligerents. --95.52.66.96 (talk) 12:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"So - where was COOPERATION between Wehrmacht and Red Army?" For what its worth, according to Wikipedia there appears to be an example of cooperation at Battle of Lwów (1939). By the way, if you're going to make criticisms, even if they have merit, just please be careful about WP:KETTLE. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I looked at this article and I see no signs of cooperation there even despite a fact that the article has been written predominantly based on Polish sources and contains some dubious claims. Moreover, teh statement: "The intervention of the Red Army on 17 September made necessary some changes in the German plan of operations" directly contradicts to the thesis about cooperation, because it demonstrates that even coordination between these two sides was poor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That's poor operational level coordination, but it's still coordination: After a short fight the Soviet units were pushed back. However, overnight the Soviet forces completed the encirclement of the city and joined up with the German army besieging Lwów from the west. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not coordination at all. Making contact with German army doesn't suppose military coordination. --12:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Besieging an enemy city is. The real coordination was at geo-strategic level, i.e. dividing Poland along an agreed line and invading one's respective half. ^walk victor falk^talk 12:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's put ourselves in the shoes of the Poles in September 1939 as to whether the German invasion soon followed by the Soviet invasion were coordinated acts of co-belligerence, or the near simultaneous uncoordinated invasions of their country by two pack of wolves that swallowed up Poland, annihilated its army, sent its citizens either to German concentration camps or to the Gulag.

In September 1939, what other battle took place on the battlefields of WWII beside the invasion & partition of Poland by Nazi Germany & the USSR ? = same goal from two different directions with both sides knowing only too well that they would eventually turn against each other. Are not their September 1939 respective march into Poland acts of co-belligerence ? The fact that Barbarossa made the Soviets change camp & become part of the Alliance against Germany does not change what happened in September 1939.

what other battle took place on the battlefields of WWII beside the invasion & partition of Poland by Nazi Germany & the USSR ? Soviet-Japanese Border war, for example. Sino-Japanese war - where Soviets unofficially fought with Japan (member of Axis). --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel that in this discussion we are playing with words, but the facts are the facts.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's avoid original research. The sources (reliable sources) exist that demonstrate that even after Germany started its invasion it was not clear for them if the USSR is going to invade Poland. They got a permission from the USSR to invade the western part of Poland, but they got no information on what the USSR plans to do with the remaining part of Poland. The Soviet decision to invade was an opportunistic decision made already after the German invasion started. In addition, the war on Poland was not declared by the USSR, and, more importantly, no war was declared by Poland on the USSR. So formally the USSR was as neutral as Vichy. Regarding Barbarossa, you break a casual linkage: Barbarossa didn't force the USSR to change camps, Barbarossa was a result of Hitler's understanding that Stalin plays his own game and the USSR would not join the Axis camp.
With regard to "the shoes of the Poles", Wikipedia reflects the point of view of international scholarly community, not the viewpoint of some Polish writers only. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Original research or not, my way of thinking is that all is on Germano-Soviet relationship while Poland is being invaded both from the west & the east, which, to the Poles, may have seemed like a coordinated attack. And I was only expressing my thoughts.

By "the shoes of the Poles", I meant the "shoes of the Polish population", not that of "some Polish writers only".

--Frania W. (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

We have a fact that the USSR was a neutral power until June 22, 1941, and I do not see how can it be listed if Vichy is not. In addition, theperiod of hostilities was very short, and we can judge about their scale only based on Polish sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

It is difficult for me to see the USSR as a neutral power before 22 June 1941 when it invaded (neutrally?) Poland in September 1939 & sent thousands of its population to the Gulag or forcibly enlisted young Poles into the Soviet army. I see absolutely no difference with what the Germans did. They may not have invaded Poland in 1939 in coordination/cooperation with the Germans but they certainly took advantage of the situation & never left. Now, I would see similarity with Vichy France if Vichy France had invaded Belgium or Switzerland or Italy or Spain after June 1940, but it invaded no country & only defended its own territory when it was invaded.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The difference was significant: whereas Germany occupied Poland, the USSR annexed it. Whereas Germany treated the Poles as a lower race, the USSR treated them as new Soviet citizens (of course, the major advantage of being the Soviet citizen during that time was that you were likely to be sent to Gulag, however, that was a common fate of all Soviet citizen, not of the Poles only). With regard to taking advantage, I fully agree. However, to take advantage is not sufficient for being considered as a belligerent. Re Vichy, the Allied invasion of Syria/Lebanon was partially dictated by the fact that the German planes stationed there took part in the Iraq campaign. In this situation, Vichy's neutrality looks somewhat ambiguous. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So, technically speaking, the Soviet Union had nothing to do with WWII prior to June 1941, thus has no place in the infobox before that date. Consequently, the massacre of Katyn cannot be considered a war crime, as committed by the NKVD in 1940, and must lie somewhere on the sidelines of the history of WWII. However, I have a question, what was the Soviet Union doing killing "prisoners of war" if it had not been "at war" ? Très weird !!!

--Frania W. (talk) 03:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet Union had nothing to do with WWII prior to June 1941. Soviet Union fought against Germany, Italy and British Empire in Spain (see Anthony Beevor). Soviet Union fought with Japan in Far East and Mongolia in 1938-1939. Soviet Union fought unofficially with Japan in China. And, let me remind you, USSR was ally of Czechoslovakia in its resistance against aggression of Germany, Hungary and Poland. And, in this case it was Poland who was ally of Hitlerite Germany. I understand that thank's to Europocentrism a quarrel between two former allies and phoney war are considered as a start of World War, though it was just European conflict.--95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

what was the Soviet Union doing killing "prisoners of war" if it had not been "at war" ? First of all, USSR considered Polish officers and soldiers as interned personal. Second, don't forget about sources - who revealed about "billions killed at Katyn". It was Goebbels. That's very cool - West and our god-loving government consider version of Goebbels as right one. But it has no relation to the infobox, so you may ignore it. Just a thinking aloud. --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Polish Jews were also not POWs, however that did not prevent Nazi from murdering them in death camps or ghettos. Ethnic Japanese or German Americans were not POWs, but that did not prevent the US authority from keeping them in concentration (internment) camps. Moreover, had the Poles executed in Katyn been POWs, that would prevent them from being executed: the USSR did not execute (i.e. kill following a minimal legal procedure) persons having a POW status. These Poles (btw, only part of them were officers, many of them were civilians) were executed as counter-revolutionaries, therefore, Stalin treated them in the same way he did before 1939 during national operations of NKVD. Katyn was a crime, but formally it was a crime not against POWs, but against civilians, and was not different from what the regime did during teh Great Purge.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If the USSR did not execute its prisoners of war, then some rewording is necessary in the lead & body of en:wiki Katyn massacre article because reading the following certainly gives the impression that prisoners of war were executed by the Soviets:

