Talk:World War II/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

ANI notification

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Continued tendentious editing by User:Communicat despite warnings and blocks which concerns, to a large degree, discussions on this talk page over the last few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I filed a request for abritration a week ago and about 24 hours before Nick-D started his own attempt to have me blocked, which has so far proved unsuccessful. Nick-D was subsequently added as a party to my Arbcom application. My application is still under consideration by Arbcom. Communicat (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

The U.S. in action

The U.S. and Britain were great allies, Russia included. France, Belgiam, Poland, Denmark, and many more allied countries were overrun, and could only help with their resistence units. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sup1234567890000 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Not true. There were a number of military units operating from Britain from the overrun countries. Free French Forces, Polish Independent Highland Brigade, Sikorski's Army, etc. Rmhermen (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Belligerents list

First, shouldn't Vichy France be included on the axis side? Secondly, many (though not all) historians hold a contested view that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allies 1939-1941 (as it happens British troops were just about to fight against the Soviets in the Winter War) and I'd motion the Soviet Union should be added to the axis-alligned list as well, with a clear explanatory note saying that they were aligned 1939-1941 only. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Re First. No. This puppet state was formally (and actually) neutral, no war were declared by Vichy France on any Ally.

Re Second. No. This is hardly a majority view (see, e.g., the works of Haslam). The tensions were great between the UK and the USSR in 1939-40, however, neither Britain nor France considered the USSR as the real German ally. In addition, the USSR remained neutral during 1939-beginning 1941 (the Winter War was a conflict separate from the WWII proper). In addition, following your logic, the USSR should be listed as Axis-aligned until August 1945, because the USSR and Japan (the Axis member) had a neutrality pact that was similar to the pact between Germany and the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your opinion, which I value. First off, consensus seems to be that the Vichy regime participated in the Holocaust, which was a Nazi war crime and hardly the action of a neutral power. It doesn't seem right to put the Vichy fascists in the same bracket as say neutral Sweden. In terms of war fighting, there was no Vichy neutrality recognised by the British at the Destruction of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir and the Battle of Dakar. Second, I am not sure how we are going to measure 'majority view'. Some historians describe the USSR as a co-belligerent to the Nazis 1939-1941. Both Timothy Snyder and Laurence Rees go much further and term the USSR a Nazi "ally" 1939-1941, not least because of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the subsequent Soviet invasion of Poland and Soviet supplies of war material to Nazi Germany 1939-1941. I am not sure who can assert what is the majority, or the consensus among reliable sources. I happen not to subscribe to the "ally" view myself, but an encyclopaedia should mention that some significant scholarship has identified the Nazi-Soviet Pact as a de facto alliance. I don't quite buy the Japan point - if the Soviets partitioned Korea with Japan then yes I would concede it; but the Nazi-Soviet Pact was different, it was not an arms-length relationship, it involved joined-up thinking and hot wars. As I say, a think a clear cautionary note would be appropriate next to the Red Flag 1939-1941 in the axis aligned list. I'd cite Snyder. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Winter War

Paul Siebert, you say the Winter War wasn't part of WWII, but just an FYI, that view seems to be contradicted by the Wikipedia article, which categorizes it as a theatre in the wider conflict. So should the Winter War article be changed to exclude it from WWII, in your view? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It's identified as being part of the war in this article and there's no proposal to change that. As such, this discussion belongs on Paul's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Small Edit

Hey.

I was looking over the article, and I think the caption for File:Ebensee_concentration_camp_prisoners_1945.jpg adjacent to the "Home Fronts and production" section shows a little POV. The caption reads: "Mistreated and starved prisoners in the Mauthausen camp, Austria, 1945." I would think it would make more encyclopedic sense (and I might as well formally suggest it here) to simply describe the image as "Prisoners in the Mauthausen camp, Austria, 1945." I know its pretty much common knowledge among people that those might very well have been "mistreated and starved", but Wiki doesn't take sides. The article has already achieved good status (well done) so I'm just throwing it out there. 72.199.64.64 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This is what the caption to the photo in its source states. It's not 'taking sides' or POV to state a historical fact. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I reverted the edits made by Chumchum7 for several reasons. Firstly, these details are redundant for the lede, secondly, removal of the text about German strategic goals is incorrect, thirdly, the text "The Soviets then invaded eastern Poland on 17 September and deported up to 1.5 million Polish citizens (including Jews, Ukrainians and others) to Siberia." is odd (the USSR didn't deported "up to 1.5 million" to Siberia on 17 September (that happened later, the number of deported is not accurate, people were deported not only to Siberia, etc). Fourthly, the words "supplied by the Soviet Union" are misleading, because, as Erickson demonstrated, Soviet support played minimal role in German war efforts in Western Europe, it just helped to prepare Barbarossa. Fifthly, the words: " a week after the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed in Moscow. Germany invaded western Poland, which led to the declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth." draw the casual linkage which is not present in majority historical works. Post hoc non propter hoc: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was a final argument for launching the German invasion of Poland, however, it was not a reason. Hitler decided to attack Poland in spring 1939, when the Soviet-German rapprochement hadn't even started.
In any event, all these changes should be discussed on the talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. You are welcome to ask me to self-revert, by the way. In a nutshell, my concern is that the lede completely omits the Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviet war supplies to Germany 1939-1941 (ref. Rees and Snyder) and the Soviet attacks on Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. This is a glaring omission that needs to be rectified, one way or another. One could add, to be sure, that in terms of numbers Stalingrad and the Soviet war effort against the Nazis completely dwarfed the Desert War (at the moment the lede implies some kind of equality), let alone the Western Front. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Laurence Rees and Timothy Snyder, I just went and got Niall Ferguson off the shelf simply to check whether he diverges from them on this "ally" term. But he also refers to Hitler and Stalin as "allies" in his 'The War of the World', 2006, P. 417. So far I'm not seeing this is a minority, fringe theory but a concurrence among three historians from Oxford, Harvard and Yale respectively. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Paul; this is too much detail for the lead (which is meant to be a summary of what's in the article) and some of the wording is ambiguous or misleading. Nick-D (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, it can be cut down. The Nazi-Soviet Pact and the invasion by the USSR of 6 countries 1939-1941 can be limited to one sentence. And what about a flag in the infobox to denote Laurence Rees, Timothy Snyder and Niall Ferguson's view that the USSR was aligned with Nazi Germany 1939-1941? It seems very widely held, there is even an official European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Stalinism and Nazism... -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The connection of the Nazi-Soviet pact with the invasion by the USSR of 6 countries 1939-1941 is not as obvious as you think. In actuality, only invasion of Poland was connected to the pact directly. As I already noted, Winter war was not a part of WWII at all. Invasions of the Baltic states were, strictly speaking, not invasions at all. Moreover, Hitler considered coercive annexation of these states by the USSR as a demonstration of Soviet hostile intentions towards Germany and, therefore, as violation of the pact (which later was used as one of pretexts for Barbarossa). North Bukovina was also annexed (not invaded) in violation of the pact. All of that is too confusing to be discussed in the lede.

Re Rees, Snyder and Ferguson, again, I have no evidences that their point of view is a majority POV. Other scholars (Erickson, Gorodetsky, Roberts, Haslam, Carley, Overy and others do not use the term "Axis aligned" to describe the USSR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

PS As I already wrote, the Soviet war supplies to Germany had no significant impact on the German war efforts in 1939-1941, according to Erickson.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Adam Tooze's book The Wages of Destruction (which I believe is the current standard work on the German economy between 1933 and 1945) states that Nazi Germany and its conquered territories were dependent on trade with the USSR to maintain their economic activity at near pre-war levels, and this influenced Hitler's decision to invade the USSR (pp. 420-425). He doesn't state that this trade was a pre-condition to the conquest of Western Europe though. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Erickson (Karl Schnurre and the Evolution of Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1936-1941. Author(s): Edward E. Ericson, III. Source: German Studies Review, Vol. 21, No. 2 (May, 1998), pp. 263-283) states literally the following:

"While playing little role in Germany's victories in the West, Soviet shipments did provide the margin of resources needed to launch Operation Barbarossa, but not enough to sustain the invasion into 1942. "

