Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Adding Charles De Gaulle

IS it okay if i add Charles De Gaulle to the list of allied leaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysterskartel (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. His influence and his role in global scale was not too significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the the USSR's contribution was largely confined to Eastern Europe, so that is hardly global. Given the Free French were fourth-largest Allied army in Europe by the end of the war De Gaulle should be added. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, that is ridiculous. Firstly, EF hostilities occurred in Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Europe; secondly, of course, they had an immense global impact: they lead to military defeat of the major Axis country (Germany) as well as of its satellites and co-belligerents (Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Finland), which de facto was a victory of the Allies in the war as whole. Thirdly, you forgot the role the USSR played in the defeat of Japan.

However, what is more important, de Gaulle's role was even less significant then the role of France: he wasn't a leader during 1939-40 (when the focus of the WWII was in France), he started to play more or less important role only after 1944. However, since the role of France in those events was more then modest, I don't think a commander who was a leader of french just in 1943-45 deserves to be listed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is you argument based upon anything other than your personal POV? According to Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders by Gerhard L. Weinberg:

"The subjects of scrutiny are, in order, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Tojo Hideki on the Axis side, Chiang Kai-shek, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt on the Allied side."[1]

Let's rely upon published sources please, not personal opinion. --Nug (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul: De Gaulle was in the second tier of Allied leaders and had little influence on the overall direction of the war (he wasn't even told about the Normandy landings until after they occurred, for instance, and didn't attend the major conferences which decided the Allies' grand strategy). Nug, you can't make a obviously false analogy about the USSR and then turn around and claim to be advocating some sort of well researched position. Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever disagreed with Paul? A WP:RS that lists De Gaulle as significant enough to be listed with other leaders is insufficient compared with - your opinion that the level of De Gaulle's participation on D-day is some kind of definitive criteria? D-day occurred almost a year before the defeat of Germany, at which time the Free French forces had grown to 1.3 million. The British and US governments recognized the role of France during World War II in Europe and a French Zone of Occupation in Germany and Berlin was created. Yet the leader of one of the representatives present at the surrender of Germany is not to be listed, apparently. --Nug (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your ad hominem comment, it tells more about you than about a user to whom it has been addressed...

It is up to us, Wikipedians, to define the principles of formation of the commander's list: (i) we can include leaders based on their own merit, (ii) we can include the leaders of the most important belligerents, or (iii) we can include leaders of all countries explicitly listed in the infobox. Again, that is up to us to decide. Clearly, a current consensus is the option (i); Weinberg followed the option (ii); the option iii seems to have been rejected recently. If you believe the opition ii is better that the option i, present your arguments.

Meanwhile, Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"Broadcasts from London, the action of the Free French Forces, and the contacts of resistance groups in France either with de Gaulle’s own organization or with those of the British secret services brought national recognition of his leadership; but full recognition by his allies came only after the liberation of Paris in August 1944."

In connection to that, can you explain me how can we seriously speak about listing among the most influential leaders a man who even had not been fully recognised by the Big Three before liberation of his own capital?--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All these options seem somewhat WP:ORish. How about option (iv) reflect what the sources state. --Nug (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the OR policy: RS are not needed to decide what should and what should not be in the article. Regarding "what rs say", different sources say different things, and we have no rs that explain us which rs should be taken into account and which should be ignored; moreover, no such rs can exist in principle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised you cite EB, given your opposition to citing that publication[2] on RSN, but never mind. Contending someone "not been fully recognised by the Big Three before liberation of his own capital" isn't sufficiently influential for inclusion seems somewhat like synthesis. Given that the Allies did in fact recognise De Gaulle towards the end of the war to the extent that France ended up administering its own occupation zone, then that's sufficient. In the absence of any reliable source that explicitly states De Gaulle is, as NickD claims, "second tier", then how is that opinion anything other than original research? --Nug (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You misinterpret me in the same way you are misinterpreting sources: I don't think we can write WP based on EB, but I didn't write we should not use signed EB article as a source of information during talk page discussions.

Your rationale is as follows: (i) in his book about the leaders of major WWII belligerent states, Weinberg listed de Gaulle as a leader of France; (ii) the Allies allocated a separate occupation zone for France. From these two facts you draw a conclusion that de Gaulle personally was infuential and notable enough to be included into the infobox. Frankly speaking, I see absolutely no ground for this your synthetic conclusion. Thus, Weinberg's choice was obvious: if France is considered as one of the major Allies, her leader deserves a separate chapter in the book about WWII. Regarding occupation zones, the reason was obvious: the zone was allocated simply because France was able to control it (that was neither an award nor recognitions of French contribution in WWII, but a burden). Regarding French part of Berlin, that allowed the Allies to take 3/4 of its territory, instead of 2/3.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in Template:Infobox_military_conflict does it state leaders have to be "personally was influential", it only states that "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed" and Weinberg's listing makes De Gaulle prominent and notable. On what source do you contend he wasn't? You cannot have it both ways, saying on one hand France is considered as one of the major Allies, yet claim France's leader as "second tier". --Nug (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As I already wrote, France is considered as one of major Allies for several reasons, and the most important one is that in 1940 the focus of WWII was in France. De Gaulle was not a leader of France during that time. Therefore, it is quite possible that a country is listed among the major Allies, but its leader is not. However, if you believe de Gaulle personality had a significant impact on the WWII (under "significant" I mean an impact of the same scale as Churchill's, Stalin's or Roosevelt role, I don't think Kai-shek deserves a mention either, because it is purely American POV to overemphasise his role), please, provide your evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also prefer limiting this to the 'big three' (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin), who are generally agreed to have been the key figures at the top of the Allied war effort. Chiang Kai-shek attended some of the major conferences, but didn't play much of a role in decision-making. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To not include Chiang Kai-shek would violate neutrality and take a western viewpoint. While Chiang Kai-sheck may not have played a role in the overall grand allied strategy of the entire war, he was the paramount leader of virtually all allied aligned chinese forces which in total were larger than the British and American armies combined. His forces also took the second highest number of casualites out of all the allied powers (only the soviet union suffered higher casualties). Taking Chaing Kai-Sheck out of the infobox would slant the article to a western point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to DeGaulle i am fairly ambivalent, but if he is included than Mannerheim should definately be included on the Axis side as he commanded a comparable number of forces and as the supreme commander of all finnish forces (not even being subordinate to the finnish government) the importance of his command was certaintly at least at the level of and probably more important than that of degaulle.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If de Gaulle had the same weight as Mannerheim, he definitely should not be included. Regarding Kai-shek, the amount of troops, of the casualties are hardly a sign of importance. I would say, large casualties were more a demonstration of his poor role as a leader, who failed to win any serious battle despite huge numerical superiority. If we compare China with the USSR, we will see that the key role of the USSR was not due to huge losses it sustained (I would say, it is an argument to put Stalin on the third position, which I did in the past), but huge losses it inflicted on the Axis: more then a half of the Axis losses were inflicted by the USSR. We cannot say the same about China, and I see no western bias in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the huge losses inflicted on Germany is necessarily a indicator, I have read that a typical German soldier was less likely to surrender on the eastern front preferring fight it out to the end rather than be captured by the Soviets, where as on the western front a German soldier was more likely to surrender due to easier conditions in Western POW camps. --Nug (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Losses inflicted is so lovely metric. There are so many ways you can argue about it, totally infinite potential for arguing. Like take battle of Midway, mere 3000 dead for Japan. On other hand, if you count sunk fleet carriers and how many new such ships all Axis powers managed to get operational in 1942-1944 time frame, then impact is absolutely massive. How many infantry divisions equals 50,000 ton battleship? How many tanks for U-Boat? How many infantry troops for fighter aircraft pilot? What is the ratio between Italian and German soldiers? How about damage of strategic bombing? Not to mention that if big 3 are listed according to casualties inflicted, then it can be argued that logically same metric should also apply to other countries on both sides. Etc etc etc.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

@Nug. Firstly, to surrender one has to have an opportunity to do that. However, there was no major theatre of war in the west since 1940 till 1944. Secondly, German soldiers correctly asserted that they were much less likely to be killed by the Americans (who saw no German atrocities, and whose relatives were not being subjected to brutal treatment by Germans), than by the Russians. Thus, I have read that whereas there were just few cases of execution hostages by the Germans in the West, such executions were widespread and routine in the East.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde makes a good point. Surely the point of an effective military contribution is to disable the enemies ability to fight. So capturing a soldier is just as effective as killing them. According to Overmans some 6.6 million POW where held by the Western Allies compared to a total of 4.1 million killed (Krivosheev) by the Soviets. Disabling a tank through destroying the supply of spare parts or fuel is just as effective as killing the tank driver. So relying upon combat deaths only presents a partial picture. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde didn't make so stupid point. This "idea" belongs to you. You, as usually, cite sources selectively, and ignore basic logics. You compare the amount of POWs taken by the Western Allies with the amount of KIA in the EF. However, you totally ignore the fact that, according to Krivosheev, the amout of POWs taken by the USSR in Europe was 4.3763 million, and 640,105 POWs were taken in Far East. However, all of that is of minor importance. Most POWs were taken during final days of the war, when Wehrmacht was just a pale shadow of its former self, and that was possible only due to four years long EF hostilities.

