Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Once more, into the dark

The closing decision of the RfC that ended a few weeks ago, stated: There is no consensus to change the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies to be found in this discussion. It is clear from reading the discussion that this is not a simple matter, and sources provide different starting points, as well as different stages in the process that could be seen as the date of joining. The information found in the article remains, therefore, as follows: The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, which is patently false, since the Allied camp did not even exist in the summer of 1941. The United States entered World War II in late 1941, as we all hopefully know. The reliable source that is the Office of the Historian has been invoked to support the current assertion, yet it does not shine any light on the subject. Here is the relevant passage from the link:

By the end of October [1941], the first Lend-Lease aid to the Soviet Union was on its way. The United States entered the war as a belligerent in late 1941 and thus began coordinating directly with the Soviets, and theBritish, as allies.

The best we can do, it's apparent, is keep looking for sources for this quite important episode in WWII history. Opinions and suggestions are welcome. Only, please, let's not replay the RfC. -The Gnome (talk) 13:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

• A quote from the source: The most important factor in swaying the Soviets eventually to enter into an alliance with the United States was the Nazi decision to launch its invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. What you are doing is more tag bombing than a serious request for a source while everyone knows that there was an alliance. The Banner talk 13:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I already warned everyone that the contested episode is not among those "we all know about". If, as you say, "everyone knows" about it, then it would have been trivially easy to collect a dozen sources, let alone one, that states explicitly that the USSR "joined the Allied camp in June 1941." We have yet to find such a source and it is unlikely we will since the Allied camp did not even exist in June 1941! The United States had yet to enter the war. You are confusing the date the USSR started to fight against Germany in WWII with the date, as such might exist, when the USSR officially joined the Allied camp. They are not the same. (Every country joined formally, through signing declarations and agreements. It's all in the lemma.) The hunt, for all intents and purposes , is still on. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

The Allied camp did exist in 1941. The first inter-Allied conference was in June 1941 and didn't include the Soviet Union or the United States.[1]https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtjames.asp. The second inter-Allied conference was in September 1941 and did include the Soviet Union (but not the United States)[2]https://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/interall.asp. The current wording of the lead says that the Soviet Union joined the Allied after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941. This is correct. My concern is with the info box which implies that the Soviet Union joined the Allies on the very day that it was invaded by Germany. This is incorrect. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin, the agreement was signed in London at St James's Palace, on 12 June 1941. (We can examine the full text, in image, here.) If, therefore, you want to argue that the Soviet Union joined what was termed in that document as "the Allies" (in fact, British colonies, and corrupied countries' representatives - but I won't belabor that point), you will have to proffer evidence that the Soviets retroactively joined the Allies, since the USSR was invaded by Nazi Germany on the morning of 22 June 1941. Almost up until they were invaded, the Soviets were still sending over to Germany truckloads and trainloads of products, in compliance with German-Soviet agreements (per Ericson, Edward E. (1999), Feeding the German Eagle: Soviet Economic Aid to Nazi Germany, 1933–1941). So, even accepting that there was some kind of an "Allied camp" in early June 1941, we cannot reasonably claim that the USSR joined it at that time.

As to the term "after [date X]": It can mean "any time after [date X]" or "right after [date X]". The first term is unacceptably vague. The second term is not supported by sources. And the problem with the term manifests itself as soon as it appears in the infobox, as you pointed out. -The Gnome (talk) 14:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Effectively, you are trying to circumvent the mentioned RFC by demanding an exact date. The Banner talk 10:18, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

• Primo, a word about your personal approach to this issue: So far, it's been reprehensible and counter productive. The totality of your input contains demeaning asides & personal remarks. E.g. "did you just slap a tag on it?" [you wanted to say simply "you tagged it?" but that evidently wasn't salty enough], "What you are doing is more tag bombing" ["more"? when did I ever "tag-bombed" anything? not now, not ever!], "you are trying to circumvent the mentioned RFC" [now accusing me of a serious infraction], and so on. I once again, but for the last time, ask you, The Banner, to cease immediately the invective, assume that I approach the issue in good faith, as I do about you, and be polite. Shouldn't be too hard this, should it?

Segundo, on the issue and the pertinent RfC: I quoted verbatim the RfC outcome! How can that be an attempt at circumventing it? The outcome clearly states (a) We leave things as they are in the text ("no consensus to change the date"), (b) the issue itself of the exact date the USSR joined the Allied camp remains per sources unclear ("It is clear from the discussion that this is not a simple matter, and sources provide different starting points, as well as different stages in the process that could be seen as the date of [the USSR] joining [the Allies]"), and finally, and most importantly, (c) the issue of the date remains open and has not been resolved through that RfC ("There is likely some compromise that can be worked out, but not in this RFC"). That's crystal clear. So, placing a simple cn tag ("citation needed") one the main text's sentence "The Soviet Union...joined the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941" is acting fully within and according to the RfC outcome. The sentence, though lacking verification, as the RfC closure statement makes clear, remains up, again per RfC closure, but the invitation to research this further is posted up. It's actually a very simple, non-antagonistic in any sense, and not accudatory invitation. Editors have demonstrably tried their best. As it happens, I'm a member of the Military History cabal. We have to try harder. We will, too. Join along. Take care.-The Gnome (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, the RFC states "no consensus to change the date". But you want an exact date complete with source. I know it is a bit harsh, but to me that is trying to circumvent the RFC to try and change the date. The Banner talk 16:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Did you try to find a date and source?

It should go without saying but since it needs to be said, yes, by all means, I did search high and low. I was more than surprised that no established source offers a precise date. I took part in the above RfC and submitted as much. I consider the date to be a highly important one, or whatever can be an acceptable substitute for a precise date (e.g. and I'll hypothesize here, "The USSR joined de facto the Allied camp in [...] through, etc"). This is not some peripheral noise-making on the issue of World War II. -The Gnome (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

@The Gnome The failed verification tag in the lead should go. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union became one of the Allies at some point soon after the German invasion of the USSR and the cited source supports this. There is no problem with having vague wording when there is a dispute over precise dates (as is very often the case in historical matters, historians are even divided over when WWII started and ended). I put forward an alternative precise date for the USSR joining the Allies in the RfC but there was no consensus for it. I put forward alternative wordings for the lead and the relevant parts of the info box but there was no consensus for them. If you have a suggestion for alternative wording or some other compromise please put it forward, but I don't think a failed citation notice helps. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Aemilius Adolphin, are you truly suggesting that we follow the RfC closure's first instruction and let the status quo remain but ignore the second one about the need to resolve the issue? I'm afraid suich selective endeavor is not correct. I'm already on record saying what you also just wrote so I'll quote you: "There is no doubt that the Soviet Union became one of the Allies at some point soon after the German invasion of the USSR and the cited source supports this." Yes, we all know this but, as the cited source says, the USSR eventually joined. We do not have an exact date of the USSR joining the Allied camp, because no source supports a precise date - and, perhaps you can trust me on this, I've searched high and low and back again to find it! Therefore, it is unacceptable to leave as is the vague wording now used because it can be legitimately interpreted as "right after the German invasion," which is patently false. If we want the cn tag to go, then we should amend the current wording to one closer to what we know and clearer. How do you, or anyone else reading this section, propose we go about it? -The Gnome (talk) 07:36, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

This source gives 12 July as the date the Soviet Union joined the allies. I put this date forward, but there was no consensus to change to it. I also put forward a couple of other suggestions which were knocked back. I think I've done my bit. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• As you say we just had an RFC, We do not keep revisiting, the matter should be closed for a while. Slatersteven (talk) 09:40, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

The RfC was closed without prejudice. The closing decision recognized, quite explicitly, that there is likely some compromise [on the date] that can be worked out since sources provide different starting points, as well as different stages in the process that could be seen as the date of [the USSR] joining [the Allies]. This is what is being done here: calling upon interested editors towards some kind of compromise on the appropriate time period.-The Gnome (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I still call it circumventing an RFC, sorry. The Banner talk 22:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to label anything by any title. My position was presented and explained and awaits rebuttal. -The Gnome (talk) 05:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023 (2)

please, i wont do vandalism or anything i swear i just want to add country like Albania or Denmark 114.142.172.36 (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not keep[asking for edits, use the one you already have, now what sources do you have that say they are allies? Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

add some allies of world war 2 for information 114.142.172.36 (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Which ones? Slatersteven (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I think he means the different American states that fought in the American Theatre, North and South American was working with the allies. Also Denmark and San Marino did fight the axis powers. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I think San Marino was fought over, it did not resist. They need to produce RS saying who these allied powers were. not just RS saying they were battlefields. Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

According to sources 1 2, they provided support, while is was small support (it is one of the smallest country) the police and military did support the allies when they where invaded but I do not know if the military forces saw any combat. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And after the battle, did they remain combatants? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From what I understand they supported the allies, let allied troops move though, and did remove in fascist leader. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From what you understand? Do you have any RS that says they were an allied country, not how you interpret it (see wp:or), but one that actually says they were. Slatersteven (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

They where invaded by the axis (two 1 2 more sources), they also declared war on Germany "Little San Marino declared war on Germany on September 21st, 1944 after the Allied invasion and occupation." This is clear that they should be put with the allies if we include the american states, despite many of them only activity in the American theater. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Find a decent RS. Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I found another source, in addition it is mentioned on this Wikipedia page with another sources. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

With theses sources, I also think we should include the two leader during the time. They where Francesco Balsimelli and Sanzio Valentini durring the battle. They also had Teodoro Lonfernini andLeonida Suzzi Valli followed by Alvaro Casali and Vittorio Valentini who led them untill the end of the war. LuxembourgLover (talk) 14:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Untill a dencent RS (I.E. not one cited to a wiki, for example) is produced I oppose adding any new combatants, and leaders should be limited only to major ones. Slatersteven (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What military units from Denmark and San Marino joined the fighting? And I do mean: national units, not individuals. The Banner talk 16:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the sources, wikipila mentions how they fought.