--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That seems broadly in line with Tooze's argument. Nick-D (talk) 02:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all for your points. We still have no fewer than 3 reliable sources describing the Nazis and Soviets as allies, 1939-1941. My hunch is that many more sources say the same thing. That may be controversial, but WP asks us to include controversy. One option is an RFC on this at some kind of Eastern Europe noticeboard. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit premature to rush to a RFC after less than 12 hours of discussion! No less than 2366 people have this talk page watchlisted, so it's likely that other editors will join this discussion. Moreover, the text in question doesn't state that Germany and the USSR were Allied. It would be helpful if you proposed some textual changes to the article here (including supporting references). Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As I say, RFC is an option, I haven't rushed there and I am waiting. Let's separate the several issues here. (1) the initial text I added (2) my agreement that the addition can be reduced in size (3) the use of Vichy flag 1940-1944 (*aligned or co-belligerent) in the Axis infobox (4) the use of Soviet flag 1939-1941 (*aligned or co-belligerent) in the Axis infobox. The 3 sources above point to the use of the Soviet flag in the Axis box, because they all refer to the Nazis and Soviets as "allies" 1939-1941. So lets deal with one thing at a time. Am happy to deal with the issue of Soviet flag first, text coming later. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you prefer to discuss the Soviet flag first, please provide a proof that the point of view on the Soviet co-belligerence is shared by majority scholars. In addition, if we consider a classical Nazi co-belligerent, Finland, we can easily see that during 1941-44 the latter was at was with the USSR, so the co-belligerence issue is clear and non-controversial. In connection to that, can you tell me with which Allied nation the USSR was at war in 1939-41? The economic collaboration is not an argument: until the end of 1941 the US provided Japan with the oil which was vital for Japanese war efforts in Asia, and that does not make America the Axis' co-belligerent. --Paul Siebert (talk) 08:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) "please provide a proof that the point of view on the Soviet co-belligerence is shared by majority scholars" - I am not sure `proof of a majority of scholars` is possible for any subject on Wikipedia. We do not know how many scholars there are in the world in the first place, so we cannot know what more than 50% of those scholars is. Furthermore WP guidelines demand we include differing points of view, not just what seems to be a `majority` view. (2) "can you tell me with which Allied nation the USSR was at war in 1939-41?" - Sure, the full answer can be found at Soviet invasion of Poland. Note that 22,000 Allied officers taken prisoner-of-war (including hundreds of Jews in Allied uniform, such Rabbi Boruch Steinberg) by the Soviets were shot in mass graves by the Soviets at the Katyn Massacre in 1940. The reliable sources say this not the action of a neutral or non-belligerent power. Note, by the way, that I also motion the dominant role of the Soviets in the defeat of Hitler should be emphasised in the lede (as per WP:RS data on number or troops committed and casualties taken). -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC) PS I am sure we both agree we must focus on WP:RS and be mindful about avoiding rhetorical debates, which often descend into entrenched POV and OR. The Rees, Ferguson, Snyder view may be disputed, but WP requires us to include it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not interpret my words too literally, I never proposed you to examine the opinion of all historians. However, WP policy requires us to present primarily a majority point of view, which implies that we have to identify it. I listed some reputable historians who do not consider the USSR as a co-belligerent (obviously, we cannot even speak about its Axis membership). Therefore, inclusion of the Soviet Union into the infobox as Axis aligned or co-belligerent would reflect the opinion on some authors but reject the opinion of others (probably, majority). In addition, if we discuss only invasion of Poland, it is not clear for me why Soviet co-belligerence should be expanded until June 1941.

Re Katyn, the problem is that the Soviet Union was not at war with Poland. Executions or deportations also cannot be considered as an act of war, because Stalin treated the Poles exactly in the same way as he treated other citizens of his state. If we assume that execution of 22,000 was the act of war, then the execution of ca 600,000 Soviet citizens in 1937 was also the act of war against his own people (which, in my opinion, was the case).

In any event, "co-belligerence" implies some bellum, and besides the Winter war (in which the USSR was not a German co-belligerent) there were now war the USSR officially was involved in during Sept 1939-June 1941.

Re "Axis aligned". This implies some dense political collaboration, which contradicts to what, e.g. Gorodetsky says, namely, that never aligned with Germany clearly and unequivocally, because it always suspected that the alliance between the UK and Germany may be signed at any moment (especially after the Hess' flight), and he rather tried to maintain a balance between Britain and Germany.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I refer to what I have said earlier, that we have verifiable sources referring to the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as "allies". These reliable sources use evidence such as the German–Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Demarcation and the Gestapo–NKVD Conferences to underscore the point that the Nazi-Soviet Pact was a de jure alignment and the Soviet invasion of Poland was a de facto act of war (as opposed to `liberation` or `occupation`). That said, of course we lowly WP editors could have a fascinating debate either side of this ad infinitum, but I am sure we can agree that would be a tremendous waste of time. We must concentrate on what the sources say rather than what we feel to be true, and we must include debate and controversy as per WP:LEDE. I motion for the Soviet flag 1939-1941 as Axis-aligned because this is what it says in the sources at my disposal. In any case the final word on this will be established by WP:CONSENSUS, and some of these 1000-odd watchers of this page chiming in, or else an RFC. In the meantime, please bring a source that states the USSR was NOT at war with Poland, with an explanation as to why the USSR released Polish POWs in 1941 after the Sikorski–Mayski Agreement if in fact it had not been in a de facto state of war with one of the Allies, namely Poland. The issue of the Vichy France flag remains open. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D, as we wait for more users to chime in about the flags, I will work on your request for suggested added text, posting it here in due course and using citations. It will basically be a summary of this map: File:Ribbentrop-Molotov.svg -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Regarding your "please bring a source that states the USSR was NOT at war with Poland", I do not have to do that per WP:BURDEN. If you want the statement about the state of war between Poland and the USSR to be included into the article, please provide the source that confirms, clearly and unequivocally, that the war was declared by either Poland or the USSR. With regard to Polish POWs, they were kept in camps of in exile not as POWs, but as Soviet citizens (although Soviet citizenship was granted to them against their will).

Please, read also this:

"The outstanding and lasting feature of Soviet foreign policy in the inter-war period, originating in the Allied intervention during the civil war, was a pathological suspicion that Germany and Britain might close ranks and mount a crusade against Russia. Events which had little direct bearing on Russia, such as the Locarno Treaty of 1925, Germany's entry into the League of Nations the following year and the Munich Conference, were interpreted in this vein. During the 'Phoney War', prospects of a separate peace which might set the German war machine rolling eastwards induced the Russians to launch their own mediatory efforts to put an end to the war. At the same time, measures were taken to establish a buffer zone in the wake of the failure to achieve security arrangements through diplomacy in the I930s." (The Hess Affair and Anglo-Soviet Relations on the Eve of 'Barbarossa'. Author(s): Gabriel GorodetskySource: The English Historical Review, Vol. 101, No. 399 (Apr., 1986), pp. 405-420)

You have to agree that such relations between the USSR and Germany do not resemble alliance even remotely.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Since the current description of German conquests is very brief ("During 1939 to early 1941, in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties, Germany conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from the Soviet Union"), I am not sure the story about Soviet territorial expansion can be longer than few words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

That Gorodetsky quote is great, and very important. Rees has extremely similar quotes saying Stalin was every bit as suspicious of Churchill and Roosevelt as he had had been of Hitler, especially because of their broken promises that the Invasion of Normandy would take place in 1941, then in 1942, then in 1943 even as the Jewish Holocaust accelerated and tens of millions of Soviet citizens were slaughtered by the Nazis. Rees says Stalin saw the Western attitude toward him as bait and bleed. And yet, we say that the Big Three were Allies - Rees says this is because wartime propaganda has lasted until the present. So I don't quite buy it that stating Stalin was suspicious of Hitler logically means that he could not have been an ally of Hitler. Stalin was just as suspicious of his other one-time allies, Churchill and Roosevelt. We know he was a suspicious man, he was even suspicious of his own doctors. Besides, the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, and we we have several sources describing the Nazis and Soviets as "allies". FYI, there are three video clips here that summarize the Rees thesis http://www.pbs.org/behindcloseddoors/about/index.html -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt was promising the invasion of Normandy in 1941? Wow, that was extremely optimistic. Got a citation on that? --Habap (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No he wasn't, that was Churchill only, I think you understand that. But if not, I can clarify. Rees says Stalin constantly asked for a second front from the moment his alliance with Churchill started, then asked Roosevelt for the same. At best, the western allies allowed Stalin to thikn there would be a second front opened up, at worst they were disingeneous promises. It is all in Rees, and in his PBS series. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, here is Laurence Rees, 2009, P.31: "'The fact is that for the time being Germany does not need foreign help,' said Stalin [to Ribbentrop] 'and it is possible that in the future they will not need foreign help either. However if, against all expectations, Germany finds itself in a difficult situation, then she can be sure that the Soviet people will come to Germany's aid' ...Stalin's statement still shows how far he might have been prepared to go in pursuit of his alliance with Hitler, and it remains, given what was to happen later, an enormously embarrassing comment for him to have made" -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also Paul Siebert you earlier said "In actuality, only invasion of Poland was connected to the pact directly." But here is Laurence Rees, 2009, P.16 stating the division of eastern Europe was very much agreed between the Nazis and Soviets in 1939: "the discussion turned to what was euphemistically described as 'spheres of influence'. This deliberately innocuous phrase could mean as little or as much to each of the participants as they wished. Eventually, of course, it was used to determine who should exercise control over various eastern European countries. Ribbentrop announced: 'The Fuhrer accepts that the Eastern part of Poland and Bessarabia as well as Finland, Estonia and Latvia up to the River Duena... will all fall within the Soviet sphere of influence. Stalin objected to the proposals, insisting that that the entire territory of Latvia fall within the 'Soviet sphere of influence. Ribbentrop felt unable to agree to Stalin's request without contacting Hitler." -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Now Niall Ferguson, 2006, P. 417: "Henryka and her fellow captives were not being deported on the orders of Hitler. They were being deported on the orders of his ally, Stalin." -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Now John Mosier, Deathride: Hitler vs. Stalin, 2010, P.71: "when the Second World War began on September 1, 1939, Stalin was Hitler's ally... they both wanted to eliminate Poland from the map, and they both despised the Western democracies." -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

