Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Too many Allies...

The template is such a mess. So many people editing constantly.. Its just too huge! Ethiopia? Denmark?? Mongolia?? Czechoslovakia?? India (a non-independent entity)?? All the while Poland and Yugoslavia, which did fight intensely and with huge losses shoved to the bottom? Absurd. Imo an objective set of criteria should be established, the template modified accordingly, and then protected. This is getting ridiculous. -- Director (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Some countries (Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, Mexico) did not contribute in any significant way to the conflict. India was not sovereign.
• There was no client or puppet state by the name of "Serbia"; the Government of National Salvation was a powerless civil administration within a German military occupation zone (if we add them we might as well add Quisling's "Norway" as well).
• There were two sovereign entities by the name of "Croatia" during WWII, so simply listing "Croatia" is misleading.

-- Director (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

A recent spate of edits did not help matters. It also introduced the imprecise use of "client" and "puppet" and the constant linking to sections of articles on the history of the countries named rather than to the countries named, which is contrary to reader expectations. Srnec (talk) 07:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As the bold edit author, I'd like very much to discuss what is problematic in this box. I'll begin by addressing your two immediate concerns.

• Linking to specific WWII articles or section instead of the generic country. I think it's better hypertexting in this case. Notice that almost all Axis countries (i.e. Nazi Germany and not Germany), and many allies (such as French Third Republic, Kingdom of Greece, Democratic Federal Yugoslavia), Vargas Era, Union of South Africa link to historical articles, not the contemporary country articles, which are of very limited usefulness in adding information to said countries roles in the second world war. This lack of consistency should be more confusing to the reader that any departure from a convention that is anyway expected more from the seasoned wikipedia user than the casual reader.
• "Client & puppet" should be understood as shorthand for "not fully independent ally". They are inherently imprecise and mutually overlapping terms; nevertheless they are more accurate to the period than alternatives such "vassal", "tributary" or others. See the section below for more details. ^walk victor falk ^talk 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting not linking to contemporary country articles. That's fine. But History of the United States is not the contemporary country; it's a history article. To that I am opposed.

Moreover, "client" and "puppet"—which are distinguished by the current template—are not shorthand for "not fully independent" and cannot be used that way. In no way was India a client state or a puppet state. Describing the Soviet Union as a co-belligerent is also confusing to the reader, as is calling Denmark an Ally from 1940 to 1945, since it was engaged in less than 12 hours of actual fighting. Why is Burma on the Axis side but not the Allied? And on and on. Srnec (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

• Ideally, every country should either have an X in WWII article like Belgium in World War II(note that this is a wp:good article) and Thailand in World War II, or an appropriate article about the contemporary regime, like Nazi Germany, Empire of Japan, Stalin era, Kingdom of Hungary (1920–46), to be linked from the flag list. Unfortunately this is not true for all (mostly Anglo-Saxon allies, which have generally very good "Military history of X in WWII", but limiting to military aspects is too restricting). In those cases, the best thing to link to is History_of_X#in_WWII (not "History of X"), like History_of_the_United_States#World_War_II, History_of_New_Zealand#Second_World_War, and History_of_south_africa#Participation_in_World_Wars. Those sections provide short overviews and links to other important wwii articles, including through {{main| }}, {{further| }} and {{seealso| }} templates, which is what can be assumed exactly what the reader would want from clicking on a flag in a campaignbox: general war info about a specific country.

• I can't see why one would want Burma in the allied list; it's just a run-of-the-mill British possesion. Surely you're not suggesting that every single colonial territory should be included?

• This view on Denmark's contribution is rather cavalierly dismissive. Yes they hardly opposed the invasion itself. But, occupation is an act of war in and by itself. As for instance, Luxembourg (whose opposition to invasion consisted of blowing a couple of bridges up) lost 1,8% of its population. That's if the US had lost 2,4 million people (they lost 400,000 in reality).

Another example is Yugoslavia. Neither did it put up much of a fight during Marita-Merkur. Many soldiers, especially non-Serbs, didn't even bother to show up for mobilisation, and the Yugoslav army generally folded like wet cardboard. Nevertheless it became the second most important partisan theatre. So much so that it was the only country that liberated itself without any help from approaching allied armies. This a few year later permitted Tito to leave the Soviet bloc and tell Stalin to fuck off. It was the only occupied country besides Norway to have a substantial partisan movement right from the get go in 1941 resp. 1940. In that respect Denmark was no worse and no better than all the other occupieds, who only started widespread resistance when things were obviously not going to go Germany's way, about the time of Stalingrad.

One out of proportion Danish contribution was crewing and supplying ships for the Atlantic convoys. No other country except for Norway, which had a very large merchant navy, had disproportionately more sailors going to the bottom than Denmark. As for people getting stuck up on the hyperformalistic argument that Denmark was "not a real ally" because it hadn't a government-in-exile, I'd like to gently remind them that war is about blood spilled, not ticked-off boxes.

• What's confusing about a country changing sides? It happens every other war. Like Prussia and Austria fought against Russia for France and then for Russia against France in 1812-13. Or Brandenburg during the Deluge, first neutral, then allied with Sweden, neutral again, at war with Sweden, then ditching its Polish allies when Denmark was crushed. Or even worse, switching side in middle of a battle, like Saxony at Leipzig in 1814 (check the link out, it's right there in the campaignbox). Come to think of it, Saxons are particularly egregious in that respect; they switched sides about half a dozen times during the Thirty Years War....
  ^walk victor falk ^talk 01:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree. In a list of belligerent countries, the most important thing is to have a link to the country articles, not to articles on their history or some period of it. Also, section links are very easily broken. What if someone decides to retitle the section at the History of the United States article? And how is a section of a large article not specific to WWII better than an article specific to WWII, but only its military part? It was, after all, a war.
• The reason to include Burma is that the same Burma that fought for Japan changed sides and fought for the Allies near the end of the war. It is misleading to suggest that that Burma was an Axis partner when it was equally effectively an Allied partner.
• Denmark is probably the least relevant country in the Allies list and its presence there is undue weight. Between April 1940 and August 1934, Denmark had regularised relations with Germany. As long as we ignore countries that actually declared war, like Cuba, we should certainly not include those that never declared war. "Danes" does not equal "Denmark". The nationality or ethnicity of the dead is not relevant to what countries get listed in the infobox. What of Belarus, it lost tonnes of people and was a founding member of UN?
• What's confusing is that the Soviet Union was never in a state of war with any Allies. The infobox is not the place to try and tell the story of WWII via a list of countries. For example, why no Vichy France? The fighting between Vichy and the Allies is well known and always treated in any tome on WWII. And if the Soviet Union changed sides, well so did Romania, Buglaria and Finland (in the sense of fighting the Axis, not of formally joining the UN). And why list Italy twice, but not France twice? Why not list Italy on the Allied side as a co-belligerent from 1943 on?

Do you see what's wrong with this? The template gets increasingly arbitrary and confusing for the uninitiated, who sees countries repeated (Italy), countries on both sides (USSR), countries for whom he can't find any record of continuous fighting for the dates listed (Denmark) and countries that barely existed (Azad Hind). He also has to figure out the difference between a client and a puppet, and why they aren't distinguished on the Allied side. Srnec (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• You are principally correct that section links should be avoided. Though WWII sections in country histories are probably the among the most stable sections. Nevertheless reshuffling, renaming once in a while is bound to happen, and one should avoid extra maintenance if at all possible. Consider my proposal to link to "History of X#WWII" withdrawn. I'll have to go check if the "Military history of X during WWII" or any other articles can make decent substitutes.

• We should avoid discussing Vichy. For one thing I consider the consensus clear on the matter and I accept it. Just very briefly: Vichy did not wage war and was not a belligerent. Its forces only fought where and when attacked and exclusively there and then, as pure local self-defence, whether it was against the allies at e.g. Mers el Kebir, Dakar, or during Operation Transporter or against the axis during Operation Anton. Often the absolute minimum amount of or no resistance was offered. It was a dance where both parties studiously avoided escalation. That is not war. More the state equivalent of a demonstrator that goes limp when being forcibly removed by the police, and bites and kicks a little bit. Unless somebody adds Vichy to the box, in good faith and not to make a point, I will discuss this no further.

• The USSR was in a state of war with one Ally, Poland, for a period of nineteen days between September 17th and October 6th 1939.

• Regarding Finland, Romania, Bulgaria, etc the answer is trivial: they were defeated. They surrendered. They had to do as they were told. And their declarations were as purely symbolic as their material contribution was nil (with the one exception you point out, Italy as a Allied client/puppet state; they signed an armistice before total conquest and contributed in a small way for the remainder of the war with the Italian Co-Belligerent Army, Italian Co-Belligerent Navy and Air Force. Including them should be considered a serious possibility).

• Continuing with the theme of fighting on both sides: I think you're doing yourself a disfavour by using this hypothetical allied Burma as an argument. It was a colony separated from India in 1937. If this goes then we might as well include the Gambia, British Honduras, French Equatorial Africa, British Malaysia, Ruanda-Urundi or whatevernot as allied puppet and clients.

This is totally superfluous since an actual concrete example already in the campaignbox, not a proposition: the Phillippines. My preference is both to be included. If one or the other or both cannot meet the cut-off criterions, so be it, but they should be judged separately and independently. As for confusion, if our heads do not asplode when we see Enlightenment in Spain pitted against the Kingdom of Spain (Napoleonic) in the Peninsular War campaignbox, why should we when faced with the Second Philippine Republic against the Commonwealth of the Philippines in the WWII box?...

• Belarus is faraminously irrelevant. Everybody knew it was a nudge-nudge wink-wink ploy to balance the votes in favour of the Soviets in the UN General Assembly and anyway nobody proposed Belarus as an independent state for any purpose whatsoever until after or the very end of the war.