About 8,000 were officers taken prisoner during the 1939 Soviet invasion of Poland, the rest being Polish doctors, professors, lawmakers, police officers, and other public servants arrested for allegedly being...
This was the largest of several roughly simultaneous executions of prisoners of war; the others included executions at the geographically distant Starobelsk and Ostashkov camps...,
By November 19, the NKVD had about 40,000 Polish POWs: about 8,500 officers and warrant officers, 6,500 police officers and 25,000 soldiers and NCOs who were still being held as POWs.[22]
As early as September 19, the People's Commissar for Internal Affairs and First Rank Commissar of State Security, Lavrentiy Beria, ordered the NKVD to create the Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees to manage Polish prisoners. The NKVD took custody of Polish prisoners from the Red Army, and proceeded to organise a network of reception centers and transit camps and arrange rail transport to prisoner-of-war camps in the western USSR.
According to Soviet documents declassified in 1990, 21,857 Polish internees and prisoners were executed after 3 April 1940: 14,552 prisoners of war...

If I understand correctly what you explained, before executing the above, the Soviets must have changed their status of POWs to that of "ennemis du peuple", which would allow us to say that between September 1939 to June 1941 the USSR was not at war, did not have prisoners of war & did not commit any war crimes.

Exactly what a good American lawyer would come up with in order to get his client off the hook.

--Frania W. (talk) 12:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you want to reword? I don't mind. --95.52.65.146 (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviets must have changed their status of POWs to that of "ennemis du peuple". Soviets considered them as interned personal, if more exactly. --12:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is going to reword this: As early as September 19, the People's Commissar for Internal Affairs and First Rank Commissar of State Security, Lavrentiy Beria, ordered the NKVD to create the Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees to manage Polish prisoners. ?

Paul Siebert can edit it as, personally, I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What did you see wrong? "Administration for Affairs of POW and Internees". What's wrong? "... and Internees" is here? Yes, it is.--95.52.65.146 (talk) 14:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

What do I see wrong? According to this WW2 template, the USSR did not enter the war before 1941, thus keeping its invasion of Poland in September 1939 out of the war; yet, in September 1939, Beria ordered the NKVD to create the Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War and Internees to manage Polish prisoners.

So, are we to reword Beria's order to NKVD in order not to have the words "prisoners of war" appear?

My point is that at Katyn (1940), these very "prisoners of war" were executed. Yet, the Soviet Union is not shown in Wikipedia WW2 template before June 1941.

Ce n'est pas très logique.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Interesting argument, Frania. I have no answer so far, I need to read more on this subject.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Siebert, this is the first time you have no answer to my "argument". Ah, these little French women have a way to render men speechless. Bon reading !

--Frania W. (talk) 15:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong. The adminstration was created to: 1)manage prisoners of war; 2)manage internees. Polish soldiers and officers came to second category. There is no contradictions. They would be, if Beria had created "Administration for Affairs of Prisoners of War" and ordered it manage Polish internees. But he wrote "POWs and internees". It could manage not only Polish internees, but, for example, Japanese prisoners of war (from Khalkhin-Gol). Or in the case of future war with someone (for example, Finland). --95.52.65.146 (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

All right. So Beria set up this prisoner authority to take care of Japanese prisoners from months ago, or for a hypothetical war months in the future, but not for taking care of prisoners for a war that started two days before? Pull the other one. ^walk victor falk^talk 20:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I should remind, that battle of Khalkhin-Gol ended in 16 September and USSR still had some Japanese POWs. Also, though Japan agreed to cease fire, thank's to multiple Japanese broken promises and truces to China, USSR couldn't be sure that Japan wouldn't try to revanche. Though Germany signed with USSR non-aggression pact, thank's to multiple German broken promises to Britain and France, USSR couldn't be sure that Germany wouldn't break this pact. And don't forget that there were growing tensions between USSR and Finland, between USSR and Romania, there was possibility of wars with Baltic countries, British Empire and France. Where is war, there are POWs. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 07:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem is whether or not to include the USSR in the infobox before 1941.

Some of us say "yes", others say "no".

I am on the "yes" side, and that's why I brought up the Katyn massacre & Beria's orders of September 1939.