Re tanks, the German problem during the second half of the war was primarily the lack of personnel. That is why they made an emphasis of production of small amount of state-of-the-art equipment: they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks (solely due to EF)--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that "they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks, hence a stress on production of small amount of advanced tanks." is just ludicrous. Germany produced a total of around 20,000 tanks in the war. Even if Germany could match the US total production of 60,000 tanks, finding an additional 40,000 tank drivers would not have been a problem for a military that numbered in the millions. Krivosheev states 4,137,100 killed and 2,571,600 taken prisoner by the Soviets, that is comparable to the 6.6 million POWs in the West. If you look at the number of POWs held, the biggest jump occurred between the first and second quarters of 1945, with the POWs held by the Western Allies jumping 4.5 million while those held by the Soviets rising by only 1 million. That's 4.5 million soldiers the Soviets did not have to fight thanks to the contribution of Western Allies. --Nug (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? In 1945 the war was almost over, and all Germans were trying to surrender to the western Allies at all cost (remember the Battle of Halbe, where the only German purpose was to break to the west, even at cost of almost complete destruction). And, to take 6 million POWs in the battle one has to have those troop fighting against you. However, the amount of troops in the West was much smaller (ca 1 million), and it got no significant reinforcements (except for the Battle of the Bulge). Therefore, it is highly unlikely all these 6 million were the combat troops.

And, by the way, had Hitler really have additional 6 million troops, why he didn't send them to the combat during, for example, the Battle of the Bulge? Why he lost the war at all if he had so much combat troops? We all know that in the case of numerical parity the Germans usually won, especially against Western Allies. Why, having 6 million troops, did Hitler deploy just ca 1 million against the Western Allies, if his major strategic goal was to push them back, destroy (in a Dieppe manner) and focus on the East?

And, by the way, where the figure of 6.6 million came from? Glantz gives different numbers: 1.5 million were captured by Red Army in May, and 1 million (including those who fled to the west fron EF) were captured by the Western Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rüdiger Overmans provides detailed information on the number of German prisoners held by the various countries at the end of the war. His figures, from an original German work, can be found all over the net: France 940,000, Great Britain 3,640,000, USA 3,100,000, Yugoslavia 190,000, Other States 170,000, USSR 3,060,000, Sum 11,100,000

In addition, the figure of 6 million German prisoners captured in the west is also well established via the SHAEF, G-1 Div PW & DEF report June 22 1945, which notes 6 million in the west (I do believe both include those captured upon final surrender).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

@Staberinde. Yes, I agree that destruction of whole Japanese carrier fleet was much more important than killing of just 3000 infantry men. However, you must agree that naval operations in Pacific had much less strategic implications then European theatre. Had Japan took control over Pacific, it would still be unable to harm continental US, which still were able to increase armament production, and sooner or later, destroy whole Japanese fleet. However, German victory in Europe would mean inevitable defeat of the Allies, and would have devastating effect in Pacific and Atlantic. Indeed, if Germany made a land contact with Japan, the latter would become much more technologically advanced; defeat of the USSR would mean that Japan's best million size Kwantung Army could be used elsewhere (in mainland China, in Burma, in India, etc); seizure of Baku would mean obtaining a vital source of diesel fuel for German submarines (a factor that significantly limited German war efforts in Atlantic); moving German military plants to Ural would make impossible continuation of Allied bombing campaign. The WWII was won primary in land battles, an that fact we cannot ignore.

However, again I would accept your arguments if the loss ratio in East and West would be, e.g. 2:1. However, Axis losses in EF dwarf the losses elsewhere so convincingly that your argument doesn't work.

Regarding "How many tanks for U-Boat?", about 100 tanks. However, as I already wrote in my responce to Nug, for Germany, the major limiting factor during the second part of WWII was lack of personnel (including tanks crew): they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks, hence a stress on production of small amount of advanced tanks. What was the reason for the lack of personnel? Eastern Front.

Re "How about damage of strategic bombing?" Until late 1944 it was much less significant than the Allies expected. Only in late 1944, when they switched to bombing of synthetic fuel production and transportation facilities it became efficient.

Re "What is the ratio between Italian and German soldiers?" I am not sure I understand this question. However, taking into account that Italians (along with Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians, Slovakians, Finns, etc) fought in EF too, I don't think this question is relevant to the subject of our discussion.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, actual almost point by point answer was not really something I expected then I wrote my comment. I am not arguing that country A contributed more or less than country B, my point was that whole "casualties inflicted" metric itself is ridiculously complicated in current context. Lets say you manage (somehow) to establish consensus here that USSR contributed more then USA and UK. Then it immediately raises question how USA and UK themselves should be ordered? Then what about China, France, Poland, Yugoslavia and Canada, who contributed more and who less? Etc. And there are lots of complexities involved. Like strategic bombing isn't simply deaths and damage from bombs, its also air defenses required to counter it, those fighter pilots don't come quick or cheap (as Japanese found out). My comment about Italian and German soldiers reflected the point that German armoured division and Italian East African colonial infantry division are somewhat different in fighting potential per soldier, bringing yet another complexity on table.--Staberinde (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think here we should maintain a balance between precision and clarity. The infobox should explain who the major participants were, and where the major battles were fought. The primary participants (the Big three vs Germany/Japan) bore the lion share of the WWII's brunt, and a reader should see that easily and clearly.

Taking into account that the scale of African campaign was relatively modest, the German/Italian difference can hardly affect anything significantly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps to avoid attaching weight to any particular country, list them via order they entered the war?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We already discussed that before. By doing that, we would turn the infobox into a mess. The WWII was fought primarily between few major participants, and the infobox should make that crystal clear. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How would it be a mess? At the moment there appears to be a discussion on how to list them without adding undue weight. The infobox as it is now with the dates after the UK, USSR, and USA (in that order) would keep the infobox cleared up, and display all the other points you are making. Likewise for Germany, Italy, and Japan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, given that there are only three countries specifically mentioned in the infobox so chronological order would work. --Nug (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When did Japan entered WWII? If we assume SSJW was a part of WWII Japan was at war since 1937. However, no war was between Japan and the Big Three members. That is just one example of why chronological order would be misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. Yes Japan was at war, but that was a war that was occurring at the same time as the European War. While the Second World War was already global (via the various battlefields/oceans and participants), the European and Asian wars were not linked until Japan entered the war attacking the USA and the European colonial powers. I have yet to read a study of the war that has included the fighting between Japan and China, prior to Pearl Harbor, as being part of WW2. It was important to the long run of the war in Asia, the Chinese were supported by Western powers but before December 1941 it was not part of WW2.

If we are attempting to not attach weight to various partners in the war, yet keep the big three of each side in the infobox chronological would do so and not be misleading.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If we adopt your logic, SSJW and European War were two independent conflicts that merged after Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour. Therefore, in that sense both wars were regional, and if we assume that Japan joined the big WWII on 7 Decemper 1941, other states (Germany, Britain, the USSR) also joined WWII the same day. Taking into account that chronologically the US and Japan joined the WWII first, they should be listed first. Moreover, the USSR, which decided not to declare war on Japan to concentrate (as Churchill wrote) on the much more important European theatre (where it was the only major Allied belligerent), the USSR didn't join the big WWII until 9th August, 1945! However, all of that is pure nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I don't think our goal is not to attach weight. I would say the opposite: the fact (which is not obvious for general public) that the Eastern Front almost dwarfed hostilities in other theatres of war taken together is not obvious from the WWII article, and the present order partially compensates for this disbalance. If we decide not to put weight, additional modifications of the article's body are necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul, please don't engage in OR. It is universally accepted in mainstream literature that WW2 started with the German attack on Poland in 1939. Japan joined the Axis in 1940 via the Tripartite pact and attacked the USA in 1941. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a separate conflict that merged into WW2 with the Japanese attack on the USA and Germany's Tripartite pact obligations resulting in Germany also declaring war against the USA. Also your view "the Eastern Front almost dwarfed hostilities in other theatres of war" is POV, geographically and in terms of total population impacted the Pacific war was bigger. That is why chronological order is the most neutral. --Nug (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, please, no baseless allegations. The last cabal (you can easily find a link to that discussion on the WWII talk page) was devoted to this issue, and before throwing such accusations you should read old arguments first.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, I reverted your regrouping of the three Allies. The order is supposed to reflect relative military contribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I feel that Nug was not making a baseless allegation. You appear to be playing devil's advocate to every suggestion. It is noted that prior to China and Japan's entry into WW2, they were fighting a different war at the same time and you take up the position that by the same logic the USSR was not part of the war until 1945. That appears to be argumentative for sake of being so.