You over-emphasise conventional aspects of warfare. By this metric, the dates we put next to each country would be 1941 for Yugoslavia, 1940-41 for Greece in 1940-41, and 1939-40 plus 1944-45 for France. If there is one war where this should be avoided, it is the Second World War, the apotheosis of total war. Killing civilians in fire-bombed cities was not collateral damage. I'm sure you're familiar with that charming euphemism, "de-housing": [1][2]. Denmark was treated better the first couple of years, but remember it's the fucking nazis we're talking about, so it's putting the bar on the ground and even slightly burying it. When Speer had to kick-start the total war machine for reals, the bacon and the butter didn't stay in Denmark. One last thing about Danish sailors: to volunteer for the Atlantic convoys was about the only realistic alternative to participate directly in the allied war effort. Since they couldn't enlist in free forces of their nationality like the French and the Norwegians, that's what they did if they wanted to fight for their country and that's why so many drowned in the Atlantic. So please don't dismiss them as random civilians. ^walk victor falk ^talk 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Vichy, I'm not suggesting that we add it to the infobox. I'm arguing that its presence makes more sense than the presence of some of the other countries (in your version). For one, it makes no sense to stick to a strict legal definition of "war" and "belligerent" when talking about Vichy and ignore them when talking about Denmark! For two, Vichy forces launched punitive air raids on Gibraltar, so it wasn't "pure local self-defence". For three, escalation was not studiously avoided by Britain or Free France at times (Dakar, Gabon, Syria, Madagascar) and plenty soldiers died for Vichy and fighting against her: that is, as you said when talking about Denmark, war.
• The Soviet invasion of Poland was not a war in the technical, legal sense. The USSR declared that it was protecting the Ukrainian and Belarusian populations after the collapse of the Polish state. It declared no war on Poland. Once again, you are arbitrarily deciding to count Danish resistance and the Soviet invasion as war, but ignore Vichy resistance.
• I think that treating Denmark as an ally is "a nudge-nudge wink-wink ploy", which was my point. We all know why Belarus does not need to be listed. The same reasons apply with more force to Denmark. The Belarusians suffered more and fought more than the Danes, and their state (as part of the USSR) was undoubtedly at war with Germany.
• You seem to misunderstand what I am doing. I am not making suggestions about what to add to the infobox. I want to add nothing. I want to take away. For instance, I would scuttle all the dates. What's more, I never said that the dates should be based on periods of conventional warfare. Yugoslavia was certainly at war from 1941 until 1945, although for much of the time the Yugoslav war was decidedly unconventional.
• I am not dismissing the contributions of Danish civilians, nor am I calling them random. I am dismissing them as contributions of the Danish state—because they weren't. Their contribution is a credit to them (and perhaps to the Danish people, whatever that means), but not, unfortunately, to the Danish state. I am not sure why you are mentioning dehousing or the exploitation of Denmark's economy. Srnec (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• Your line of argument is two-fold:

a) "if no formal DoW => not include in box". De facto engaging in an undeclared war is sufficient. We can not let diplomatic arcana dictate the content of our campaignboxes. Furthermore, the status of Denmark is only ambiguous between 1940 and 1943. After the government was dissolved, it was clearly under military occupation by Germany, a nation at war with the Allies and thus a co-belligerent according to the laws of war. As a signatory state of the Charter of the United Nations, it was a fully-fledged member of the alliance against the axis. This is just not me saying it. There is an overwhelming number of WP:RS and WP:V sources out there that list Denmark as an ally. By this criterion, there is no doubt that it should be considered an ally and included in the box.

b) the valid reason for not including Denmark would that we consider its involvement and effect in the war (note that this include more than purely military contributions) to be so insignificant that it finds itself below the cut-off bar that we have simply because of a lack of room in the box. If there were only seven allies, we would include all of them, even if the seventh was a micro-state that didn't lift a finger. My opinion is that there are more dubious entries than Denmark, for instance Brazil, Mexico and Czechoslovakia. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why we are concentrating so much on Denmark. Can you cite a source that says that an occupied country is a co-belligerent according to the laws of war? Was Japanese-occupied Thailand an Allied co-belligerent? Did the occupation of Persia turn it into an Axis co-belligerent? Denmark did not sign the Charter until after Germany's defeat, so it is of little relevance. The number of sources describing Denmark as an Ally is hardly "overwhelming". I dealt with this in a previous section. As I said, we have a bit of a "nudge-nudge wink-wink" thing going on here à la Belarus. After all, obviously those nice Scandinavians weren't bad guys like the Nazis!

Brazil sent an expeditionary corps to Italy and lost more men in the field that Denmark. I have no idea about its merchant marine losses off the top of my head. Mexico I would remove. Czechoslovakia was both (i) recognised as a government at war with Germany by the Allies, unlike Denmark, and (ii) far more a victim of Germany than Denmark in terms of lives lost etc. It also played a military role in exile and a much bigger role in the run-up to the war. It's no contest.

Let me make a concrete proposal: limit the infobox to USA, UK, USSR and China on the Allied side and to Germany, Japan, Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Finland and Thailand on the Axis. We can debate adding the British dominions, France and Poland, but if we have the link to the lists that give nuanced explanations of how the parties entered and existed the war, we don't need to get detailed in the infobox. A good criteria for the Allies, in my opinion, is did they fight a prolonged war with their own resources, or did they mainly fight in exile, dependent on their Allies? Srnec (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I can do better than that, I can cite a few sources for Denmark as an ally: [3], [4], [5], [6].
• During the Occupation of Denmark military war dead included 1,281 Merchant Marine, 797 resistance fighters and 39 Army personnel. Civilian deaths included 628 victims of Nazi reprisals and 427 killed during military operations. Total deaths 3,172. There were an additional 3,900 Danish deaths in German military service that are included with German losses. Deaths of Jewish Holocaust victims totaled 77. -- The Brazilian Expeditionary Force war dead were 510, Navy losses in the Battle of the Atlantic were 492. Civilian losses due to attacks on merchant shipping were 470 merchant mariners and 502 passengers.. Note that the population of Brazil at the time was forty million and that of Denmark four million. It it had been US seamen, 40,000 of them would have drowned.
• Is it something like Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/Archive_10#Shortened_the_infobox and Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/Archive_10#Proposed_changes_to_the_countries_in_the_box you have in mind?. I think the idea of having 5 and 3 major allies resp. axis and the others in collapsible lists is not entirely horrible. Here is how it looked like. But there was no consensus. In the meantime, do you agree that Denmark is higher above the cut-off than Brazil and Mexico? ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• I dealt with "Denmark was an Ally" in the preceding section. Your third external link, for instance, says that Denmark was recognised as an Allied power after Germany capitulated. Talk about good timing! The fourth link says something similar. I accept "the fundamental pro-Allied sympathies of the Danish population", but think it irrelevant to the question of whether Denmark was an Ally.
• Your stats show that more Danes (3,900) died for Germany than died for the Allies or as civilians (3,172). So why do individual contributions only count on one side? I also note that proportionately, Brazil still out performed Denmark on the field of battle (510/40,000,000 vs. 39/4,000,000, assuming those Army personnel are KIA from April 1940 and August 1943).
• Something like that, yes. The problem of a criterion for inclusion in the infobox is a recurring one here. Most of the clearest, brightest lines in the sand would actually include countries (like Nicaragua) that everybody seems intent on excluding. All other lines we draw are pretty arbitrary. I do not admit that Denmark rates higher than Brazil or Mexico. The latter cases are very clear-cut, Denmark's isn't. Why is the inclusion of Denmark so important? Srnec (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

The inclusion of Denmark is important because, unlike for Brazil or Mexico (where the war went entirely unnoticed to a majority of the populations), for Denmark WW2 is a significant part of National history. As opposed to those countries Denmark was occupied by Germany, having citizens deported to concentration camps or fleeing, and a popular uprising against the germans in 1943. This means that non-inclusion is not a reasonable option, because it would give the appearance that Denmark did not participate in the war. Neither is only including Denmark on the Axis side a reasonable option, given the outcome of the War in which Denmark was treated as an ally and not an enemy. The better option would be to include Denmark on both sides with an explanatory note.(comment by User:Maunus [7])

• It was a recognition ex post facto; it doesn't mean that Denmark suddenly just got an Ally membership card on June 26 1945. Think about it, raison d'État says that you don't give the status of "Allied power" and all it entails, a seat at the peace negotiation tables, a share of the spoils of the war, lightly. There was a real ambiguousness about Denmark's status between 1940 and 1943. Many on the allied side disliked what they considered a government too cooperative with the Germans. This distrust remained even after it was dissolved in August 1943; those people (generally speaking, diplomats and/or Americans, while soldiers and/or Brits were more favourable) wanted to withhold allied status as punishment for this, and there was hard lobbying behind the scenes about this question for the remainder of the war (this is detailed in this book [8] unfortunately not visible through gbooks) In September 1943, the Danish Freedom Council was formed and coordinated closely with the SOE the now violent resistance (with until the government dissolved had been largely peaceful, passive resistance and sabotage). One of the reasons the DFC didn't proclaim itself a government-in-exile was that the former government had been democratic, the last elections being held in March 1943 (nazis got 2.1% of the vote). Such a proclamation could have been construed by some as an anti-democratic coup d'état (or an excuse to reject democracy). This is one of the reasons why a formal government couldn't be proclaimed until after Denmark was liberated.
• Military casualties of the US: "416,800 (includes Merchant Marine (9,500)"[9]. If you get familiar with the conditions and risks are for volunteering as a sailor on the Atlantic convoys, you'll find that to be counted as KIA is reasonable. I also think it's fair to count the resistance fighters as military casualties. That means a total of 2000, and 1500 (500 soldiers, 500 navy sailors, 500 merchant sailors) for Brazil.
• I don't think hard and fast inclusion criteria are possible. For example, on the perennial question on whether France or China should have the fourth position, my opinion is that it is a complete coin toss. Also, consideration should given to the list as whole. I'd be disappointed if Brazil was dropped, because it is a representantive of the global nature of the conflict beyond Europe and the Pacific. Also for completeness: one is so used to "first Poland, then Scandinavia, then the Low Countries", that the absence of the Danish flag is a stark and distracting reminder of the incompleteness of the list, and this impugns on wikipedia's reliability reputation. After all, encyclopedia means "circle of knowledgde", so I think it is our duty as editors to do our outmost to fit that tiny Danish square flag into that round hole of a campaignbox. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

• @ Maunus. So what? That WWII is a significant part of any nation's history says nothing about whether that nation was a belligerent or on which side it fought (if it fought). The infobox is not for listing "countries affected". "The better option would be to include Denmark on both sides with an explanatory note." How is that a good option? It would be very confusing, especially considering how little Denmark's armed forces did. Remember, this article is about a war.
• @ Victor Falk. What other country's status is so ambiguous? What is unambiguous is that unlike Czechoslovakia, Denmark had no government-in-exile; unlike Yugoslavia, there was no continuous guerrilla war in Denmark; unlike Cuba, Denmark sank no U-boat; unlike Mexico or Brazil, she did not send forces overseas; unlike Panama, she did not declare war on Germany (or anybody); unlike Ethiopia, her territory was not the site of large-scale fighting for months on end.
• Why are we still comparing Denmark and Brazil instead of Danes who died for the Allies and Danes who died for the Axis? I don't want to jump to conclusions.
• The list cannot be complete without the various Latin American republics that declared war. And if Denmark is in becaue of the UN Charter, what about all the other original signatories? Like Iraq and Ukraine. The list shouldn't be complete. It should be informative in a general way. The major players are the ones that determined the course of the war. They should be listed. All others can be relegated. Srnec (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• I think User:Maunus makes a keen observation when he say "[...] unlike for Brazil or Mexico (where the war went entirely unnoticed to a majority of the populations), for Denmark WW2 is a significant part of National history. As opposed to those countries Denmark was occupied by Germany, having citizens deported to concentration camps or fleeing, and a popular uprising against the germans in 1943".
  Quite. In the US, the homefront (to say nothin of Cuba or Nicaragua) was just a metaphor. In Denmark, it was not metaphorical at all; it was what saw when you glanced out of the kitchen window, and eyed a German patrol ambling down the street.

• While I agree with User:Maunus that Danmark's special situation might warrant a footnote, I agree with you that we cannot put it together with the Axis, because there is simply nothing to put there; I take for granted that you're not one of the those people that would suggest Free Corps Denmark or the Schalburg Cross. Since we both agree on removing Mexico and thus making room, I have now added Denmark with a footnote: [10] (btw, the reason that France has a footnote is because of all the discussions about including Vichy or not).