--Frania W. (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Frania,
In actuality, we have not one, but two problems. The first problem is if we need to include only de jure belligerents or we need to include all countries that were involved in combat activity during the WWII. The second problem is which side of the infobox they should be placed to. And, frankly speaking, I see no straightforward answer on these questions.
Of course, if we do not list the states that were involved in hostilities but were formally neutral, we don't give a full picture; however, if we list the countries that are known to be officially neutral we discredit Wikipedia: people will simply not believe in what the article says if they will see a flag of officially neutral country in the "Belligerents" box. In addition, the next question will be what is a treshold for inclusion?
If we nevertheless decide that neutral countries can be included, it is sometimes not clear where to place them. I already explained that Vichy France was involved in hostilities against the UK and later with the US. However, it almost concurrently fought against Japan and Thailand. How do you propose to reflect this fact? Another exmple is USSR. If we decided that the invasion of Poland is sufficient to list the USSR among the opponents of the Allies, then how will we reflect the fact that by Sept 1, 1939 the Battles of Khalkhin Gol had not ended? This battle, which, by its scale and strategic implication was comparable to the battle of Iwo Jima, was the battle between Japan and the USSR. Therefore, if we list the USSR in the right part of the infobox we thereby imply that the USSR as the Axis co-belligerent was concurrently involved in the hostilities against the second major Axis power. Is it possible to write that without a rist to discredit Wikipedia? I am not sure. You may argue that by sept 1939 the Axis had not existed yet. However, strictly speaking, the Allies did not exist either. The Franco-British guaranties to Poland had no more relation to the Grand Alliance then the Pact of Steel (or the Anti-Comintern Pact) had to the tripartite pact. I have no idea how to resolve all these issues, that is why the present infobox seems to be least controversial.
Let me also point out that the last Victor_falk's edit is hardly correct: the French government in excile was not recognised as a legitimate government of France until 1944; France officially surrendered in 1940, so it cannot be listed among belligerents during the period of 1941-44 (unless we list both Vichy in the right part and Free French in the left).
Regarding Beria, he used a mixed language: he referred to the interned Poles as "former officers, landlords, etc", however, he sometimes used the term "prisoners of war". It is unclear if he treated them as foreign or as Soviet citizens, however, since Soviet citizenship was "granted" to the rest part of the population of annexed Polish territories, the latter is more probable. At least, a justification of the execution was as follows: "we cannot release them, because they will immediately start counter-revolutionary activity, therefore we need to execute them." That more resembles the way Beria treated Soviet, not foreign citizens.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Siebert,

Before WWII, was there ever a conflict that involved so many, with so many changing side in the course of the war, or same country being split because of occupation on the one hand & government in exile on the other?

Consequently, we agree that a "simple & clear cut infobox" for WWII is not as easy to create as the one for the 1870 Franco-Prussian war [9] or even World War I [10], a casse tête chinois, as the French would say.

RE the USSR, I maintain that it cannot be excluded from the box prior to June 1941. It "annexed" eastern Poland within a few days following the invasion of that country by Germany, which ignited WWII, and I find it difficult to have Germany as an aggressor of Poland & not the Soviet Union - even if the Poles were given Soviet citizenship - courtesy of Beria - on their way to the Gulag. Vichy's belligerence is peanuts compared to what the USSR did prior to 1941.

I admit not having a solution.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we'll also write about Polish peanuts - for example, 1938 aggression against Czechoslovakia

Dear 78.36.221.121, the subject here is the infobox for WW2 which began in September 1939 and ended in 1945, nothing prior, not 1938 nor the Hundred Years War, nothing post, not even the creation of the bikini in 1946. Period.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It's written that China and Japan at war since 1937, despite WWII started in 1939 and Sino-Japanese War became part of WWII in 7 December 1941. For USSR and Germany with Italy, their clashes started in 1936 in Spain, were until 1939 (where there was the truce) and sparked again in 1941. For USSR and Japan, their clashes started in 1938, were until 1941 (when Red Army adversaries withdrew from China) and sparked in 1945. I see nothing logic in that situation: China and Japan are granted with 4 years (1937-1941) even this period is not included in WWII (and 2-year period even was before WWII), but USSR isn't granted. On the contrary, USSR is tried to move on Axis side for 1939-1941, forgetting about its impact in Sino-Japanese War. --95.55.232.17 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

or solid 4th place of Wehrmacht POWs taken by Red Army in 1941-1945? And what's a logic - if Soviet Union waged war against Poland (it's look like that neither Polish leaders of that time nor UK and France consider it as a war) then it was on Axis side? Or, maybe, we'll say that if Poland fought against USSR which fought against Japan (clear Axis country) then Poland fought on Axis side? Separate campaigns don't count in WWII. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

We may create a lot of funny conclusions if we follow logic "A vs B vs C means C is co-belligerent with A". For example, USSR fought in 1944 with Germany and Armia Krajowa - therefore AK is co-belligerent with Germany. Greece communist partisans fought with Germany and Greece pro-government partisans (backed by UK) - therefore UK is co-belligerent with Germany. Soviet Union fought with China in Xinjiang and with Japan - therefore China is co-belligerent with Japan. As we can see, this logic is invalid. It can't be used in Wikipedia. I maintain that Soviet liberation of Polish colonies (Poland behad with Belorussia and Ukraine as with colonies) was separate to WWII and even wasn't the war or military conflict - otherwise Polish leaders of that time would declare war to USSR and UK with France would do the same. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The way is to introduce third or even fourth column in the infobox. In first column there will be capitalist Allies: USA, British Empire, France, pro-British Poland, Kingdom of Yugoslavia and so on. In second column there will be communist Allies: USSR, Mongolia, pro-Soviet Poland, Tito's Yugoslavia and so in. In third column there will be Axis. There was three-side battles at Eastern Front (Germany vs pro-British Poland vs USSR and pro-Soviet Poland in 1944 and 1945), at Chinese Front (Maoists vs Kuomintang vs Japan). But it is sole reason, I can't call it decisive. Of course, if we take alternative vision (for example, WWII started from Spanish Civil war), this proposion would be more logical: there were three main blocks, sometimes communist Allies fought against capitalist Allies and Axis (Spain, Czechoslovakia), sometimes each fought other (China, 1944 on Eastern Front). Of course, the most recognized POW is Central-Europocentric, so I should accord the rules of game. So it is just proposion. --78.36.221.121 (talk) 08:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear. First of all, including everyone in an infobox is too complicated for such a conflict, then again dividing "communist" and "capitalist" allies would be somewhat hazardous, even though there was such a division (but was there such a thing as a capitalist Allies organization ? that would be more "non-communist Allies"). As for the inclusion of the USSR on the Axis side for the 1939-41 situation, there would be a logic for it, even though describing it as an Axis co-belligerent would be kind of misleading. Hence, I think the problem could be solved by adding a footnote to the infobox, summing up the evolution of the USSR's policy throughout the war. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On the necessity of a footnote:

Article first published in the Daily Telegraph, Sept 28, 1939, The German Foreign Minister, von Ribbentrop, arrived in Moscow at 5.45p, today at the invitation of the Soviet Government, in Hitler’s special Condor aeroplane, the Greuzmark. : [11]

in which one can read:

While absolute secrecy is still maintained, everybody here agrees that von Ribbentrop’s second flying visit – he came here in August to negotiate the Soviet-Nazi non-aggression pact – must again mean very “big business” indeed.
Some of the most astute foreign diplomats here seem inclined to believe that Hitler, with Warsaw on the point of capitulating, is now in a great hurry to launch his new peace offensive as an agreeable alternative to having to undertake a lightning offensive against the Anglo-French lines in France.
Before doing this, however, the Fuehrer would have to come to terms with Russia regarding the new Nazi-Bolshevik partition of Poland. In other words, agreement must be reached on the exact boundaries of the tiny Polish State to be established, without defences or economic autonomy, under permanent threat of their joint intervention.
Many here believe that von Ribbentrop has come to discuss staging such a diplomatic fait accompli.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This article has been written before the start of Hitler's attack of Poland, and it is incorrect to interpret by projecting our knowledge on the past. In actuality, it speaks not about invasion of Poland, but about possible territorial concessions of Poland, which had been being discussed during last days of August. Obviously, the author discussed the capitulation of Warsaw during the talks about Danzig and Baltic corridor, not about military capitulation of Poland (it was senseless to speak about any military capitulation, because the war hadn't started yet). Similarly, the "new peace offensive" the author discusses, was a Hitler political initiative, and the author saw this scenario as more plausible. Therefore, the article discusses a political alliance between the USSR and Germany at most.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is dated 28 September 1939. It refers to Ribbentrop's second visit to Moscow, the first one, on 23 August, being when pact of non-aggression was signed. At time (28 September 1939) of this second "Nazi-Bolshevik" rencontre in Moscow regarding the partition of Poland, WW2 had begun.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it began later. Independent of what Ribbentrop was discussing in Moscow (it is clear from his later telegrams that he did not discuss the details of alleged common invasion), the author of the DT article knew nothing about the prospective war. Poland was still discussing a possibility of territorial concessions with Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't WW2 begin on 1 September 1939? If so, any "Nazi/Bolsheviik" talk or signing of protocol/treaty after 1 September 1939 took place in WW2.

Is this considered to be fake? [12]

--Frania W. (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you are right, I didn't read it carefully: for some reason I decided that you meant August, not September. Yes, there was a second agreement between the USSR and Germany, where the new border was delimited. However, I still cannot understand the idea you are trying to convey.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea is simple: "A vs B vs C means C is co-belligerent with A", peace conference and making the truce with Nazi Germany are equal to military alliance, billion persons were shot and eaten by Stalin personally. --95.55.232.17 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Siebert, the idea I am trying to convey is that the USSR cannot be ignored in the infobox prior to 1941. The protocol signed on 28 September 1939, eleven days after it had invaded Poland, makes it as much a participant in beginning of WWII as Nazi Germany, and certainly not on the side of the Allies, where it is the only place given it in the infobox as shown now.

And I will repeat what I said earlier, what Vichy France did with its 140 bicycles per regiment is peanuts compared to what the Soviets did in September 1939 + in their invasion/annexation of neighboring countries, which had repercussions for decades after the end of WWII.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Was this protocol the document of military alliance? --95.55.232.17 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Border and Friendship Agreement adds nothing to the subject of our discussion: it dealt with the territory that was already occupied. The party took no military obligations by signing this agreement. With regard to you idea, if we decide to include the USSR we also need to decide how to do that (how the infobox should be organised), and who else should be included. Vichy must be included for sure in this event.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Tripolarity in WW2 has been identified by several scholars, and IMHO it is an interesting solution because it represents realpolitik rather than the public relations line of wartime politicians. At this stage I'm not going to predict whether it would make our infobox less or more contentious. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

We can speak about tripolarity only before June 1941. After this date there were no third pole (the USSR joined the anti-Axis camp both de facto and de jure; the second major player, the USA, joined teh Allies six month later). Taking into account that the lion's share of WWII hostilities falls on the post June 1941 period, it is senseless to speak about any tripolarity of WWII as whole. However, the idea os adding footnotes to almost every flag is good, because the role of almost every country in the WWII (except, probably, Germany and Britain) needs in some explanations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

USSR joined anti-Axis camp de-facto before 1941 - ex. Sino-Japanese War. But de-jure - of course, 22 June 1941.--95.55.232.17 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account that the lion's share of WWII hostilities falls on the post June 1941 period, it is senseless to speak about any tripolarity of WWII as whole. But doesn't it mean that it's senseless to add footnotes? I can't decide :) --95.55.232.17 (talk) 07:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Volker had come up with a bright idea, namely "Finland (against USSR)" which neatly indicates that Finland wasn't at war with e.g. USA. By the same token, his "USSR (against Poland)" might work. One could then point out that in 1939 the USSR was fighting against Japan. But then, and correct me if I'm wrong, one could also point out that in 1939 Britain was not at war against Japan and in alliance with China, although the infobox indicates otherwise (which is an error). All these problems are caused by the infobox imposing a rudimentary division between Allies and Axis (and lets face the popular culture mythology; by implication this means 'good versus evil', and nobody would wish their nation to be associated with evil). We all here agree it was very much more complex than a binary opposition of two camps. Volunteer Marek is right - time for someone to draft a more accurate diagram for our consideration. I'd say a cloud chart would be best, though it might freak out high school history teachers. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