In regards to what order combatants are listed, that is not the way it is suppose to be. The guidelines state "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."

I do not believe anyone would disagree that the Soviets provided the main military force in the European War, their military is unmistakably the one that inflicted horrendous losses upon the Germans (although the Western Allies ensured the entire weight of the German armed forces could not be deployed against the Soviets). While Stalin may have played the Western Allies, he did provided little political power in the west. The Americans "took over" the war effort from the British during 1943 and financed the Western militaries. They also played one of the primary roles in the Pacific. With all that said, the British and Americans had a somewhat integrated chain of command, but the Soviets were never part of it (although there was some coordination in certain offensives).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am playing a devil advocate because I don't think proposed modifications are an improvement. Regarding "allegations", I meant accusations in OR.

Re guidelines, let's see.

1. "importance to the conflict" - I think noone here questions that the present order correctly reflect importance of the combatants;
2. "military contribution" - we already discussed relative contribution;
3. "political clout" - that also has been discussed extensively;
4. "recognized chain of command" - maybe, the only thing that could serve as a counter-argument against the present order.

Regarding Pacific, yes, Soviet contribution ti this theatre was more than modest. However, we should not forget that the contribution of the Western Allies into the European theatre was also rather modest from 1940 till 1944: by no means Italian campaign can be considered as a major treatre of war, comparable to the Western Front (not to mention Eastern Front). As Churchill said: "Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that Russians are confident that will not impair their Western Front."

In other words, it would be hardly correct to say that different metrics lead to too dramatic conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocate is fine, but replying with preposterous comments and twisting peoples words (i.e. "If we adopt your logic", "by the same logic the USSR was not part of the war until 1945", "Self-defence does not affect neutral status" etc) is not helpful.

The guidelines note that the usual methods of ordering the combatants does not have to be followed if editors do not agree with them and other methods are proposed. Your reply avoided that, since such an argument as developed, a different method for ordering the combatants was suggested. Your only argument so far to a chronological order, is that some fringe theories (outside of the mainstream literature on the subject) suggest an earlier start to the war.

To play devil's advocate myself here. One could argue that the Soviets were only able to stay in the war and provide the main military contribution due to Anglo-American lend-lease that provided vital materials to keep the Soviets in the war. That due to the Anglo-American contribution the Soviets never had to face the full weight of the German armed forces (due to having garrison occupied countries, and having to keep large numbers of troops in Norway, France, the Balkans, Italy and North Africa due to Allied opposition and threats). Likewise, due to Western efforts the Italians were never able to deploy more troops east, and were knocked out of the war. Due to the Anglo-American airborne effort, the Soviets had to face fewer German aircraft as the war progressed.

One could note that due to the United Kingdom remaining in the war, the Americans were able to later enter (i.e. the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the UK, and a base to launch operations). One could note that due to Anglo-American effort, the western allies were supplied to keep fighting. Thus without them, large numbers of Polish and French troops could not be employed against the Germans. One could also note that the Soviets efforts in the Asian war with almost negligible until the final days, so that the US or China should be top (and a case could be made for being even more so due to fringe theories noting an earlier start date for the war).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I didn't twist people's words, I just developed them. If there is a mistake in my conclusions, please point at them, otherwise...

Well, if the editors propose some single alternative way, and if this way is supported by serious arguments, yes, the order should be changed accordingly. However, I see no consensus about any alternative order (different idea are proposed by different users), and I don't found the arguments of the proponents of one or another alternative order convincing.

Re lend-lease, a recipient of lion's share of lend-lease was Britain, not the USSR, so it is incorrect to say about Anglo-American lend-lease (yes, Britain did help initially, but later it competed with the USSR for the US help). Secondly, lend-lease was not vital, it was very important, but not vital. Probably, it saved several million lives of Soviet people, but, imagine, how many American lives were saved when the Red Army in 1941-44 was grinding down Wehrmacht? Can you imagine how bloody the D-day could be if Germany stationed fresh and numerous troops in Normandy?

Regarding Soviet role, it was modest, but not negligible: the USSR was tying down a million Kwantung Army (by the way, at huge cost: about 750,000 troops and 1000 tanks were permanently stationed along Amur river; they could be very instrumental in Stalingrad or Kursk). Secondly, Soviet attack in Aug 1945 was at least as important as Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I already provided sources elsewhere, look in archives if you want to see details).--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortened the infobox

Hi folks, in the interest of shortening this infobox without losing content, I've put all but the major countries in a collapsible list. See this edit. I'm not sure if we need the bullets, but those can always be removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. As stated before, Paul Siebert and his buddies aren't to decide who played what kind of role in the war. His extreme bias' is shameful and he should be blocked from editing this template due to his attitude of article ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs)

That's a sensible change. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose, China is no longer visalbe, and this creates a whole mess of NPOV issues besides. Reverting since there clearly is no consensus to do so.XavierGreen (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted back for the moment, considering that there are three people in support above (including me). We don't have to exhaustively list every country that participated, in the open, to satisfy NPOV. All of the countries are still listed, and that's all we need. However, we do need to take into consideration ease of reading, so we don't confuse and/or bore readers. I believe this does that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not seeing the NPOV problems here - we can't possibly list every country, and I don't think anyone would suggest that the three outside the collapsible list weren't the main players ('big three' and all that). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear from XavierGreen's post why hiding China (along with France, Poland, Canada, etc) creates NPOV issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally support the idea. The "big three" are widely known for being the main protagonists of WWII; so it shouldn't create a NPOV issue. This will also permit to shorten the infobox, thus making it reasonable (its previous length was way too exagerated). --Bright Darkness (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese practically under independent command threw millions upon millions of troops at the Japanese who sent millions of troops to engage them. I still dont see why cutting down the infobox is such an important thing to do, but even if it is cut down the Chinese need to be included in whatever countries are visible. China and Japan were the only major powers to be engaged in combat when the war started (from one popular viewpoint) in 1937. To exclude them from vision takes a western point of view, and to say that the Chinese front was not an essential and major part of the war is a complete joke when one takes a look at the Pacific war in its entirety.XavierGreen (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But to include them, and state participation started in 1937 would go against practically every book written on the war. Although I would not object to their inclusion along side the 'big three' (and if dates are included for all, the date stating they joined WW2 in 1941).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, It is universally accepted in mainstream literature that WW2 started with the German attack on Poland in 1939. Japan joined the Axis in 1940 via the Tripartite pact and attacked the USA in 1941. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a separate conflict that merged into WW2 with the Japanese attack on the USA and Germany's Tripartite pact obligations resulting in Germany also declaring war against the USA. I've updated the infobox to reflect this since Japan's entry data also contradicts with the WW2 begin date of 1 September 1939. --Nug (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE: China should be included alonside the Big 3. If China is not included, it would not be a "World War" since China/Japan is what makes it a "World War" - otherwise, you just have a bunch of Western/European nations going at each other. Also, China engaged in WW2 between 1937-1945, and it didn't become World War until 1941, but it should be mentioned that China was fighting Japan since 1937, not 1941.Phead128 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. The WWI was essentially the war between European nations (Entente cordiale vs Central powers). In 1939, the situation was the same (- Russia +Italy), and by June 1941 (+Russia - France) it was still world war. Don't you forget, for example Battle of the River Plate?

By writing that, however, I disagree with the idea to put "1941" near Japan and China. This approach is too formal and too Eurocentric. Since significant controversy exists about the WWII start date (especially in Asian sources), it would be better simply remove the dates completely. In 1941 China and Japan joined the WWII only formally, there were large scale hostilities between them in 1937-40. If no agreement exist about the start date (and the article itself deserves a whole section to that issue) no dates are needed at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Significant controversy? I have yet to see a single source that places the start date earlier than 1939 and the German invasion of Poland (granted sources note that the Chinese and Japanese were fighting; just as they also note the Spanish Civil War, German expansion, and the Italian invasions of Ethiopia and Albania helped increase tensions in Europe ... none of them have suggested WW2 in Europe started anywhere form 1935 onwards). Mainstream WW2 literature places the start of the war in 1939, anything else is a fringe theory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we just remove all of the dates? We have an article people can refer to, and if they don't want to read it all, there's still a table of contents that has dates in it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@ EnigmaMcmxc. The current version of WWII article has a "Chronology" section that cites several sources discussing different start dates. Therefore, if you believe that is incorrect, you should modify that section first, and only after that can we discuss the infobox (which just summarises what the article says).