Sources

1

2

3

Wikipedia pages

Danish resistance movement

Danish Brigade in Sweden

Denmark in World War II

I know San Marino is not the most well sources, but Denmark should 100% be included. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

The brigade was never used. Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

1. Says nothing about units under the San Marino flag actually joining the fighting
2. Says nothing about units under the San Marino flag actually joining the fighting
3. Dead link
4. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) Says nothing about units under the Danish flag actually joining the fighting
5. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) quote": Ultimately it was only deployed on the day of the German surrender in the country and was involved in very little fighting. Not a relevant fighting unit.
6. a) Wikipedia can not act as source for Wikipedia; b) Says nothing about units under the Danish flag actually joining the fighting

So no reason to add San Marino and Denmark. The Banner talk 19:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

This needs closing now, and maybe reopened after people have read wp:v wp:rsand wp:OR. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2023

I would like to fix something on this page 2600:1700:3680:8B70:C13A:D894:A3AA:1A24 (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC) there is one principal ally that you're missing

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2023

Hi, can I have permission to edit, there is just one thing on the side bar I have to correct 44naytions (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

SVG vs PNG

@The Banner, regarding this, why do you call a grainy PNG map from 2006 that grates the eyes (File:Map of participants in World War II.png) as better than the clean SVG (File:Map of participants in World War II.svg)? It's absurd to me. The svg is already used in Axis powers and other articles, so it's inconsistent to employ a different format for an article about the Allies. +JMJ+ (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They are not the same map, this (thus) may not just be a format issue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

They also (both) look inaccurate, when did Turkey enter the war? Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

23 February 1945, according to the article. That is to say: declaration of war to get access to the UN. The Banner talk 17:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I see, so not really a combatant, its why I never picked up on it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the maps should be renamed to something like "Map of countries that declared war on the Axis in WW2". Also because Ireland was dejure neutral but defacto was part of the Allies. The Banner talk 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

1) The PNG-map is only 50 Kb against 1006 kB for SVG-map, so way quicker to download. And some people still have metered connections.

2) The PNG-map is effectively bigger by making more effective use of the area available (rectangle vs rounded). On the SVG-map countries as the Netherlands and Denmark are hardly visible, while on the PNG-map they are visible and recognisable.

The Banner talk 17:42, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

But they have differences in nations, why is Iran an ally in one, but not the other (not the only difference by the way)? Slatersteven (talk) 17:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Ambiguous opening sentence

The opening sentence is ambiguous and potentially misleading. It can be easily read (and I first read it this way) as stating that the Allies were led by Germany. (1) The antecedent of the clause "led by Nazi Germany" is not clear and could be either "The Allies" or "The Axis Powers" (2) It is likely to be read as referring to the Allies because the subject of the article and of the sentence is the Allies, but the sentence ends with a list of the Axis powers and does not include a list of the Allies.

This may seem like a nitpick. But I think it's important that a person not familiar with the terms "Axis" and "Allies" should be able to quickly and unambiguously find out from the opening of the article. Readers may stop after the first sentence if it appears to answer their question, plus the hover-text when "Allies" is linked from another article shows mainly just the first sentence.

I suggest removing the list of Axis powers and ending the sentence there. Readers can click the link to find that list. If the list of Axis powers is important to include, I would shuffle things around so the list of Allies appears first and so there is no ambiguity. Bchillen (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Y Done. Whizz40 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Explain

Why is there czechoslovakia marked as axis on the map but marked as allied combatant with goverment in exile in the text 213.192.44.2 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

It was a government in exile, its land was occupied by the Germans before WW2. Slatersteven (talk) 12:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the question is why it is marked on the map as an Axis power? The Czech lands were invaded and occupied and became a protectorate of Nazi Germany but were never annexed. Slovakia secceeded and its puppet government became an ally. It doesn't make sense for occupied Czechoslovakia to be considered an Axis power but, say, occupied Poland not to be. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2024

The Allies, formally known as the United Nations from 1942, were an international military coalition that came together during World War II to fight against the Axis powers, which included Germany, Italy, and Japan. The coalition initially started with several countries but expanded significantly over the course of the war. By the end of 1941, the principal members of the Allies were known as the "Big Four" – the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China.

These nations collaborated on both military and political fronts to defeat the Axis powers. The United Kingdom, under Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was a key player in the European theater, providing leadership and resources despite facing severe bombings and hardships. The United States, led by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, brought immense industrial and military power to the alliance following the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. The Soviet Union, under Joseph Stalin, played a crucial role on the Eastern Front, where it endured and eventually repelled the German invasion. China, led by Chiang Kai-shek, was heavily engaged in resisting Japanese expansion in Asia.

The Allies' efforts were not only military but also diplomatic, with numerous conferences and agreements shaping the post-war world. The cooperation among these diverse nations laid the groundwork for the establishment of the United Nations, aiming to prevent future conflicts and foster international collaboration.

The Western Allies, a term often used to refer specifically to the United Kingdom, the United States, and their Western European partners, worked closely to strategize and execute operations such as D-Day, which marked a significant turning point in the war. Their combined efforts, along with those of the Soviet Union and China, were instrumental in the eventual defeat of the Axis powers and the end of World War II in 1945. Tomlush24 (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2024

Add Oxford comma to China note 3. 64.189.18.51 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The Ofxord comma is not mandatory, see MOS:OXFORD, and most of the article doesn't use one. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 10:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Replacing The Big Three with Principal Allied powers and adding France and China to it?

From the way I see it, there seems to be a pretty flawed perspective that the United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and United States essentially paved the way for victory. While this is mostly true, it still leaves out France and China whose contributions were relatively higher than almost all of the other Allied combatants. With France, it just seems that the problem is people stereotype it as the country who fell out of the war to fast. But then again, I would like to point out that they received part of occupied Germany for a reason. China on the other hand is a different situation. They had been fighting the Japanese since 1937 and had it not been for their help, it is very possible the pacific war would have had a significantly different result. The Sino-Japanese conflict was in many ways similar to the Eastern Front. There was a country stubborn to keep fighting and another that persists for territorial influence. I am curious for all of your opinions on this change. JellyGamery (talk) 23:47, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I support adding France and China as principal allies. The info box is too complicated though, and I would support removing all the dates in which these countries purportedly "joined" the Allies and all the footnotes giving complicated and often contentious potted histories which really belong in the main body of the article. The article itself needs a lot of work. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Negative. France and China did very little fighting and not much to help win the war, and played an even smaller role in making the great decisions. Canada, for example, was much more important in winning, supplying and financing the war (though it too had very little voice). Rjensen (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. Sure France's fighting was very limited in terms of the country, but the government in exile did still contribute to the war effort. Your argument can be applied to Japan in ww1 who themselves did very little fighting and ended up getting a significant place in drawing up a treaty upon the German Empire. On the other hand, saying that the Republic of China did very little fighting is probably insulting to them. The country lost over 20 million people at the hands of the Japanese and brought consistent pressure to them throughout the entire war. At its peak during ww2, the Chinese army had over 4 million soldiers fighting on the front with Japan. JellyGamery (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with JellyGamery's statement regarding the Principal Allied powers. I believe that the reasons stated above make perfect sense since without Chinese resistance, Japan would have been able to capture territory and resources more successfully. Maybe even so that it greatly extended the amount of time WWII lasted. The Chinese efforts were very important to the Asian Front, same as the French in the African and European fronts. Shmernight (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to assume bad faith, but understand that changing something in an article is not a vote. You can have 99 voices in support of something and 1 opposed, and it still not be changed. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

No the French in exile had a very minor role. China tied down massive amounts of US $$ and equipment to set up bombing =Japan. all wasted until US shifted to Pacific island bases to bomb Japan very effectively. China lost millions because it fought very poorly and could not feed or defend itself. Rjensen (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

So very similar to the Soviets? JellyGamery (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you need to read some literature before making bold claims. Actually, the only commonality between China and USSR is the fact that both countries sustained huge losses. Everything else is different.

• Chinese theatre of war was not the major theratre. In contrast, Eastern Front was the major theatre of WWII: by its scale, it was bigger than all other theatres taken together (in 1942, 80% of European Axis troops were fighting in the EF, and one million Japanese army was stationed near the Amur river, far from Burma, mainland China, Pacific, because Japan feared an attack by RKKA.)
• Even when the Western Allies joined a real war (after D-Day), only 40% of the Axis troops were fighting in the West.
• The losses sustained by the Axis in the Eastern Front exceeded combined losses in other theatres of war. In China, Japan lost less than a half of her troops (up to 500,000 out of 2,121,000 in all theatres of war).
• In 1944, when Japan was retreating in Pacific, her army was able to start Operation Ichi-Go, which was a total success. At the same time, the Red Army started Operation Bagration (the most calamitous defeat of the Axis troops, Lvov-Sandomierz Offensive, Jassy-Kishinev Offensive - each of them were more massive and more successful than any military offensive of Western Allies.
• China didn't defeat Japan: Japanese troops surrendered in China because Japan was defeated in Manchura and Pacific (as you probably know, by 2nd of September, 1945, a significant part of Chinese territory was still occupied by Japanese army, and ROC was incapable of defeating it even after Japan's army was just a pale shadow of its former self). In contrast, the war in Europe ended because the Red Army captured Berlin and Hitler committed suicide.

This list is by no means exhaustive. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "bold claims," I was simply giving an example of how the Chinese resilience could be compared to that of the Red Army. I also don't recall denying anything about what you just said. To start from the top: yes, the Chinese fighting in Asia was not a major front, but does that mean that front didn't matter? By your logic, why don't we take Japan out of the major axis powers because the front they fought on wasn't the major one. With your second point, I assume you refer to the French. In that case, my argument is that of course the French couldn't even be compared the United Kingdom or Japan in terms of strength, but if they are invited to a major role in writing up peace treaties at the end of the war, that is enough implication for me that during that period the French were regarded as among the great powers despite their lack of military power. With your third and fourth point, I'm not sure why you bring up the Eastern front. If you are trying to argue that the Soviets were more capable that the Chinese, then I would agree. If you are trying to suggest that the Chinese were incompetent, then I just wonder how they kept fighting for 8 years. Finally, I do not once recall saying the Chinese single handedly defeated Japan. They were given lots of foreign aid from the United States, as well as military assistance from them as well as the Soviet Union (toward the very end of the war), the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. From my point of view, it just seems like your primary argument is the French and Chinese weren't "as strong" as that of the combatants in Europe. If that's true, then you haven't really given a reason as to why France and the Republic of China cannot be added as Principal Allied powers. JellyGamery (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"the Chinese fighting in Asia was not a major front, but does that mean that front didn't matter?" Of course, it does matter. But that does not make China a principal Allied power (like USSR or UK).

"By your logic, why don't we take Japan out of the major axis powers because the front they fought on wasn't the major one." No. You forgot that, besides China, Japan was fighting in many treaters of war: thus, her Kwantung Army was tying down about 500,000 Soviet troops and 1000 tanks (those troops and those tanks would be very instrumental in the Eastern Front). Japan was a major opponent of the US (thereby preventing them from allocating all their resources for the war in Europe). Japan was fighting with Britain in Burma, captured Singapore and Indonesia, it sank a large number of American and British capital ships. Last but not least, Japan was the major reason why America joined the WWII.