We also can point out that in 1939-1941 Japan was already Axis power. I think the best solution is to leave status-quo. I became to write about Soviet Union fighting against Axis in 1939-1941 after and only after start of another offensive in the information war against USSR. For some people, the Soviet campaign in former Polish colonies in 1939 is reason to add USSR to Axis in 1939-1941 - despite of fierce Soviet fighting against 2nd major Axis country in the same years. I'm ready to withdraw my proposion about considering unofficial Soviet war against Japan as reason to write at the infobox "USSR at war since 1938" (analogy to China and Japan). But I'll withdraw it only after everybody will stop to use logic "A vs B vs C means C is co-belligerent with A". --95.55.232.17 (talk) 08:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did USSR engage in combat against Japan between 17 September 1939 and 8 August 1945? I'd had the impression the USSR fought Japan for about 1 month out of the 6-year conflict. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Soviet military personnel (especially Air Forces) participated in Sino-Japanese War before April 1941. In the similar situation the presence of Soviet Air Forces in the Korean sky leds to inclusion USSR as belligerent of Korean War. I'll point out that Chinese and Japanese fighting before the inclusion of their conflict in WWII is noted in the infobox, it gives theoretical possibility to include USSR as the anti-Axis combatant before 1941. But I also remind that I will insist on the note "USSR was at undeclared war with Japan in 1938-1941" until everybody revokes the logic mentioned above. That "A vs B vs C means C is co-belligerent with A". It doesn't mean that I don't consider USSR as the anti-Axis before 1941, I remember about its undeclared wars against Germany and Italy in 1936-1939, against Japan in 1938-1941. But I have no time to insist on it in Wikipedia. Well, I have time to resist to inclusion of USSR to Axis side. :) --95.55.232.17 (talk) 10:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "We also can point out that in 1939-1941 Japan was already Axis power." Wrong. Neither the Axis, nor the Allies existed in 1939. The Tripartite Pact was signed only in the second half of 1940, and before that the major agreement signed by Japan and Germany, the Anti-Comintern Pact, imposed no military obligations on the parties, i.e. it was not a military alliance. Similarly, the Franco-British guaranties to Poland concerned only the attack from the German side, and were not a full scale military alliance. In addition, to other major members (the USSR and the USA) joined the war only in 1941, thereby forming the Grand Alliance, which we usually refer to as the Allies. In connection to that, division of the infobox onto the Axis and the Allies иуащку June 1941 it is simply incorrect. If someone wants to add other countries to the infobox, it should be divided onto two parts: before June 1941 and after June 1941. The latter, bottom part should be essentially identical to the current one, except France should be listed from 1944. The top part should list Germany, Italy and small satellites in one part, Poland, Britain and Franc in another, and other countries, which were involved in different defensive or offensive conflicts with one or several different opponents should be listed in the third one: Vichy France (defensive wars against Britain in Africa-Middle East, and against Japan and Thailand in Indochina), The USSR (invasion of Poland, Battle of Khalkhin-Gol, Winter War), China (SSJW, inofficially), Japan (border war against the USSR; SSJW against China, inofficially), Thailand, and some others.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this idea completely ruins the essence of WWII which was the struggle between USSR-USA-UK-China against Germany-Japan-Italy. The struggle between Communism, Democracy and Fascism. Your third column became too mixed. There is possible to separate USSR from USA and UK, naming two blocs as "Communist Allies" and "Non-Communist Allies". It is possible to separate Japan from Germany and Italy due to large distance and limited cooperation, naming two blocs as "European Axis" and "Asian Axis". But it is nonsense to merge USSR and Japan in one bloc. Ordinary reader of WWII may consider that USSR and Japan were in the same bloc. --178.68.0.226 (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Time to show some draft infoboxes.-Chumchum7 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

@ 178.68.0.226 and "ruins the essence of WWII which was the struggle between USSR-USA-UK-China against Germany-Japan-Italy. The struggle between Communism, Democracy and Fascism", really, this is the über-romantic vision of WWII that has been drummed into little school-children everywhere, particularly regarding the "Great Patriotic War" which version of Soviet history goes from the ascent of Stalin right to Hitler's attack in what can only be described as a myopic time-warp eradicating all mention of Soviet belligerence against its neighbors. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ask Hitler, he was confident since 1920s that the central conflict of future war will be struggle between Germany and USSR, he repeated after MRP that every his action served high goal - the desctruction of USSR, that "if Western world is so stupid to understand it, I'll crush the West and then destory USSR". The leader of the strongest Axis state explicitly pointed at its main enemy. --Sambian kitten (talk) 07:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Woaahh. Straw man? Soviet historiography never portrayed the Great Patriotic War as the romantic story (how can be romantic the starvation of Leningrad or firebombing of Stalingrad or mass killing in Baby Yar?), never kept silence about war with Germany and Italy in 1936-1939, with Finland in 1939-1940, with Japan in 1937-1941. But it kept silence about Polish aggression against Czechoslovakia. It was silent about internment of White Armies by Baltic states and its high mortality. --Sambian kitten (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

"Romanticize" — and perhaps "idealize" is a better word — certainly applies to both popular Western and Soviet histories of each as noble thwarters of Hitlerite fascism when the facts on the ground are damning to all: the USSR, UK, US, and France. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

History is written by victors, and they aren't judged. --Sambian kitten (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Oops, you're a time traveler from a past century? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If history is written by victors, who won the Cold War? --Martin (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I was thinking about it academically in an era where scholarship was as nationalistic as the ambitions of the empire builders under which it took place. I believe Sambian kitten means we are not to question the Soviet/Russian account of the Great Patriotic War, nor any other related Russian nee Soviet "versions" of history. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I meant that it has no sense to seek the self-condemnation in victor's speeches. --Sambian kitten (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Results section