@ Ed. I think the dates are not needed for the combatants that joined the war in Sept 1939 and fought until the end of the war, i.e., Japan, Germany, Britain, China, Poland. Regarding France, we are actually speaking about at least three state entities: the Third Republic, which ceased to exist in 1940, Vichy France, and Free French, as a predecessor of the Fourth Republic. Therefore, I think the date (in a form of a footnote) is still needed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Argumentative for the sake of it. Yes the chronological section has a number of sources that discuss that several historians believe different dates, they do not describe there being "significant controversy" over the start date. Both the article and the infobox reflect that the mainstream view is that the war started in September 1939 and highlight several fringe theories. No controversy is shown... so what is the point of bringing up said supposed controversy in your counterpoint?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read this first. I just assume that we should respect previous consensus if we have no fresh (sourced) arguments.

By following old mediation cabal decision, I just respect old consensus. You provided no arguments so far that can force me to re-consider my view. By saying that, I do not imply my viewpoint cannot change in future; I am just saying your arguments are not new.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad we agree, since you stated: "Correct. A small comment. My third source, among many others states it formally started on Sept. 1939. Therefore, my point is that formally should be reflected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)" and "In conclusion, my proposals are: Sept 1, 1939 - Sept 2, 1945 in the info box, heavy editing of the "Chronology" section and moderate editing of the "War Breaks Out" section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)"

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the simpler solution, since there is so much disagreement on who should be shown and how, would be to just have "Allies" on the right and "Axis" on the left.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed layout looks good and I don't disagree with which countries are shown, but I don't see the need for shortening the infobox. The significance of the three leading powers on each side is indicated by them being listed first, and unlike in many other wars fought by large coalitions (for example the Korean War and Iraq War), the smaller nations played more than just token roles. 96T (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE as well: It's Western bia/Eurocentric bias to discredit China's participation in the war against Japan. Without millions of Chinese troops bogging Japan down, Japan would have created a second front in Siberia against USSR in cahoots with Germany and would have taken India away from Britain. The entire paradigm of WW2 would have changed without consideration of China's participation in the war against Japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Pure speculation should not be the basis of a vote. I agree China played a large role in the Asian war, but it is pure speculation to discuss what Japan may and maynot have done if China was not in the war. For instance, one could argue that the west may not have imposed embargos on Japan if she was not at war with China therefore why would Japan need to launch attacks on the west to gain resources? Likewise, why did Japan not attack the USSR anyway since they did not appear to be bogged down fighting the Chinese (i.e. they mustered forces to attack all over the Pacific and elsewhere in Asia)? Finally, logistically how was Japan suppose to throw enough men through Burma to take India considering the major logistic?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason why China (along with France) was given a permanent veto-wielding seat at the United Nations Security Council, because it was among the major 5 Allied powers that won WW2. Limiting the infobox to show just only the Big 3 while excluding China is showing pure ignorance and discreditation to the participation of millions of Chinese troops that was the primary enemy of the Japanese empire, NOT the United States. In fact, Japan spent 8 futile years trying to conquer China, yet only managed to occupy major cities, major railways, and coastal areas, whereas the interior rural areas remained unoccupied. The VAST majority of Japanese forces were spent focused on fighting in the Chinese theatre of war, NOT against the USA, so to not include China is just purely ridiculous. I don't know what else to say. Pure non-sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 02:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's calm down here, IP – I moved China above the collapsible list. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It was US President Roosevelt's insistence that China be included among the "Big Four" in the UNSC due to her contributions in the WW2 war effort and to increase the legitmacy of UN as a worldwide body that I'm fighting for... I'm merely repeating what US President Roosevelt is fighting for. lol— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk • contribs)

China became a member of the Security Council because of the Soviet Union insisted on that. Similarly, French membership was not a reflection of its contribution; its membership allowed the US and Britain to have more votes in the Security Council then Communist bloc had.

Japan essentially conquered China: by 1941 it completed the objective similar to that of Barbarossa. Main cities (including both old and new capitals, key cities and a significant part of the coastal line). It was equivalent to (hypothetical) achievement of A-A line by the Germans... --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Man, you really don't know history right? According to a telegram to Churchhill, it was USA President Roosevelt that said it was essential to include China (ROC) among the Four Powers and to organize all these United Nations Security Council on a worldwide and not on a regional basis. It was Roosevelt's insistence on the inclusion of China to make it a worldwide body instead of a regional body which makes the legitimacy of the UN more appealing the US public. Hence, ROC (ally of USA) was a permanent member between 1945-1979, and it was only until then PRC (ally of USSR) became a permanent member.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk • contribs)

I meant PRC's membership, sorry. Yes, you are right, Churchill noted that, for some reason, the US overemphasised importance of China. That is an American point of view.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Japan did not conquer China. There were hundreds of millions of Chinese not under the occupation of Japanese Imperial Army. One should simply look at a map of China under Japanese occupation, and see that Japan only occupied 50% of Chinese territory at most, while the vast proportion of China's farmer population was not under Japanese jurisdiction or control.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk • contribs)

Regarding conquest of China, Hitler also didn't plan to conquer the whole USSR. He planned to take just European part of the USSR, and to move considerable part of Russian population to Siberia. That is exactly what Japanese did: they took most important parts of China (actually, they took almost everything they wanted to; when they decided they need more they did that easily (Operation Ichi-Go)).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

(od) Not showing France, Poland, et al. is ridiculous and (visually and by implication factually) only accentuates the USSR's position as Ally even though reputable historians (including editor Paul Siebert's new favorite, Overy) use "ally" in describing the German-Soviet relationship at the start of WWII. And where is that in the template? That they did not conduct join military campaigns is a red herring.

The current version implies three main protagonists for each side, the Allies led by Stalin, and an endless succession of military campaigns across the globe. Whether it's a product of simply too many cooks stirring the pot or some editors believing the template should highlight Stalin saving the world from Hitler doesn't matter—the latest round of editorial attention has made the template into an embarrassment.

If the infobox is taking too much space, let's do something about listing every last campaign. I strongly recommend restoring the combatants, collapsing the campaigns except for top level western Europe, Eastern Europe, and Asia-Pacific, and also doing something to cut down all the white space between lines in that section of the template. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, this is an infobox. Despite sentiments expressed above and all over the archives (not just you, ‎Vecrumba), we can't hope to display all of the complexities of WWII in a little box. What we can do is display the basic information, the things that people will need 'at a glance', so that they can read about the complexities in the text. So unfortunately no, we don't have the room to expound on the German–Soviet relationship; that's what we have an article for. If the order is really that controversial (really guys? really?), I believe there is a way to randomize it for each viewer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

There clearly is no consensus to change to the collapsible list.XavierGreen (talk) 16:16, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, if you want to cut down on complexities, collapse the entire campaigns box down completely or arrange according to Western front, Eastern front, Asia-Pacific front and other, collapsed to those. It's preposterous to show 20 lines (including subtitles) of 42 campaigns and simultaneous wars NOT PART of WWII and maintain it's too complex to show France, or list the USSR as an active supporter and ally of Germany at the start of the war. Let's get real, here. And of course the order of Allies is a problem because the USSR started the war on the other side. Duh! VєсrumЬа ►TALK 16:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

If you click through to the actual article, it is by default collapsed, so that's a non-issue. And no, it's really not a problem, because there are problems with any order you could pick. Hence my suggestion to randomize. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Ed, I think we should decide if the order is supposed to reflect relative military contribution or not. If it is, the present order should stay. If we decide to order the belligerents according to some different criterion, the article should be modified to reflect actual scale and strategic implication of the events. So far, I see some problems with several subsections. Frankly speaking, I cannot understand why should we make the infobox less informative (ordering of combatants not according to military contribution means the loss of significant information).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Vecrumba, sorry, but your reference to Overy is a pure cherry-picking...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but military contribution is subjective and, as can be attested to in the lengthy archives of this page, contentious. Clearly another approach is needed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

In this concrete case, it is hardly subjective. Most people object to the USSR in the first position mainly because the USSR was a "bad guy", and, therefore, it should not be on the top of "good guys" list. However, from the point of view of military contribution it's first place is undeniable.

In connection to that, I have a following proposal. The current infobox more or less adequately reflects the real state of things (by the way, upon meditation, I decided I have no objection against China, the main opponent of Japan until 1942). I propose to leave it as it is for a while, and to think how could we improve the article to reflect real scale of hostilities more adequately. When it will be done, we can return to this issue again.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Imagining that other editors don't want the Soviet Union in first place because they were the "bag guys" is misguided, even you supported a chronological order at one point[3]. --Nug (talk) 21:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

[Nb1] on Soviet Union

I don't think the NB1 on Soviet Union in the info box is necessary because if they want to find more details about USSR involvement, they can read the article. The NB on Soviet Union really messes up the infobox formatting and makes it kinda messy to look at. Just a suggestion.