In The Huffington Post: "Hitler and Stalin were allies and started World War II in 1939 by both attacking Poland at the same time" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-storozynski/us-honors-stalin-on-hallo_b_363141.html -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

And Nechama Tec, Defiance: The true story of the Bielski Partisans, 2008, P.16: "Stalin and Hitler were allies. Their cooperation led to the Soviet acquisition of more than half of Poland... For the Germans this transfer of territory represented peace on eastern borders and freedom to wage war on Western Europe." -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder in The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/oct/05/holocaust-secondworldwar "Hitler needed war to eliminate the Jews, and it was Stalin who helped him to begin that war. As I said in my original article, we don't know how the war would have proceeded without the treaty on borders and friendship; what we do know is that the war as it actually happened, with all of its atrocities, began with a German-Soviet alliance." -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

7th reference http://www.economist.com/node/17249038 from an editorial at The Economist: "The Nazi-Soviet alliance of August 1939 was “cemented in blood”, Stalin said approvingly. Few wanted to remember that two years later, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa." -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide some concrete changes to the article you'd like other editors to comment on? Nick-D (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Having demonstrated that 7 sources describe Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union as "allies", I am in a position to propose a change to the lede. I'll file the proposed change here within a day or two. Many thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Three things in the meantime: (1) USSR is listed as a belligerent at Vietnam War, where there was no 'official declaration of war' between USA and USSR. Ergo 'official declaration of war' is not Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion of belligerent status. (2) 'Russia' in our lede goes to 'USSR' and 'United States of American' goes to 'USA'. (3) That map I spoke of is this one, and the article including lede needs to reflect it:

Planned and actual territorial changes in Central Europe 1939–1940

Tks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

In regards to 1) the Vietnam War article is in poor shape and isn't a good example of anything and there is no single Wikipedia 'threshold for inclusion of belligerent status' - it all comes down to what the sources say on a case by case basis. In regards to 2) neither 'Russia' or 'USA' are in the lead and 3) the map is unsourced, but I'd be interested in seeing the textual changes along these lines you propose when they're ready. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. There'll be a better map for (3). Thanks to Paul Siebert who kindly fixed (2) with this edit [1] And on (1) I absolutely concur, it all comes down to what the sources say on a case by case basis. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:16, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that some sources mix the terms "pact" and "alliance" is not sufficient for describing the USSR as "Axis co-belligerent", because there were no bellum the USSR was a participant of. Occupation of Poland was a hostile act, however, no country declared a war on the USSR, so it remained neutral, and the level of cooperation between the USSR and Germany was minimal during the key phase of the invasion (Sept 1- Sept 17). War with Finland was not a war against someone's ally, so no other country declared a war on the USSR as a result of it.

The words "he might have been prepared to go in pursuit of his alliance' with Hitler" you refer to are the demonstration that there were no alliance (although the negotiation about Soviet membership in the Axis did take place in Nov 1940, they were not successful). Therefore, the quote from Reese directly contradicts to what your say.

In summary, to list the USSR as Nazi aligned would be misleading, because it would create an impression that during 1939-41 the USSR waged a war on German side, although in actuality it waged a war on its own side, did that for only limited period of time, and during the most part of this two year period remained neutral both de jure and de facto.

Re map. Again, since the current lede tells virtually nothing about the details of German territorial expansion and conquests, any details of Soviet territorial expansion are redundant, although the very fact of this expansion deserves to be mentioned.

In summary, I propose the following wording:

"(...) Germany conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from the Soviet Union, which also expanded its territory in Eastern Europe, although officially remained neutral."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

We are definitely getting somewhere. A few points:

1) I'd cut or motion a change to the clause "although officially remained neutral" for a number of reasons. "Although" is at MOS:OPED. "Officially" is also a pointy word; e.g. the German Democratic Republic was "officially" democratic but we wouldn't care to emphasise that. Moreover historians frequently analyse wars that never involved any "official" declarations of war. By nature, surprise attacks don't involve formal declarations of war.

2) You say that "Occupation of Poland was a hostile act, however, no country declared a war on the USSR, so it remained neutral, and the level of cooperation between the USSR and Germany was minimal during the key phase of the invasion (Sept 1- Sept 17). War with Finland was not a war against someone's ally, so no other country declared a war on the USSR as a result of it." I respect and value your personal opinion, but we need a reliable source to include it in the article.

3) On the subject of alignment, we know that in 1939 Britain and France expelled the USSR from the League of Nations when they declared the Winter War was an illegal act of Soviet belligerence (see George Scott, The Rise and Fall of the League of Nations, 1973, P.59). By contrast the Soviet Union continued to closely cooperate with Nazi Germany as late as 1941, e.g. with the German–Soviet Border and Commercial Agreement, and these good Nazi-Soviet relations were the backdrop to the (inconclusive) German–Soviet Axis talks.

4) I've provided WP:RS that state the Nazis and Soviets were allies. Until we have a WP:RS stating that the sources (erroneously?) mix the terms "pact" and "alliance" we cannot assert this ourselves, as per WP:NOR. As I have said, the sources may be controversial, and as per WP:NPOV I am most keen to include scholarly disagreement in the article. Also useful to call on WP:V here: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

5) A nice compromise on flags seems to be at Invasion of Poland, where the belligerents list includes the Nazis and Soviets on the same side, but it is subdivided. There may be one out there, but I haven't yet seen a WP:RS stating the Soviet invasion of Poland was an act of peace, or the peaceful act of a neutral power. Interestingly enough the Russian language version of Invasion of Poland here [2] has Nazis and Soviets as co-belligerents, which appears not to be controversial among Russian-speaking Wikipedians. If we have the Soviets as a belligerent on the German side at Invasion of Poland, it prompts similar inclusion at World War II, provided citations support it.

In any case, my proposed changes are pending. Thanks again for an interesting discussion, -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Re 1. Feel free to modify the wording, however, even a surprise attack is usually followed by a declaration of a war (e.g. German declaration of war on the USSR after surprise attack). However, in this case neither the USSR nor, importantly, Poland declared a war on each other.

Re 2. I do not have to provide any sources because I do not propose to include that in the article.

Re 3. Britain and France could not expel the USSR from the League, because that could nor be done by their unilateral decision. The countries that votes for expulsion were: Britain, France, Bolivia, Belgium, Dominican Republic, South Africa and Egypt, with China, Greece, Finland and Yugoslavia abstained and Iran and Peru absent. (BTW, abstention of four countries meant that the decision did not have any legal effect, according to the paragraph 4, article 16 of the League Covenant, however, taking into account that the League was virtually dead by that moment, that act had just symbolic effect). In any event, the results of the vote meant that some members of the League acknowledged the USSR's wrongdoing, not its alliance with Germany.

Re 4. I also provided a source that state that during 1939-41 the Soviet attitude towards Germany was to prevent Anglo-German rapprochement, to neutralise the imminent German threat and to prepare to the war against Germany. That hardly resembles the relations between Allies (obviously, it would be odd to expect from the authors of such articles to include a statement about the absence of any alliances between the USSR and Germany, for the same reason why no contemporary astronomy books contain refutations of the flat Earth theory). It's worth noting that since Nov 1940 Germany was preparing to full-scale invasion of the USSR. Does it fit a definition of "allies"? In addition, let me remind you that declaration of war on one member of an alliance usually automatically means declaration of war on others: when the USA declared a war on Japan, that immediately lead to a war between the USA and Germany. However, during almost two years no country that waged a war against Germany declared a war on the major German "ally", the USSR. How do you explain that fact? In addition, as I already pointed out, one of your sources directly contradicts to what you say.