96T has reverted my last edit[13] with the comment "there were probably dozens of territorial and political changes because of the war, listing individual ones would make the infobox very messy". While it is true there were dozens of territorial and political changes because of the war, actually only three sovereign member countries of the League of Nations lost their independence entirely. That is a pretty significant and unique result. Note that the WW1 Infobox has "Formation of new countries in Europe and the Middle East" as one of the results, so it would be entirely consistent to list the partial reversal of that with the re-absorption of the three Baltic states. --Martin (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No, because this infobox gives the major outcomes of the war. The absorption of three comparatively small Baltic states do not come close to qualifying as a major outcome. This is why we have a "More" link. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Correct. If we mention occupation of three Baltic states, we must mention the occupation of Poland, Romania, Germany, etc., because occupation is not a territorial change. If we mention territorial change, we need to mention, along with illegal annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR, annexation of Bessarabia, Northern Buikovina, Eastern Poland, Northern part of Eastern Prussia, South Sakhalin, Kuril Islands by the USSR, Southern Eastern Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia and Danzig by Poland, Marshall Islands, along with some other Micronesian archipelagos by the US, Formosa island and some archipelagos in Yellow Sea by China, etc. Addition of just Baltic states would be interpreted by a reader as narrow national POV pushing, which would undermine the credibility of Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that territorial expansion of the USSR in Europe and Far East, and of the USA in Pacific should be mentioned.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Territorial expansion isn't so important as the emergence of two superpowers. In fact, emergence of superpower supposes that country became signicantly military and politically stronger, i.e. expansion of military and political control. I can't understand attempts to reflect whole WWII in one infobox. In the end, infobox will be equal to article. --Sambian kitten (talk) 05:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Paul that territorial expansion should be mentioned, there is room in the infobox, the WW1 infobox list four items in the results section while this infobox only lists three. --Martin (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SK that territorial expansion is not so important, but since we have a space we can mention it briefly. Try to propose your wording that would be general and avoided national POV.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that US territorial expansion in the pacific is tiny (several islands) compared with the USSR territorial expansion, and the need to keep it brief, I think it would be sufficient to simply state "Significant territorial gains for the USSR". --Martin (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

"Several islands" were unsinkable aircraft carriers, so American aquatorial gains weren't less than Soviet territorial ones. Emergence of superpower covers it, there is no need for specification. --Sambian kitten (talk) 06:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only. These islands were small in terms of territory, but one must take into account aquatory also. That made the US a dominant power in Pacific, which was more important than annexation of few small European states.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not really. None of these acquired islands housed military facilities. The territory used for US military bases in occupied Japan, for example, were not territorial gains of the USA. On the other hand, the Soviet acquisitions in Eastern Europe and the subsequent Iron Curtain from the Baltic to the Black sea was one of the main causes of the Cold War. The Soviet Union gained a total area of over 376,842 square kilometers, an area bigger than Germany (357,114sq kms), if that is not significant, then I don't know what is. --Martin (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am speaking not only in military terms (although the statement that there were no military objects there is not correct). For instance, the economical zone of those islands was a traditional fishery zone of Japanese fishers, and loss of these islands was a significant blow for them. One way or the another, the occupation of the Baltic states cannot be listed in the infobox, because occupation is not a territorial change. Probably, you meant annexation?

In any event, instead of arguing endlessly, could you please propose a wording that would summarise the territorial expansion of both superpowers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The only significant Island bases are in Guam and Hawaii, both US possessions since the 1800's. I think the addition fisheries would be a tiny drop in the US economy, insufficient to turn it into a superpower. I've already proposed wording above, "Significant territorial gains for the USSR". --Martin (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You are still too focused on the USSR. Why do you omit division of Germany, annexation of the part of Eastern Germany by Poland, return of Taiwan to China, obtaining a control of Pacific by the US? --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do you omit ... annexation of the part of Eastern Germany by Poland. It's clear: if we omit these facts, USSR will be shown as unique evil empire that wanted nothing but expansion, blood and children on breakfast. It's golden dream of Eastern European historical revisionists. --Sambian kitten (talk) 03:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This your comment is hardly helpful. This topic is a subject of heated debates, so your inflammatory posts just contributes to the escalation of a conflict. For you, as a newbie, such a mistake is forgivable, however, if you want to stay in Wikipedia for long time (and I believe you want), you should elaborate a habit to conduct a discussion in a polite, cool and respectful manner. By making inflammatory posts you just demonstrate weaknesses of your own position. In my opinion, the best thing that you can do is to delete your post. After doing that I authorise you to delete my post also (although the latter step is not allowed per policy, in this particular case you can do that, because I give you an explicit permission).
Do not repeat this mistake again.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This "US control of the Pacific" is fiction. All Truman did in 1945 was to extend US control to all the natural resources of its continental shelf, other nations went even further, extending control to 200 nautical miles, everything else in between is considered international waters — free to all nations, but belonging to none of them. I hardly think there is too much focus on the USSR, afterall they did most of the fighting, well over 27 million dead, so we should mention their gains as well. The Division of Germany should certainly be mentioned but the annexation of the part of Eastern Germany by Poland was at Moscow's direction due to the 1939 land grab in the east. Mention of the Cold War should be removed however as a direct outcome, since that didn't really start until at least 1947, although the origins were certainly rooted in the USSR's territorial acquisitions during WW2. Superpower status wasn't really achieved until some years after, due to recovery. As a comprehensive list I would suggest as the direct consequences as a start:

~~Significant~~ Soviet territorial gains
Division of Germany
Japanese overseas territorial losses
Creation of the United Nations