"With your second point, I assume you refer to the French". No. Before D-Day, all land operations of the Western Allies were incomparable with the Eastern Front. Only after D-Day a real full scale land warfare between the Allies and Germany started.

" If you are trying to argue that the Soviets were more capable that the Chinese, then I would agree." No, that is not what I am saying. The Soviets were overwhelmingly more capable than the Chinese: these two powers were just incomparable.

"Finally, I do not once recall saying the Chinese single handedly defeated Japan." Again, they didn't defeat Japan at all: Japanese army was not defeated by Chinese troops until surrender of Japan in September 1945.

" your primary argument is the French and Chinese weren't "as strong" as that of the combatants in Europe" . No. My primary argument is based on the actual military contribution (losses inflicted on the Axis and territories captured/recaptured) and actual military and political influence. In these terms, the abyss separating Big Three members from other Allies is quite obvious.

No other Ally is even remotely comparable with the Big Three members. By adding China or France, you immediately open a Pandora box: if France is included, why Poland is not? If Poland is included, what about Canada? And so on, and so forth. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert First, I want to say I agree with you that the USSR was much more important than China. BUT you claim that "Chinese theatre of war was not the major theratre.". Now this is where I have a problem because that is a very Euro-centric viewpoint. Important to whom? not the major theatre to whom? Europe. But on the other hand to the 400 million people in China at the time of course it was the main theatre.

Additionally, would you knock off the "her armies", the Japanese armies were not feminine in any way, in fact they were extremely brutal to their subjects, as shown by the Bantaan Death March (which is probably what all you Euro-centric people care about anyways).

Alexysun (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, let me be more specific. When I wrote that Chinese theatre was not major, I mean its importance was not sufficient for making China a "principal Allied power". Remember, that was the only theatre where China was involved. In contrast, the Eastern front was the major theatre of war (in terms of its scale and strategic importance, and, although the USSR's military activity was limited with this treatre (except its brief but impressive offensive in Manchuria), it still makes the USSR a major player.

WRT "her army", in Modern English, there are some word groups which are considered 'feminine', at least in a poetic or quaint sense. These include ships, countries and churches, for example. Therefore, if it is acceptable to describe Japan, or Britain, or Russia as "she", then the Japan's army is "her". In addition, I don't like the idea to associate such a trait as brutality or cruelty with one gender. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@JellyGamery The Soviets were crucial the war effort. Actually, the Soviets are the only reason why the war in Europe was won. So no the Soviets were much more important than the Chinese. Though the Chinese were more important than the French who were equally important as the Polish. It can be argued that the Soviets are more important that the US and GB considering they pushed Germany back single-handledly. Alexysun (talk) 05:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

A word for Canada: Canada -- did a lot of fighting on land and sea--decisive in defeating the German U-boats. Canada provided lots of training for Allied airmen, plus lots of supplies and cash to Britain. The US spent an enormous amount of resources on making China the base for air attacks on Japan. Near zero results, but it drained resources away from Pacific and away from Britain and away from lend lease to USSR. Rjensen (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

USSR didn't need lend lease; this has already been debated. Also, what did Britain do to help the USSR except for the Battle of Britain? Sure, 1943, but North Africa and Sicily was not important to the Nazis. During 1941-June 1944, the Soviets were alone.

Secondly, tying down millions of Japanese isn't helpful?

Alexysun (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I apologize, what I meant to say was that capturing North Africa and Sicily did not help the USSR capture Stalingrad, Kursk, Rzhev, etc which was much much much more important to Victory in Europe (VE) Alexysun (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

The Japanese army did not have too few soldiers in the Pacific--it had too many--and was unable to resupply them because US Navy focused on sinking freighter ships bringing supplies. The island-hopping US also bypassed most of the J-held islands. the J forces refused to surrender--most died of starvation or malnutrition. see Imperial Japanese Army during the Pacific War. Rjensen (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alexysun: USSR did need lend lease. It was extremely important and helpful. Thus, 50% of explosives were made from raw materials provided by the US.

However, the massive aid started to arrive from the US mostly in 1943-45, when the USSR had already won the pivotal battles (Moscow, Stalingrad).

Lend lease played no role in the USSR's survival at the first phase of the war, but it was very instrumental during the last phase. It saved several million people (both military and civilians), and allowed the USSR to capture Berlin in 1945 (I mean, without lend lease, that would have occurred not earlier than in 1946).

And, we need to keep in mind that not the USSR, but Britain was a recipient of lion's share of lend lease. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

They are the big three because they (in effect) ran the war. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

If we were to group the Allies into "tiers" (for lack of a better term) by strength/military contribution, it seems pretty undisputed to me that you could make three tiers: the superpowers, the other Allies considered major, and all of the remaining Allies after that.

• The United States, Soviet Union, and British Empire were superpowers at the time, hence the Big Three. No other state, including the Republic of China and the French Empire, could be considered superpowers.
• But France and China are clearly not in the same tier as everyone else, otherwise the UNSC would have three permanent members instead of five.
  • You can legitimately argue that France was not yet major in 1942, hence the Four Policemen and the original idea for the permanent UNSC excluding France. This changed when France directly helped to invade Germany and got itself an occupation zone.
• Finally, the reason why the remaining Allies don't go into the above tier is because the powers that created the UNSC didn't think they were major enough (otherwise there would have been more Policemen or more permanent seats or more occupation zones). Outside of permanent UNSC seats, the best/most objective argument I know of is that China is the only Allied power to have committed more troops than a Big Three member (in fact any one of the Big Three members).

Due to the three tiers, it seems like there's a dispute between whether the first two tiers should be grouped together or whether the last two should. The best argument I can come up with for the former is "the UNSC says so". The best argument I can come up with for the latter is "they weren't superpowers (at the time)". It feels like the former is stronger.

Zowayix001 (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I totally agree. The current structure of the infobox is very misleading: it creates a false impression that only three major powers were fighting the war, whereas other states were occupied by the Axis, and some other minor Allies provided an occasional help. In my opinion, this division gives an undue weight to a totally formal trait (a government in exile), and it places such important participants as France or Poland into the same category with Czech republic or Belgium (whose real contribution into the war was minimal).

Following your proposal, I think we should divide the Allies on three categories:

• The Big Three (UK, USSR, US)
• Major Allies (Poland, Yugoslavia, France (+Free France), China) (this list is tentative, and it can be narrowed/expanded other users will provide convincing arguments/sources).
• Other Allies

The Allies that had their government in exile can be marked with an asterisk, and the former Axis countries should be marked accordingly. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

And (for the next 16,000 years) we will have "but X was a major ally" based on number of troops or years in conflict or specific resources. How do we determine who was a major combatant? Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we will have disputes, but that situation is normal: we are already having disputes (see, e.g. the recent RfC. I doubt it is the last one).

The only way to avoid this type conflicts would be to use an alphabetical order (which would resolve all problems except one: a reader will be totally confused).

Yes, there will be disputes, but that is how Wikipedia works: it is not something frozen and permanent, it is a living organism.

I think we should agree on some threshold for inclusion into the second category. I think this criterion may be involvement in large scale hostilities in at least one theatre of war, and the total number of troops deployed should be > X thousands and during the period of time > Y months. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The issue with putting Poland, Yugoslavia, etc. in a group different from everyone below is that there's no objective cutoff point based on troop strength or other organizations. For example if Poland and Yugoslavia are the 6th and 7th largest contributors, why not also include the 8th? The only objective cutoff points are the 3rd largest (all superpowers), the 4th largest (all Policemen), and the 5th largest (all UNSC permanent seats).

"Alphabetical order" is a bit of an insincere argument; for example the Belligerents section of Western Front (World War II) lists combatants in order of troop strength/contribution, and there seems to be little dispute there. The dispute here is over the cutoff point, not the order.

My argument is that there is no objective, non-arbitrary threshold for inclusion into the above second category. Otherwise (from before), there would've been more Policemen or more permanent seats or more occupation zones. If there had been a sixth nation to commit more troops than even one of the P5, that would be an objective argument.

Stated differently, "a nation is a major ally if they were a superpower, or if they were strong enough to directly invade an Axis power, or if they committed more troops than a previously mentioned nation". No need to define an X and Y, or define how large "large scale hostilities" are.

Zowayix001 (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok, then let's merge tiers ##2&3.

That may be a good solution. I think the Western Front's approach is quite acceptable. We can arrange the Allies based on the amount of troops and, optionally, on duration of their participation in hostilities.

And I still believe the "Governments in exile" do not deserve a separate subgroup, a footnote of asterisk would be sufficient. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean France and China were both important parts of World War 2 and played significant roles Chiang Kai Shek was one of the main allied powers, The after WWII the french occupied one piece of Germany and one piece of Austria. As a matter of fact, there was a documentary film called "The Battle of China" which documents the Chinese struggle against the Japanese. the French played a sygnificant role as their land was annexed, they moved to Britain and became "Free France" and aligned their military to take on Germany, and like Britain, they declared war on Germany in 1939. In fact, "Free France" should also be in both the list of the principal allied powers and government in exile. Hellonature (talk) 21:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Why merge tiers 2 & 3? My whole post about the tiers is arguing that merging 1 & 2 is more natural. The last objective cutoff is at the 5th largest ally, not the 3rd. Zowayix001 (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't understand you.

I am not sure 5 is the objective cutoff. When we see "the Big Three", it is obvious what it means. However, if we speak about 5 allies, the situation is less obvious. Thus, I would say the role of Poland was comparable with that of France (the latter participated mostly during 1940 and 1945, and we should always remember about Vichy). And if we include Poland, why Canada or Yugoslavia is left beyond the scope? And so on, and so forth.

I think "5 Allies" concept is a projection of the UNO Security Council concept on the WWII history. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Big Three, the Four Policemen, and the Permanent Five are all obvious. There's no equivalent for six or more.

France was powerful enough to directly occupy Germany and get itself a P5 seat. Poland, unfortunately, wasn't, and neither were Canada, Yugoslavia, etc.

If you really squint, you could say that Poland occupied pre-war Germany on the grounds of the Oder–Neisse line and East Prussia. Then you could exclude Canada, Yugoslavia, etc. on those grounds. Zowayix001 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We can look at it from two different perspectives. When we speak in terms of declarations, meetings and diplomatic agreements, then China or France may become important. However, when we are telling a story of the war, what this story is about? "Germany started a massive offensive ...", "US landed at ...", "British troops pushed the Axis back in ...", "The Red Army destroyed the group of Wehrmacht armies ...", "Japan captured the island ...." etc.

