Talk:World War II by country/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

Please lets keep the description short, 1 paragraph at most. Iran, Iraq and Yugoslavia need to be cleaned up.

Tonga

The article states below: The Queen of Tonga put her tiny island country's meager resources at the disposal of Britain and was a loyal supporter of the Allied cause throughout the war.

Isn't this a bit POV-ish? are the adjectives really needed, and would this warrant a change?--122.57.224.143 (talk) 08:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thailand

Thailand is missing. Thailand under pressure from Japan which had unofficially occupied the country, declared war to the USA. The USA responded in kind. But towards the end the war the USA reverted their declaration and declared void Thailand's declaration to them. Someone should check the details and include Thailand in the list.

ESTONIA

Where is Estonia? It played a fantastic role in eastern Europe during operation Barbarossa and such... Nathan519 Don't worry , I will write about it.chicken

China

"Considerable amounts of resources were diverted from the fight against the United States in the Pacific Ocean." Some changes are needed in the first paragraph about China. The last 2 sentences are told from an American perspective. In the USA paragraph we don't read that "The Pacific War diverted many Japanese soldiers from China" or something like that. Maybe I'll do some research and replace that part with the number of Japanese killed bu China, or the same number compared to the US, etc. Red Star

Vichy France

The French section is extremely short and ignores the part that Vichy France played within the Axis powers. Another point that should be included is the role played by French overseas colonies during the conflict.


It is true if you consider that by the end of 1943 the entirety of the French Empire minus Indochina and metropolitan France was in Free French hands. Vichy ceased to be an internationally-recognized power following Operation Torch, when the entire French North African administration joined the Allies (though not Free French, would be combined with Free French in 1943). Vichy France is more important to know about for internal affairs of metropolitan France, but if referring to World War II from a military perspective then Vichy did not do so much. Although at an economic and political level Vichy France collaborated with the Germans, at a military level the Vichyites were neutral. They fought the Axis as well a few times during the war (notably French North Africa during the Tunisian Campaign, as mentioned above, and Indochina, which fought Japan at two different times during the war).


And above all, Vichy never fought a war: it was a neutral regime, they were only some minor engagements woth the allies. While free france was clearly in war.

New format

I have formatted this page to provide a more complete reference for finding information on a nation's role in the war or how it was effected.

I have created a sub-heading for each country involved (I may have missed some). Some have no entry yet, but the goal is for each country to have a short paragraph synopsis of the nation's role, with a link to a military history of your-country during World War II article. Most of the details should be in the sub-article.

Country capsules

The article format is designed for each country to have a short (one paragraph, ideally) capsule regarding the most important facets of that nation's involvement in the war. Detailed descriptions should be placed in articles devoted to that nation's role in the war. It is particularly important to avoid POV type statements, as not only are they not helpful, but they extend the length of the article unnecessarily.

A note on Nazi Germany. The term Nazi Germany is not inappropriate, but it also is not necessary except to provide context. Germany itself suffices for common usage, as within a discussion of World War II, there is no other Germany that would cause one to need the Nazi descriptor to clarify context. When referring to Germany during the war versus Germany at other times in history, it is a useful context to provide, but to systematically add Nazi before Germany in all instances in an article does not add context, but instead puts a non-neutral tilt on the article in the same way that consistant over-use of any such descriptor would.

It is beyond the scope of the article to go into details on national politics or military operations. A brief synopsis is all that is required with appropriate links to more detailed articles on the subject at hand.

As an example, the Finnish entry goes into far too much detail while also being of a strong POV. Joshbaumgartner 02:00, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

I might be the one responsible for what you consider a strong POV[1]. I must say that given the prior version, written by you[2], this is a fairly bold statement. Why not limit the text to:
Finland was during the course of World War II attacked twice by the Soviet Union. First on November 30, 1939, marking the start of the Winter War that lasted to an armistice on March 6, 1940, and the Peace of Moscow, March 12, 1940, according to which Finland had to cede 10% of the territory. For the second time, the Soviet Union attacked on June 25, 1941, starting the Continuation War, that came to involve also the United Kingdom on the Soviet side, and lasted to an armistice on September 4/5, 1944, with further territorial concessions for Finland including the only ice-free harbor Petsamo, and the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947 signed on February 10. A condition of the armistice was the expulsion of Wehrmacht troops to Norway, which led to Finland's Lapland War lasting from September 1944 to April 1945. All three wars are usually considered to have been separate wars, although related to World War II. In the Continuation War, Finland was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany, while in the Lapland War, Finland fought on the side of the Allies.
If the outline is to be more concentrated than so, I wonder if it wouldn't be best to make this page a redirect to List of countries involved in World War II, instead. That list, I believe, came into being in exactly the same way as this list of participants, i.e. extracted from the WWII-article.
Ruhrjung 10:58, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

New Zealand

No mention of the kiwis in this article?