• Are you aware of the mortality rate of foreign SS volunteers?... Just because because roughly as many died for both sides you can't say that half of Danmark was for the allies and half for the Germans. Need I remind you that this country voted 98% against the Germans, in an election under bloody nazi occupation in march 1943 (and incidentally, the fact that the Nazis were mighty displeased with those results contributed in large part to the crisis a couple of months later). On the other side, most Danish volunteers served with panzer division SS-Wiking, and formed together with the Norwegians regiment Nordland. The FKD (which functioned as a training unit for SS-Wiking) article says it had 12,000 volunteers, and that 6000 were accepted. No numbers in the Schalburg article, but it says it was battalion strength. Considering that out of 20,000,000 average Fritzes mobilised by the Wehrmacht, 5,000,000 never came home, casualties figures above 50% seem reasonable for our SS friends. ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Once again, so what? So the war is significant to Danish national history. What does that have to do with whether or not Denmark was a belligerent? Or an Ally? "Home front" is no metaphor in the case of Ethiopia or Burma either, yet they don't get listed as Allies.
• The reason Denmark should not be listed as an Axis member are basically the same as those it should not be listed as an Ally. Since "national importance" does not decide the question of Ally vs. Axis, what does? It cannot be that more Danes died for the Allies than the Axis, because your own stats cast doubt on that. It cannot be that Denmark was recognised as a member of the UN ex post facto, since so was Belarus and Ukraine, which were also the scenes of enormous fighting, fare more so than Denmark in fact. So what is it? Why is Denmark an Ally and not an Axis member? Because she was a victim of German aggression and the Allies did not consider her cooperation a free choice? But Thailand was a victim of Japanese aggression and the USA did not consider her declaration of war a free choice either. Please do not add Denmark back until our discussion has concluded. If you like, we could try to get more third party input. But this isn't only about Denmark.
• I am not saying that half of Denmark was pro-Axis. As I said, I don't doubt that the population was generally pro-Allied. Of course, I think the Bulgarians were mostly pro-Russian and the Chetniks pro-Allied as well, but it's complicated. Non-Nazi votes are not anti-German votes in the elections. That's simply your interpretation of them. One could argue that if the Danes were free to vote under German occupation, then they were hardly suffering the ravages of war. My only point about the casualty numbers was that they do not support placing Denmark on the Allied side. That point stands. Srnec (talk) 13:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the aim of the template shouldbe to provide the information that readers are most likely to search for. A Danish reader is going to be very confused at not seeing Denmark in the template on the list of allies. A Mexican or Brazilean reader is very unlikely to miss their country on the list.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Which would tell us more about their public education systems than anything else. Srnec (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Danish history education is uncharacteristically chauvinistic? On what do you base this claim? The fact is: WWII is a very important event in Danish history; not so much in Mexican history. ^walk victor falk ^talk 02:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I am suggesting that Danish history education is characteristically chauvinistic. Americans, no doubt, are shocked not to see the United States atop the list of Allies, much as all non-Australians are shocked to find out Australia did anything at all. (I am neither—neither American nor shocked. Nor Australian.) Once again, however, the importance of WWII as an even in Danish history is utterly irrelevant to whether Denmark belongs in the infobox or whether it was an Ally. Srnec (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

You're so right! :D The war was utterly and completely lost, I tell you, if Uncle Sam had not intervened in the nick of time, mark my words! Everybody knows the Resistance single-handedly liberated France! Plucky little England defeated the German war machine all on its lonesome, while all others had been defeated or standing on the sidelines, by shooting down the Luftwaffe! Who killed 80% [actually correct figure] of German soldiers while the capitalist cowards were cowering behind the Channel for years? The red army soldier, that's who! And no true Norseman will tell you anything but that they resisted the nazis from day one while those Danes and Swedes were busy licking Hitler's arse.... All right. Absolute war involvement (participating in a war entails more than pure military effort) is not a criterion for box inclusion; if the allies consisted of France, China, the UK, the USA, the USSR, San Marino and Lichtenstein, we would include all of them. We only use relative war involvement to decide who goes in the box and who is relegated to list of allies of World War II. Saying that the Fuerza Aérea Expedicionaria Mexicana (consisting of one aircraft squadron ) was a more important element of WWII than Denmark's invasion and occupation, is no offence intended either to you or Mexicans, frankly a bit ridiculous.
Aside from that, Danish history is a part of world history. Therefore, something that is very important in Danish history must be somewhat important in world history, because while Denmark is a small country (and nobody agrees more on that Denmark is a small country than Danes), it is not an utterly irrelevant country. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Should just link to Participants in World War II or perhaps Allies of World War II and Axis powers. This way no one is left out or stands out. What is more useful to our readers having a bunch of links that go to main country articles that barley mention this topic (Canada) or links to the main WW2 articles by country (Military history of Canada during World War II) that can all be found at Participants in World War II? -- Moxy (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Victor. I agree that "we only use relative war involvement to decide who goes in the box and who is relegated". So what is the argument that Denmark meets that as yet unestablished cutoff? I suggested a criterion above: only those countries that fought extensively and independently (in the sense that their existence was independent and their armed forces independently maintained) should be in the box. No countries in exile and no minor partners, at least for the Allied side. The biggest drawback to this criterion is that it excludes countries whose territory saw serious fighting, like Poland, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia, but who could not maintain their existence without British support.

@ Moxy. That would be easier, but I think a box without a single named country or even a flag is probably too confusing for those not terribly familiar with WWII. At the very least the main players ought to be mentioned explicitly. Srnec (talk) 03:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Moxy I agree with Srnec. A list of flag, even a seriously flawed one (and this one is not, we're just arguing over the finer details; you want something bad go check the Iraq war box some years ago), is better at giving the reader a rough idea of the opposing forces than forcing them to sift through an long and complex article. Taking down all the flags and saying "to hell with that and let God sort them out" is the easy way out, but it is also failing our duty towards the readers.

@ Srnec. So limiting to the Five Majors and the commonwealth only? That results in an utterly skewed representation of the war. World War Two was TOTAL WAR. Partisan warfare, industrial warfare, total mobilisation of the economy and the population, resistance against occupation, atrocities against civilians, those are part and parcel of that conflict, indeed in such a way never seen since or before. Using exclusively military conventional criteria is absolutely out of the question. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Allied surplus?... or Axis deficit?...

Scanning across the campaignboxes of wikipedia, I estimate that about a dozen and a half or roughly around 20 is the reasonable maximum. Since there are more tha 50 allies, there's is no possibility whatsoever to include most or all of them. On the other hand, it would be hypothetically possible to include more or less every single axis country. I have had thoughts of dividing the axis clients/puppets into a Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere section and other client/puppets. The only irritating problem is that G.E.A.C.P.S is such a long-ass name it won't fit in the column... grrr... In a broader sense, countries such as the State of Burma and Azad Hind illustrates in the same way that Brazil or Commonwealth of the Phillippines do for the allies the global reach of the conflict. Regarding the USSR, the argument is the same than above on the thread with Denmark, that according to user:srnec, only diplomatically recognised de jure wars where the proper formal declaration was given by the ambassador to the head of state of the declaree state at an opportune occasion with tea and crumpets. Jest aside, the serious issue here is that wikipedia as an encyclopedia should describe reality; an undeclared war is still de facto a war. ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems like just five minutes ago you were arguing that the Anglo-Vichy undeclared war was not a a war at all. Also, it seems like you are arguing that Denmark's de jure status (as asserted ex post facto by the Allies and some Danish lawyers) is more important than the facts on the ground, i.e. that Denmark did not go to war and was a "model protectorate" for 3.5 years. And were you not opposed to Belarus and Ukraine, despite the ravages of total war they suffered in the extreme? I am having difficulty understanding your distinctions.

I will also respond to this comment from the thread above:

So limiting to the Five Majors and the commonwealth only? That results in an utterly skewed representation of the war. World War Two was TOTAL WAR. Partisan warfare, industrial warfare, total mobilisation of the economy and the population, resistance against occupation, atrocities against civilians, those are part and parcel of that conflict, indeed in such a way never seen since or before. Using exclusively military conventional criteria is absolutely out of the question.

I agree that listing all the Dominions separately would skew the box too much, so I would just put "British Empire" (or Commonwealth, if others insist). The extent and effectiveness of partisan warfare and resistance are generally overestimated. (How was Denmark's industry, economy and population mobilised for war? Denmark avoided total war like almost nobody else Europe.) We disagree on the importance of conventional military action. I say that everything supervenes on that. It is what made this a war.

As I argued above, the armed forces of the State of Burma actually changed sides and fought with the Allies in the end. Not like Romania, under an armistice, but of their own accord. Azad Hind was a state without a territory and its presence is misleading. (More than Czechoslovakia's, but I am okay with removing it too.) Srnec (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I think previous discussions have clearly established a consensus in favour of the "long list" format as opposed to the "short list", "collapsible list" or "no list" format. Certainly conventional military action is important, but it does not "supervenes everything". If so, how do you explain the presence of Kuwait at the top of the Gulf War campaignbox, a conventional war par excellence? Just as important if not more, as Clausewitz told us, are political factors. That is why if I had to choose between Brazil and Denmark, I'd go for the latter, while their respective strictly military involvement is roughly comparable, since it is more politically and strategically important in the context of WWII than the former.
I agree that Denmark's status was nebulous "for 3.5 years" and it might arguably be called a client state during that the period. Had the war ended before 1943, I don't think Denmark would have been included in the Allies (though it's not inconceivable). However it went on for two more years until 1945, during which no Danish government, not even a puppet one, was cooperating with Germany and it was under full Nazi occupation (and military occupation is an act of war according to international law) just like Norway or the Netherlands. The absolutely only missing piece was an official government-in-exile (and the DFC functioned as an unofficial one for managing relations with the Allies), and the reasons for that become apparent once you become familiar with the circumstances under which Denmark was dragged into the war.
Bringing up Czechoslovakia is interesting in that context. If one categorically demands an official government-in-exile, then one must append the dates (1941-1945) next to the Czechoslovak flag. That is gravely exaggerating the importance of a bunch of Czechs in London changing the name of their gathering from "Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee" to "Provisional Government of Czechoslovakia". If Czechoslovakia was at war after 1941, then it was not at peace before 1941, as such dates in the infobox would imply to the reader.

Ukraine and Bielorussia. It's anachronistic. No one claimed they were independent states until after the war. No one doubted Denmark was a fully recognised state before, during, and after the war. Perhaps if you accept the Soviet view that the USSR was a voluntary congregation of independent states you could add them and the other Soviet Socialist Republics (the Central Asian and Caucasian ones) as "clients & puppets". Please add them under that header if you wish so, I guess it's OK by me.

In principle I have no objection to adding "State of Burma (1945)" to the allied client & puppet list; it's just that it ranks at the very bottom of that list.

I am not 100% opposed to Vichy, I however understand the strong objections that people put forward. To begin with, what flag would we use? The one defaced with a francisca is a completely unofficial one and we are not allowed to make up our own flags to decorate infoboxes; the "French State"'s official flag was the plain tricolour. But using that would imply a civil war, like the Italian Civil War, but there is no such thing as a French Civil War during World War II. Then we have the problem of Vichy's status as a state entity. No one doubts that the USSR in 1939 was a fully independent state that attacked Poland of its own free will. A case might be made that Vichy was a Axis client state, but that would be misleading if included under that heading since it was in no way participating in the war like Croatia or Slovakia. Further, military operations in and by themselves are not automatically equal to an undeclared war. For instance, there has been a series of border skirmishes between Thailand and Cambodia since the beginning of the century, but no one says they are at war. But discussing Vichy is rather a waste of time, since I understand you don't want to add it to the box? ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The list as it stands is totally arbitrary. For whatever reason, Italy pre-1943 and post-1943 are distinguished on the Axis side but not pre-1944 and post-1944 Hungary! Co-belligerent Italy is included as an Ally, but not co-belligerent Romania or Bulgaria! The USSR is an Axis co-belligerent for invading Poland, but Finland is not an Allied co-belligerent for forcing out the Germans! Iraq is an Axis power for about a month's fighting after a coup, even though it adhered to the UN Declaration before the war was out. Luxembourg is deemed more important than Ethiopia. Burma's change of sides is neglected. This infobox is not informative. It tries to do too much and the reader is not well served. Now I wish to address some of your claims.