Actually, all important events (with a few exceptions, like Battle of France) involve the three Axis and the three Allied powers. For example, do can you name (without looking in Wikipedia or googling) at least two major battles where France or China played a primary role during 1941-45?

WWII was waged not at a negotiation table, but at the battlefield, and the Big three had done the lion's share of this job.

"France was powerful enough to directly occupy Germany and get itself a P5 seat" That was a huge de Gaulle's diplomatic success. France didn't get itself into it, it was invited to it (mostly due to British efforts, if I remember it correctly). Paul Siebert (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Of course China played a primary role in every land-based battle in China in the Pacific theater. They literally committed more troops during the war than any one of the Big Three (even exceeding the number of Soviet troops on the Eastern front), which is something no other nation can say. Zowayix001 (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I support including China and France as the major allied countries in infobox. The judgment of whether a country is a major allied power should not be based on the editor's own standards. Everyone's standards are different, and this becomes a kind of original research that cannot be fair. The definition whether a country is a major allied should be based on whether it was recognized as such by the official documents at the time. Based on this, China and France should be included.If military contributions are the only consideration, then Italy should not be listed as a major Axis power on Wikipedia. Italy's military contribution is never on the same level as Germany and Japan. Italy even has an insurmountable gap compared to Germany or Japan. It surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers.Italy even provided less military assistance than Romania. For military perspective, Italy's value is even less than Romania or Finland.

For military perspective, Italy cannot be ranked as a major Axis power. However, Italy is undoubtedly listed as a major Axis power. If you look at the Axis powers page on Wikipedia, you will find that Italy is even ranked higher than Japan. Why is this? It's because of the Pact of Steel and the Tripartite Pact, which defined Italy's core Axis power status.

There is a similar example of the United States in World War 1. The US declared war in April 1917, and its main forces arrived on the European battlefield in May 1918. Germany would cease fire in November 1918, which means that the US only participated in the last six months of the 4 year 4 month war. However, the US is still considered a major belligerent in World War I. Why is that? It's because the Paris Peace Conference gave the US that status. The same is true for Japan in World War I. You can check the page of Allies of World War I, both Japan and the US are listed as major countries, even though Japan only fought in one battle. Moreover, from a military perspective, the UK's military contribution is not on the same level as the Soviet Union, but in this entry, the UK is still listed above the Soviet Union. Therefore, whether a country is a major allied nation in World War II is defined by official documents at the time, not by editors' own standards and preferences. Otherwise, you would be conducting original research.

Let's take a look at the official documents at that time. The United States joined the war in December 1941, and the first important official document after that is the Declaration by United Nations. Then the Declaration by United Nations directly defined the Allied Big Four, the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China, as the four major allied powers. This was publicly announced to the world in the Declaration by United Nations. Do you think your own standards and definitions are more convincing or important than the Declaration by United Nations? Canada and Poland as mentioned above, two original signatories country, had never obtained the status of "the big four" in the Declaration by United Nations. How can you claim something like if we add China or France, then add Canada and Poland? Slatersteven have been emphasizing the "Big Three," but this is more of a definition by later historians. Moreover, if you mention the "Big Three," why do you ignore the "Big Four" mentioned in the Declaration by United Nations? Still that question, do you think you standard can be above the official documents like the Declaration by United Nations?

Even read the current history research book, you will read many support. The Oxford Companion to World War II states China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area.

Moreover, there were multiple documents at the time that granted China the status of one of the "the Allied Big Four". Let me ask you, which countries were the original signatories of the 'Potsdam Declaration? They were the United States, the United Kingdom, and China. The Soviet Union later joined as a signatory, and that was it. There were no others. Poland and Canada, which you mentioned earlier, do they qualify to be designated as one of the four major powers in the United Nations Declaration? Do they have the qualification to sign the Potsdam Declaration? And the interesting thing is, in Potsdam Declaration, China is ranked above the United Kingdom. Please read the original text of Potsdam Declaration,"We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war." ' Look, in Potsdam Declaration, China was placed ahead of the United Kingdom.I give you the link of Potsdam Declaration. You can read it. https://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/e/etc/c06.html

Do you guys think your own standards and definitions are more convincing or important than the Declaration by United Nations or Potsdam Declaration?

Even when discussing the creation of the United Nations at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, only the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China participated. Poland and Canada, which you mentioned, were never eligible to participate in the discussion of the structure of the United Nations from start to finish. Furthermore, at the San Francisco Conference where the United Nations was established, these four countries still served as the rotating chair countries, and no others were eligible.

That is to say, the status of China and France was defined in various official documents at that time, and now you are trying to use your own standards and understanding to forcibly overturn these official documents. This is original research that violates Wikipedia's rules. Actually there were plenty of official documents that prove that they were among major allies. According to the spirit of Wikipedia, you should include these countries as majors. @JellyGamery: @Zowayix001: @Alexysun:@Aemilius Adolphin:Can you guys agree my opinion?-------------- Lijing1989 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2023‎

Generally, we rely on the interpretations provided by reliable secondary sources because primary sources may be incomplete and, or, you are then relying on your original interpretation of that primary source, if not for what it said, then its significance. Whizz40 (talk) 11:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never said that primary sources cannot be used. Both primary and secondary sources can be used as references. When using secondary sources, as you said, it is usually because the primary source is incomplete or someone has provided an original interpretation of the primary source. That is the case we use secondary source. Actually, primary sources are direct sources that can provide detailed information and raw data. Secondary sources, on the other hand, are extracted and interpreted from primary sources, and may sometimes contain misunderstandings and biases.

So, do these official documents from that era exist with incomplete or biased interpretations? The answer is no. Especially the United Nations Declaration, which specifically emphasizes the status of the four countries and clearly marks them as the "Big Four." In this case, how can you have a biased understanding or come up with an original interpretation? The "Big Four" are directly listed in the signature. There is no room for original interpretation or biased understanding.

For Potsdam Declaration,indeed, there is no room for biased or original interpretation of the Potsdam Declaration. This is because the first sentence of the declaration clearly states: "We-the President of the United States, the President of the National Government of the Republic of China, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, representing the hundreds of millions of our countrymen, have conferred and agree that Japan shall be given an opportunity to end this war." This opening statement clearly defines the three countries involved in the declaration and their leaders.Specifically, directly list the US, the UK and China with no others.You can debate the rank of these three but cannot delete one of them. Therefore, any attempt to interpret or understand the Potsdam Declaration in a biased or original way would be unfounded and inaccurate. These primary sources are described in very precise language. The language used in these official documents is very clear and specific. The descriptions and expressions in these documents are very clear and leave no room for ambiguity. Lijing1989 (talk) 15:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Based on these, we can easily get the solution. Just put 5 principal countries in infobbox. Then set other countries as Other affiliated state combatants. We can solve this problem.@Zowayix001:Lijing1989 (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

That reflects the situation after the war, not during it. Whizz40 (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No,totally wrong. The United Nations Declaration was issued in January 1942, just two months after the United States entered the war. There was still more than three years until the end of the war. It is impossible to say that it was a response to the post-war situation. Let's take a look at what the United Nations Declaration is about. It states that no country can individually cease hostilities, and every government must use all resources to fight against the Axis powers.More specifically "(1) Each Government pledges itself to employ its full resources, military or economic, against those members of the Tripartite Pact and its adherents with which such government is at war.

(2) Each Government pledges itself to cooperate with the Governments signatory hereto and not to make a separate armistice or peace with the enemies." Is there any part mention of post-war in this? All the content is about the obligation to fight against the Axis powers at the current time.

Conclusion: There are still over three years until the end of the war. All of the content pertains to the obligations that must be fulfilled during the war. If you say that this reflects the post-war situation, then that is entirely your own original research.

By forcibly claiming that this was a post-war document, you are denying the content of the official document itself. This is already a distorted original research. Lijing1989 (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The Declaration by United Nations (or, more specifically, the Four Powers that signed it on January 1, 1942) reflected Roosevelt's vision of how things should shape up after the war; it didn't reflect the de facto situation during the war. This is why we need secondary sources, rather than debating the significance of the primary sources. Whizz40 (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

No.you are just totally wrong again. This was what Roosevelt hoped for initially. However, the document was released when the signing countries reached a consensus. There will always be controversy at any time and over any issue. The most important thing is to see whether the document is accepted when it is officially released. Even in this page, we have so many debates. How much more so for a war to be discussed. However, when the document is officially released, it has legal effect and is a legal effect that all signing countries must recognize. If you believe that this official document does not have legal effect in the signing countries, then you are treating the allied countries as if they have no contractual spirit like Nazi Germany.

Note that the initial idea is just an idea, and initial non-acceptance is just that - initial. But once the document is released, it announces the final conclusion by all signing countries to the whole world and becomes a legal document announced to the world

By saying this, you probably don't understand the legal effect. Let me give you an example. In the Paris Peace Conference, Italy was once regarded as a secondary country by the other three countries, and its demands were rejected, and Italy was excluded from the key issues. This led to Italy even withdraw from the conference. According to this argument, Italy cannot even be considered a major Allied country, but in the end, Italy still obtained the status of one of the four powers of World War I. Why is this? Because Italy returned to the conference in the final stage of the Paris Peace Conference and signed the Treaty of Versailles as one of the four powers. This official document determined Italy's position. Even though Italy was initially excluded by three countries and even left the Paris Peace Conference in the middle, the final treaty determined Italy's status.

Similarly, there is also Italy in World War II. Italy was only regarded as the most important Axis ally by Germany at the beginning.And only Germany, Japan never consider Italy as an important ally. Then this was just Germany's initial idea. As the war progressed, Italy's military contribution was very low, even lower than Romania's, and it withdrew from the war in 1943. However, the initial signing of the Axis Pact as an official document announced Italy's status as a major Axis power to the world in legal terms. So, in fact, Italy did not play a very important role in the war, and it was only recognized as an ally initially approved by Germany, but it was still considered a major Axis power.

Even check the secondary source, you will read many support as I said before. The Oxford Companion to World War II states China rather than the UK as being the main US ally in the Pacific. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945". Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. However, like I said before, there will always be controversy at any time and over any issue. The secondary source is also like this. You will see many different view. However, the primary source is the primary and will not be changed. The primary source material provides a clear and unambiguous description, and there is no controversy or dispute surrounding it. Additionally, the primary source material provides a direct and conclusive result.