Baltic States

Strange, it is as if all mentions of the Baltic States in World War 2 have been removed from several articles, with the exception of their suffering under the USSR. Is there a movement to hide the fact that all three countries participated in the Holocaust?

Yes, there are many Baltic nationalists here. --Nixer 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
I think we should add the baltic states into the list to show their participation.--Nixer 14:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Baltic states participated in Holocaust??? Very interesting, you see, Baltic states were annexed by USSR in 1940. You can't participate in something if you do not exist. Some people from Baltic states participated in Holocaust? Of course. But then lets face the facts, some people from practically all German occupied countries(Poland, USSR etc.) participated in Holocaust. (Staberinde 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC))

Nixer, you are making ridiculously many factual mistakes. From nixer's edits: "The ESR was formally accepted into the Soviet Union on August 6 after a referendum and..." There wasn't any referendum. "Many Estonians took part in anti-Soviet resistance on the side of Nazi Germany and participated in the Holocaust and atrocities against Russian and Belorussian population." Its true that many Estonians participated in anti-soviet resistance, but very few estonians participated in holocaust. "Many Latvians fought alongside Germany against the Soviet Union, which annexed Latvia in 1939 following the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact." Latvia was annexed in 1940 not in 1939.
Fixed, 1940.--Nixer 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
About text of Estonia I first considered balanceing it by mentioning soviet crimes(eliminateing political, economical and military elite, deportations to siberia) but as it would had made article too long so i decided to simply shorten article for balanceing.(Staberinde 15:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
This chapter is about Estonia's participation, not about the USSR. You can add it to the USSR chapter if you consider this info valuable. Now you delete Estania's participation, but insert "crimes of the USSR", which is unappropriate. Crimes of Germany mentioned in its chapter.--Nixer 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are absolutely correct, this is about participation of Estonia. Which means not only what it did but also what was done upon it.--Whiskey 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Found one more Nixer's factual mistake "The Soviet Union threatened Estonia with war, if Estonia did not agree with the mutual assistance pact against Nazi Germany, which required allowing the Soviet Union to build military bases into Estonia." That pact was not directed aganist any certain country. (Staberinde 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC))
I did not write this text. But factually it is true: against what country other than Germany could serve these bases?--Nixer 20:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Against any country threatening Leningrad from sea, f.ex. Britain, USA, etc. As the fact was not mentioned in the treaty itself, the interpretations made after the war shouldn't matter.--Whiskey 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way. You say that the USSR reoccupied Estonia intead of a neutral phrase. Your phrasing is POV and reflects only present-day Estonian politics.--Nixer 20:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nope. The legality of the occupation of Estonia was recognized by very few countries at 1940. More countries recognized it after the war, but many countries never recognized it.--Whiskey 05:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Firstly Nixer, that lieing was pathetic, "I did not write this text." heh, look at archives, Nixer's edit 1 May 2006, you added factually incorrect part. About those crimes I thought a bit and looked how other countries are mentioned, paragraphs about Germany, USSR and Japan do not mention any crimes they did, its ridiculous to consider few estonian collaborators more importnant then these major powers.(Staberinde 06:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)) Btw, annexation of Estonia by USSR was illegal according to that time laws of Estonia.(Staberinde 06:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC))