The absolutely only missing piece was an official government-in-exile. No, the main missing piece was a battle. The gov't-in-exile is an important missing piece, but the battle just as much so. The Danes simply did not militarily resist Germany for any considerable time. They avoided war instead of fighting it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but it gives a misleading pictuer to include them in the infobox. Norway and the Netherlands fought extensively and continued to contribute armed forces even after their gov'ts went into exile.

That is gravely exaggerating the importance of a bunch of Czechs in London. . . In light of what you have said about the Danes, it is odd of you to sneer at the Czechs, who had a bona fide resistance in their homeland and whose political importance to the outbreak of war far exceeds that of Denmark. What's more, Czechoslovakia-in-exile provided soldiers to Allied units on land, in the air and at sea. Denmark did not do this, because its gov't cooperated with the Germans. (I am not impugning the Danes for this.)

It's just that [the State of Burma] ranks at the very bottom of that list. Why? More Burmese died in the Allied cause than Luxembourgers or Mexicans. Its political importance in ensuring Burmese independence post-war is also greater than any political influence Mongolia, say, had.

There is no such thing as a French Civil War during World War II. I disagree. There is such a thing and many authors refer to it. What no author I have yet read has done is invent the term "French Civil War" (actually, Google Books provides me with a source that says "the Occupation in France can and should be considered a French civil war"). That Frenchman fought Frenchman at Dakar, in the Gabon, in Syria and Lebanon is not disputed. That French resistors fought collaborators in France is also not disputed. It was a civil war exactly as the Italian one was. I do not want to add Vichy to the box.

No one doubts that the USSR in 1939 was a fully independent state that attacked Poland of its own free will. This is true, but also POV. The USSR did not claim to be attacking Poland.

In the end, I think (i) only countries that fought conventional battles ought to be included and (ii) no client or puppet states. Srnec (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• srnec, I think our central disagreement is this: you want to use exclusively conventional warfare as a criterion. I want to take into account and balance military, geostrategical, economical and historical criteria. Correct? ^walk victor falk ^talk 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe, but I don't think Denmark or Azad Hind become more important once you add on geostrategic and economic criteria. They were still marginal. The infobox cannot be complete, so I want it to convey just who the parties to this dustup were. Thus, I focus on (more or less) conventional military action. On your terms, the USA was almost as important before December 1941 as after. Srnec (talk) 13:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

• The importance of Greenland, Iceland and the Faeroes in securing the vital Atlantic sea lanes alone make Denmark rather important from a geostrategic point of view. The current consensus is to take more into account than conventional military action: that's why Yugoslavia comes right after Poland. This is after all an infobox for "World War Two", not "Military history of World War Two". ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

If there were no WWII, there would still have been economy, industry and diplomacy between 1939 and 1945. So what is the essential feature that makes that period characterised by war? Srnec (talk) 15:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The mobilisation on an unprecedented scale of economical and industrial resources, which made possible the waging of total war. ^walk victor falk ^talk 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Denmark mobilise its economic and industrial resources on an unprecedented scale? Did it wage total war? Was it the target of total war? What about Azad Hind? At this point, Victor, all I can do is ask that you clarify what criteria you have in mind for the box. Srnec (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Certainly. According to the discussions in the archives, the criteria for inclusion is that countries are to be ranked by overall war importance. Personally, I'd like an element of chronological and regional clustering, but that might too subtile and complex. Here I must say that I'm sorry for having wasted so much of your (and mine, but the blame for that is on me) time by assuming you abided by those, and that we were discussing Denmark on the same conditions.
But it seems you want to apply your preferred criteria,

only those countries that fought extensively and independently (in the sense that their existence was independent and their armed forces independently maintained) should be in the box. No countries in exile and no minor partners, at least for the Allied side. The biggest drawback to this criterion is that it excludes countries whose territory saw serious fighting, like Poland, Norway, Greece and Yugoslavia, but who could not maintain their existence without British support.

exclusively to Denmark to decide its inclusion in a list determined by other criteria. I'm sure you understand why this would not be acceptable. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:26, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We have different impressions of those archived discussions. You need not assume I abided by anything, since I made my position perfectly clear. As for the criterion of "overall war importance", I believe I did address Denmark on those terms. We simply disagree about its importance. I do go one furtherm, however: I think the criterion is hopelessly vague and will lead to endless debates. How does one assess "overall war importance" of Sweden? Or is it not relevant because Sweden ... did not declare war? What about Bulgaria, which did very little as an Axis power? Its "overall war importance" seems little higher than Thailand's. And where's the cutoff? If Denmark is in, why not Ethiopia? As I said, too vague.

The criteria you quote were some I suggested, even noting their drawbacks. Your accusation that I am trying to apply one criterion to Denmark and not to other countries is baseless. I explicitly acknowledged that the suggested criteria exclude Poland as well as Denmark. In fact, it is you who keep trying to apply one criterion to Denmark and refuse to apply it to everybody. When you mention the UN, I ask why not Belarus and Ukraine? When you mention the Danes who died with the Allies, I ask why more Axis deaths doesn't merit calling Denmark Axis? You say an invasion creates a state of war, so why isn't Persia listed among the Axis powers? You say the British treated Denmark as an Ally, but is that not how the Yanks treated the Thais? Denmark has geostrategic significance, but so did Vichy, Panama and Portugal.

I want to establish new, clear and practical criteria for the infobox. Ranking by "overall war importance" is doomed to failure. Srnec (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is vague and subjective, but that's what we have to work with. Attempts to "establish new, clear and practical criteria for the infobox" are "doomed to failure", because everybody will try to formulate them to produce their favourite outcome.
• Absolutely everybody agrees that Bulgaria was the least important of the full Axis members. But if you remove it because it is at the bottom of that list, then what? Remove Romania since it will then be at the ottom? and then Hungary? Bulgaria's participation was by no means unimportant: invading Yugoslavia, occupying parts of Greece and Macedonia, being invaded by the Soviets.
• Absolutely everybody agrees that Sweden was neutral and did not participate in war.
• SS foreign volunteers are counted in Germany's casualties.
• I've said before that Bielorussia and the Ukraine are includable in the client/puppet category.
• The cut-off is simply space. If we have room for all, we take them all in.
• I agree that one could make a case for Persia, but it is not listed in either Axis powers, Allies of World War II, or Participants in World War II. By the way, I really should have mentioned earlier that those articles are the basis upon which inclusion of a country in the infobox should be made. They all describe Denmark as an ally; therefore it should be included in the box.
• How low do you rank Denmark as an ally exactly? Lower than Haiti?
  ^walk victor falk ^talk 10:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• When I suggested a criterion above, and then noted its drawbacks, I was not formulating a criterion to obtain my desired outcome.
• The cut-off is simply space. If we have room for all, we take them all in. I am under the impression that this is neither possible nor desirable. But if "space" is the cutoff, then we should rank all the Allies (and Axis) members by "overall war importance" and then, having predetermined the maximum number, cut off the list at that point. If you give me the number, I will give you my own (subjective) list of Allies by "overall war importance" and we'll see where it cuts off. And vice versa. Since I think the Axis side should be Germany–Italy–Japan–Romania–Finland–Hungary–Bulgaria–Thailand (and maybe Iraq), I propose cutting off the Allied list at a comparable 8–10 members. My own list would be: British Commonwealth–Soviet Union–United States–China–France–Poland–Greece–Yugoslavia(–Netherlands–Belgium). Norway would be eleven. After Poland, however, it is wide open. I also don't like ignoring Canada, Australia, South Africa and India in favour of the Commonwealth, but it is probably the best way to keep the numbers down.
• I am loathe to continue with this Denmark stuff. You write that "They [our articles, which are not sources] all describe Denmark as an ally" and "Absolutely everybody agrees that Sweden was neutral and did not participate in war", but isn't it the case that everybody (and our articles) describes Haiti as an Ally and agrees that it was not neutral, but in fact declared war? Its status is far less ambiguous than Denmark's. So, by your own reasoning, "therefore it should be included in the box". What am I missing? (And remember, we are not talking about a netural box of "participants" or "affected", but about calling Denmark an Ally.) Srnec (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• First I'd like to point out I'm not happy with the commonwealth situation. The current setup is by User:Nikhilmn2002, who objected to my inclusion of the British Raj among the allied clients. As we were discussing other stuff, I let it be. After the Statute of Westminster of 1931, the dominions were de facto independent so it is misleading to view them as a single political entity. So while it's ok in the {{WW1InfoBox}}, it is not so for the second world war; to draw an imperfect analogy, it would as replacing all the European countries in the modern Afghanistan war by an EU flag. We can not retroactively revive the British Empire to facilitate our wikicataloguizing. I'll try to find the discussions in the archives that reached that consensus. As I recall the main arguments, beside what I've already mentioned, was that it over-emphasised those countries.
• My preference for the allies is as follow: SU-US-UK-FR-CH-PO-CA-AU-YU-GR-SA-NZ-NO-DK-BE-NE-LX-BR-MX. For the clients, IN-IT-XX-XX-XX. As you see I'd like to group countries that join the war at the same time together. Entries in parenthesis are those I think are those I feel can be dropped, the
• There is nothing saying the two sides' lists have to be of equal length. See for instance the box of the Kuwait war.
• Around two dozens seem a reasonable maximum. While only a few boxes have more than a dozen combatants, simply because there are few wars with that many participants, they generally have many, many, many more commanders (with to boot, often the same flag repeated as nauseam), whereas there are only 3 or 5 in the wwii box.
  ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