Regardless of whether other countries initially accepted the four major powers' superior status, when they signed the United Nations Declaration, it represented their legal acceptance. When the document released, that means all the signing countries have declared to the world that they legally accept the superior status given to these countries in the documents. This is the result unanimously accepted by all signatory countries. Lijing1989 (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I had a similar thought process of this, and you summed it up perfectly. So yes, I agree. JellyGamery (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Sure, it's one opinion, but every editor can express another, and so can ChatGPT. The Declaration by United Nations was written by Roosevelt and Churchill and signed by all the others. It was largely based on documents Churchill's government had already signed with the other European Allies and with the Soviet Union, as well as the Atlantic Charter. They were collecting allies on paper, but that didn't change the political, military, scientific and industrial situation on the ground which were all dominated by the Grand Alliance of the big three countries. Whizz40 (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

My personal take is that we should really be looking at how these powers were viewed at the time. People back then didn't have the ability nor the reason to be looking who and who wasn't "principal." If the United States, Soviet Union, Republic of China, United Kingdom, and France are all decided to be the security council, we can infer it is for good reason. JellyGamery (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

After the war, yes, that was the deliberated outcome. But that grouping doesn't accurately reflect the situation during the war. Whizz40 (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

----------Sure, it's one opinion, but every editor can express another, and so can ChatGPT.

Yeah,everyone can express others and have opinions. But when reach the conclusion, you should not use your orginal research as the line to determine the results which is not acceptable. Opinions are the opinions but the original research is unacceptable. Then the official documents are the official which will be always the primary sources and will not be considered as the original research.

-------------------They were collecting allies on paper, but that didn't change the political, military, scientific and industrial situation on the ground which were all dominated by the Grand Alliance of the big three countries.

The Declaration by United Nations clearly required every countries cannot be individually cease the war and every government should use all sources to support the war. It claimed everyone's duty in the war. It cannot change the industry power but it can define which countries are the major allies recognized by all signatory countries Lijing1989 (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look to me like there is a consensus for this change. Whizz40 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Didn't you find it? All your conclusion which you reject the proposal are all based on what you think is. You think it is not true so you reject it by simply ignoring every primary sources without any own official sources.. Meanwhile, all my conclusion to support proposal are all based on the official documents that have been signed by over 20 countries and recognized by them. According to the rules of Wikipedia, what you are doing is called the original research which is not acceptable in wiki, while what I am doing is based on historical reference materials, the official materials.

If the reason for not reaching a consensus is because the dispute in different primary source, then it is acceptable. However,if the reason for not reaching a consensus is because is that someone simply disagrees by his own mind without any sources, regardless of the primary sources presented. He cannot refute the primary resources and also cannot find any loopholes in it.And are even unable to find any other official documents to deny the primary sources before. In this situation, he just deny the primary sources by his own opinions with his own original research. That means the only consensus can only achieve his own mind is satisfy no matter how many sources you offer. I think that is not acceptable in wiki. DO you think it's right? Lijing1989 (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@Lijing1989: when you are selectively pinging several users, it is called canvassing. This is strongly discouraged by our rules. I understand that, being a new user, you may be unaware of many Wikipedia rules, but, please, never do that in future.

@Whizz40: there is a big difference between "no consensus" and "I disagree". We are not voting here, that is against our rules.

I think I know how could we resolve the dispute. We need to answer the question if the borderline between the "Big Three" and other Allies is more evident and more obvious than the border between the 5th member of the group of five powers and the 6th power.

Let's assume Britain was least powerful and least important member of the Big Three, and let's assume China goes after her in the list (in other words, her rank is 4). And now let's assume France is 5th, and Poland (or Yugoslavia, or Canada) is 6th.

Now my question is if France (in terms of her military contributions and political importance was significantly more important than Poland, and if this difference was significantly greater than the difference between the UK and China?

In other words, is the Five powers a really more obvious group than the Big Three?

That is not an idle curiosity. If the difference between France and the 6th Ally in the list is less evident, we may find ourselves in a situation when someone will start arguing that, e.g. Poland should be added to the Principal Powers list, and so on and so forth.

In my opinion, the Big Three is an obvious group of principal powers, and the 4th power in the list was much less important and significant, both militarily and politically. That makes the Big Three a natural choice. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What all you talk about is all "Let's assume....Let's assume.... if this difference was significantly greater than the difference between the UK and China? In my opinion, the Big Three is an obvious group of principal powers, and the 4th power in the list was much less"

Did you find that? All you talk about are based on your own assume and you think what it is much less.If I say "no, I don't think it is much less", do you plan to argue with me by your own assume and definition? Then why do you think your own assume and definition should be considered above the official documents or even ignoring the official documents?

Then I don't really understand how can you get the conclusion that "4th power in the list was much less important and significant", through compare the distance between 5th France and 6th Poland? Even you are true which I doubt, you can only get the conclusion that the 5th in the list was less important not the 4th by that comparison, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lijing1989 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Moreover, based on your assume, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis.

Let's make things easier. Let me ask you some important questions? Are you an official documents? Are you a drafter of any official documents in ww2? No, then why I choose your assume above the official documents?

In the situation, the Declaration by United Nations defines the allied big four, why I select your assume not the official documents like Declaration by United Nations? I really don't understand that when there is an official documents like the Declaration by United Nations directly tell you these four countries are the big four, then we simply reject the documents and determine the conclusion by something like "I assume"

Tell me this at first Lijing1989 (talk) 22:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The borderline between 3rd and 4th is weaker than the borderline between 5th and 6th which is stronger; therefore we should use the 5th as the cutoff point. The reason the borderline between 3rd and 4th is weaker is because there exist formal groupings of both 3 and 4 (the Big Three and the Four Policemen), but there do not exist any formal groupings of 6.

In fact, there even exists an ordering where China is ahead of the Big Three: the ordering by number of troops committed. There is no ordering where a 6th place entity is ahead of any one of the Permanent Five.

Zowayix001 (talk) 09:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I would like to see your evidences. Concretely, I would see what criteria did you use. In my opinion, the difference between the UK and China is much more obvious than the difference between Poland and France. Thus,

• Britain was actively participating in several theatres of war, and she played a key role in several of them. Britain was a key participant of all important Allied meetings, and her political role was even greater than her military contribution. Britain played an important role in military defeat of Italy and Germany, and British troops invaded German territory in 1945. In contrast, China was fighting only in other theatre of war, and her military efforts were by no means successful. Japanese troops were not defeated in China until Japan surrendered in September 1945. You may also read the Churchill's opinion of China.
• France was a major player only during a very short period. After that, she surrendered and, despite neutrality of Vichy, France provided Germany with significant assistance, and even was engaged in hostilities against the Allies. The military contribution of Free France was by no means significant until late 1944. Poland was an active player at the very beginning of the war (about a month, like France), but Poland never surrendered. Poland never collaborated with Germany, and Polish underground troops, and especially Polish military in Italy and Eastern front (200,000 Polish troops participated in the Battle of Berlin), participation of Poles in breakage of Enigma, etc. makes Poland nearly as significant as France.

Therefore, I conclude that, whereas the borderline between 3th and 4th is pretty obvious, the borderline between 5th and 6th is virtually non-existing. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:From my first comments in this talk page, I feel like you don't want reply me anything and simply ignore my comments. When I posted my first long comment, I saw you were also commenting on the same topic at that time. This is the reason why I didn't @ you at that time. I thought you must see my comment at that time. However, you didn't reply to my comment, so I felt like you didn't want to respond to what I wrote.

Then this comment makes me feel even more like that. Because you seemed to have ignored my direct reply to you. In this situation, I don't know if I should write my response to you again and @ you. But you also said it's better not to @, so I'm confused.

Anyway, I decide to @ you and write again.

• Did you find that? All you talk about are based on your own assume and your personal standard.Then why do you think your own assume and definition should be considered above the official documents or even ignoring the official documents?
• Moreover, based on your assume, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis.
• The similar case is about the United States in World War 1. The US declared war in April 1917, and its main forces arrived on the European battlefield in May 1918. Germany would cease fire in November 1918, which means that the US only participated in the last six months of the 4 year 4 month war. However, the US is still considered a major belligerent in World War I. Why is that? It's because the Paris Peace Conference gave the US that status. This is about ww1 so I don't require you consider this. However, the Italy'case is absolutely the case of ww2 and Italy would not be a major Axis based on your method to determine the borderline.
• By the way, China also fight on Burma not only on theater.
• Then I don't really understand how can you get the conclusion that "4th power in the list was much less important and significant", through compare the distance between 5th France and 6th Poland? Even assume you are right in this comparison which I doubt, you can only get the conclusion that the 5th in the list was less important not the 4th by that comparison, right?
• As you see above, the judgment of whether a country is a major allied power should not be based on the editor's own standards. Everyone's standards are different, and this becomes a kind of original research that cannot be fair. The definition whether a country is a major allied should be based on whether it was recognized as such by the official documents at the time.
• In the situation, the Declaration by United Nations defines the allied big four, why I select your assume not the official documents like Declaration by United Nations? I really don't understand that when there is an official documents like the Declaration by United Nations and Potsdam Declaration directly tell you these four countries are the big four, then we simply reject the documents and determine the conclusion by something like "I assume" or some editor's own standard.

Lijing1989 (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I provided a link to WP:CANVASS, which contains clear instructions on correct usage of "@"s. It is quite ok to ping me, because I am already participating ion this discussion, and because your argument is a responce to my post. However, it would be unacceptable to selectively ping several users who (as you believe) may share your POV, whereas other users are left beyond teh scope.

WRT your question, official documents you are talking about are primary sources. Read WP:PSTS to learn when and how should these documents be used. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert:You did not answer my question here.

• The first question I asked you is about you used your own standard above the primary source. You are not currently comparing primary sources and secondary sources, but using your own set of standards to reject primary sources.
• The second is about the method you propose above to define the major. It has a big problem. Based on your method, can you tell me whether the military contribution gap between Germany and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland? If that, why Italy is a major Axis power while Romania or Finland not? Italy surrendered and withdrew from the war in 1943 which is two years before the end of war, never independently lead a battlefield, and provided little military assistance to the Axis powers. Romania fight until 1945. The military contribution gap between Germany or Japan and Italy is much more greater than the military contribution gap between Italy and Romania or Finland. So why Italy is a major not Romania or Finland? The answer is the Pact of Steel defined that. Based on your method, Italy is impossible to become a major Axis. This is one of the major questions but you never answered.
• Then the secondary sources are conflict with each others. However, the primary sources are consistent. When the primary sources like the Declaration by United Nations and Potsdam Declaration recognize the "Big Four " status, do you think that there is no secondary sources to prove that?c. Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. Even the secondary sources " America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace" by Plesch, Dan which Whizz40 use to reject the proposal has some support claim "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. The sources Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations". However, the source of Dan Plesch is not my secondary sources to support it. My secondary source are listed abover. You can find secondary source reject this but also I can find lots of secondary sources support this. From these, what I want to say it the secondary sources are conflict with each others because everyone has different views. I can find lots of secondary sources support the proposal either. However, the primary sources are consistent.