Re 5. That would not be a compromise. The limited military participation of the USSR in the war against Poland deserves to be mentioned in the article about Poland, however, since the present article describes much more global events (where Germany played a dominant role and the USSR was mostly a neutral observer) such a compromise would be misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply in full. Sorry. On this point you've now made twice, that 1 of the 7 sources I've brought directly contradicts what I say, I respectfully disagree. Rees' phrase "in pursuit of" is synonymous with "in prosecution of" - and there are many more quotes on this matter, plenty that are less open to linguistic interpretation. In one of the other examples, on page 69 of the same book, Rees details that in 1940 the Soviets provided military assistance to the Nazis by giving them a naval supply and repair base on Soviet territory at Jokanga Bay, code-name 'Base North'. Rees comments: "On the one hand, the Soviets undoubtedly provided the Germans with a military supply base; but on the other, ideologically the Nazis remained a possible enemy. So in effect they were allies, and yet they were potential belligerents." I could go on with still more references from Rees along the same lines, but it would mean far more to me if you can trust I am sourcing with competence and good faith. Let's remember this is not a POV war between Wikipedia editors that can be lost or won: we merely find reliable sources that may contradict each other, and use them to share information among our community. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

"The ally" and "in effect the ally" are two different things. The USA were in effect the British ally since 1939, and they were even de facto involved into naval warfare with Germany, however, they are listed among the allies since 1941. You refer to the sources that describe the USSR as the German ally, although with the reservation "in effect" (btw, since you provided a full quote, which characterizes you as a fair editor, we can see that the same author points at deep antagonism between these two states.) However, as I already explained, many sources do not describe them as allies, and emphasize their antagonism. How do you propose to reflect that fact? --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

How would I reflect it? I refer to my earlier reference to WP:LEDE, which asks us to include scholarly debate and divergent points of view, as well as the reply I made earlier, "we merely find reliable sources that may contradict each other". We simply mention that different scholars take different views, we can even include Falsifiers of History as a source. It is no biggy. But we're verging on WP:WIKILAWYERING with Rees, here he is again on page 66: "The British attitude was predicated on the belief that the Soviet Union was not an ally of the Nazis at all... The reality, however, was different. The Soviet Union was an ally of the Nazis in all but name, not just providing raw materials to help fuel the German war machine, but even... offering military assistance as well. [Rees's italics, not mine]" Rees has many more such quotes, but I shouldn't go and get a fourth one. Rees, Snyder, Tec, Storozynski, Mosier and The Economist appear to coincide with each other, I'm confident I'd find another 7 sources providing similar references. As I've said time and again, that doesn't mean it is the only view to express: we know that unlike math, there is no 'right answer' in history. Now it's got me curious, what subject was your PhD in? -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed second paragraph

My proposed second paragraph would be something along these lines:

The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth. The Soviet Union then invaded Poland on 17 September 1939, in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Pact, which some historians describe as an "alliance".[seven citations to choose from here] Germany then conquered or subdued much of western and southern Europe, while the Soviets, took over much of eastern Europe and supplied the Nazis with materiel. Britain and the Commonwealth remained the major force continuing to fight the Axis by air, at sea and in North Africa. In June 1941, the European Axis turned on the Soviet Union, opening the largest land campaign in history. The Soviets became Britain's ally, and tied down Axis power until the defeat of Nazi Germany, with Soviet casualties far outnumbering those of the Western Allies. In December 1941, Japan, which had already been at war with China since 1937,[3] attacked the United States and European possessions in the Pacific Ocean, quickly conquering most of the region. Germany declared war on the US, which became an Allied power and began supplying the Soviet war machine.

Thoughts most welcome, thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments.

1. "The war is generally accepted to have begun on 1 September 1939, with the invasion of Poland by Germany and subsequent declarations of war on Germany by France and most of the countries of the British Empire and Commonwealth." Correct. The sentence describes the event that is generally accepted to be a start of WWII.
2. "The Soviet Union then invaded Poland on 17 September 1939,..." This invasion occurred after the war started, and principal participants (France, Britain, Commonwealth, Poland) had already joined the war by that moment. In that sense, I do not understand why do we need to devote a space to this event, whereas other WWII events like Battle of France, Battle of Britain, invasion of Norway, invasion of Yugoslavia and many others are not mentioned at all. In connection to that, I do not understand why did you removed the sentences "Germany set out to establish a large German empire in Europe. During 1939 to early 1941, in a series of successful military campaigns and political treaties, Germany conquered or politically subdued most of continental Europe apart from the Soviet Union." These sentences are really important, because they describe the most important pre-Barbarossa events. It is unclear for me why did you reduced it to few words and I disagree with that.
3. "in accordance with the Nazi-Soviet Pact," That is simply wrong. Neither the pact nor its secret protocol contained any mention of any joint, or coordinated invasion of Poland (just a vague mention of "possible territorial changes"). Even after the war started Ribbentrop was asking Stalin about his plans and the Germans were not sure if the USSR was going to launch the invasion.
4. "which some historians describe as an "alliance".[seven citations to choose from here]...." The lede is supposed to reflect what the article says. Such a phrase would be appropriate in the lede only if the article devoted large space to the discussion of this issue. In actuality, the article doesn't do that (although, few words about the behaviour of the USSR towards Germany before Barbarossa: "de facto the ally, de jure neutral, ideological enemy and potential belligerent", should be included into the "Axis advances" section. However, I do not understand why the opinion of only those authors, who considered the USSR the German ally, should be included. Other authors did not considered the USSR the German ally, and some others described the situation as "tripolar", with the USSR being a third pole (see, e.g. Tripolarity and the Second World WarAuthor(s): Randall L. Schweller. Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 73-103).
5. "Germany then conquered or subdued much of western and southern Europe, while the Soviets, took over much of eastern Europe and supplied the Nazis with materiel." This sentence is inaccurate and misleading. Firstly, it creates a wrong impression that both the USSR and Germany waged a full-scale war, whereas the USSR remained neutral. In addition, the Soviet already possessed much of Eastern Europe before 1939 (just look at the map). The war materiel issue has already been discussed here, and we concluded that it had no significant impact on the German war efforts. Therefore, I do not understand why should we devote any space to that in the lede.
6. "In June 1941, the European Axis turned on the Soviet Union, opening the largest land campaign in history. The Soviets became Britain's ally, and tied down Axis power until the defeat of Nazi Germany,..." Too Anglocentric. The USSR didn't join the Britain led alliance. By contrast, Britain, the USSR and the USA, which were neutral before Dec 1941, formed the Grand Alliance, where Britain played no dominant role. The phrase "and tied down Axis power until the defeat of ..." is more appropriate to the role of China in Asia than to the role of the USSR in Europe. By saying that you diminish the role of the USSR. Not only the USSR was tying down the Axis troops, it destroyed much on the Axis military power, and eventually defeated the European Axis (assisted by the USA and the UK). This wording is hardly appropriate.
7. "...with Soviet casualties far outnumbering those of the Western Allies." Don't think that is needed in the lede, however, if we include that, it is equally necessary to add that the Axis casualties in the Eastern Front also exceeded all Axis losses in all other theaters taken together.

My conclusion is that the proposed text is hardly an improvement. I agree that few words about pre-Barbarossa USSR should be added to the current lede (similar to what I proposed before), but that should be really few words.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your feedback. While we wait for more editors to chime in about the lede, I'll concentrate on adding information to the main body of the article in the meantime. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, try to do that first. In my opinion, all aspects of the issue should be reflected, which are summarised in the formula "de facto the ally, de jure neutral, ideological enemy and potential belligerent" .--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit surprised that you're opened a discussion about changing one of the lead paras and then gone ahead and added large quantities of text to the article without any discussion at all. I've just reverted this and will open a discussion below. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

FAQ?