• Only Canada and South Africa had their own foreign policies and sought to make independent declarations of war. Australia and New Zealand both just went along with London. I believe Australia enacted the Statute during the war and New Zealand after. The British Empire was quite real in 1939. If we must list all the Dominons, so be it. As a Canadian, I think it's obvious we should list countries by the size of their navies in 1945, so USA, UK, Canada, USSR. . . (I think.)
• Your list is fine by me save for Denmark, Luxembourg, Brazil and Mexico. I put Cuba before Mexico. I'd put almost everything before Luxembourg. I think Ethiopia is probably equal in weight to Brazil. (The only problem with Ethiopia is it's somewhat late international recognition, but I think we can get over that, for various reasons.) I would not list any client or puppet states on either side, and I would not distinguish co-belligerents from the rest. Grouping countries by when they entered the war contradicts the ranking by "overall war importance" you suggested was the consensus. So which is it? (Surely you can understand my objection to Denmark coming before the Netherlands, which fought both in Europe and the Pacific and whose navy was in action throughout the war. The NL also declared war on Japan prior to Japan's agression against her. She was a real combatant. Denmark was not.)
• Of course not. The Allies list can be much longer, but I think two dozen is awfully long. I think lists of equal length presents a obvious, non-arbitrary cutoff. Srnec (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse ranking allies by size of fleet in 1945; exactly how many carriers had the RCN then again?
• Two dozen is the absolute maximum, and below 20 is preferable. Should have made clearer it's my personal preference, as you asked, not what I expect will be accepted by consensus. DK/NO are above Benelux because of chronology, and Benelux because of.. Be-Ne-Lux. Yes, really NL should be on top (of all. Well, not of all allies. You get what I mean). I'm curious on why you rank Cuba above Mexico?
• I feel strongly that undifferentiated lists are harder on the reader. For instance, by creating the co-prosperity sphere category as I have done now, the client/puppets are neatly divided into European and Pacific groups, instead of a haphazard heap from all over the world. Sections also present a more nuanced view of the participants than the over-simplifying rah-rah "team axis vs team allies" narrative. Should the list of the axis have to be trimmed, the first to go are Vietnam&Kampuchea, Montenegro. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:32, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was operating one RN carrier (in 1944 it had operated one other). That's more than any other Allied nation was operating save the USA and the UK, since the French were only operating one and she was only serving as a transport at the time.
• I rank Cuba higher because its navy sank a U-boat, a feat more significant than any of Mexico's. I do no believe chronology should play a major role in the list, since it will not be obvious that that is what we are doing (I don't think we should put dates next to countries) and I don't think anybody proposes to list USSR, USA, UK by date of entry (i.e., USSR after Yugoslavia, USA after Belgium and the UK after Poland).
• I feel equally strongly that a differentiated list is trying to do to much, and as a consequence is more misleading to the reader. It suggests that the distinctions are more cut-and-dried than they are. Vietnam was not a part of the Sphere, since it was only created after the Japanese had given up on winning and had overthrown the French in 1945. It was not a combatant in WWII. I strongly disagree thats sections "present a more nuanced view of the participants". An infobox is no place for nuance. Start with unambiguous criteria and move from there. I am still unclear why you are doing this? Why do you want to list marginal Axis-associated states like Vietnam, but none of the Latin American nations that declared war? Or Ethiopia? Is it your intention to produce a highly Eurocentric view of the Allies? (I don't believe it is.) Srnec (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, only one? But didn't Australia also have one, making it mightier? Don't say it's because the Canadian navy had a million destroyers, my knees are quaking just at the thought of carrier-based giant boomerangs....
• Hm. You can't make a statistical analysis with a single data point. In other words, they were lucky. If the Bismarck's propellers had been caught in a drifting fishing net, would that make Iceland an important combatant? (Not that Iceland was independent, so it would be in the "client/puppet" column, but it's all hypotethical anyway). Beside, I'm not convinced the loss of one submarine caused more harm to the axis that the damage done by the FAEM.
• I have nothing against Latin American countries. It's just that client states like post-armistice Italy and the Philippines, that it would be misleading to put in a single "ally" category, are more important.
• Using casualties as a rough proxy (emphasis on "rough proxy", not "macabre score-keeping"), it shows that Denmark was on par with other Benelux/Scandinavian countries, and that Mexico/Cuba was marginal (by one order of magnitude) compared to it:

WWII casualties	Population	Military	Merchant mariners	Resistance	Total military	civilian
Netherlands	8,700,000	14,000	1,350	1,700	17,000	284,000
Belgium	8,400,000	11,300	n/a	800	12,100	76,000
Denmark	3,800,000	39	1,300	800	2,100	1,100
Norway	3,000,000	2,000	3,600	1,500	6,000	2500
Brazil	40,000,000	1,000	470	0	1,500	500
Mexico	20,000,000	5 (from Esc. 201)	63	0	100	0

¨^walk victor falk ^talk 07:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The carriers to which I'm referring are HMS Nabob and HMS Puncher. What carrier did Australia operate? I'm not aware of any. Still, surely we can agree that any criterion which places Canada ahead of the USSR is a blow for democracy, no?

If something can't fit into a single list then it shouldn't be in at all. That's the problem with listing Italy three times: it does not make it clear to the reader just which side Italy was on. The Philippines were an American possession conquered by Japan: that's the fact as readers need to know it, the infobox obscures that.

You say that Denmark was "on par" with some other countries, but you don't say what that means. On par in what way? The only way I can see is in terms of deaths due to war, which sounds like macabre score-keeping to me. Srnec (talk) 20:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

• Being ahead of a defunct superpower once upon a time is all well and fine, but how do you suggest getting ahead of the current one? I for one would welcome Canadian leadership of the free world. Too long you've been modest and lived in the shadow of your southern neighbour. Isn't it time for Canada to step forward and take its place in the sun?
• "... that Denmark['s casualties] was on par with other Benelux/Scandinavian countries[' casualties], and ..."
• The dates make it clear: on the axis side in 1940-43, divided into two client states on each side in 1943-45. If more than one entry is prohibited, how do you propose to handle infoboxes like the Peninsular War and the Battle of Leipzig? ^walk victor falk ^talk 22:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

But royal Italy after 1943 was not a client state legally or really, just a state much diminished in power. I am not saying that states being on both sides of the infobox is prohibited, but you've resisted treating Romania, Finland and Bulgaria the same way. Why is Italy different? The problem arises for France, too, since Vichy is often regarded as a mere client/puppet of the Germans.

I took the liberty of removing all the dates for a cleaner, crisper look. And because some could be controversial (Denmark in 1940, Czechoslovakia in 1942 or China in 1937) or misleading and most are redundant (since the war ended in 1945 for almost all of them). I do not think the average reader will feel misled to learn that not all the countries entered the war simultaneously. If we must have dates, I'd prefer just dates of entry.

I think that the notes to the entries need to be shrunk. They are too large. We should stick to the main point: after the French armistice there were two Frances, one neutral and one Allied; after the conquest, Denmark cooperated with the German until 1943, and in 1945 was recognised as one of the United Nations; Italy signed an armistice in 1943 and changed sides, but that part of Italy under German control continued to fight with her; etc. I think this could be done in 50 words or less in each case. Srnec (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Look at that. It does look cleaner and crisper. Thinking about it, they are rather redundant, most of them say the same thing, "started war around 40, ended in 44-45". ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Do try to condense the footnotes. I've managed to keep them at two or three sentences, except for France (though the thoroughly unnecessary first sentence in the French footnote wasn't me). ^walk victor falk ^talk 00:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Can we get you guys to read the above talk in the section "China and Japan" and concesus in the section "Moving forward" before blanking dates please. Would be best to ask for an Rfc at this point ...getting tiresome to see the edit wars back and fourth. -- Moxy (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

@ Moxy. The consensus on the Sino-Japanese War is only relevant if we keep dates at all. That said, it does seem to provide implicit consensus for having different dates for different combatants. If you add them back, take into account that I'd prefer just start dates (and Victor appears to be okay with that).

@ Victor. I still think our lists of client/puppet states is inconsistent. I'd keep Croatia and Slovakia. My objection to Burma and Azad Hind stands. What if we just had a link to the Co-Prosperity Sphere? Srnec (talk) 03:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• I have added a link to the GEACPS. Srnec, would you care to recapulitate your objections to Burma and Azad Hind? I agree that the previous discussion was in the context of most countries having dates. Perhaps a footnote with "Sino-Japanese war started 1937" could be added to Japan & China? ^walk victor falk ^talk 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of not listing any of the East Asian nations, just putting up a link to the Sphere.

The problem with Burma is that it fought on both sides. Not as the result of an armistice (like Italy, Romania, Finland, Bulgaria) but of its own accord. It was a puppet state that couldn't be controlled. Considering that Burma was a British possession to start the war and the independent state allied with the British, it is highly misleading to list "Burma" under the Axis. See Forgotten Armies: The Fall of British Asia, 1941–1945 by Bayly and Harper, the best general account of Burma and Malaya under the Japanese. (Once again we could compare this treatment with Denmark's: she's an Ally for little more than having the right sentiments.)

The problem with Azad Hind is that there already was an Indian government running India itself. Unlike the case of France 1940–44 or Italy 1943–45, there was no civil war in India. The Azad Hind gov't represented India about as much as any foreign volunteer Waffen-SS unit represented its nation. It was a true puppet and its importance has been magnified since 1947 far out of proportion to its deeds (kind of like most European resistance movements). Srnec (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding Burma as an ally, turning coat in the last few weeks of the war is not important enough to merit inclusion (especially now that we longer have dates; "Burma (1945)" was more acceptable as indicated that it was only for a short period).
• On the axis side, I think the State of Burma and Azad Hind are more parallels to Ethiopia and Czechoslovakia, government-in-exiles set up to liberate their countries from their "fascist/colonialist oppressors". Due to the importance of WWII for decolonisation (in Asia especially), including them reflects the importance that Japanese occupation had in accelerating the process throughout Asia.
• I have added a 1937 footnote to China and Japan. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• It was six months. March to August 1945. Even if that is not important, who's to say that their activities while in the Japanese camp are? At this point we would need a source that tells us Burma's Axis activities were important, or much more important than their turning coat. That is not the impression I got from the book I cited. I believe their change of sides was as important as their creation (they being the Burmese National Army).
• I don't believe an infobox can do what you want it to do. This is a list of combatants, not countries whose history was importantly affected. A list of combatants is no place to try and convey how Asia's decolonisation was accelerated by the Japanese occupation. Even though I don't think that's controversial, it is not the case that it was accelerated by the same causes in different places: e.g., the cases of Indonesia and Indochina are totally different. (This is why I generally hate infoboxes.) Srnec (talk) 12:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Yugoslavia & "Croatia"

There were two "Croatias" simultaneously in existence during WWII, the Axis Independent State of Croatia, and the Allied-recognized Federal State of Croatia (a constituent state of Yugoslavia). Both very much had functioning institutions that controlled swathes of territory in Croatia. I submit its misleading to simply enter "Croatia" in the manner depicted. If the full name "Independent State of Croatia" is perceived as too long, well, the Croats thought so too: the state is usually referred to (both in English-language and ex-Yugoslav historiography) by the initialism "NDH" - so I think we might consider using that. Just "Croatia", though, is arguably kind of insulting to the tens of thousands of soldiers who fought in the military of the Federal State of Croatia. -- Director (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No more insulting than it is to suggest that Romania or Bulgaria only fought for the Axis. Did not thousands of their nationals die for the Allied cause in 1944–45? And why insult those French who were neutral from 1940 to 1944, the prime years of the war?

This infobox is always going to be a mess. I say cut it down to the big three with a link to the articles on the Allies and Axis. Srnec (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The obvious difference, Srnec, is that there you have a single state, and then determine where it would be more appropriate to place it. In the case of Croatia you have two distinct, simultaneously-existing states, and must disambiguate.