However, the primary sources were all support it.And the most important thing is can you answer my questions? Especially regarding the question about Italy, based on the your theory of military contribution gap. Lijing1989 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok.

• I do not insist on some specific standards. I proposed some criteria, and I applied them to make a "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th" comparison. If you disagree with these criteria, let's discuss it. And, yes, these criteria are not based on some specific source, because that type issues should be decided among us (per our policy).
• We are not discussing the Axis. The situation with the Axis was somewhat different. If you want to discuss the Axis, feel free to do it on The Axis talk page.
• It is ok that secondary sources disagree. WP:NPOV specifically addresses this type situations. I don't see any mention of four principal Allies in the Declaration by United Nations. In addition, Potsdam Declaration dealt specifically with one theatre of War (Pacific War). Yse, China was one of the major participants of this theatre, but it was not the whole war, just a part of it.

Paul Siebert (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Answer one by one:

• ------------------------I applied them to make a "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th" comparison. If you disagree with these criteria, let's discuss it.

I am not agree or disagree here. I just say it is logic error. "3rd vs 4th" and "5th vs 6th", then you tell me the gap between "3rd vs 4th" is much larger than gap between "5th vs 6th". And get conclusion the fourth should be out? Don't you find it is logic mistake? When you find the gap between 5th v 6th is too small comparing 3rd v 4th. That just means 5th is out based on your logic.However, you get conclusion that 4th is out. Don't you think it is logic error? And personally I think 5 v 6 has big gap so I doubt your claim but at first you should correct your logic mistake.

• ------------------------We are not discussing the Axis. The situation with the Axis was somewhat different.

Axis is different. Wow, interesting. You know we talk about the same war, right? You even ask others "all important events involve the three Axis and the three Allied powers." in this discussion. I don't need to discuss the Axis. I mean, when you find that your criteria and methods of judgment are completely inapplicable to the other side （the Axis） of the same war, why do you think your methods are correct in this side(the Allies)? We are not discussing the Axis but discussing whether you method to determine the major player is a fair and appropriate approach. Then we find your method is even inapplicable in the other side of the same war and inapplicable in every war including Word War 1, Napoleonic Wars and so on. That means you invented a method of distinction specifically for this proposal, which is not suitable for any war, just to achieve your proposal. Do you think it is convincing?

• -------------------------It is ok that secondary sources disagree.

Based on your link, I don't see any rejection my sources here. It seems you should list both claim from each sources in this situation. Based on this claim, shouldn't we add China and France to the the infobox list to include all sources' claim. I didn't see any sources put Poland as a major so 5 countries will include all sources. Then the Declaration by United Nations signed on 1 January 1942 by four countries "the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China". Then next day (2 January 1942 ), 22 countries add their signature. I think you should know what does the "add their signature" means. That means, the Declaration by United Nations was original only signed by just four countries (On others). Others add their signature after the declaration signed. Right? By the way, every countries signed the declaration by alphabet order except that four contries. Maybe this still may not be acceptable to you. Since it is the Declaration of the United Nations, let me give you the wording from the official United Nations to describe this declaration "twenty-six States at war with the Axis Powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), subscribed to the common"[3] Specifically emphasize these four countries and leave out others.

You say Potsdam declaration is about pacific theater. Then what do you think about"JOINT FOUR-NATION DECLARATION" signed by the Soviet Union, the United States, China and the Unite Kingdom? Do you think it is still a documents just for pacific theater? [4] "1. That their united action, pledged for the prosecution of the war against their respective enemies, will be continued for the organization and maintenance of peace and security.

2. That those of them at war with a common enemy will act together in all matters relating to the surrender and disarmament of that enemy.

3. That they will take all measures deemed by them to be necessary to provide against any violation of the terms imposed upon the enemy"

It is impossible a document only about pacific, right?

Don't tell me something like it is a post-war document. It signed on 1943 which the war still have two years. The problem is there are two many official documents to emphasize the "Big Four". Even you claim dismiss one or two of them by reason like "this is for pacific theater", we can easily find another official document which acknowledged the big four Lijing1989 (talk) 22:24, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• "Don't you think it is logic error?" I think you don't understand what I am writing. If a difference between n-th and (n+1)th member of some sequence is much bigger than the difference between m-th and (m+1)th ones, the former is a more natural threshold for inclusion.
• "Axis is different." Yes, it is different. It has its own article, and that article is organized according another set of sources.
• You again are speculating based on various official documents and treaties.

Paul Siebert (talk) 23:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Answer one by one.

• -------------------I think you don't understand what I am writing. If a difference between n-th and (n+1)th member of some sequence is much bigger than the difference between m-th and (m+1)th ones,

No.I understand what you are writing and find it's logic error. That means your writing cannot get your conclusion. From what you said, even assume you are right, I can only get the 5th should be out of the list not the 4th China. If the difference between 3rd v 4th is much larger than 5th v 6th, you can only get the conclusion to remove 5th. For the 4th, you should compare the gap between 3rd v 4th and the gap between 4th v 5th which you never did before. That is why I emphasize your logic error. Because based on your logic (or derivation process depend on how you define), the only conclusion is we should remove the 5th and it is nothing to do with the 4th. So tell me how did you remove the 4th from the list.

• -------------------Yes, it is different. It has its own article, and that article is organized according another set of sources.

You really don't understand what I am writing. It is not about which article and sources. It is to determine whether your statement, method or borderline is persuadable to research a consensus to solve this problem. From your statement, you're just immersed in your own world and don't want to persuade others. If you want others to accept your statement or borderline, you must prove your method or borderline applicable and reasonable so that you can persuade us to achieve consensus. But now, it seems you don't want to persuade us your method is reasonable to achieve consensus and just force us to accept your method or borderline.

Why do I make example of Italy. It is because it proves your statement and the way to make borderline is unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic. It is even not applicable or reasonable in this World War 2 topic. And How can you persuade others to accept such an unreasonable way to make borderline (As I proved above, this way is unreasonable in every war topic)? If your statement is such unreasonable and is not convincing, how can you make other reach the consensus? Hence, I said you invented a personal method to determine the borderline just for this proposal, which is not suitable for any war, just to achieve your proposal and force others to accept without any reason. Moreover, if you method to determine the borderline is unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic, don't you think your borderline is totally your personal original research which is not accept in wiki

• -------------------You again are speculating based on various official documents and treaties.

You doubt the United Nations Declaration, so let I explain how the United Nations Declaration defines the Big Four.

You doubt the Potsdam Declaration is only about pacific so I tell you there are JOINT FOUR-NATION DECLARATION and so many other official documents.

What I do is just answer your question. If you don't doubt these official documents, I will not waste time to list these documents again. Ok, if you want some new conclusions. then the conclusions is secondary sources conflict each others and the primary sources are consistent. And all official documents recognize the Big Four. I really don't want list them if you don't doubt or ask me these. Even For the secondary source, I have list a tons. Do I need to repeat it again?

"""Rana Mitter stated that China was "one of the four principle wartime Allies, alongside the US, Russia and Britain" in "China's War with Japan 1937-1945" Peter Harmsen's "Japan Runs Wild, 1942–1943" and "Asian Armageddon, 1944–45" (War in the Far East Book series) also claimed China was among the four major allies. Then similarity is Richard B. Frank's "Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War: July 1937-May 1942" take the same conclusion and claimed China was the central for allies' strategy in Pacific area. Even the secondary sources " America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace" by Plesch, Dan which Whizz40 use to reject the proposal has some support claim "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. The sources Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations"" The Cambridge History of the Second World War Volume 2: Politics and Ideology explained why the Allies defeated the Axis, stating like "As historians has long understood, Germany, Japan and Italy were economic featherweights compared to the industrial might and human resources of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the United States and China" The Cambridge History of the Second World War is another secondary source to support the proposal"If you want, I can list much more sources.

By the way, the sources I list are even newer than other sources in this discussion. Their publish time are closer to now. That means the sources I have used are more in line with current research.

All by all, when all the primary official documents support the proposal and many secondary sources also support, why do we use your method which are proved unreasonable and inapplicable for every war topic to determine the borderline instead of these official documents? Moreover, your method can be considered as an original researchLijing1989 (talk) 09:13, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether I need to @ the editor I replied. I don't know whether you read my reply so I @Paul Siebert you Lijing1989 (talk) 06:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

• When we using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, our conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence.
• And you don't understand what I am writing. This article and "The Axis" article may be organized differently, and Wikipedia is not a source for itself. (per our policy).
• The question if not if the term "Big Four" ("Four Policemen") is used by secondary sources, but if this concept is more notable than the Big Three. I checked, the latter is found more frequently in recent literature.

Paul Siebert (talk) 14:17, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Reply one by one:

• ---------------When we using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, our conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence.

No that is not logic. If conclusions are equally applicable to any member of the sequence by using an "n-th"/"m-th" notation, then you can also claim the 3rd British is applicable in this sequence which can also be out of this list by that logic.

Assume you are right which I doubt. Your only compare the gap between 3rd v 4th and 5th v 6th and never compare the gap between 4th v 5th and 5th v 6th so you can only get the 5th is out from your conclusion. If you want to remove 4th in the list, you should at first compare the gap between 4th v 5th and 5th v 6th.That is the basic logic.

• -------------------------And you don't understand what I am writing. This article and "The Axis" article may be organized differently, and Wikipedia is not a source for itself. (per our policy).

It seems there is huge difficult for you to understand others' reply. Please don't deliberately distort my statements again. You misrepresent my statements too many times.

Let me talk to you again. I am not talking about the Axis article. I am talking about whether your method to determine the borderline is appropriate and reasonable. You propose a method to determine the info borderline. The method is totally invented by you not even wiki itself. You even state like "I think I know how could we resolve the dispute. . We need to answer the question......" This paragraph you proposed a your own method and tried to use this method to persuade us. What I think is if your method is appropriate and reasonable, then we can accept and the dispute is solved. Because this method is not even a wiki method nor from any sources. Then I checked the methods and find it is not appropriate in any war article not only wiki article but also not appropriate in any historic source. The axis article is just what I use to prove your personal method is really not appropriate. You said "Wikipedia is not a source for itself." The problem is your method is not a source either, and is even a original research by you which is not appropriate in any article both wiki and historical secondary or primary sources.