--Martin (talk) 04:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I still cannot understand why are you so focused on the USSR. Division of Germany and annexation of a part of its territory had more profound political and economical consequences. "Significant" is a POV term, and should be avoided, because it implies everything else was "insignificant". In addition, creation of the UNO had no relation to territorial changes. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Soviet territorial gains, east and west, amounted to an area larger than France, so I don't think "significant" is unwarranted. Certainly it is on the scale of the division of Germany, which is also listed. It is just a plain fact that cannot be ignored, I don't understand why you would want to down play that fact. Wars are fought over territory, and Stalin achieved all his territorial goals, why be frightened of that? The UNO is a direct outcome, being seen as a way to prevent war in the future. --Martin (talk) 04:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The German territorial losses were also significant. The idea of UNO was proposed during WWII, and its goal was not to contain the USSR. Division of Germany had much greater impact than acquisition by the USSR of the territory Belarus and Ukraine lost during the Soviet-Polish war (i.e., the territory conquered by Poland), and three small Baltic states. Again, although I agree that Soviet territorial gains should be mentioned, to make a redundant stress on that is incorrect.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, there were significant territorial gains by Poland, no? Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I support Martin's proposal in general, though I'm not sure whether the word "significant" is either necessary or POV - if anything, it may be a bit redundant. On that note, historians say the Soviet gains of 1945 were notably similar to those of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and this could be mentioned in the article if it hasn't been already. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, the results section is meant to be a high level summary, the impact on Germany is already mention, I don't understand your point about the UNO's "goal was not to contain the USSR" but it was a goal initiated by the USA, what the USSR lost in the Soviet-Polish war 20 years earlier is irrelevant, and Estonia's land area is similar in size to the Netherlands, so "three small Baltic states" is incorrect. @Ko Soi IX I think while Poland gained territory in the west on balance it shrunk in size due to the greater Soviet acquisition in the east. @Chumchum7, I've struck "Significant" and added a result for Japan. --Martin (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Re "the results section is meant to be a high level summary." Correct.

Re "Estonia's land area is similar in size..." Again, if you believe that Estonia had not become a part of the USSR, we cannot speak about territorial changes. Occupation is not a territorial change.

Illegality of possession is irrelevant to the economic, material and human resource benefits of de facto control

Re "the impact on Germany is already mention" Where?

"Division of Germany"

Re "I don't understand your point about the UNO's "goal was not to contain the USSR" but it was a goal initiated by the USA" The UNO emerged as a result of ratification of the Atlantic Charter, whose goal had nothing in common with the idea to contain the USSR specifically.

Sorry, but I still do not see the relevance of "goal had nothing in common with the idea to contain the USSR specifically" to the results section.

Re "what the USSR lost in the Soviet-Polish war 20 years earlier is irrelevant" Why. One thing is a conquest of a territory that had never been yours, and another thing is taking back the land that belonged to you (to Belarus and Ukraine) in the past.

The reasons why the USSR grabbed that land may be justifiable, but it is still irrelevant to the result in the specific case of WW2

Re "I think while Poland gained territory in the west on balance it shrunk in size due to the greater Soviet acquisition in the east" ... and the total Poland territory remained almost the same.

Almost the same, but smaller never the less.

Re your proposal. Division of Germany should go first. Japan lost overseas territories to whom? China (Formosa) and USA should be mentioned. In addition to the USSR, other country, mostly Poland, also got significant territories. "Soviet territorial expansion and re-arrangement of the borders in Central Europe" would be more adequate.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me for threading my replies above, i did it for convenience. Perhaps you could suggest a bullet pointed list and thus we can see what the common ground is? --Martin (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's ok, although, to separate my posts from your replies I'll change them to italic. Re list, I need to think.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Below is the list of the most important results of the WWII as I see it. In the case if I missed something, I suggest everyone to add what I missed, and then we can try to choose the most important results from this list.

Allied victory; unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.
Fall of Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (Comment: the fact that these regimes ceased to exist as a result of the war is not obvious).
Creation of the United Nations.
Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers.
Creation of Eastern Bloc and NATO. Beginning of the Cold War.
Partition of Germany; Germany lost part of its territory to Poland and the USSR.
Territorial gains of the Soviet Union in Europe and Far East.
Loss of Baltic States' independence. (per Chumchum7)
Japan lost her overseas possessions to China, USSR and the USA.
Development and use of the nuclear weapon. (per Igny)
?????
--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually Ko Soi IX, there were significant territorial losses by Poland. While Poland gained modernized lands, they lost a major chunk of their territory in the east to Russia...--White Shadows ^{Stuck in square one} 23:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you decised to speak in national terms, the statement that Poland "lost a major chunk of their territory in the east to Russia" in inaccurate. It lost a major part of territory populated mostly by Belorussians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians, which it conquered in 1920, to Belarus, Ukraine and Lithuania, accordingly... And got ex-German territory in exchange.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"????" -> Development and use of the nuclear weapon. That gave start to the nuclear arms race. (Igny (talk) 01:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC))

Territorial gains of the Soviet Union in Europe and Far East. Then it will be continious to mention significant territorial gains for China. Before WWII, Manchuria wasn't part of Republic of China, and Manchuria is more than France or Spain. If we mention Soviet territorial gains, then we'll mention Chinese territorial gains. --Sambian kitten (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Point 2 is an obvious consequence of 1 since I can't recall an instance where a regime survives unconditional surrender. I don't think creation of NATO and the beginning of the Cold War was necessarily a direct result of WW2, since the Cold War began around 1947 and NATO in 1949; and it was by no means inevitable that such as thing would happen from the perspective of May 1945. In regard to Manchuria/Manchukuo was a puppet state set up by the Japanese in 1932, however the League of Nations declared that Manchukuo remained rightfully part of China. Only a handful of countries recognised Manchukuo, Japan's fascist allies Italy, Spain, Germany and Hungary. Fun fact: the Soviet Union joined these fascist countries in recognition of Manchukuo in April 1941. --Martin (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Not obvious: Japan also surrendered unconditionally, however, Hirohito had not been deposed, and Japanese state continuity had been preserved.