Re Yugoslavia. The idea that the Kingdom of Yugoslavia existed (even legally) up until anywhere near the end of the war - is very much erroneous. By early 1944 (Vis Agreement) the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia is the only Yugoslav state. It is even recognized by the King himself as such, explicitly. De facto (that is to say without international recognition), the DFY as a state existed since the Second Session of the AVNOJ and fought since then (November 1943). In other words, even if one takes the most legalistic view possible, the DFY fought actively and bitterly for at least one and a half year, with up to 800,000 troops near the end. Its an input not to be compared with the ten days of resistance the Kingdom of Yugoslavia put up in 1941. Of all the countries occupied by Germany through aggressive military action, I believe only Denmark put up a less effective resistance (and perhaps Luxemburg too, if you count it). -- Director (talk) 18:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You are contradcting yourself Direkor. You are basically deniying the inclusion of Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which was an Allied sovereign country up to allmost the end of the war, but pushing us to take into consideration basically the regional non-sovereign Fed. State of Croatia. FkpCascais (talk) 19:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I'm not "contradicting" myself, you're just throwing around random words, nor am I "denying" the inclusion of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Its simply that, if we have to include just one of two of these (successive!) states, its far more appropriate to include the DFY because of its vastly more significant and long-lasting military activity. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was not in de facto existence after 1941, and by early 1944, it ceases to exist even in the legalistic sense. To illustrate the point, here are excerpts from a speech given from London to the Yugoslav people, by King Peter II of Yugoslavia, if I recall in September 1944:

"I call on all Serbs, Croats and Slovenes to unite and join the National Liberation Army under Marshal Tito. With my full knowledge and approval, the royal government of Dr. Ivan Šubašić has concluded important and useful agreements with this our national army, which is unanimously recognized, supported and assisted by our great allies, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and the United States of America.

With this my message to you, I firmly denounce the misuse of the name and the authority of the crown, which was used to justify collaboration with the enemy and cause a conflict among a fighting people in the most difficult moments of its history, being of use only to the enemy. (...) All those who rely on the enemy against the interests of their own people and its future, and who do not heed this call, will not succeed to rid themselves of the brand of traitors, neither before the people nor before history. Long live our great free, Federal Yugoslavia!"

I'm also not claiming anything with regard to the FSC, beyond the fact that there were two WWII states with the name of "Croatia", and that disambiguation is necessary in that regard. -- Director (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that these states were "successive". They were overlapping. There is no difficulty in saying that the KoY and the DFY were, for a time, the same thing. I don't give a damn about the flag. It's the link I care about: we should not link to the little article on the provisional government (as it does now), but rather to the longer and more informative article on the kingdom. Srnec (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Uggh.. again this same discussion - and on Christmas no less. I must've been naughty. Sigh... it depends on whether you view things de jure or de facto:

• De jure the two states could never have existed together. From a strictly legalistic point of view. It would be more accurate to say that the DFY legally succeeded the KoY at some point. Which point? Well that depends on what you consider to be the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia". In that regard, several dates can be presented, and prominent among them is the date of the Vis Agreement. But theoretically, depending entirely on one's perspective, the date could even be November 1945, when the king was deposed. While the Vis date is the most useful - its all rather arbitrary, we'd need a court to rule on the issue, and thankfully - its all irrelevant for our considerations..
• ..because the de facto state of affairs is the one depicted in the military conflict infobox. Which depicts military conflict. And de facto the Allied state known as the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia fought the Axis for at least a year and a half (more really), in bitter conflicts, at great loss, and incidentally - with some considerable success. This is a significant combatant of WWII, fielding up to 800,000 soldiers engaged in serious, long-lasting campaigning. And if we must choose between the KoY and the DFY, with regard to military involvement and impact on the course of WWII - there is no credible contest.

Even if there was no Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the Partisans and the DFY would warrant inclusion - indeed far more so than the former. And no, I do not agree that the link should lead to any cockamamie provisional government, or government-in-exile, that had nothing to do with the war in Yugoslavia nor controlled the forces involved. The army of the DFY was controlled by the NKOJ exclusively, or, to be perfectly factual - Tito personally. the point is that it represented a state, and that state is the DFY, which is covered here. -- Director (talk) 21:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The link currently leads to Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, since that is where Democratic Federal Yugoslavia redirects. That gov't, as you know and as the article states, "existed from 7 March to 11 November 1945". It was the one appointed by the regents chosen by the king. What is this about again? I have no interest in this debate. I'm simply trying to improve the encyclopedia. Srnec (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, I have far less interest in this debate, especially as this is the 16th time I've participated in it. Fixed the link, the redirect was altered about a month ago for some strange reason.

Partisan territory, September 1943, two months prior to the declaration of the DFY.

Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, September 1944, immediately prior to the arrival of the 3rd Ukrainian Front and the Belgrade Offensive

The DFY was declared in November 1943 at the Second Session of the AVNOJ. Precisely two years later it was reorganized as the FPRY. About six months after its formation (being an actual country and not just a bunch of people in a hotel room) it pretty much "absorbed" the government-in-exile, which was marginalized and forced into agreement by British pressure. With the Vis agreement Subasic agreed to form a "Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", and everyone ,erely waited for this agreed-upon merge to be a practical possibility. -- Director (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected

I've just permanently semi protected this template on the grounds that it's a high profile template (an infobox in one of Wikipedia's most accessed articles) with a fairly small number of people watching it. It took four hours to respond to some blatant vandalism recently (thanks to Srnec for reverting this BTW), and there don't seem any good reasons for IP or brand new accounts to be editing this anyway. Please see Talk:World War II#Byzantine Empire??? for more Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"Nazi Germany" vs. "Germany"

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 we use "Nazi Germany" or "Germany" in the infobox? 83.180.214.232 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Came here via the ANI about this template, also confused why the template looked to link to all standard country pages except this one when it's certainly not the only participant with historically localized political characteristics. Then I saw "Japan" actually links to Empire of Japan and so on. The issue just seems to be that the infobox display of "Nazi Germany" stuck out as inconsistent. Upon closer inspection, Template:Flag was used for Nazi Germany whereas Template:Flagcountry was used for the others. Changing this entry to be more consistent now shows "Germany" but links to "Nazi Germany." This seems to me noncontroversial but I hope people who have been working on this template for longer will revert me and advise here if I'm incorrect. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  17:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. Srnec (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

it is more usefull to include "NAZI germany" just as the "soviet union" is used and not "russia" 83.180.214.232 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

copied from my talk page: I appreciate that it's more specific, but usefulness is subjective and not reason alone to change something. The list is of "belligerents" and lists states involved. Nowhere is a country listed along with the dominant political force at the time. For anyone who is unclear that the Nazi's were in charge at the time, even though it says "Germany" it does link to Nazi Germany. Likewise Soviet Union (which is a legitimate name for the country that was the USSR, unlike "Nazi Germany" which was still Germany) links to Stalin era. Ultimately, the main concern is more pedantic: Infoboxes should be clean and clear, so having one country tagged with a political party (or whatever we want to call it) sticks out as inconsistent and confusing. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)--— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

83.180.214.232 has twice now reverted me on this, and twice two other people. I left a 3RR warning on his/her user talk page. I'd rather not put it back for a third time myself. This shouldn't even really need an RfC. It's basic stylistic consistency. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:49, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

it not just some "party affiliation" it is a state! 83.180.214.232 (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Germany is the state. They didn't rename the country when Nazi's took over. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  20:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And the Soviet Union was not Russia. Srnec (talk) 21:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

In ww2 context germany was better known as Nazi Germany 83.180.166.235 (talk) 13:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Evidence and references for this claim? Germany is pretty darn common. Canterbury Tail talk 18:26, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking WP:SNOW here. This doesn't really need to be an RfC. The name of the country was clearly not "Nazi Germany" any more than Cuba is currently called "Communist Cuba". Italy is also not called "Fascist Italy" (or even "Kingdom of Italy") in the infobox, nor is Japan called "Imperial Japan". This is not controversial at all, and the fact that the IP editor (I'm assuming it's the same one?) went straight to ANI before the talk page, then straight to RfC before just posting about it on the talk page makes me think this one deserves a rapid close. 0x0077BE (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I got a request for comment on my talkpage. I favor the use of "Germany" over "Nazi Germany". I agree with the arguments of 0x0077BE directly above my own comment. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

• From 1933 to 1943 it's official name was Deutsches Reich (German Reich). From 1943 to 1945 it was Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich). Common English terms for the Country were Nazi Germany and Third Reich. Nazi Germany is different from modern Germany. Are you going to call the Holy Roman Empire Germany? Austria for instance was a part of Nazi Germany. East and West Germany aren't the same as modern Germany. These were wholely countries and their naming converntion needs to show that. If you don't like the name Nazi Germany that's fine. Use it's official names.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• But its official name is the same as that of the Weimar Republic and the German Empire. Why are we permitted to conflate those three by using the official name, but not to conflate Nazi Germany with the Federal Republic of Germany, even though both were/are commonly called Deutschland by their citizens? I wouldn't call the Holy Roman Empire Germany, but, following most scholars, I would call the regnum Teutonicum Germany. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The First German Republic is the Official name of current Germany. German Reich (Deutsches Reich) was the official name for the Weimar Republic. That's the same as one of the two used by Nazi Germany. This is a non-issue either way. No one should be botherdif it's changed either way.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Nazi Germany was not simply just "germany" it had parts of austria, of the former czechoslovakia and poland. comparing nazi germany with "germany" is like calling german roman empire "germany 90.129.76.116 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2014 (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.

Protected

Given the recent editorial disagreements, I've protected this page for three days. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Question

Although occupied Vietnam and the Philippines were members of the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, did they actually fight against the Allies? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Allies.

As there has been disagreement as whether to include a "client & puppets" section in the Allied column, this is a poll to gauge consensus.

Anybody is welcome to participate in this discussion. The following editors have been notified on their talk page:

@The ed17:, @Nick-D:, @Srnec:, @Maunus:, @Moxy:, @FkpCascais:, @Rhododendrites:, @0x0077BE:, @Taketa:, @Canterbury Tail:, @Serialjoepsycho:, @Nikhilmn2002:, @Mastercoolio:, @AbelM7:, @CJK:, @The Madras:, @Lothar von Richthofen:, @Brigade Piron:, @Sahehco:, @Whoop whoop pull up:, @The Bushranger:, @Peacemaker67:, @Vecrumba:,

Please post your !vote with a short rationale:

Option 1: Keep the non-independent section in the Allied column

• Support No reason to withhold the information that those countries contributed to the allied cause (very substantially in India's case), albeit not as fully sovereign entities. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Keep the countries. It is a lot easier seeing the countries who participated in World War II in the column than going to the main page. I'm sure most people already know the main participants (Allies = SU, US, UK, France) and (Axis = Germany, Japan, Italy) and column is helpful in show the other countries that were involve since not everybody might go the main Allies and Axis pages. AbelM7 (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Keep the main countries. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose as this template at present appears to be trying to be all things to all people—therefore bloating linked articles—while instead it should just summarize basic information. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support if combined with option 5 below per Victor falk's reasoning. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:01, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose At least as now titled. I don't see how you can list in this category without introducing POV issues. What is the threshold for a country to be "non-independent"? --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It's described accurately by wp:rs and wp:v sources and references, it's just that some nationalists don't like seeing their country being described as in submission to another one. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per GenQuest: this leads to not terribly important information being included in the template, and is a disservice to our readers Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Alternative Why not remove the section and display similar to the article on the First World War with the non-independent nations and colonies bullet pointed under the Mother nation/Empire. For example the British Empire *UK, *Canada, *Australia, *New Zealand, *South Africa, *British India etc. or United States *Philippines <br.> J.Mieszała (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Option 2: Remove the non-independent section in the Allied column and the countries it contains (India, Philippines, Mongolia, Iran)

• .Support for the reasons I gave in Option 1. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Option 3: Remove all countries from the infobox and simply link to Allies of World War II and Axis powers