Hey guys, think we should add in an FAQ section like the one over at the American Civil War page?--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 02:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree an FAQ would be useful. --Habap (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that there is already some content at Talk:World War II/FAQ, but it is a bit dated. It would need to be developed before adding it. (Hohum ^@) 19:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Omission: Battles of Khalkhin Gol

Fighting in 1939 between Japan and the Soviet Union needs to be folded in. It has been connected by a reliable source to events in Europe:

From Snyder, Bloodlands (2010) P.115

"On 20 August 1939, Hitler sent a personal message to Stalin, asking him to receive Ribbentrop no later than the twenty-third. Ribbentrop made for Moscow, where, as both Orwell and Koestler noted, swastikas adorned the airport of the capital of the homeland of socialism. This, the final ideological shock that separated Koestler from communism, was really a sign that the Soviet Union was no longer an ideological state. The two regimes immediately found common ground in their mutual aspiration to destroy Poland ...the Soviet Union had agreed to attack Poland along with Germany. ... In August and September 1939... Stalin could now be confident that no German-Polish attack was coming from the west... The Soviets (and their Mongolian allies) attacked Japanese (and puppet Manchukuo) forces... on 20 August 1939. Stalin's policy of rapprochement with Berlin of August 23 1939 was also directed against Tokyo. The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union, signed three days after the offensive, nullified the Anti-Comintern Pact between Germany and Japan. Even more than the battlefield defeat, the Nazi-Soviet alliance brought a political earthquake to Tokyo. The Japanese government fell, as would several more in the coming months. Once Germany seemed to have chosen the Soviet Union rather than Japan as its ally, the Japanese government found itself in an unexpected and confusing situation... if the union between Moscow and Berlin held, the Red Army would be able to concentrate its forces in Asia rather than in Europe. ... Hitler had given Stalin a free hand in Asia, and the Japanese could only hope that Hitler would betray his new friend. ... Stalin had replaced the phantom of a German-Polish-Japanese encirclement of the Soviet Union with a very real German-Soviet encirclement of Poland, an alliance that isolated Japan."

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A rather interesting reading. It would be interesting to see also what sources does Snyder cites to support his claims. AFAIK, there is no documentary evidences for any agreement between Stalin and Hitler to jointly attack Poland. As Geoffrey Roberts writes:

"on 3 September Ribbentrop telegraphed the following instruction to Schulenburg:

"We definitely expect to have beaten the Polish army decisively in a few weeks. We would then keep the territory that was fixed at Moscow as a German sphere of interest under military occupation. We would naturally, however, for military reasons, also have to proceed further against such Polish military forces as are at that time located in the Polish area belonging to the Russian sphere of interest. Please discuss this at once with Molotov and see if the Soviet Union does not consider it desirable for Russian forces to move at the proper time against Polish forces in the Russian sphere of interest and, for their part, to occupy this territory. In our estimation this would not only be a relieff or us, but also, in the sense of the Moscow agreements, in the Soviet interest as well."

Clearer evidence that there was no explicit prior agreement to partition Poland militarily would be difficult to find. What other explanation can there be for Ribbentrop's evident need to interpret the 'sense' of the Moscow agreements of 23 August?

The partition of Poland in September 1939 was not the direct result of the Nazi-Soviet pact but of the unforeseen rapidity of the Polish military collapse. This was the circumstance in which Berlin offered and Moscow opportunistically accepted a share of the spoils of war." (The Soviet Decision for a Pact with Nazi Germany. Author(s): Geoffrey Roberts. Source: Soviet Studies, Vol. 44, No. 1 (1992), pp. 57-78)

In connection to that, I would like to know what additional documentary evidences did Snyder use to support his claims. Taking into account that the "archival revolution" (a massive release of classified Soviet archival documents) had ended by early 1990s, I doubt that any new documents became available for Snyder which were not available for Roberts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

PS. By the way, the Far East events are already connected with the events in Europe: the article currently says:

" On 17 September 1939, after signing a nonaggression pact with Japan, the Soviets launched their own invasion of Poland."

PPS. Although Snyder's opinion about Soviet-Japanese relations deserves to be taken into account, it would be interesting to compare it with the opinion of the researchers specialising in a Japanese history. For instance, Yukiko Koshiro, describes these events as follows:

"Takagi Sokichi, the Imperial Navy's leading planner, inspired by the signing of the German-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact, examined several options for multilateral diplomacy and recommended the same four-nation alliance as the most beneficial to Japan's interest.13 The monthly intellectual journal Kaizo (Reconstruction) printed an article in its November 1940 issue that openly predicted that the task of coordinating a Soviet-Japanese non-aggression pact would be a natural sequel to the Tripartite Pact. The May 1941 issue of Kaizo featured four articles on the Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union, two of which stressed its linkage to the Tripartite Pact.14 Matsuoka's goal, therefore, was not at all a secret to the Japanese public." (Eurasian Eclipse: Japan's End Game in World War II. Author(s): Yukiko Koshiro. Source: The American Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 2 (Apr., 2004), pp. 417-444)

Note, despite Snyder's belief that MRP was directed against Japan, the Japanese themselves didn't consider the Nazi-Soviet pact as a breach of German-Japan relations, or as a threat to Japanese positions in the East.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

This topic is covered in the 'Japanese invasion of the Soviet Union and Mongolia' section so there's no omission (this also notes the battle's main result in persuading the Japanese leadership that a 'strike north' strategy was doomed to defeat). More generally, I should note that this article has historically avoided discussions about the results of most the events it describes as almost all the results of events are disputed by reliable sources and there's no room in this article to cover differing views - especially as these are covered in the articles on the events themselves. Instead, this article has been written as a 'flat' summary of the war's main events. I don't see any benefits of moving away from this approach. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Nick, thanks for [3] linking in Khalkhin Gol, it was the link that I was searching for. Incidentally that paragraph uses clauses like "the Japanese dismissed it as" which gives it a chatty, almost editorialized feel which really isn't 'flat' enough. Somehow we need to accommodate this reliable source which states the initiative was on the Soviet side: Snyder (2010) p.115 "In August and September 1939, Stalin was reading maps not just of east Europe but of east Asia. He had found an opportunity to improve the Soviet position in the Far East. Stalin could now be confident that no German-Polish attack was coming from the west... The Soviets (and their Mongolian allies) attacked Japanese... on 20 August 1939... When the Red Army defeated the Japanese, on 15 September, Stalin had achieved exactly the result that he wanted." The source states that the four-week campaign from 20 August 1939 to 17 September 1939 was a successful Soviet military offensive that achieved its objectives, and had been calculated to use the window of opportunity provided by events on the Soviets' western flank in Europe. After which, the Red Army turned west. It is normal to have a range of differing analyses among historians, but this prompts the flattening of that paragraph, per WP:NPOV. Thanks all, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that we do need to include that argument at all - it probably belongs in the article on the battle, but not here. This article doesn't have room to discuss contested interpretations of events. It also seems a bit odd to be focusing on implications which a battle fought in Siberia had on Eastern Europe when it's results were much more profound for Asia. It's important to bear in mind that we only have limited space in this article (which is already arguably too long) and need to ensure that no topics are unduly focused on - I think that you want a stronger focus on the Soviet Union's foreign policies in the period 1939 to 1941 than the article can reasonably accommodate and you'd be best off working on articles on those specific topics. Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. To clarify, I don't want to increase the word count of that paragraph. I think it needs to be flattened. Secondly, the first third of the War, the period 1939-1941, needs far better coverage from every aspect. One has to start somewhere and I'm certainly not looking for an especially strong focus on Soviet foreign policy per se, and am not interested in piles of content: the absence of Bessarabia remains a clear omission; as is an explanation of the de facto Nazi-Soviet alliance, which reliable sources emphasise. The whole Pacific theatre in the period in 1939-1941 needs better coverage, as does US conflict with Germany 1939-1941, as does U.S.-British relations. It is a third of the war and the article needs to reflect that. It would be lazy of us to neglect these straightforward passages that can be succinctly improved. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the absence of any mention of Romanian territorial changes is a serious omission. It is desirable to mention both Vienna awards and annexation of Bessarabia in a context of Romanian decision to join the Axis and thereby to regain territorial losses. I also think that the sentence about annexation of the Baltic states should be moved to the "Axis Advances" section, because it took place concurrently with the Battle of France (and the decisionn to occupy these states was affected by German war successes, so the sentence should be expanded accordingly). With regard to other aspects of relations between neutral USSR and USA with the Axis countries, I simply don't see why do we need to add anything. The story about growing tensions between the USA and both Japan and Germany is already in the article ("Axis Advances" section), Nazi-Soviet military cooperation had more symbolic effect (judging by the examples mentioned on this talk page), Nazi-Soviet economic cooperation had not decisive effect on German war efforts. In addition, the section is already long, and, taking into account that the hostilities during the period it describes had only limited scale (since two major Allied combatants hadn't joined the war, and no war was declared on Britain in Pacific), further expansion of this section would hardly be correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 11:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Canada should be bolded. As it was a major member of the conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 14:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalin's peace offer

I'm finding more and more books that mention Stalin offered peace terms to Hitler in September 1941 similar to those of Brest-Litvosk in 1917-18. This was after the 26 September and the Battle of Kiev (1941). Can this make it into the article? Dapi89 (talk) 10:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide the sources? I've read this as well, though there's speculation about how serious the offer was and I recall reading that Stalin quickly changed his mind. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

E.R. Hooton's Eagle in Flames. Dapi89 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to see any scholar offer any credible evidence of any negotiations between Germany and the USSR at anytime during World War II. All the political evidence appears to point to the conclusion that neither side was prepared to take any political overtures from the other side seriously, e.g. they didn't trust each other enough to have a serious political discussion nor was either side interested in negotiating with the other. Stalin and Hitler were only interested in handing down a treaty, ala Versailles, or destroying each other and arresting the enemy leader as a war criminal.Xatsmann (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting formal, or even informal, negotiations. I'm saying an 'offer'. Naturally this was not seen through and there is no evidence that Hitler ever replied or that it was acutally ever offered by Stalin - if there were, Stalin would have destroyed it. I think it was unlikely a deal of any kind could be done. The Germans would not have negotiated until they were closing on the Urals, and only then with non-Communist Russians of the Imperial class.