• ---------------------The question if not if the term "Big Four" ("Four Policemen") is used by secondary sources, but if this concept is more notable

The problem is big four is also notable. France as major is also notable. The primary sources are consistent support this claim and lots of secondary sources support it which make it also notable. I even check two sources of Whizz40 offered to reject the proposal but both two support the big four. Lijing1989 (talk) 17:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I wonder whether I need to @the editor when I reply his comments. @Paul Siebert Lijing1989 (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert As I said below, I wrote long reply to you and please don't ignore them. And we continue here so we will not mix and make the discussion more confusing. I don't want to spend long time to write this long reply again. Lijing1989 (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Before we continue, try to re-read my previous replies. They already contain all answers to your questions. It seems you do not understand what I am saying. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I have the same feeling as you, but in the totally opposite direction. In fact, I have carefully read all your responses and answered all your questions and viewpoints one by one. However, I feel like you completely misunderstood my responses or maybe ignored them, and jumped to another totally different topic. Then I have no choice but replied the new topic you jumped. Then again, you repeated this process，misunderstood or ignored my reply and jumped to a new topic again. Every time I replied to one of your viewpoints, you ignored my response and jumped directly to the next topic, causing the entire discussion to constantly jump from one topic to another.

Considering that this is a kind of wasting energy,after thinking about it, I decided that we should solve one problem at a time based on your viewpoint, then continue to the next problem of your viewpoint, until all problem are discussed thoroughly，in order to avoid wasting energy.

First, we need to discuss your first viewpoint, which is the method you invented to judge the borderline of major allies. We need to determine whether it is reasonable, appropriate, and applicable for discussion on Wikipedia. This method can be considered your original research, and if you want to convince other editors using this method, it must be reasonable and appropriate.

Then your method is based on the military contribution. More specifically, compare the military contribution gap between 3rd/4th and the gap 5th/6th to decide the borderline. However, this method at first is your personal method which is not support by any research. It can be considered as a original research. Then moreover, it is not appropriate in any wiki war article. As I said above, by this method, the major axis would not have Italy and the major allies of world war 1 would not have the United States. Note, we are not talking about whether another wiki article can be source of wiki,which it is definitely not,we are talking about whether your personal method which is an original research is accepted as a borderline in wiki. Actually, I don't need to make any example like Italy and just simply tell you that your method is an original research and is not acceptable by wiki. However, I want to have more friendly, rational, and persuasive discussions so I tried to tell you why your method is not acceptable， where it is not appropriate.And that is the reason I make an example of Italy. However, you simply ignored these just jumped to the topic that whether a wiki article can be a source of wiki which is totally not what I am talking about. If you will always jumped topic like I mentioned above, then I will give up to make an example or use a appropriate way to tell why your method is unreasonable, and simply tell you that your method is your personal research which is not acceptable.

By the way, you just compare the gap between 3rd/4th and 5th/6th to remove 4th is unreasonable and a logic error. If you want to remove 4th, you should compare the gap between 3rd/4th and 4th/5th which you never did.

This is your first viewpoint. If you accept your method is not appropriate, then we can continue to your next point. Or you can explain your method more detailed and tell me why it is reasonable. Lijing1989 (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should focus on one problem first.

I disagree with your argument about original research. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, so your point is irrelevant.

Your reference to Italy and to the Axis in general is irrelevant either, because the Axis is a more simple and straightforward case: it is broadly accepted that the primary Axis members were the three powers: Italy, Germany and Japan, which formalized their relationships initially in the Pact of Steel and Anti-Comintern pact, and later in a full scale military alliance. Therefore, we don't need any additional criteria.

The situation with the Allies is much more complicated (I am not going to reproduce all what has already been said on that account, just look at previous discussions here and on the WWII talk page). Unlike the Axis, which was some formal alliance between the three major powers, which was joined later by some other minor members (Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and few others, and by Finland, which signed a treaty with Germany only), the Allies was not an alliance between few core powers, which was joined later by other states. In reality, the full scale alliance ("United Nations") was formalized long after the main Allies became involved in full scale hostilities against the Axis, and it included almost all Allies.

That makes the situation different from the situation with the Axis, and that is why we need to develop/choose some approach to select the core Allies.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I am not happy with the current state of the infobox. As I already proposed, the infobox should be a ranked list of Allies. The Big Three should go first (in a chronological order, similar to what we have now), followed by China, France (The Third Republic + Free France), Poland etc. I don't support the idea to keep the Allies with government in exile as a separate category (a footnote would be sufficient).

However, although China should be at the 4th position, the Big Three must be kept. There are several additional arguments in support of that, but I would prefer to discuss it later.

I am currently busy, so I am not sure I will be able to respond before 12th of June. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Have time to come back to reply.

Reply one by one:

------------------------I disagree with your argument about original research. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages, so your point is irrelevant.

Totally wrong. WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages but the problem is now you want to apply your borderline in infobox. That means even you discussed with us about your borderline in talk page but at last you plan to apply them in infobox which is the article page.. The infobox is obviously not a talk page. Therefore, your personal method to define the borderline of the major allied countries is a form of original research. Or if you just discussed your borderline in this talk page, and regardless of the outcome of the discussion, you will never apply your borderline in infobox. Then, in this situation, we can acknowledge the original research you have conducted in talk page which does not obey the wiki rule. Otherwise, if you apply the your borderline in infobox, then what I said original research is relevant and WP:NOR applies. '

However, I personally don't want to reject someone's borderline because of original research. I think if the borderline is reasonable or appropriate, then we may accept. However, as I said by making example of Italy, your method is definitely not appropriate

-------------------------------------Your reference to Italy and to the Axis in general is irrelevant either, because the Axis is a more simple and straightforward case: it is broadly accepted that the primary Axis members were the three

Totally wrong again. You misunderstand what I said before again. As I said many times before, the reason why I make an example of the Axis power is because you want to apply your original research in infobox of the article. And I don't want to deny your method just because the original research. I think if your method is appropriate, the we can accept. But the problem is your method is not appropriate in every wiki war article. It is just a method you invented for this discussion.

Let me check what you said here "the Axis is a more simple and straightforward case: it is broadly accepted that the primary Axis members were the three powers: Italy, Germany and Japan, which formalized their relationships initially in the Pact of Steel and Anti-Comintern pact, and later in a full scale military alliance. Therefore, we don't need any additional criteria."

But the problem is the primary Allied power members were also simply defined by pact, documents and declarations just like the Axis power. The French case is more complicate. Let me use China as a simple example. You said "Italy, Germany and Japan, which formalized their relationships initially in the Pact of Steel and Anti-Comintern pact" but China as the "Big Four" is also initially in the Declaration by United Nations ,JOINT FOUR-NATION DECLARATION and Potsdam Declaration. It is the same as Pact of Steel and Anti-Comintern pact defining the major Axis. Based on your statement about the Axis power, we can also say "we don't need any additional criteria" and just simply put China in the primary Allied powers. However, now you want to use the method you invented which can be defined as an original research to apply in infobox (not only talk page) instead of these pacts. The Allied is not more complex than the Axis. There are also many documents, pact to define the primary just like the Axis but you just want to ignore these which is the real problem.

------------------------Just to avoid misunderstanding, I am not happy with the current state of the infobox. As I already proposed, the infobox should be a ranked list of Allies. The Big Three should go first (in a chronological order, similar to what we have now), followed by China, France

I don't know why you rank the allied power like this. You define the major allied by military contribution and rank every other countries by military contribution but when you rank the big three, you choose the chronological order. We should use the same criteria in one article. I don't know why we should use double standard here. It seems you just want to find a way to put the Britain first because you know the Soviet will rank higher based on military contribution.The United States is higher either. Hence, you choose to use chronological order in big three and military contribution in others. That means you simply want Britain to come first.

Lijing1989 (talk) 08:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

@Zowayix001:I can accept your borderline. There are lots of official documents that recognize China as one of the Big Four. Then there are two official documents that recognize France as one of major. Hence, Based on these official documents, I support this borderline. Lijing1989 (talk) 20:23, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I support adding China but not support adding France. in fact, "Big Four" or "Four Policeman", which is China, UK, US and USSR is a common concept of WWII history. You can read all the related content just here, on Wiki. China was in the first four countries to sign on Japanese instrument of surrender（other countries signed in alphabetical order） and was the first country to sign on United Nations Charter to memorize it's the first country to join the war. Jaimnk (talk) 13:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Some sources:

• "With the text [of the Declaration by United Nations] finalized by the Big Three, the Chinese were invited to sign, and then the other Allies."
• "Although many factors manifestly contributed to the ultimately victory, not least the Soviet Union's joining of the coalition, the coalition partners [Britain and the United States'] ability to orchestrate their efforts and coordinate the many elements of modern warfare successfully must rank high in any assessment."
• "In World War II, the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—formed a Grand Alliance that was the key to victory."

We need to rely on secondary sources for the significance of primary sources and due weight in the articles. Whizz40 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

You said you needed to rely on secondary sources you offered so I think you believe the source you listed right? But it seems you did not read your sources carefully. If you really read them, you will not reject the proposal. The sources you listed itself support the proposal here.

Let me see what your sources talked about.

• --------------------------------------------------In World War II, the three great Allied powers—Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet Union—formed a Grand Alliance

This claim is from the sources The National WWII Museum New Orleans. But this sentences is from big three in the this source and you probably only search the big three in the National WWII Museum New Orleans. However, the Big three is big three. Principal Allied is principal allied. They are not equal. The main Allied powers are not only the Big Three, but also include countries beyond the Big Three which at least the source you offered from the National WWII Museum New Orleans believed.

Let me check how National WWII Museum New Orleans, which you listed as the sources and believed, defined the main allied powers.

"The main Allied powers were Great Britain, The United States, China, and the Soviet Union. ......... The main Axis powers were Germany, Japan and Italy."