• Support - this was the established consensus some time ago until it was unilaterally changed in 2010. Infoboxes should concisely summarize an article, not attempt to contain tons of useless (and in this case, harmful – see my comments below) information. Parsecboy (talk) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as per below. --Moxy (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Wholeheartedly, best solution of out what is now a complete mess. The Madras (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support I'd prefer to keep the major allies in there, but this seems to be the only realistic way of halting the detail bloat. Peter ^Isotalo 21:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Neither of these articles presents a short overview of Allies and Axis; for a reader just wanting to quickly check if Venezuela was an ally or axis, there is no way of doing so. A possibility would be List of Allies in World War II, in a sortable table form perhaps, but this raises the issue of duplication of content and multiplication of articles with overlapping topics. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Clicking a link and searching for "Venezuela" seems pretty quick to me. We even have Venezuela during World War II. I'm going to make the daring assumption that our readers actually come here to read articles, not just briefly scan our infoboxes. Peter ^Isotalo 23:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• You can't find Venezuela at an eyeglance in "Allies of World War II". It's not mentioned in any section header. I had to do a Ctrl-F to find it mentioned for the first time in passing in section 6.2 (without pipelink), and then linked in the Charter of Nations bullet list in 6.3. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Again: Venezuela during World War II. Venezuela was less affected by the war than neutral European countries like Sweden, Spain or Switzerland. Having info like that in an infobox is completely arbitrary. Peter ^Isotalo 04:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Having Venezuela in the infobox is not what I am suggesting; the point is that now it is evident that Venezuela was not an ally, or at least not important enough to be listed among the 20 first or so. Let's not fools ourselves and pretend there are no costs for the readers associated with this proposal, or not listing combatants would be standard in infoboxes. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Including a full list of every formal participant is a completely arbitrary choice. It is entirely based on whether there's a simple "yes/no"-answer and has nothing to do with notability or importance. It's not encyclopedic. Fix the appropriate article instead. Peter ^Isotalo 05:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is what I did with proposing List of Allies in WWII; on further reflection, it might be better with Template:List of Allies in WWII and Template:List of Axis in WWII that could be added in their articles. It could also include an extensive list of commanders, which would address the perennial issue of Big Three, Big Four, Big Five or Big Six for the allied commanders, and also give the possibility of including minor leaders like Mannerheim, Horty, Antonescu, the Scandinavians and Benelux kings, etc and be included in the Axis leaders of World War II and Allied leaders of World War II. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support This template appears at present to be trying to be all things to all people. It should summarize information, not bloat an article. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 04:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Further exploration and discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of this and other options can be found in this section. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support This is my strong preference. Having lengthy lists of countries (as is the case at present) looks silly, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to minor participants in the war. Having a small number of countries leads to endless arguments about who should be in and who should be out, and in what order they should be listed. Linking only to the central articles as proposed here lets readers with an interest in the topic read the articles and gain a good understanding of the roles the various countries played, and makes the infobox look much better as a bonus. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, the problems Nick highlights are exactly why those of who were active in the discussions back in 2007 and before settled on this option. One needs only dig through the archives of this page and the main WWII talk page to find the mind-numbingly endless discussions over these issues. It's a far better solution to simply link to the main articles on both alliances. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose That would be just boring, although the infobox should, of course, be limited to the main or most significative belligerents. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Reasons of Isotalo--Sahehco (talk)
• Support per previous consensus (2007-10), though I do note that there is no obvious succinct list on either page. 206.117.89.4 (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I dont think merely listing Axis Powers is representative, Finland a major belligerent power in the war was not part of the axis.XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you're opposing here. The proposal is to list neither Axis nor Allied powers, but to merely link to separate articles. Peter ^Isotalo 01:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - it was always best and simplest idea for a stable solution.--Staberinde (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

A different idea for infobox

I think that a better solution might be to list the powers listed in the leaders section. That would be USSR, USA, British Empire, and China on one side, and then Germany, Japan, and Italy on the other. Other powers in each alliance can be covered through a blue link to each alliance page stating "and others". On the Axis side there would be a break line with the word co-belligerents in small font, under it listed Finland, and then then a blue link stating "and Others".XavierGreen (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 4: Use collapsible lists

• Check out War in Afghanistan (2001–present) for an example of excellent use of collapsible lists. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - this would allow the inclusion of most or all of the significant entities while still keeping the infobox at a reasonable size. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support For same reason as the altitude warning stated. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Never a good idea to hide content from users with disabilities and those that dont use a mouse - Best they are there for all to see as they are not linked in the article as per MOS:COLLAPSE - thus a visible link to a page with all of them listed would be best. All that said the country links dont help users understand the topic at hand so no big deal in this case if they are not seem. -- Moxy (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Option 5: 5 Allies + 3 Axis only

• .Support as alternative to option three above. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 16:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as too selective. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please post arguments and discuss them here:

Extended content

British "Raj" Link to archive 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)

• Comment If the Allied subordinated countries were to be presented as equal in status to fully independent allies while the Axis ones' subordination is very ostensibly pointed out, it would be WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE in the extreme. Not to mention utterly factually incorrect. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• This would benefit from a lot more context to understand just what, exactly, is being proposed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oops. The first sentence disappeared somehow. Fixed now. ^walk victor falk ^talk 03:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It's not NPOV to observe that there's a difference between a dominion or colony and a puppet state, but yes, I agree with Ed, I can't make sense of this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Though a commonwealth the Phillipines wasn't actually independent of the United States. Correct me if I'm wrong but it was a US executive order that first entered the Phillipines into the War. (well unless consider that the Phillipines was a part of the USA at the time and the USA was at War.) I'm not sure of the others listed. If they are just like The above they should be removed. If the contention is that the Phillipines was a subordinate equal in status then it would be necessary to provide a reliable source to show that.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 03:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not about the status of individual countries (the consensus after the archived debate above was that India was not an independent country), but whether they should be categorized as non-independent in the allied column. ^walk victor falk ^talk 04:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It is about the status. The Phillipines was a part of the United States. As far as non-indpendnent, if you want to make a list like that then go ahead and put down Tennessee. It was non-independnet and had an impact on the war.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'd suggest trimming this list (and the list of Axis countries) very heavily to get rid of the minor countries which played no significant part in the war (Luxembourg, Cuba (!), Mexico, etc). This would get rid of Mongolia and all the Axis puppets (none of which was actually a significant state) and solve most of the problem here. It seems a bit silly to list India as being in any way independent of the UK at this time (the British Government in India was not an independent body in the same way that the dominion governments were, and key policies were set in London). Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a very wide spectrum of opinion among editors over what countries to include, from "5 Allies + 3 Axis" to "every country that that had shot a soldier or had one killed" (see the archives). A natural consensus has evolved, with disagreements about whether (allied) countries are just above or just below that de facto line (or lines, they are different for the allied and axis columns). ^walk victor falk ^talk 11:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox was capped at 5&3 for a very long time and for good reason - it prevented these silly arguments from taking place every few weeks when someone's favorite country wasn't included. Remember that infoboxes should generally be as simple as possible, since they are meant to highlight only the most important aspects of the topic. Including every minor country that participated in some way or fashion in the war does not serve that purpose, and more problematically, it obscures the fact that the vast majority of the fighting was done by the USSR, USA, UK (the empire and dominions included), China, and France versus Germany, Japan, and Italy. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

One should be open to a discussion on consensus, but not here and now. The 5+3 model was abandoned in 2007, and there were no flags until 2010. Consensus could change again, either to these earlier ones and or to a new one (or stay the same). The results of this poll could provide valuable information on whether to proceed further, if the discussion is a constructive and thoughtful one. Should this be the case, a wider input should be asked from the community with an RfC at wp:milhist and other eventually affected pages/projects. In the meantime, we should focus on the matter at hand, should the allied column include a client & puppet section. ^walk victor falk ^talk 13:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the 5&3 model was discarded in 2007, but only for an even more reduced link to the Allies and Axis articles. The current infobox atrocity was put into place only in 2010, at the same time flags were added. The idea that there is something fundamentally different between the question of whether client and puppet states should be included and the question of whether minor independent states should be included is patently false - the two are very obviously related, and your attempt to stifle debate is unwelcome. As for your edit summary, yes, that is why I commented here and did not vote in the section above. Parsecboy (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then introduce an "Option 3" with your preferred outcome; that's why they are numbered, so that alternative proposals may be introduced as the discussion goes on. ^walk victor falk ^talk 14:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have posted a link to this discussion at the MILHIST talk page here. Parsecboy (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment What about putting some or all of the individual countries into an expandable section (as-in a collapsable bit that defaults to hidden). I'm sure I remember seeing that in infobox's in the past (though I can't find any examples at the moment).. Gecko G (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• It has been discussed here, here and here. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the issue of what countries should be included, and how, and in what order, etc. It's a solution that solves nothing. Parsecboy (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I am just posting this for reference and help people find relevant stuff in the archives, and avoiding recycling arguments. ^walk victor falk ^talk 21:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I was directing my comment on Gecko's, not yours. I suppose that wasn't clear. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a horrible template

• Point blank Template:WW2InfoBox is horribly large and the country links lead to nothing helpful for our readership. The countries links go to main country articles like Canada and not the main country articles on this topic like Military history of Canada during World War II. The whole template needs to be reworked. As for the list all we need to do is link to Allies of World War II and Axis powers - as templates don't need to have everything in them ...its why we have articles on the topic. -- Moxy (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Very much agreed. Infoboxes should be very brief summaries of the article, not crammed full of extraneous information that does no good (and in this case, much harm, as I pointed out above). It was changed back in 2010 from that format (see the diff I posted in the section above) based on this non-discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd like to vote, but I've taken administrator actions here and would like to avoid a conflict of interest. Having said that, removing the countries from the infobox would immediately halt 95% of the contentious and time-wasting discussions here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• Re: linking from the flags, I completely agree with you that they should link to the "Military history of X in WWII", it seems certain editors insist that a flag should always link to the modern state unless there has been a regime change. ^walk victor falk ^talk 19:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't overwrite others' edits, thank you. Parsecboy (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for that, edit conflict accident.^walk victor falk ^talk 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I have notified @Jean-Jacques Georges:, perhaps he could help us by describing the situation then from his point of view. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Please clean out the commentary notes, too. Having an infobox full of them is completely pointless if when you have a full article where you can explain those kind of details.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. Personally, I don't think the template should link to articles like "Military History of XX during World War II". If Nazi Germany is listed as a belligerent, I, as a reader, prefer to have direct access to informations about the belligerent themselves (i.e., have info about Kingdom of Greece, not to the Military history of Greece during World War II. Such specialized articles are useful, but in the infobox, they're just annoying. Moreover, it would be impossible to make something coherent : Military history of Germany during World War II actually redirects to Nazi Germany !