I think if enough histories bring this up, we can mention its controversy. Dapi89 (talk) 17:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No. This article does not discuss failed negotiations, questionable offers and similar facts.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why it cannot be mentioned in four words and a footnote. I never suggested it was an absolute fact. Do you regard it as such? Dapi89 (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple: if we mention that, we definitely have to mention the Rudolf Hess's flight, Hitler-Stalin contacts in Nov 1940, Anglo-Franco-Soviet talks in 1939 and similar things. We need to discuss if we really need that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea of including it is really shot down when you state "there is no evidence that Hitler ever replied or that it was acutally ever offered by Stalin". If there is no evidence that it was actually offered, why would it be included in an article that is an overview of the war? --Habap (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Leader Deaths

Should we ellaborate on the leaders of the Allies and Axis of who died during the conflict? (Hitler, Roosevelt) (I know Roosevelt technically died from polio, but he died during the war). Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:06 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Roosevelt did not die from polio--he died from a brain aneurysm that had nothing to do with his polio. It was probably brought on by stress and exacerbated by his smoking. To answer your question, I would say that leader deaths should only be brought out as they affected the war, after all, all the major leaders will have their own Wikipedia entries, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xatsmann (talk • contribs) 01:40, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, should we put a cross by their name in the info box? Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:30 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Crosses in the military conflict infobox are meant to be used for people who were killed as a direct result of the conflict - this wasn't the case for any of the major leaders and adding the cross for leaders who died of disease (Roosevelt, and a few others) or suicide (Hitler) would probably be confusing for readers, especially as their deaths during the war are very well known. Nick-D (talk) 04:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, the only leader on the template that would qualify for a cross is Mussolini (maybe Tojo). Seems easier to just leave it as is. ~----

Edit request from 90.220.208.20, 16 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Hi can i edit i know more about World war 2 im a school child im in p7 in tollbrae 90.220.208.20 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your interest in editing the World War II article. However, due to excessive vandalism the page is protected from editing from new accounts and unregistered IP addresses such as yours. If you have a specific suggestion, please make it on this talk page and someone will attend to it shortly. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 22:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

9 May 1945

Russia and several post-Soviet countries claim that the war in Europe ended 9 May 1945.Xx236 (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

See Victory Day (9 May) for further discussion of why they claim that. --Habap (talk) 16:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This article doesn't inform about the date. Xx236 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What change are you suggesting to this article? The sentence currently reads "On the Eastern Front, Germany surrendered to the Soviets on 8 May." It was 8 May in the location where the document was signed, but already 9 May in Moscow, according to the Victory Day article. The user can find an explanation in that article if they're curious. I'd be fine with changing the date in the sentence here to be 9 May, as long as we leave the explanation to the Victory Day article. --Habap (talk) 14:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Considering this is the English Wikipedia, we should keep the date that is used in the Western world, which is May 8th. --PlasmaTwa2 21:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please vote: Motion to add flag of Vichy France 1940-44 to Axis-aligned list

Vichy French troops fought in Operation Torch, Naval Battle of Casablanca, Battle of Dakar. The Vichy French state actively participated in the Holocaust and hunted down and killed members of the French Resistance. I motion to include its flag in the Axis-aligned list. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support Obviously I support the motion for the reasons above. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Can you provide some reliable historical sources that describe Vichy as significant belligerent in the world war, and/or with declaration of war by, or upon it? - rather than an officially neutral puppet state with minor involvement. (Hohum ^@) 20:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Bulgaria never declared war on the USSR, but they invaded her anyway in 1944.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. The Attack on Mers-el-Kébir also involved a political decision by the British to go to war against Vichy France.-Chumchum7 (talk) 22:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My point is that we should rely on sources which describe Vichy as a belligerent in WWII, not infer it based on our own preferences. (Hohum ^@) 22:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is a fair point. The articles I've linked all clearly list Vichy France as belligerent, which is what my rationale is based on, but I don't have the articles' sources at my disposal to check them myself. Do you? And can we be sure we have sources specifically stating all the others on the list were "belligerent"? Especially Finland, Iraq, Free France etc? My understanding is that if the Vichy French engaged in hostilities, that is belligerence, isn't it? -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Battle of Dakar.--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 21:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support reason above General Rommel (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
• Firstly, per WP:DEMOCRACY "Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy or any other political system. Its primary but not exclusive method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion."
• Secondly, we can speak about addition of the flag only if a state of war existed between Vichy France and at least one Ally. For instance, Spain sent a whole division to the Eastern Front, however, it remained neutral, because no war had been declared on the USSR or any other Ally by Spain, and all Spaniards fighting in the East were volunteers on German service. By contrast, Bulgaria officially declared a war on Britain and the USA. In connection to that, instead of initiating the poll (which would hardly be more binding than other consensus decisions), it is necessary just to find an answer on a very simple question: had Vichy France been officially at war with at least one Ally?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it does seem a bit premature to be voting on this before any discussion (though I lean towards including Vichy as a co-belligerent of the Axis if the current infobox format is kept). What reliable sources list Vichy France as being aligned with the Axis in this way? Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for taking the time to add your comments. FWIW I started this poll after raising subject of Vichy France about 3 times in Talk above, and made little progress; I started this poll with the intention of accelerating discussion, which has obviously happened. I don't view voting as a competition that can be lost or won, and haven't ever suggested that. It appears that some editors view the threshold of inclusion for belligerent status as engagement in hostilities, either battle or collaboration, rather than nominal or formal declarations of war. On that point, I'm very wary of us using official paperwork as a threshold for inclusion - for example Neville Chamberlain had "peace in our time" on a bit of paper, officially. The US didn't officially bomb Laos in the Vietnam War. MI6 didn't exist, officially, until the 1990s. Some countries don't officially torture terrorist suspects. Reliable sources in the links I've provided appear to speak of the Vichy French engaging in hostile activity against an Ally and in cooperation with Germany, which seems to be a legitimate threshold for inclusion of belligerent status for the Wikipedians who worked on those articles. I don't have those sources to hand to corroborate what editors have done on those Vichy French battles. So far I have Ferguson (2006), page 486, stating the Vichy French governor of French Indo-China cooperated military with the Japanese, he granted transfer rights, use of airfields and Japanese army basing rights. That isn't neutrality, it is alignment. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. For what its worth, this dictionary definition of belligerent doesn't mention officialdom: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belligerent -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:49, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. "In the harbour of Mers El Kabir were some of France’s most modern warships; tarpaulins covered their decks and their boilers were cold, but they were now designated an enemy of Britain" at http://www.open2.net/historyandthearts/history/one_transcript_page4.html -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

The key thing (in my view) is reliable sources which clearly state that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of the Axis. The Vichy French administration in Indochina is a bit of a grey area as they were essentially strong armed by the Japanese (who dominated the area militarily) and they didn't provide any support beyond basing rights - when the Vichy administration in Indochina caused problems for the Japanese in 1945 the Japanese forces in the country ruthlessly attacked them, causing thousands of casualties. The Allies fought several wars against Vichy colonies up to 1943, but it's unclear how these should be treated as German forces weren't being based in the colonies which were attacked (in each instance the Allies attacked as it was feared that the Germans (or Japanese in the case of Madagascar) would establish bases rather than that these bases actually existed). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