This is not my source even though I have lots of both secondary and primary sources to support the proposal but I think you probably not like others' sources so I choose to directly copy your source (not representing but directly copy one by one). The similar source will include Encyclopædia Britannic which add both China and France as the main allied powers stating "The principal members of the Allies were the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, and China (the “Big Four”), as well as France while it was unoccupied. "

• --------------------With the text [of the Declaration by United Nations] finalized by the Big Three, the Chinese were invited to sign, and then the other Allies

This is another source you offered and believed. This claim is from the book "America, Hitler and the UN: How the Allies Won World War II and Forged a Peace". But again, probably you did not read much about the book. Let me check how this book defined the allied strategy. It claimed "The previous day, they had been preparing an international political that would unite them with Soviet Union,China and many other nations as possible against the Axis powers led by Germany, Italy and Japan". This describe how the Declaration by United Nations was drafted which to unite them (UK and US) with the Soviet Union and China, group them and separate with "other nations" in this book. When the book described the United Nations, it claimed ""It was at this meeting that the four powers -Britain, China, the Soviet Union and the USA - formally proposed that the United Nations alliance create global security organization""Then this book describe the grand strategy of Allied powers, it claimed "He needed to plan with Roosevelt how to win the war in coordinate with Stalin, Chiang Kai-shek, the Chinese leader and smaller nations" "He". here refer Churchill. Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, and Chiang Kai-shek are deliberately distinguished from other "smaller nations" in this book. This book also claimed "

You said you relied on the secondary sources and your secondary sources all support the big four including China as the main allied powers. I don't even need to list my sources because your sources support too.

Actually, I personally can list a tons secondary sources which support China and France as main allied. The books writing by Richard B. Frank, Rana Mitter, Peter Harmsen and Spencer C. Tucker all support the big four (the UK, the Soviet Union, the US and China) as the main allied powers. Then "The Cambridge History of the Second World War. Volume 1, Fighting the War" even list both China and France as the main allied powers. The Cambridge History of the Second World War Volume 2: Politics and Ideology explained why the Allies defeated the Axis, stating like "As historians has long understood, Germany, Japan and Italy were economic featherweights compared to the industrial might and human resources of the British Empire, the Soviet Union, the United States and China"Lijing1989 (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The question is not if there are sources that name China or France as the main Allied powers. The question is how many sources say otherwise. If you look at this (I deliberately made the scope wide, because some sources, mostly American, use "world war II", whereas others, mostly British, prefer "Second World War", so by selecting "World War II" you get a biased sample), you may find that some sources list USA, UK, USSR and France (but not China), some sources list USA, UK, USSR and China (but not France), some sources explicitly separate China from the main allied powers (e.g. " this seeming affinity between the KMT and the main Allied powers"), but there is one invariant in all sources: the Big Three. No sources exist that exclude the US, the UK, and the USSR from the list of the main Allied powers. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph is my response to Whizz40. I have a specific reply to your comment and I even mentioned you by @ in that reply. Can you please reply there instead of making the discussion more confusing? Can we not mix the discussion between you and me with the discussion between Whizz40 and me together? It will make this discussion even more confusing. Moreover, when you mix the discussion between you and me with the discussion between Whizz40 and me, you completely ignore my long reply to you, and this wastes the time I spent writing the reply. It will make us even harder to reach a consensus and will only make the discussion more confusing. Let's take it step by step, clarify one topic, and then move on to another. The core of disagreement between I and you is about whether your way or the method your proposal of judging the major allies is reasonable and appropriate. As for the secondary sources, that was a disagreement between me and Whizz40, Here is the discussion I will do to whizz40. Once I have resolved this disagreement with him, I will naturally turn back to you to continue this problem. For our discussion, please continue in that place and don\t ignore my reply to you. Actually, I have already answered your points and questions that your concern and write here in that long reply to you where I @ you above. If you did not ignore them and jumped directly here, that is what you should have seen. .

I will @you again in that reply and please continue our discussion in that place where I replied you specifically. Moreover, don't ignore my comments replied you again. Do you know how long it took me to write that reply to you? Please respect my reply and time to write the reply. Lijing1989 (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Its time for an RFC, with short simple statements laying out the arguments. Slatersteven (talk) 08:21, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is the only way we're going to agree on something. JellyGamery (talk) 22:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's think about the RfC, but this RfC should include at least two new versions of the infobox, so the choice should be between three options:

• The Current version;
• The current version where China and France are added to the Big Three;
• The version where the Big Three goes first (in a chronological order, similar to what we have now), followed by China, France (The Third Republic + Free France), Poland, and all Allies. The link should be ranked, so the Allies that made greater contribution into the war (like Poland, Canada or Yugopolavia) should be closer to the top. In this version, it should be no separate section for the Allies with government in exile (a footnote would be sufficient), but the former the Axis powers should be grouped together as they are in the current version.

I am busy right not, so I am not sure I'll be able to respond until 12th of June. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

After considering the above discussion I've changed my mind on this. I now think that the least controversial, most historically accurate, and most supported distinction in the reliable sources is that between the Big Three and "other" allies. I therefore would support a rearrangement of the info box between "The Big Three", "Other Allied Powers" and "Former Axis Powers". I also think that any attempt to put the members of the three sub-categories into an order based on the date they "joined" the allies or the alleged importance of their contribution in defeating the Axis is too subjective and open to endless disputes about dates, who declared war on whom, and relative contributions to a "total war". I would therefore propose that the three subcategories of allies (Big Three, Other Allies, Former Axis Powers) should be presented in alphabetical order which is the most neutral method of ordering lists in English.

It will be hard to put this in a simple RfC, but I would suggest 2 questions:

1) "Should the 'Big Three' in the info box be replaced with five 'Principal Allied Powers' (UK, France, Soviet Union, United States and China).

2) Should the other Allied powers be placed in alphabetical order, with former Axis powers separately listed in alphabetical order. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The current discussion is whether or not to include China and France as Principal Allied Powers, so there should be two options: add them or not. However, Paul presented three versions, which gave me the impression of trying to find a compromise. I don't like this approach because people tend to choose compromises when faced with choices, which may lead to avoiding the essence of the issue. Secondly, if the issue must be made more options as compromises , there should be more new versions rather than just three versions.

Specifically, if you don't just discuss whether or not to add China and France to the main allies as it is currently presented, then you should list all possible versions. That would be five versions, rather than just three. That means two versions beyond the three presented by Paul.

• The current version where China are added (Big Four)
• The current version where France are added

Hence, totally five versions:

• The current version;
• The current version where China and France are added to the Big Three;
• The version where the Big Three goes first (in a chronological order, similar to what we have now), followed by China, France
• The current version where China are added (Big Four)
• The current version where France are added

But I don't like this way. I am afraid it may create more versions beyond this 5. I suggest that we only discuss whether to add China and France, simply two versions to choose.

For the question of Aemilius, I think should add China and France as Principal Allied Powers. All primary sources support China as the main ally, with two primary sources supporting France as the main ally. Most secondary sources also support China as the main ally, with some secondary sources supporting France as the main ally. However, you cannot find any sources that support the idea of Poland or Canada as the main ally. Therefore, adding China and France would not create any controversy with Poland and Canada. We should include all viewpoint as much as possible, rather than exclude them because of some sources. If we were to exclude some countries because of some sources, then there are even two Japanese sources that exclude the UK as a major power and only include the Soviet Union and the United States as the main allies. For example, in articles World War I, some sources refer to the "Big Three," while others mention the "Big Four." However, when it comes to determine the main Allied powers, Italy is still included as a major power. It is not excluded with some sources only recognize the "Big Three."

By the way, I have a big debate with Paul above and I will reply later. Like Paul, I am also busy and cannot respond immediately. Lijing1989 (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

How do we continue and solve this dispute? RFC?Lijing1989 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I would propose an RFC. JellyGamery (talk) 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Anybody do the RfC now? Lijing1989 (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• I hope there will be no RfC in our future on this non-issue. Every trivially somber assessment of extant sources shows quite clearly that the military contribution of France and China to the Allied victory in World War II was relatively negligible - and I'm choosing my words carefully. France could deploy troops only in an auxiliary status in the theatres Frenchmen were involved; the fact that France suffered abt 100 thousand dead during its battle against invading Germany in the year 1940 and about half of that figure during the rest of the war speaks for itself. As to the contribution of Chinese nationalist and communist forces to Allied victory in Asia and the Pacific, it was quite bloody but the war was won primarily by the Americans and secondarily, at a distance, by the USSR. An RfC would truly be a waste of time. -The Gnome (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  China contributed far more than France. France was said to have the most powerful army in the world, and collapsed in 6 weeks. This greatly boosted Germany's confidence and it then invaded the Soviet Union.

  Now imagine if like in China, France instead had had Germany bogged down like in a WW1 scenario. A Germany stuck in France for years and suffering millions of casualties would have been unable to attack the Soviet Union and the war would then have a very different trajectory.

  Similarly, if China had collapsed rapidly in 1937-39, and the Japanese army had had the same triumph the Germans had in 1940, would it not be more likely to attack Soviet Union during Barbarossa? How would the war look like then? When Japan did the lightning offense in late 1941 in South East Asia, they achieved stunning victory over the British, American and other Allied troops with fewer than 200k troops in total, while around 800k were stuck in China.

  This continuous dismissal of the Chinese war effort in WW2 is no longer just sheer Western arrogance, ignorance and racism, but has now reached the realm of absurdity.

  I support including China as one of the principal Allied powers. AlanHubert677 (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I support a RFC. As it would lead to a clear decision, it could not be a waste of time. The Banner talk 10:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I mean, france did own a part of Germany at the end of the war, and ROC did own Taiwan before making it their home Hewwoh (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps we can't add france, but perhaps we can add China, because as it says in the main WW2 page, one of the main allied leaders is Ciang Kai Shek, and on this page if we look at the actual writing itself, we can see the Big Four contianing, United States, United Kingdom Soviet Union and China, there was even a Frank Capra "Why We Fight" documentary called "The Battle of China. So none the less I'd say it's safe to say that China is a part of the big four that formed after 1941.--Heiyoboi (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes I agree. 2407:7000:8885:9F00:4C0E:6F9C:6A06:6CD3 (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we can add both China and France 36.229.107.225 (talk) 07:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What I mean is that France was already gobbled up when the USA joined the war, There is Free France, but that orginization resided in Britain, China didn't yet have all of their land gobbled up by the Japanese, China is actually considered one of the Big Four aka "Four Policemen" Ciang Kai Shek did go into the Cairo Conference with FDR and Winston Churchill 2600:1700:3680:8B70:9D75:3671:1435:D6B8 (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I suggest add both France and China. 110.49.32.19 (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I support just adding China here.. KoratAnongBoonchom (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment - This discussion has died down but I agree with Paul Siebert - people are trying to decide based on who they think *deserves* to be listed as a leaving Allied state rather than going with *what reliable sources say*. If you look at what reliable sources say, they always list the Big Three in the leading countries, but less often France/China. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

References