Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

"Combatant states"

Why are we describing states as "combatant states" that never actually fought in the war? For example, as far as I am aware Paraguayan forces never actually took part in combat against the Axis. Was Saudi Arabia really a "state combatant", when, as far as can be seen from the sources, Saudi Arabian forces never engaged in combat? Is there a reliable source that describes them all as such?

It would be better simply to define them as members of the Allies. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone recently added a large number of states to the info box. The entire article is a poorly sourced mess but most people are only interested in the info box. If it were up to me I would list only The British Empire, France, the Soviet Union, the USA and China in the info box (as the major allies) because the info box is only supposed to record key information. A table of other allies should be in the article with proper sourcing and explanations because complicated information should be in the article not the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue here (I suspect) is the section labeled (in the body) "Combatant states", which may need renaming. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's an issue both in the body-text and the infobox. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I think finding a good name for the section might be a bit of a challenge. As far as I can see, we have fighting states, non-fighting states that supported the Allies and declared war, non-fighting states that supported the Allies and non-fighting states that declared war to gain access to the United Nations. Roughly, at least. The Banner talk 12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd look at what reliable sources use to describe them. "Big Three" is a well-known descriptor for the three largest allied powers, but for the rest of them it looks like descriptors that were invented by editors themselves. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the map

We've discussed this over on the Axis page, and it's also true here: the map is quite problematic. Vichy France is included on it but its status is not clear. The Baltic states are included despite, again, their role in WW2 not being somewhat disputable (they were invaded and annexed by the USSR under the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty in 1940 - not clear to me how you define that on a scale from "Allies" to "Axis" when they weren't independent states when Operation Barbarossa started!). The zone of India invaded by the Japanese is included as a "state" of sorts, again, something that is pretty disputable. Yugoslavia is, in contrast to France, shown as a single state without any borders being shown within it.

I honestly don't think this is something that can be fixed in a single map in the infobox. It is far too complicated, and requires taking decisions on controversial issues in a way that fails NPOV. If a map is necessary, it might make sense to show the allied membership and territorial extent at a particular point in time. However, a photograph demonstrating Allied membership (e.g., the "United for Victory" poster) might work better (EDIT: I've now boldly made this edit, if you object please WP:BRD).

I have to say, this page also seems to suffer from a "Paradox game outlook", where countries are assembled under different headings under what strategy-game-rules would make them, rather than what reliable sources actually say about them. For example, Iraq is listed under "Co-belligerents (former Axis powers)", but no source describes it as having ever been an Axis power per se - the Rashid government fought against the UK briefly but no formal alliance was ever concluded. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand while Pearl Harbor is a treshold here; seems the only purpose is to color SU with dark green and USA with light green. It gives the false impression, because SU was an ally of Nazi Germany, while USA supported allies since 1939. Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

It's arbitrarily selected and reflects a certain POV (essentially that WW2 started in earnest with Pearl Harbour). Another reason to deprecate the map. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The issue may just be too complex for a map. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Given to agree. This is highlighted particularly by the use of different-coloured diamond/circle symbols on some countries to convey information about them that 100% aren't going to be visible on even the largest monitor screen - just too complex a topic to try to communicate graphically, and too much information just for the infobox. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)