Yes, I removed it again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the countries in the box

Folks, clearly the debate about which countries to include will go on, however I propose that we start somewhere. In this case, France and the UK. The current box has France as an with the Allies for the duration, which to someone who doesn't know any better, implies France as a country fought WWII from 1939-45 on team Allies. That's just not true, so I added a section under the Allies side called "Governments in exile" anticipating possible other additions. Under the Axis Client and puppet states I put Vichy France.

Also I grouped the British Commonwealth countries together because they came as part of the British package. I think the major powers ought to be listed by when they started fighting, which does put France ahead of the US/USSR; but unlike the latter, the French were willing to take on Hitler so their hearts were in the right place. I fully don't expect that to carry any weight, however since this is a proposal I figured I'd throw that in there and see how it looked. Anynobody(?) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

World War II
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Major powers ranked by starting date China (1937–45) United Kingdom (1939–45) Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa France (1939–40) Soviet Union (1941–45) United States (1941–45) Poland (1939) Yugoslavia (1941–45) Greece (1940–45) Norway (1940) Netherlands (1940) Belgium (1940) Czechoslovakia Brazil (1942–45) Mexico (1942–45) ...and others Governments in exile Free France (1940-45) Client and puppet states Philippines (1941–45) Mongolia (1941–45) ...and others	Axis Japan (1937–45) Germany (1939–45) Italy (1940–43) Hungary (1940–45) Romania (1941–44) Bulgaria (1941–44) Co-belligerents Finland (1941–44) Thailand (1942–45) Iraq (1941) Client and puppet states Manchukuo (1937–45) Vichy France (1940–45) Italian Social Republic (1943–45) Croatia (1941–45) Slovakia ...and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders

Re: "...but unlike the latter, the French were willing to take on Hitler so their hearts were in the right place." Let's separate willingness from real actions. Whereas France was probably willing to take on Hitler in Sept 1939, they didn't do that, and preferred to betray Poland, and then had been waiting for Hitler's attack. After that, France surrendered rather quickly, and her participation was minor until the very last months of the war, so their hearts were in the right place, but their troops were not, and that was much more important. In contrast, whereas the USSR collaborated (mostly economically) with Germany in 1939-40, it took a major brunt of was against the European Axis during the most crucial years of the WWII, namely, during 1941-43, when other Allies had not been involved in any of major theatres of war in Europe (Mediterranean and Italy cannot be considered as major theatres of war). Therefore, I find your argumentation totally unconvincing.
The idea to create a separate section for governments in exile sounds reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your division onto major and minor belligerents is also subjective. Thus, some authors argue that polish military contribution was greater than that of France...--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing Canada, Australia, NZ, and S.Africa under the UK is an insult to those countries. Any vet from Canada would have told you they were fighting for Canada, not the UK, queen, or commonwealth. Even if they were, listing them under the UK is ridiculous to say the least. They are their own countries, with their own armies. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Vichy France collaborated heavily with Germany, but it was in no way a German puppet. Petain was appointed before the armistice and the transformation into a totalitarian regime was a solely French controlled process without German interference. Due the German threat at their border Vichy France was certainly forced to give heavy concessions to Germany (like in Syria), but apart from that it was a fully souvereign state with a large colonial empire and internationally recognized as "the" France, even by the Allies (at least until 1942, when Vichy officials like Darlan switched sides). Therefore putting it on the Axis side as a puppet state among states like the RSI or Manchuko is to far fetched. Just wanted to note that, other issues with this proposal have been raised already too before and after my post. StoneProphet (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A total non-starter. As for France or Poland in exile, then we'll have to add Latvia in exile as an ally, as in its only act of war, the Latvian Legation signed over the Latvian merchant fleet to the Allied cause, in which it served admirably. I suggest we revisit needing to show the USSR and Germany on the same side before Barbarossa. That the USSR wasn't an Axis signatory is red herring. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Signing merchant fleet is hardly an act of war (if it were an act of war, the US had to be considered as a belligerent since 1940, when they provided Britain with their destroyers). I doubt if it was an act of war at all. I also would like to know whom concretely the Allies considered as a head of the Latvian "government in exile" (I am not aware of any act of recognition of any Latvian government by major Allied powers). Please, stop your soapboxing: many Latvians were among the most active Holocaust perpetrators, they fought bravely against the major Allied power (the USSR), and it would be a nonsense to claim they were the Allies.

Regarding your "red herring", please, name an ally against whom the USSR waged a war in 1939-41.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. At first view for the reader, it seems like China and Japan were the most important belligerants of World War II. I'd rather leave the infobox as it is, which current state seems to satisfy the largest number of users here. I appreciate your effort, but I definitely do not believe in the idea of listing countries by their enter into the war. It should be done by contribution to the war effort, and it is rather clear that the Soviet Union, the US, and the United Kingdom are the most important members of the Allies. As for the Axis, Germany was certainly the most prominent nation, why having Japan first? This is merely an opinion. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per UrbanNerd, StoneProphet, Vecrumba, and Bright Darkness. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Canada, Australia, etc. were independent kingdoms post-1931. The proposer is obviously not aware of how Canada declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thailand

Hi! I suggest to add Thailand as a co-belligerent with the Allies in their war with Vichy France in 1940 until their surrender to Japan in 1941. After that it should be indicated as puppet state of Japan.--Anixx1 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting Vichy does not make one an ally. Thailand's internationally-recognised legal government declared war on the Allies in 1942, so I wouldn't call it a puppet state, although its decision was made under duress. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was under Japanese occupation. The occupation was complete. The declaration of war by the Japanese-controlled government was not procedurally valid as it was not signed neither by the king, nor by the regent (which was mandatory). The regent refused to sign it and the king was not in Thailand. This was the reason why the Thai ambassador in the US regarded this declaration void and did not deliver it to the US government. The US did not consider Thailand in a state of war.--Anixx1 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Plaek Phibunsongkhram was in power not the king. Many of the allied powers (for example South Africa, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand) declared war on Thailand. Plaek also purged all anti-Japanese ministers from his government and invaded Burma. Unlike the puppet states listed in the infobox, Thailand was a widely recognized independent state during world war two. The various puppet states were only recognized by a mere handful of nations. They were clearly co-belligerents in the same manner as the Finns were.XavierGreen (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible list

We've discussed collapsing the very long list of countries before but leaving the major ones; can we try (instead) collapsing all of them, as seen here? The infobox is currently far too long, if you'll oblige and look at it in the context of the main article. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Opposes - should not hide content or have multiple steps involved in deriving serviceable information. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support. Moxy (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now now, that's not true at all: "consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior." Those without Javascript would simply see the list expanded by default. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content.Moxy (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Moxy's comments and MANY other previous to this. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support - as Ed says this really is too long. It's no longer an efficient summary. --Kleinzach 07:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

China and Japan

Some idiot decided to remove the (1937-1945) tag on China and Japan. Do you know history? Do you know that TOTAL WAR between China and Japan started in 1937, so why do you delete it constantly? If you have 1941-45 tags for US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... there is absolute NO REASON to remove 1937-45 tag.Phead128 (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, no one here is an "idiot" besides yourself. Secondly it was reverted because this is infobox about WW2, not the fighting leading up to WW2. The war officially started in 1939, not 1937. By having no date it implies they were involved for the entire war. Lastly, judging by your edit history you have a keen interest in Asian affairs and this is clearly a "promotional" edit. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