Re Manchukuo, I agree. Under "overseas possessions" I meant Kuril Islnnds, Sakhalin, Formosa and Pacific archipelagos.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Krystyna Marek, the allied occupation of Germany did not affect the continuity of the German state[14], and certainly the Federal Republic of Germany (unlike the German Democratic Republic) claimed to be the legal successor of the Nazi regime[15], hence accepting responsibility and paying compensation. This state of affairs is confirmed by the fact of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, signed in 1990. So I think point 2 is surplus to requirements. --Martin (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It claimed only in a context of responsibility for Nazi crimes. In addition, despite the BRD's self-identification, the legal successor of the Nazi government, the Flensburg Government had not been recognized by the Allies, and both Eastern and Western governments were established de novo under auspices of the USSR and the Western allies, accordingly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It is correct that the German Democratic Republic considered itself to be a new state that had seceded from the German Riech, however the Federal Republic of Germany was considered the legal "continuator" of the German Reich. --Martin (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

"Continuator" and "successor" are two different terms. The book discusses mostly responsibility for Nazi crimes, not state succession. The last Nazi government was dissolved by the Allies, who started new elections (in the West), or installed a Communist led government (in the East) that had nothing in common with the third Reich's government. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, the FRG (West Germany) was not a new state and was legally continuous with the German Reich (in turn, with the German Empire). It was only the GDR (East Germany) that had no continuity to the Third Reich and therefore no obligations{[mdash}}in particular, resulting from WWII or otherwise prior to 1949. "Unification" in 1990 was not a merger but the constitutional accession of the GDR to the FRG which continued unchanged under international law while the GDR ceased to exist under international law. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional comment from Chumchum7 On further thought, the fate of the Baltic States in 1945 is both unique and notable. This region, now of about 7 million people, is comprised of afaik the only three countries that were independent prior to WWII that actually lost their independence as a consequence of WWII. Moreover, this has an important place in the next phase of history, e.g. from Operation Jungle right up to the Baltic Way and the 2004 NATO Summit. For these reasons, a phrase to the effect of "Loss of Baltic States' independence" is absolutely necessary in results section. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

We should do a better job on Poland shifting significantly westward (eastern, western territorial changes as sub-items). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What concrete wording do you propose?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Still thinking on Poland. On "another thing is taking back the land that belonged to you (to Belarus and Ukraine) in the past": that same argument has been used to say it was another thing for the USSR to "take back" the Baltics. Sorry, it is not "another thing" if that taking is an attack on another sovereign state. It's these sorts of statements you make which leave people incredulous that undermine whatever you do have to say that has merit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

No. The territory of Kresy (east from the Curzon line) was populated predominantly by Ukrainian, Belorussian and Jewish population. This territory was a part of former Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, and it was quite legitimate part of this multiethnic and multiconfessional country. However, pre-war Poland positioned itself primarily as a mononational, Polish state, and, therefore, their claims on this territory, although not unreasonable per se, were much more questionable, taking into account that other members of the Commonwealth became either independent states (Lithuania), or joined the USSR. Moreover, taking into account that this territory had been conquered by Poland, who refused to discuss the Curzon line as the border, the idea to take back the land that had been conquered by Poland is not totally unreasonable. And, again, you probably forgot that the territory populated by Belarussians were annexed to Belarus, Ukrainian populated territories were annexed to Ukraine, and the territory that included the present capital of Lithuania was annexed to Lithuania. All of that makes a situation with Poland quite different from the Baltic case. Of course, that does not mean that Stalin's actions were fully justified: international treaties must be observed in any event, however, all said above should be kept in mind when we speak about those times events.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You forget that when it comes to violations of sovereignty, revanchism is revanchism is revanchism. The excuses revanchists make differ, but the result is always the same ("it was really ours to begin with"). Let's not pretend Stalin was acting with the interests of White Russia and Ukraine in mind, this was premeditated in concert with Hitler. As for Poland "conquering," that was more the Bolsheviks' loss owing to territorial greed and poor judgement backfiring. And let's not forget WWII was the second time Russia partitioned Poland out of existence, so my revanchism trumps your revanchism. Of course, you've got Kievan Rus' to play. "Taking back" anything as a justification for violence against innocent civilians is reprehensible and inexcusable in civilized society.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Although this discussion is becoming more and more abstract, its subject is very interesting, so, if you don't mind, let's continue.

Re revanchism, it usually is hard to tell for sure where it starts, because almost all present-days nations are not indigenous inhabitants of the lands they occupy. In this particular case, the most correct answer on the question "whose land were Kresy: Polish or Russian?" would be "Belorussian, Ukrainian and Lithuanian". In other words, whereas I do not advocate Stalin's decision to occupy and annex Kresy, I also fully realise that this territory was not a original Polish land also. This land was Ukrainian, Belorussian and Lithuanian, and, taking into account that Ukraine and Belorussia were the members of the USSR, the idea to annex these lands to these republics was not absolutely unreasonable.

Re "Let's not pretend Stalin was acting with the interests of White Russia and Ukraine in mind, this was premeditated in concert with Hitler." Of course, since Stalin was a villain, if several possible explanation of his acts is possible, then the most malicious explanation is the most correct. Speaking seriously, I see no direct contradiction between the first and the second parts of your sentence. Yes, Stalin had an agreement with Hitler, and this agreement was: "You can occupy Poland if you want, however, you cannot take the land east from the Curzon line."

Re Kievan Rus'. I see no need to go so far into the past: I have already mentioned the Great Duchy of Lithuania as a predecessor of Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania, and the territory of Kresy belonged neither to Russia nor to Poland, but to this state, or to Rzhecz Pospolita as its successor. However, by refusal to build multiethnic society, Poland lost its moral rights to this land. Note, I do not claim that that automatically meant that Stalin got more rights as a result. My point is that this case is much more complex then you are trying to represent.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, we disagree here because the case, from the standpoint of international law in the 20th century, is simpler than you make it out to be. "Annexation" of course was completely unreasonable being the direct result of forcible invasion and occupation. There was no surrender of "moral authority" by Poland--that's just another euphemism for Soviet revanchism justifying the restoring the Russian empire. That same "restoration" of the territorial integrity of the Russian empire is still quoted today in official Russian pronouncements on the Baltics. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not care about contemporary Russian terminology. Regarding the XX century international laws, annexations, occupations, colonialism was quite usual during those times. Of course, that does not make Stalin's actions, especially the Great Purge in newly annexed territories, justified. However, that is not a reason for resorting to inflammatory rhetoric, for references to morality etc. Re Soviet revanshism, let's resolve this problem once and forever: do you support transfer of Vilno to Poland?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)