But what are we looking for, the precise and exact use of the words "belligerent" and "aligned" in a source, or for the description of belligerence and alignment in a source? Because these are jargon terms that seem to be rarely used in text, even in connection with the biggest fighting powers of the war, in my experience. Of interest, WP:Belligerent is a pretty good explanation of the term and how it is applied. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, Vichy France appears on a WP belligerents list, alongside Nazi Germany, at Syria-Lebanon Campaign and as a belligerent alongside Imperial Japan at Battle of Madagascar. Here is Max Hastings on topic: "Vichy forces abroad fought the allies with a vigour that caused Britain’s prime minister to remark crossly that he wished they had tried as hard against the Germans in 1940" ... "Australian, British and Indian soldiers died under Vichy guns in Syria, even as the allies were struggling to hold off Rommel in the desert" ... "Vichy did not become a formal belligerent... But most French forces abroad vigorously resisted the British ... French troops gave an unpleasant shock to Americans landing in ­Algeria and Morocco, treating them as invaders rather than liberators. Vichy forces inflicted 1,500 US casualties before quitting" at http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/non-fiction/article6793642.ece So is it the paperwork or the killing that is our threshold for inclusion? In my view, it is the killing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

As at Nuremberg, we cannot judge the "state," we need to look at the intentions of the leaders. If the Vichy leaders were not directly collaborating with and actively supporting (implying being fully allied and thus belligerents) the Axis; why were Petain and Laval tried for treason and sentenced to death? Why was Weygand arrested after the war? Darlan was assassinated, and thus was not brought to trial. Flandin... arrested for treason! Alibert, sentenced to death in absentia. Why.... because they were actively leading the Vichy "state" in (when viewed form the moral point of view of the Fourth Republic) treasonable acts of aggression against the allies. My vote is to put the Vichy flag under the Belligerents section! Farawayman (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This is your conclusion. Unfortunately, it has to be supported by the opinion of some reputable scholars.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Vichy France is already on the Axis list in the InfoBox. Select the and others link under heading! Secondly, some references:

• A.J.P. Taylor. The Second World War and its Aftermath. Folio society, 1998 p. 53. "...Petains government at Vichy followed a policy of loyal collaboration with the Germans."
• Evans, Richard. J. The Third Reich at War. Allen Lane, 2008. p. 379. "The return of Pierre Laval to head the government [Vichy] in April 1942 signalled an increased willingness to co-operate with the Germans, in the belief that this would lay the foundations for a Franco-German partnership in building a new Europe after the war."
• Vichy's priority was very much one of defence. It was determined to avoid fighting a war on French territory and was therefore willing to resist Allied invasion of its colonies. This inevitably meant that Vichy was, in spite of its desire to maintain neutrality, engaged in combat with Allied forces.

Farawayman (talk) 18:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Farawayman, collaboration and belligerence can be rather different. However, cutting to the chase; I expect readers will expect the belligerent section to include nations/factions which played a significant role in WWII according to the supporting article text, and the article text to include the appropriate weight. Currently, Vichy is mentioned only a few times, and rather incidentally on each occasion. (Does Vichy have the proper weight in the article? If not, it needs to be fixed.) On the flip side, this same argument would stand against the inclusion of the Netherlands, for instance.(Hohum ^@) 20:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally there is relevant guidance: we may refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing a large-scope article, which says "Almost certainly the most prominent issue you'll be facing is quibbling over the infobox; usually about combatants... Many quibblers will just have a viewpoint, without any facts to back it up. Sources are generally a legitimate request though for things such defining major/minor belligerents, not always tenable." In my view Farawayman and I have brought sufficient evidence forward and now the issue is WP:CONSENSUS, which is always worth re-reading. On the subject of infobox supporting article text, note the Iraq flag is on the Axis side infobox, though mentioned just once in the text. South Africa isn't mentioned in the text at all, though its flag is there. Both flags should stay, Vichy should be added, in my few because of the at least six battles/campaigns it participated in as per WP articles linked above. One available option is to add a note stating the Vichy state was nominally neutral, or nominally a non-combatant; another is to subdivide the Axis infobox as in Naval Battle of Casablanca to emphasis a degree of difference. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, that article was largely written by Oberiko (talk · contribs) based on their experiences with leading the near complete redevelopment of this article a couple of years ago (which, as an historical aside, was done through long running discussions and joint redrafting of every part of the article). Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a problem, however, with including Vichy as an Axis co-belligerent: the Invasion of French Indochina. How can Vichy be both a co-belligerent and an opponent of Axis powers? I'll trot out a comment made by another editor over the same issue (what countries to list in the infobox) a few years ago: editors love to pigeon-hole information in infoboxes, even when the information doesn't conform to the tidy schema they've devised. This is certainly the case here. There's a reason we tried to simply use Allies and Axis. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that editors' notion of 'tidy schema' is the problem. The solution isn't for us to pigeon-hole a group of fighting nations into one of two blocs, conforming a tidy dichotomy, if academic consensus is that the reality is far more complex. Possible solutions with WP precedent are different combinations of subdividing columns and rows and adding dates and footnotes. Take a look at Naval Battle of Casablanca, Bosnian War, Mozambique Civil War, for examples. If Vichy combat against the Axis was restricted to Indochina, the solution may be to add a note to that effect.-Chumchum7 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way it is worth noting that Japan didn't join the Axis until 1940, yet we have it on the Axis list from 1937. Meanwhile the original "Rome-Berlin Axis" power Italy, which was at war in Albania in 1939, is listed as joining the war on the Axis side from 1940. It may be that the very terms 'Axis' and 'Allied' are an artificial schema for the purposes of this infobox. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Parsecboy. Not all questions have binary answers ("yes/no"). An ordinary reader will interpret a certain country's flag in the infobox as a sign that this country actively and officially participated in the war. If the case is controversial, the flag would lead just to confusion: imagine a situation when some school student, referring to Wikipedia, will claim that Vichy France (or, even worse, France) was officially at war with the Allies in Europe.

The very fact that various pro et contra exist in this case is an argument for non-inclusion of Vichy France. All controversial cases belong to either footnotes or to the corresponding daughter articles. BTW, the same is even more relevant to the pre-Barbarossa USSR. --Paul Siebert (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree the question is more complex one and the fact that it is so complex makes a strong argument that Vichy should not be included as the part of the Axis powers. I vote no on including Vichy as an active Axis ally. I would only like to make a few points, one, the stance of Vichy vis-a-visa the Holocaust is immaterial--Italian officials, even after the fall of Mussolini, did more to shelter to Jews than any other country outside of Denmark, but this does not mean the Italy is not part of the Axis? Of course not so I am not moved by this criteria. Second, almost all of these references show Vichy resisting attack by the Allies on her overseas departments, but again this proves nothing as the Germans were not able to reach most Vichy overseas possessions. Third, Vichy did resist when the Germans occupied Vichy by scuttling their fleet in Toulon., which was never used to help the Axis, unlike most of the rest of the French fleet which was eventually used by DeGaulle's Free French forces before the end of the war, nor were French colonies used much except for Vietnam, by the Axis.Xatsmann (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We appear to have about 4 editors wanting the Vichy flag included on the Axis side, at least 3 editors wanting it omitted, while others haven't said either way. Does anyone have any WP:DR ideas to resolve this? -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Operation Bagration and the battle of Normandy

I've just reverted this edit by Paul which added some material linking Operation Bagration and the battle of Normandy. I own The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, and while it's an interesting book on the historiography of the war, I don't think that it's a great reference to be using to reference text about events in the war proper. The text that Bagration 'took off enormous pressure off the Western Allies troop fighting in the Normandy pocket' seems problematic even though it is supported by the citation - by 22 June 1944 the Western Allies had a secure foothold in Normandy and were making steady progress, and of course the Allied landings in France also made the Red Army's job easier by forcing the Germans to redeploy units to France (a process which began in late 1943/early 1944). More specifically, I don't believe that the Germans redeployed any units from France back to the eastern Front in response to Bagration, so it didn't really take any pressure off the Western Allies in the short run (though it was of course massively beneficial in the longer run, much as the Allied victory in Normandy was hugely beneficial to the Soviets). I think that it would be helpful for the article to cover how the Allied breakthroughs in France and the USSR in June and July 1944 lead to the near collapse of Germany's strategic situation, but this should note that it was the combination of the two fronts which was particularly effective. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

There were four pairs of military operations that should be mentioned in a context of each other: Stalingrad & Torch, Kursk & Husky, Normandy & Bagration, and Bulge & Vistula-Oder. In first two cases the Allied attack in the west had some impact on the course of the events in the East: Allied landing in North Africa forced Hitler to redeploy a part of its air forces from Stalingrad; landing in Sicily was a final argument for halting the offencive at Kursk. In both cases the effect was more psychological, however, it deserves mentioning. We have done that for Kursk, and I plan to do the same for Stalingrad (imo, taking into account that it was the greatest and the most decisive WWII battle, the Stalingrad story must be expanded anyway).