By utilizing 1941-45 tags in US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... the infobox has set the precedent of specifying exact intervention times of each participant. Since not all events in WW2 fit seemlessly into black/white start/end dates as evidenced by 1941-45 tags and it's incredibly naive to remove information because it doesn't fit seemlessly into your black/white theory, as majority of historical events evolve slowly over time. Phead128 (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The dates your imputing is for Second Sino-Japanese War - I will revert as not proper info.Moxy (talk) 14:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It's incredibly naive to rigorous impose 1939 as the standard of active force particiation when the WW2 Picture Collage box showing Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing (first major defeat of full Japanese division by China in WW2) which occurred in Oct 1-11, 1938, and this picture of Chinese forces has been on the WW2Infobox collage since the dawn of time when the first WW2 picture collage was created. Phead128 (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Never noticed the image - think we should talk about changing it as its mislelading and will lead to edits of this nature that are not related to the time frame of WW2. Will bring this up on the ww2 article.....Moxy (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus on Wikipedia to preclude the existence of total war (which overlaps the vast majority of Pacific theatre combat) by the German invasion of Poland date of 1939. There is a difference between outbreak of total warfare in continents across the world and initiation of a local total war that is a subset of WW2. One does not preclude the existence of the other.Phead128 (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not pick the date 1932 because of the Soviet–Japanese border conflicts - not sure we should confuse our readers with wrong dates added by false logic. Historians have given dates for these conflicts for a reason. Any source that say WW2 started in 1937?Moxy (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you know the definition of World War? World War is generally characterized by total wars involving the majority of nations in the world. Note that fact it says: TOTAL WAR. Are you stupid to believe Soviet–Japanese border conflicts constitute TOTAL WAR? It's Border Conflicts for godsakes, pick a better example please, thank you very much. Phead128 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I've protected the page for one day due to the edit warring here. Note that while protecting this version is not an endorsement of its current state, I do think it is a bit silly to include clarifying dates for half of the Allies and most of the Axis, just to leave out China and Japan's special case. It's trivial to say (at war 1937–45) to explain the discrepancy. Otherwise, why do we have dates at all? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess the dates are not clear to all and leads to confusion - perhaps your right no need for dates at all. Would be best to not confuse editors - read the article to see all that info were it explains things.Moxy (talk) 23:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm split. While I do think no dates would be simpler, what you think would be the article to find that information (Timeline of World War II) is subset into different years, and the main article has that information buried in prose, if at all. We could end up confusing readers more by removing all of them. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree hard one but we should not give dates that historians agree is a separate conflict started before the world wide conflict - many nations were at war before 1939 - not just Japan and China. The date of 1937 is the Marco Polo Bridge Incident that is the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War - not there entry into the worldwide conflict of WW2 that started later.Moxy (talk) 23:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the dates are needed for the countries that were not belligerents during the whole period from 1939 till 1945. You Phead128 probably noticed that no date is given for Britain, Poland, Germany, etc. That is because they were belligerents since 1939 till 1945, so the dates, in contrast to, e.g. the US or the USSR, would be redundant. I think the same is true for China and Japan: by 1st Sept, 1939 there already was a full scale war between them, although unofficial one (China did not declare a war of Japan because western powers asked it not to do so). To summarise, the absence of the year near Chinese or Japanese flag implies they were at war during the whole 1939-45 period. Whether they were at war before that, or not is hardly relevant to this infobox, because this article does not go into details of pre-1939 SSJW.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus within Wikipedia to rigorously impose the rigid date of 1939 as the standard of inclusion or exclusion of regional total war that is a subset of WW2. It's a dangerously naive proposition to impose black and white boundaries as exclusion of (at war 1937-45), as the official start date of 1939 does not preclude the existence of total war within a subset region of WW2, as readers may believe China has been at war since 1939, which is a total white-wash of the entire history of China's active participation dates in the Pacific theatre of WW2. Phead128 (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

All this is explained in the article and at Causes of World War II - so not sure what you mean by white washing. Anyways no support for the wrong dates in the box thus far from anyone but you - lets give it a few more days get some more feed back.Moxy (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are telling me China and Japan was been at war since 1939, because 1939 was the date Germany invaded Poland. Right, 1939 was when WW2 started, but not the date China and Japan has been at war. The two are not mutually exclusive, but without clarification of (at war 1937-45), you are asserting that China and Japan was been at war since 1939, which is absolutely not true.50.136.53.17 (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. The absence of the date near ROC or Japanese flags implies they were at war (at least de facto) during the whole period this article covers (Sept 1939 - Sept 1945). It does not imply there were no hostilities between them before that date. Similarly, Lake Khasan incident, a proxy war between the USSR and Germany in Spain, and other events are also left beyond the scope of this infobox, and that is absolutely correct. Again, this infobox covers the period between 1st of Septermer, 1939 and 2nd of September, 1945, and it is clear from this infobox that Japan and China were belligerents during the whole that period. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

By utilizing 1941-45 tags in US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... the infobox has set the precedent of specifying exact intervention times of each participant. Since not all events in WW2 fit seemlessly into black/white start/end dates as evidenced by 1941-45 tags and it's incredibly naive to remove information because it doesn't fit seemlessly into your black/white theory, as majority of historical events evolve slowly over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.17 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As stated numerous times before, those countries have date tags because they were not involved for the entire war. The countries without tags were involved for the entire war 1939-45 or more. It's not that complicated. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what we can do here User:Phead128 (50.136.53.17) could care less about the consensus here. Best we ask to get the template locked up I guess.Moxy (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

TThere is no consensus on Wikipedia to preclude the existence of total war (which overlaps the vast majority of Pacific theatre combat) by the German invasion of Poland date of 1939. Even in your futile attempt to remove 1938 Battle of Wanjianling picture in the WW2 official article, users see past your attempt to draw black & white boundaries which is tantamount to exclusion of materials related to WW2 as a exercise in failure. Phead128 (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Pls read all that was said to you above. No more kid games - time to respect ALL those here that dont see it your way. We have basic conduct expectation that all are expected to follow. Pls read over WP:EDITCONSENSUS Moxy (talk) 23:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the WW2 Picture Collage Infbox shows Chinese forces in the Battle of Wanjialing, which occurred in Oct 1-11, 1938, has been on the Wikipedia WW2Infobox collage page since forever shows you the extreme double standard you guys set. You guys have NO RIGHT to discredit China's participation WW2 by refusing to acknowledge that China has been in total war since 1937, just because China didn't initiate total war exactly when Germany invaded Poland does not mean China cannot merit an exact tag of period where it has been at war, just like US and USSR with their 1941-45 tags as well.Phead128 (talk) 01:48, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• After an ANI thread, prompted no doubt by yet another revert from Phead, I have blocked them for edit-warring. Consensus here is clearly not with them, and thus their revert was against consensus, disruptive. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Newcomer comment I've just seen the ANI thread and I'm puzzled. What exactly is wrong with the dating suggested by Phead128? No doubt he became frustrated etc. but putting the dates of the Second Sino-Japanese War seems reasonable enough. Am I missing something? --Kleinzach 12:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Wait a sec

So lets look at the template closely - to be honest I think Phead128 may be correct here after receiving an email from a friend that works for the Canadian War Museum and edits here but did not want to get involved. We all agree Phead128 is correct in pointing out there is an image in the box from 1938 ... and subsequently the email I received noted that the Casualties and losses section are dated starting in 1937. So we need to look at all this much closer. Are these totals correct for the time period - do they match the article. Should we use 1937 all over or not. The article does cover long before 1939 - consistence would be best here.--Moxy (talk) 04:03, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. I didn't notice that before when I commented wanting consistency—the problem is actually two-fold. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The numbers we see for deaths etc...are they from 1937 onwards and is everyone included? There is no ref saying the time period or whos counted.Moxy (talk) 15:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that as long as there is a 1938 image in the infobox, then the conventional date of the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War should appear somewhere. Srnec (talk) 22:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I propose we restore the dates (1937-1945) for China and Japan. Do other editors agree or disagree? Thanks and best to all. --Kleinzach 06:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. The dates for other countries are already in, so I don't see the big deal.Hot Stop 06:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disagree - If the causality numbers incorrectly include the fighting in China leading up to the war then they should be corrected. How many were killed in Europe before WW2 actually broke out ? UrbanNerd (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way in living hell am I going to let you delete 1937-1939 war death/casualty information just because of your anal retentive desire to rigorously and rigidly impose the date of 1939 at the expense of Second Sino-Japanese war. The Second Sino-Japanese War was an INTEGRAL PART of WW2, and to suggest that Second Sino-Japanese War was irrelevant in 1937-1939 just because of your misinterpretation of what the official start date means is highly offensive to any semi-intelligent human being.Phead128 (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Really? I unblocked you so you could make comments like this? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we can solve this without Phead128 input - the person is not suited for this collaborative environment. So... Anyone have any info on the numbers??? -- do they include the The Second Sino-Japanese.Moxy (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. Let's all take a deep breath and calm down. UrbanNerd : you shouldn't have removed the heading [4]. That's edit war behaviour. Please put it back. .Phead128: Please tone it down. If you are right, you will eventually get recognition. It just takes time. Assuming the other editors are ill-intentioned doesn't help. Moxy: once again you seem incapable of checking basic facts before get involved in controversy. Statements like "I think we can solve this without Phead128 input" just aggravate the situation, besides which you actually don't appear to be able to solve this without other editors being involved. Right. Let's start with you UrbanNerd. Please put back the heading. Kleinzach 22:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Moving forward

Clear consensus for inclusion; there's no need to continue fighting over this. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:07, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the infobox contain the dates 1937 beside China and Japan under the section "Belligerents" as seen here?