As for the list of belligerents : it might be a little too long, so a few countries might be removed. But having just "Axis" and "Allies" without listing the main belligerents was just boring and frustrating. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 10:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to take another example : in Second Sino-Japanese War, the belligerents, in the infobox, point to Republic of China and Empire of Japan. If I want to learn about the Republic of China and the Empire of Japan, I don't want the links to point to "Military history of China" or "Military history of Japan". The "Military history" articles should be in a template like Template:WWII history by nation, not in the belligerent's infobox. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So just to be clear here you think its best to link generic country articles over the articles about the topic at hand? You think our readers would like to be linked to the articles about the modern states over the articles about the conflict? Is this correct? Can you explain how linking to Kingdom of Greece over Military history of Greece during World War II is helpful to our readership in understanding this topic? Sure this is beneficial to our readers ...that is sending them on a wild goose chase to find the related articles? -- Moxy (talk) 17:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• The custom is to link to the appropriate historical state, for example as a combatant in a Napoleonic campaignbox, France should link to Napoleonic France, and not France. So in this box it links to Third Republic. So the US, UK, & Co. point to United States, United Kingdom, etc. This logic is appropriate for most campaignboxes (link to modern states in modern wars, historical states in historical wars), but my opinion is that WWII is different or unique, being modern enough yet clearly historical, on the cusp between the two.
  Most countries have an "X in World War II" article, as I noted in my reply to you above. Those who don't have a "Military History of X in WWII", that's FI, ZA, NZ, CA, AU, US, UK.
  The question is, should we apply the unmodified standard? I for one would think they should point to "Military History of X in WWII" and not the modern states. ^walk victor falk ^talk 18:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I never noticed that most are like this (World War I) - very odd the main country articles are not linked at all from the main pages. This is somthing that has to be fixed - that is not orphaning the country articles from the main article on the topic. -- Moxy (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why there is no magical options that will ever give everybody everything they want and a pony

• This box should be compared to that of others for important conflicts with many participants: WWI, Napoleonic Wars, French Revolutionary Wars, Thirty Years' War, Seven Years War, War of the Austrian Succession, War of the Spanish Succession can be examples. All the concern raised about this infobox are valid for others too, and the WWII is a model of restraint compared the endless parade of combatants and commanders in most of them.

Those are not considered problematic for one reason only: there are not as high profile as the WWII one. Despite this, the nature of the problem is of very narrow scope. There has been no problems on the Axis side, because it happens that the maximum number of combatants from a page layout point of view, approximately two dozens, happens to be more or less the number of all Axis combatants that could possibly be included.

On the Allied side, on the other hand, there are 50 or 60 possible theoretical candidates. Nevertheless, the combatant list has been remarkably stable over time, both in which are included and their ordering. The sole source of disagreement is who makes it above or below the cut-off threshold.

From a user perspective, this is of absolutely minimal impact: Iran might replace Cuba, which in turn might be replaced by another country a few weeks later, but there is no problem from an encyclopedic point of view, wikipedia is meant to be dynamic and not meant to present anything as definitive.

Any problem is purely editorial: this is where palliative remedies should be sought, as there can be no cure that can do away with source of the symptoms, the abnormally high profile. In this context, Option 3 is amputation for treating a chaffing blister.

Before we turn to that, less drastic avenues should be explored:

1. Semi-protected:  Done This has however only been in effect for a month, so it can't be evaluated yet.
2. Enforce WP:1RR: I would very strongly support this. This gives time to discuss matters. It's no big deal if El Salvador or Nicaragua are at the bottom of the list for 24hrs, and there are enough people on the watchlist that listing Switzerland as an Ally will be promptly reverted even if someone insists.
3. Hidden comments: Telling people with <!-- --> brackets that adding, reordering or removing combatants is contentious, and encouraging people to check the talk page. Which brings us to the next point:
4. Presenting all the recurring arguments in the archives. There's quite a lot to wade through, and the same discussions keep being repeated. A subpage Template_talk:WW2InfoBox/issues linked on top of the talk page listing all problems with different options, organized in a methodical and easy to overview way and providing a platform for long-term discussion instead of the occasional flaring-up of the same issues as happens now.

I'm sure that's not an exhaustive list. Any other suggestions are welcome. ^walk victor falk ^talk 06:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I consider most of the other examples problematic. The Thirty Year's War is particularly bad. Where did you get the idea that everyone is okay with them?

Overall, I'd say this is wasting a lot of valuable time and effort. The amount of previous discussion only strengthens the argument for finding a simple solution. A minimal, permanent solution should be worked out as soon as possible so we don't have to keep arguing over what is merely a sideshow.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the two comments above. The World War II article is generally of a much higher standard than the articles on those wars, and its infobox should be as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The infobox has always been too simplistic in that the USSR is never listed with the "Axis" because it wasn't an "Axis" signatory. And then there are those that insist the USSR must be atop the Allies because of the losses they suffered, compounding the issue of an inappropriate image of the USSR's role at the outset of WWII. Then at the other end, the smallest contributors, you have for example Latvia, whose citizens were conscripted by both sides, which is generally denounced for fighting with Germany (when it was against Soviet re-invasion, different motivation), but the only official act by the then sovereign authority of the Republic of Latvia was to sign over its merchant marine in service of the Allied cause, in support of which it served with great distinction. I have to agree that the current infobox is lacking. I will give some thought to the proposals and hope to return with some additional suggestions. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the problems stem from "Allies" versus "Axis". There is, unfortunately, no fixing that oversimplification. If you strictly observe both, you need four, not two, columns, and at least two sections, not one. Something like...

Allies	◄Supporting	Supporting►	Axis
4 columns, prior to Germany's attack on the USSR
4 columns, subsequent to Germany's attack on the USSR

...and arranged in chronological order of actively supporting one side or the other in the war. This takes care of the USSR problem, the elephant in the room no one talks about, and can suitably accommodate all other participants. At this point it might make more sense as a "graphic" in the article body, but that's another discussion. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Now there's an unusual solution. Why not make an infobox-compatible graphic? It would solve so many issues. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

URGENT! Allies order

This is most certainly not urgent, nor is it necessary to address this for the five-hundreth time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:11, 27 June 2014 (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.

---

UK should without a doubt be before USA and Soviet Union. Here are just a few reasons. There are many more. It is false and inaccurate information that puts UK third when they are widely considered as doing the most. They should be first as if it was not for UK, Axis would of won.

• UK joined before US and Soviet Union (UK was one of the first countries to declare war on Germany)
• If it wasn't for UK encouragement USA would likely not of joined WW2.
• UK participated in more individual stages of the war.
• The Battle of Britain is widely considered the turning point for the Allies and the star of the fall of the Axis.
• UK is why Australia, New Zealand, Canada and British India joined WW2. Without them Allies would of almost certainly lost.
• UK was primary contributor on D-Day (UK was on every beach and Naval Support for Omaha.)
• Winston Churchill is considered as the primary leader of Allies in WW2.
• USA's war was centered on Japan and did not focus as much on Germany or Italy as UK
• Soviet Union was not the wars driving force so should not be first!!!
• UK being third neglects the millions of lives they lost in WW2.
• UK helped guide USA in war.
• For More information contact me on my talk page!

WARNER one — Preceding unsigned comment added by WARNER one (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 June 2014 (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.

WARNER one, speaking as an Englishman, I find your comments to be an utter embarrassment. I think you need to read up on the relative roles played by a number of other countries, as you are massively misguided on much you have written. It would also be worth your time searching the archives of this page to look at the previous discussions, and see why this particular order is there.n- SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

There is already a similar at WWII's talk page. Like i said there, America led the war effort I. The Pacific from the beginning to end of that theater. Once the US entered the war, American commanders were also placed in charge of the European theater. Warner's claim about why the US entered is also fucking ridiculous and shows he shouldn't be taken seriously. Calidum ^{Talk To Me} 16:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a moot point about America "leading" the war (Russia would stand a better shout at going top of the list in my book), but that's part of the problem with trying to sort this list in anything but a neutral way: there is no hard and fast "right" way to do it, and anything aside from eg, alphabetical or chronological, will always get someone's back up somewhere. Either way, this has been flogged to death enough, and it certainly shouldn't be the subject of a slow-burn edit war. - SchroCat (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Why not short circuit this nationalistic twaddle and list them alphabetically? To rank them you are comparing apples to oranges to potatoes and there is no fair way to do this since you have to weigh unrelated variables - Russian casualties, American production and the British fighting the longest and in the most places.NiD.29 (talk) 05:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree: date of entry to the war would be my slight preference, but alphabetical would also work. There's no sense in trying to justify their placement in the IB on the rather debatable arguments of either WarnerOne or Calidum, so a neutral factor would be best. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd go w/chronological order of the 5 major Allies (US, UK, USSR, China & France), though it could be tricky for China & France, followed by chronological order of the other minor Allies. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Chronological order of entry into the war by date of declaration of war makes a lot of sense.NiD.29 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

<Reduce indent> My only questions would be when would we say China entered the war (they could easily be put 1st) & should minor Allies that declared war earlier be put ahead of major Allies that declared war later? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is the point - the order is not about who was most important, as we will never be able to create a stable consensus on that, - ever. We could make it even clearer by including the date with each country.

China would naturally go first (see Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945) for start dates), since it was in a war with Japan, which the US involved itself in by threatening to halt exports of oil and aluminium to Japan, leading to Japan expanding its war to include the US, the UK, the Netherlands, France etc. This wasn't a new war but an expansion of an existing one, although it was originally independent of the war being fought in Europe. Cheers, NiD.29 (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

So, China, then the UK, France & Poland (in whatever order), etc.? I agree w/China going 1st (thus the part about China easily going 1st), but should we also then change the start date of the war?

Instead of including the date, we could just put "Countries listed in chronological order of when they declared war on the Axis powers." inside 1 of those hidden text things (there's currently 1 in the relevant area that says "Do not re-order, this is being discussed"). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd put a hidden note to say it, but also footnote, or comment in the IB, just so people can see the rationale before they click on the edit button. - SchroCat (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

A footnote sounds fine. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Should the Axis powers also be listed in chronological order & if so, should the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War or the date of Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor be used for Japan? For the 1st question, I'm fine either way, but for the 2nd question, I'd use the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War if we decide on using chronological order for the Axis powers. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 07:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd follow the chronology of the article (which the IB is supposed to reflect anyway): pre-1939 was a separate set of conflicts until the two wars (European & Eastern) merged in 1941. I'd go with March or July 1941 for Japanese entry. Pearl was a little after their entry to the war, not the start of things. - SchroCat (talk) 08:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The earliest non-Chinese event I found for Japan was the Japanese invasion of French Indochina in September 1940. I saw nothing in March or July 1941. When would you say China entered the war? Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Doh - yes, you're right on the Japan date. Tricky one on China: they had been at war with Japan for several years... - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The trickiness of when China entered the war (along w/what feels like an artificial separation of the Second Sino-Japanese War & World War II) is why I prefer using the start of the Second Sino-Japanese War as the date for when China entered the war. The other possible dates seem to be September 1940 (it sounded like the war w/China played a role in Japan's invasion of French Indochina) or soon after December 7, 1941 (when the US & China would've had official war ties w/each other). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Lol - yes to all those dates as possibles! Let's go with September 1940, along with the Japanese entry? - SchroCat (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

While I prefer 1937, I wouldn't object to September 1940, which would also prevent the headache of when did the war start? Also, would you put minor Allies & Axis powers who declared war 1st ahead of major Allies & Axis powers who declared war later? Personally, I would, but I'm fine either way. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd go with the major Allies (the Allies who became members of the UN Security Council) in chronological order, then the minor Allies in chronological order, and the major Axis states (members of the Tripartite Pact) in chronological order, then the minor Axis states in chronological order. 108.201.218.70 (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of useless stupidity that having the list of combatants always generates, and is why we should limit them to links to the respective allies and axis articles. Parsecboy (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)