However, the connection between last two pairs of battles also has to be reflected in the article. Thus, it is well known that the Soviet offencive in early 1945 started after Churchill's request, and it was this offencive that deprived Wehrmacht of any military reserves that would allow Hitler to stabilise his Western front against Allied counter-offencive.

Similarly, German troops in France were not sufficient for repulsing the large scale Allied invasion. It would be simply not wise to keep so much troops there. The troops already stationed there were supposed to repulse initial Allied attack, just to gain time for transferring more troops from other theatres. Therefore, the Bagration's role was not in withdrawing German troops from France (in actuality few Panzer divisions were even taken from EF to France), but in depriving Hitler of any possibility to transfer substantial amount of troops to France. In a situation when more German troops were destroyed in the East in 1944 than Germany had in the West, the Western army group had to fight without substantial reinforcement, which had enormous impact on the outcome of the Western front campaign.

In summary, the connection between East and West did exist, and the article will benefit if we will show it in the same way we did for Kursk-Husky.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

PS For sources, see, e.g. Raymond A. Callahan. Review: The Longest Day Turns Fifty (Reviews in American History, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1995), pp. 313-316).

"Between June and August 1944 the Red Army killed or captured more German soldiers than there were stationed in all of Western Europe-and there were still nine months of the war to go. To say this is not to criticize either Ambrose or Kershaw-they were not writing a synoptic account of the war. The story of June-August 1944 on the Eastern Front, however, when set beside the well known story of Normandy, does provide a context in which to view D-Day."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Should the destruction of the British Empire, or the end of European Empires in general, be added?

I think it should as it is mentioned elsewhere the cost of two world wars caused the Empires to decline. 86.174.43.136 (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

William Lyon McKenzie King

I wish to add William King to the Allied leaders list since Canada had a big hand in helping defeat the Axis. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 10:14 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if King is important enough for inclusion, but I personally would rather have him than Tito. --PlasmaTwa2 19:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we also add Robert Menzies and Michael Joseph Savage? We left off Eisenhower and Montgomery, though that must be due to already having the top military leader of each (Marshall and Alanbrooke). I think it's a slippery slope, that if we add just one more and just one more, soon, we have an unmanageable infobox that provides details rather than a brief summary. --Habap (talk) 22:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The reason for King's suggestion is because Canada served as a contributor to the win over the Axis. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 20:16 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see the military leaders removed from the infobox - it's a bit odd having them listed alongside the political leaders. I don't see any reason to list the leaders of the middle-sized countries who participated, and I'd agree with removing Tito as his partisan movement was, at best, a medium-sized player in the war. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should just list the political leaders from the Big Three and the 3 major Axis powers. Anything else gets into too much detail. Rusted, Australia and New Zealand also served as contributors. Heck, even Brazil sent troops to Italy, I think. --Habap (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

But did they contribute to things like the D-Day invasions, or the liberation of several concentration camps? Maybe, but Canada sure as hell did.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:50 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would support only having three leaders against three leaders, but what do we do for the US? Both Roosevelt and Truman, or just Roosevelt? I think if we were to add King, we would have to look at adding Menzies, because the contributions of Canada and Australia are pretty equal, maybe slighty bigger for Canada. New Zealand's contributions are not comparable. --PlasmaTwa2 00:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

But Australia had really no massive role in WW2, sure they had soldiers go to Germany, but in reality, Australia is rarely a country you think of when you say WW2. Russia, Canada, United States and United Kingdom are the ones who had a major role in the win of the war.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:05 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not in Europe, but Australia played a large role in the Pacific war against Japan; a war which Canada had practically no role in. --PlasmaTwa2 01:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Which only lasted roughly half a year.Rusted AutoParts (talk) 21:28 18 November 2010 (UTC

Well Wikipedia claims that the Pacific War was fought between December 7, 1941 and September 2, 1945, but then again Wikipedia can be edited by pretty much anyone so I guess it can't be trusted. --PlasmaTwa2 04:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are the dates Australia fought in the Pacific War between. Australia's military contribution to the Allied war effort was pretty much the same as Canada's. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

However, to be fair, I believe overall Canada's contribution to the war effort was a slight bit larger (D-Day, liberation of the Netherlands, etc.), and it is also fair to point out that neither Australia or New Zealand had a Prime Minster that lasted throughout the entire war; Mackenzie King was Prime Minister of Canada throughout WWII. --PlasmaTwa2 07:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's get the data. Number of troops contributed by France, Canada, Australia, Poland. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Companion to World War II, total enlistments in the Australian military were 993,000 (pp. 67-70) and total enlistments in the Canadian military were 1,086,343 (p. 145). At the time of the German invasion the Polish Army comprised 'about' 280,000 men (p. 702). Figures for the Free Polish forces are unclear; there were 80,000 at the time of the Battle of France in 1940 and the Navy (which included merchant seamen) reached a peak strength of 4,000 in 1945 while there were 19,400 personnel in air force units at the end of the war (pp. 702-703). The only figure given for the strength of the French military is that there were just under 5 million men in the Army at the time of the German invasion (p. 316). Tito is identified as commanding a force 'several hundred thousand' strong by November 1944 by the way (p. 869). Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, 5 million Frenchmen. That is an enormous number. The data seems to justify Aus (or Anzac?) and Can getting a mention. Though that triggers another problem: I found another source, with Polish data, Baluk (1990): by 1945 there were around 240,000 on the Western front, 340,000 on Eastern front, plus 590,000 partisans directly involved in combat totalling 1,170,000 Polish troops. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Australia, New Zealand and Canada are shown in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about whether or not to mention the leaders as well, right? -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems a bit of a stretch to suggest that the leaders of Canada or Australia were particularly important to the Allied war effort - these governments generally acted in accordance with policies set down by the British and US Governments (Australia didn't really have an independent foreign policy for most of the war, and I think that the same was the case for Canada). I think that some sources identifying them as being particularly significant to the overall war effort are needed. Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed: sources identifying them as being particularly significant to the overall war effort are needed. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I am in favour of just having Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill for the Allies and Hitler, Hirohito and Mussolini for the other. I have removed Tito from the template; I don't see why he should be on the template other than to keep the two lists even. --PlasmaTwa2 21:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Am just curious: how does one open that template for editing? Layout code doesn't seem to be shown when I click the 'edit' function on the article page. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The template has its own page due to its size. It can be found and edited at Template:WW2InfoBox. --PlasmaTwa2 09:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with the issue raised by Chumchum7: Polish military contribution was at least equal to that of France. Regarding Tito, one has to take into account that his forces acted independently, and that they were tying down a very considerable amount of Axis troops.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that we've got the beginning of an edit war on our hands, I think it is time to come to a decision. I oppose adding Mackenzie King and readding Tito until someone can prove that either one of them was more important to the war effort than the other. Yugoslavia tied down a large amount of Axis troops; Canada participated in D-Day and liberated the Netherlands. If we cannot figure this out, I support removing all leaders except from the Big three and the Axis Powers. --PlasmaTwa2 18:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The arguments in favour of Yugoslavia is that it was an independent player which fought from 1941 until the very end of the war (remember that in 1944 the Wehrmacht was just a pale shadow of its former self), and that it acted as an independent force, whereas Canada played a subordinated role in the Western coalition.

The idea to remove everybody but the Big Three and the Axis' members is rather reasonable, because for both parties we have a natural threshold for inclusion: these states symbolised the opposing alliances, they were the political, military and ideological leaders of the Allies and the Axis, accordingly, and they were recognised as such by contemporaries. Addition of any other country will be seen as subjective by one or another editor, and s/he will have a serious ground for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with limiting the infobox to the leaders of the big three and retaining the 'and others' link to the very comprehensive Allied leaders of World War II article. There's no question that Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin dominated Allied decision making at the global level. As Paul notes, adding other Allied leaders is ultimately subjective. Nick-D (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Yugoslavia, to me, is that they were not a major player in the war. They really just fought a war of independance against the Nazis for four years and did not contribute elsewhere in Europe. Tito also (as far as I know) did not communicate with other leaders of the Allies (like at conferences or whatnot). The argument for Canada, from where I am standing, is that they were a significant participant in Western Europe, the Atlantic and Italy. After the defeat of France till the US entered the war, Canada was the UK's most important ally and supplier of food & other supplies. They were a huge part of the BCTAP. They were one of three countries to land on D-Day. And in the case of Mackenzie King, he participated in conferences with Roosevelt and Churchill, which Tito (i assume) did not. In regards to having 3x3, I agree that having the three major leaders on each side works. There will be people who want to add China on the Allies side due to the "Four Policemen" thing, but my idea was always that because the Big Three is more inclusive, those three countries (and their leaders) have more importance. --PlasmaTwa2 06:43, 25 November 2010 (UTC)