Comments

Moving forward beyond the useless posts above that are getting us nowhere. So according to the World War II casualties page - the sources are from the "official Chinese government statistics for China's civilian and military casualties 1937–1945". We also in the article under the "Casualties and war crimes" talk about the Nanking Massacre. So after further thought - with egg on my face - I would say the edit to add the date 1937 is productive and factually accurate according to the article and its sources. I hereby support its inclusion after others chime in.......

• Support inclusion of dates of 1937 to match article coverage/ Moxy (talk) 00:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the date inclusion. Adding these pre-WW2 wars will start a precedent to add other pre-WW2 wars. I'm sure there is many other casualties pre-1939 (Italian invasion of Ethiopia, Anschluss, and many others) that should now be added to the totals. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It is pretty standard to regard the Sino-Japanese War as an independent conflict which merged with the World War after 1941. That is not the case in any of these other conflicts. There was no ongoing major war in Europe or anywhere else that merged with the conflict begun by Germany's invasion of Poland—except that between China and Japan. The Sino-Japanese War was not merely an earlier conflict, but a full-scale war that was ongoing when WWII broke out and that eventually became a theatre of it. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox will look ridiculous stating WW2 was from 1939-45 but then some countries dates start in 1937. Either leave them blank to imply that they were involved for the entire war, and sometimes more, or remove all dates from all countries. Having multiple dates for different conflicts will just confuse readers. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

We already have 1937 in the infobox, though... so by your definition, it looks ridiculous already. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Where do you see that ? UrbanNerd (talk) 04:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Total WW2 Deaths: 61,000,000 (1937–45) So you are meaning to tell me, that Rape of Nanking (1937) shouldn't be included in WW2, because of your exclusively Eurocentric POV? Phead128 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

So we're re-writting history because of your exclusively Asiancentric POV. So now WW2 was from 1937-45 ? Call the masses, we're changing history. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Strawman's argument, as nobody suggested the 1937-45 tag to be imposed on the entirety of WW2. Also, China and Japan was already under full-scale total war by 1939, and nobody disputes Second Sino-Japanese war was an integral part of WW2. So using the date when Germany invade Poland to determine relevant inclusion/exclusion in a black & white rigid fashion is totally Phead128 (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I won't be lectured on what is unacceptable on wikipedia by someone of such low moral fibre such as yourself. This edit is foolish and will confuse readers. But as long as it pushes your Asian bias, than that's all that matters. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support using the dates 1937–1945" for the Sino-Japanese War, a part of the Second World War. I'm opposed to defining the war from an exclusively European POV. --Kleinzach 00:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support because rejecting pre-1939 based on an exclusively Eurocentric POV is tantamount to rejecting the existence of Rape of Nanking (1937), which is unreasonable to say the least...as it's widely agreed upon that the Rape of Nanking (1937) is a WW2 warcrime/atrocity... Phead128 (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It don't see it was "widely agreed" that the Nanking Massacre/Rape of Nanking was an element of WWII anywhere in the article. It's been added to WWII categories. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, the Rape of Nanjing occurred during the winter of 1937-1938, when the full-scale Sino-Japanese War was already underway. It would be very odd to claim it had nothing to do with WWII. --Kleinzach 09:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my comment above, I don't see this as a big deal. Hot Stop 13:32, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support as the Pacific War has its roots in the Second Sino-Japanese War, I see no reason not to list their belligerent dates as proposed in this RfC. While not changing the dates of what the majority of reliable sources recognize as the beginning of World War II, it does establish that both countries were belligerents before 1939, which is verifiable/factual.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I sort-of support this, but it's a shame that no-one has thought to link the infobox back to what's in the World War II article (eg, the article this infobox is meant to provide summary data on), which notes that there's a debate over the start date of the war, with September 1939 being the most common view... Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
• I have always thought about those dates not as an indicator for the start of WWII, but more of just an additional information during which times those parties were engaged in warfare. Since the Sino-Japanese war merged without interruption into WWII, I dont think its wrong to give the reader the additional information that those countries were actually fighting since 1937. StoneProphet (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

WW2 1937-1945 ?

So if we're rewriting history to including "pre-WW2" casualties and wars in WW2 figures, should we not change the date of the war in the infobox to reflect this? Either the Chinese fighting is officially part of WW2 and the war actaully started in 1937, or the war started in 1939 and the pre-WW2 causalities and fighting cannot be included. UrbanNerd (talk) 23:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Strawman's argument, as the original position was 'at war' 1937-45 tags for China/Japan exclusively, not for the entirety of WW2. Please stop distorting the original position into a debate over the official start date of WW2, because that is a Strawman's argument. We are debating whether to rigorously impose the rigid date of 1939 in a black & white fashion at the expense of the Second Sino-Japanese war... It is NOT the debate about the official start date itself. Agreeing with the 1939 official start date does not preclude the existence of total war between China/Japan prior to 1939, 1939 merely signifes when Eastern/Western total wars overlap simultaneously, nothing more. Phead128 (talk) 00:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be difficult, but how can we include pre-WW2 fights/casualties in China from 1937, yet say that WW2 started in 1939 ? And how can we not include other pre-1939 European fights/casualties ? UrbanNerd (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to draw such a hard, black-and-white line? There is nothing stopping us from qualifying these two countries with (at war 1937–45), which sidesteps the date argument while illuminating a casual reader that there is an additional dynamic beyond the 1939/41–45 dates.

As for the casualties, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to cut out the Chinese and Japanese casualties from 1937–39 from the overall count. We are certainly free to include a short, explanatory footnote pointing out that the total casualties include the other war. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd feel much better if there was a asterisk beside China and Japan with a note below explaining they were involved in wars prior to the start of WW2. It's just odd to say on one hand the war started in 39, and on the other these two countries were involved from 37-45. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of a note - simple solution for those that wish to learn more on the fly. At this point I see a pretty clear consensus for the dates. A note does solve any questions/confusion that may arise by our readers ...to that end we should have a note to explain in the "Casualties and losses" that 1937 is used because of how China and Japan use 1937 to 1945 for stats.Moxy (talk) 02:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm against having refs and notes in the info box. If we have one here, we'll soon have 50. This is hardly the only 'untidy' detail in the scenario. --Kleinzach 09:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you believe there are other points in this template that may need further explanation? We are here to facilitate knowledge and should do what we can to help our readers educate themselves. If a few more simple notes does this whats the problem of informing the reader? I assume your aware there is already a note in this template.Moxy (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I am in full support of that idea. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Is this conversation not still on-going ? Apparently we have a "consensus" according to Phead128 and he's gone ahead and changed the info box again. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks ongoing to me - there is - thus far with 9 participants - a clear consensus to add the dates in question. We are still talking about a note (or to be more specific adding 2 notes to the one already there). Moxy (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, if nobody see's the issue with stating WW2 was September 1, 1939 – September 2, 1945 (6 years, 1 day), then directly below that stating that just two of the many countries involved fought in this 6 year, 1 day war for over 8 years, than I am at a loss for words. Truly a sad day for wikipedia. I'm done. UrbanNerd (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic; not a matter to be discussed and edit-warred over here.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Refactor and deletions by UrbanNerd My postings here have now been refactored once, and deleted twice, by UrbanNerd: Refactor: [5]. Deletion: [6]. Deletion: [7]. Kleinzach 05:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC) The seriousness of deleting other people's comments is explained here in WP:TPO "The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission." --Kleinzach 05:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC) This is the background to what happened here. Edit warring started earlier today [8] [9]. Insults were exchanged [10], [11]. UrbanNerd then deleted part of Phead128’s message: [12], while reporting him to Ed here. Ed has blocked Phead128 for 31 hours. Having read through the edit history, I asked for a review of the block, which was denied (by Drmies). Would anyone else like to comment? --Kleinzach 06:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Denmark

Was not an ally. Ever. In any sense. It had a resistance movement. That's it. If anybody has a reliable source that says otherwise, they ought to add it to the template, since nothing else at Wikipedia currently supports Denmark's inclusion. Srnec (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

While I don't have sources with me to confirm or deny it, are you sure about nothing else on Wikipedia? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

That claim is ridiculous, it was just as much an ally as Norway was. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:41, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I am sure about my claim about "nothing else at Wikipedia" because the article Ed links to has no source for those claims. In other words, I cannot source the information in this template from another article, as I can with most of the other countries. I have removed that statement from the article, since it is unsourced and was added by an anonymous user on 11 January.

Why is Denmark listed, but not Cuba? Cuba definitely declared war. It even sunk a U-boat. Srnec (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

• [13][14] - not top class sources, but I am working on better ones, it is not easy to find lists of allies in the literature. Denmark was regarded as possibly collaborating until the 1943 uprising when it was accepted as a conqurered ally with an exile government in London. The free Danes in London signed the declaration of the United nations, and thus officially became part of the allies - this is mentioned in the Britannica article as well which is used as a source in the article on Allies of World War II. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:55, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

apart from Britannica I cannot find a record of the Danish Fredom Council signing the Declaration by the united states[15]. But at the San Francisco conference only those nations were invited that had declared war on Germany by march 1945. Denmark was among the invited.[16] This does suggest that Denmark was counted among the allies at the end of the war.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Henrik Kauffmann ambassador of Denmark in the US signified the adherence of the Free Danes to the declaration, but Denmark could not sign as there wasn't a free Danish government to function as signatory at the time.[17][18].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a link to the original declaration which includes Denmark as an additional ally inspite of not having signed.[19].User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The Danish Freedom Council is not Denmark. Denmark was never at war with any of the Axis states. It is entirely misleading to consider it an Ally, and nothing you've cited shows otherwise. Srnec (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a lot more misleading to exclude it from the template when including such great allies as Mexico and Brazil. The sources I have produced show very clearly that many sources including the UN considered Denmark to be on the allied side whether or not they were technically a signatory of the declaration by the united nations. And yes, Denmark was at War with Germany for two days during the occupation and again for almost two years after the August 1943 uprising and the resignation of the Danish government and the installment of Werner Best and German martial law. And nothing you have cited here proves otherwise. Oh wait...you haven't cited anything.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Denmark's place in the infobox is now far out of proportion to its importance in the war. Anyway, my sources:

• Stephan Hurwitz, "Was Denmark at War?" Nordisk Tidsskrift for International Ret 16 (1945): 49–60.
• Jerry L. Voorhis, "Germany and Denmark, 1940–1943", Scandinavian Studies 44, 2 (1972): 171–85.
• Karen Gram-Skjoldager, "The Law of the Jungle? Denmark's International Legal Status during the Second World War", The International History Review 33, 2 (2011): 235–56.

These are reliable secondary sources. The first one says, on p. 57, "On the Allied side Denmark was not officially recognized as an allied nation or as a belligerent on the side of the Allies until after the liberation" (italics original). Hurwitz—and Alf Ross, "Denmark's Legal Status during the Occupation", Jus Gentium 1 (1949), 3–21—argue that Denmark was at war with Germany from 29 August 1943, but not before. They were Danish lawyers. The Danish historian Henning Poulsen, in Danmark i krig? Besættelsens eftermæle, apparently rejects their views. Gram-Skjoldager quotes Knud Illum as saying, "neither 29 August 1943, nor the creation of the Freedom Council, the sabotage or the German terror regime has thus created a state of war between Denmark or Germany, viewed separately or as a whole".

I won't get involved in any original research, but the status of Denmark as a belligerent is disputed. I don't, however, see any author claiming that it was anything more than an honorary Ally. Certainly, as Gram-Skjoldager says, "compared to the rest of Europe the situation in Denmark was very peaceful". So why is this maybe sorta quasi-belligerent honorary Ally that kept up normal diplomatic relations with Germany until 1945 and was the scene of very little fighting in the infobox while Ethiopia, the scene of lots of fighting and an actual Ally, is not? Srnec (talk) 00:17, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WRT your first sentence, so are the (no offense) Brazilians, Mexicans, Belgians, Grecians, South Africans, and possibly Norwegians, plus more. While all fought in the war, their contributions were negligible beside other countries'. Then we have the other side, with its ridiculous inclusion of all of the Axis puppet states in what I assume was an attempt to balance out the needlessly large amount of Allies. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 09:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge Mexico did not [artici[ate in any military action whatsoever, and I have a hardtime believeing that Brazil did either. Srnec's sources in fact support my argument as they clearly say that Denmark was recognized as an ally, though one says after the liberation and another says after the 1943 uprising. There may not have been a "state of war" in an official sense, but the Danish resistance numbered 40,000 at its height after the 1943 uprising - the Danish army in 1940 only numbered 14,000.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To Ed: I agree, although I think Denmark is a worse offender than all those you mention. There was heavy fighting in Greece, Belgium and Norway. South Africa and Brazil contributed large contingents of men that saw heavy fighting. Only Mexico's contribution could be called negligible. I'd be fine removing Mexico, but in that case I'd like to add Ethiopia (or else remove a whole lot of countries and only keep the big three or four).

To Maunus: You are dead wrong on both Mexico (see link above) and Brazil (see here). The Danish resistance was truly negligible: most resistances are, although later history glorifies them as a "people's struggle". As for the articles, they clearly indicate that Denmark's status as an ally is controversial. So why is it in the infobox of all places? Srnec (talk) 11:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem controversial to anyone but you. About five times more Danish resistance fighters were executed by Gestapo than the entire Mexican contribution, calling that "negligible" is both offensive and ignorant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

To be fair we could also include a note regarding the 6000 man strong Free Corps Denmark which was Denmark contribution to the Axis. It certainly is complicated, but excluding Denmark from the infobox while including countries that were simply symbolic participants is ridiculous. Another 6300 Danish war sailors (15% died) and 240 ships of the merchant navy were in allied service.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Saw this coming a mile away. . . User:The ed17 calls the contributions of Brazilians, Mexicans, Belgians, Grecians and South Africans negligible, which I rebut (although Ed's claim was not offensive at all). Now Maunus calls me both offensive and ignorant because I called the Danish resistance negligible, although the Danish armed forces resisted the Germans for mere hours on two separate days and the country was a "model protectorate" for 3.5 years, even after which the resistance pales in comparison to that of, say, Yugoslavia, Poland or France. Or even unfree countries like Burma and Vietnam.
Not one of the Allied countries in the infobox right now is more symbolic than Denmark. All of their militaries fought, all of their governments broke off diplomatic relations with Germany (where such existed) and signed treaties with the Allies. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

British "Raj"

It should be included in the the "client & puppet" section since, in stark contrast to the Dominions (NZ, SA, CA, AU), British India was not neither de jure nor de facto independent or recognised as such by any country, was not in even partial control of its foreign relations, and furthermore was officially subject to British ingerence in its internal affairs. This why there was a vocal and substantial Indian independence movement during the war. Indeed its degree of independence might be deemed lower than "client & puppet" and on the level of colony (British India proper formerly under direct rule of the British India Company) or protectorate (the Princely states); and thus not worthy of inclusion in the list at all. However it should be included IMO since its military contribution was so substantial compared to other colonies; also the facts that it was de jure in a personal union since Victoria had been proclaimed "Empress of India", and that it was much advanced on the path towards autonomy within the British Empire/independence than other British possessions. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The trouble is, both British India and the Indian Empire were completely sui generis. India made its own declaration of war in 1939, and it was the whole of India (including the princely states, which were protectorates rather than British possessions) which declared war on Germany. British India can certainly be seen as a "puppet state", but not the Indian Empire, which had its own armed forces and was represented on the Imperial War Cabinet. However, there were limited forms of self-government in India, where elections (based on surprisingly small electorates) were held to all kinds of representative assemblies. I also do not agree with your "personal union" point, because the British Crown had suzerainty rather than sovereignty over the states. So I do not agree with moving India into a section for "client & puppet" states. Moonraker (talk) 22:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting. I almost totally.... agree with you. India is sui generis. It is not a real personal union, it was just a fancy title that Disraeli gave Victoria for her birthday or whatever ("Germany has an emperor! We must have an empress!! We must close the imperiasartorial gap!!! bustles and bling-bling for everyone!!!!"); note I say "... de jure in a personal union ..." (emphasis added). Yes the Princely states had various degrees of autonomy, just like the sultan of Zanzibar or the sheiks and emirs of the Trucial states. There lies not the problem. We cannot have every possible category, colony, protectorate, League of Nations mandate, autonomous area, dynastic, personal or political union, dependent territory, associated state, client state, puppet state, tributary state, vassal, and of course sui generis entity for the British Raj.

The question is which of the two or three categories we can reasonably fit in the campaignbox, however we choose to label them, is less imperfect to put India in. We can choose between "independent" (currently labelled "[Full] Ally/Axis [member]") or "subsidary" (currently labelled "Client/Puppet"). If it's the labels you're unhappy with, fine, maybe alternatives should be considered. But to answer the question at hand, there is no doubt the Raj fits much better in the second category, since the first should be reserved for fully independent countries. ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion

What about we only mention the three main allies and then add a link to the article on the signatories?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• This has been proposed before: Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/Archive_10#Shortened_the_infobox and Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/Archive_10#Collapsible_list ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Can we make a decision where the links will go. As in some link to country articles and others to country WW2 articles. The list is in no way constant - this needs to be solved. -- Moxy (talk) 18:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)