I think, the paragraph about Germany should contain their crimes. Anyway the crimes should be mentioned if they considerably significant among other actions of the country. You deleted not only information about war crimes, but also not-criminal participation, such as defence of Moscow (from paragraph of Latvia). Anyway, I think it is only fair to depict were people from a country fought. I think the USSR article also may be improved with mention about collaborations and a number of pro-German units (such as RLA for example). About annexation. We do not argue here whether it was legal. It is only an issue of neutral phrasing. And I think the phrasing "restored as a part of the USSR" is more neutral as opposed to "reoccupied" and "liberated".--Nixer 19:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, please, let's not go down that road. First, if you add controversal claims, you simply cannot justify them by "I did not write this text", you have to put reference in the article where that claim exists. Second, this is not the place where you add all information of the countries, but entries here should be as short as possible to keep article concise enough. (We have gone through this before, just a few paragraphs below.) Third, your version is not neutral, as it omits crimes done by Soviet government and it's collaborators in Baltic States before Barbarossa. Oh, and by the way, I noticed that you still haven't told me sources to your claim in previous argument, was this the fifth time I ask them from you. --Whiskey 23:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer's version is still full of factual mistakes what i pointed out earlier. Also as Whiskey said, its no way NPOV. If we start adding all that kind of information(some estonians' were mobilised by germany, some by USSR, some went to finland and volunteered there, some collaborated with USSR and participated in soviet terror, some with germany and participated in german crimes, ussr deported people to siberia, before second ussr occupation tens thousands people went to sweden, there was resistance aganist USSR after end of WW II etc....) then we will have about as big article as Yugoslavia currently has(about 4-5 times bigger then it should be).(Staberinde 07:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC))
We do not need add all information of this kind. We olny should point where the significant parts of the population participated. For example, we have info about the Free France in article about France. Soviet repressions after the annexation anyway are not relevant because this article is about WW2.--Nixer 13:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If participation in holocaust is mentioned then practically all what I mentioned must be in too(and there is more stuff to be included in this case). You mentioned France, good, lets look article about Vichy France, participation in holocaust not mentioned although vichy france as collaborator was much more importnant then those Estonians, and reason is simple, its meant to be short overview not detailed explanation. "Soviet repressions after the annexation anyway are not relevant because this article is about WW2." Soviet crimes that were done 1940-1945 are part of WW II. Finally your version is still factually incorrect(or should i say its stalinistic propaganda to make it more clear?) so no way its going to stay in its current form in article.(Staberinde 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

If the French participation in the Holocaust is not mentioned, this is a breach in the article. Please do not add another one. Soviet policy in the occupied territories are not relevant as at that time the both countries were neutral. Rather it should be seen as continuation or the Russian civil war.--Nixer 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
It seems that you offer conflicting interpretations in the form that if Soviets did it, it was ok, but if somebody else did it, it wasn't. And still the sources, please. --Whiskey 18:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Nixer, by your logic invadeing Poland from east and Katyn massacre were also not parts of WW II as USSR was "neutral". Soviet union doesn't count as neutral nation since 17 september 1939 and soviet crimes in baltic states are part of WW II history of those states. Also your version is still full of factual mistakes. (Staberinde 06:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC))
That those countries merge the Soviet actions with their WWII history is only matter of present-day political re-interpretations in those countries. Soviet Union was count neutral by all countries (including the western allies) until it entered the war.--Nixer 07:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course Soviet union was officially neutral before barbarossa. But that no way means that soviet actions before barbarossa were not part of WW II. We have here article about Switzerland although Switzerland was neutral during the war(and unlike USSR did not attacked any countries or commited serious crimes) especially i like to bring out your own comment in switzerland's talk page: ""I am not so strong in Switzerland's "excellent" neutrality. Could anybody rewrite the article? --Nixer 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)"", same way article about finland mentions winter war(although USSR was officially neutral), same way Soviet crimes in Estonia during WW II are part of Estonian histry in WW II. (Staberinde 08:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC))

You mentioned some "puppet governments" in Estonia that were created by Soviets during the war and promised independence. I see this incorrect, so I removed the info. I know no such government.--Nixer 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Soviet puppet governments in Estonia that promised independece? Where did I mention that?(Staberinde 16:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Switzerland

I am not so strong in Switzerland's "excellent" neutrality. Could anybody rewrite the article? --Nixer 23:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bulgaria

The article seems like if Bulgaria was anti-Nazi, and did not fight along them. Though in fact many bulgarians participated in Nazi offensive in the USSR, for example, many of them were captured in Stalingrad.--Nixer 20:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep it simple

I'd like to repeat what is already written above: Keep things simple. In this kind of article there should be only very short, one paragraph overview how the country in question participated in the war. Any detailed information should be placed in separate articles.

It is very easy to make this article highly POV, too long and impossible to read (because of both length and style) if that guideline is not followed. --Whiskey 13:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The addition does not make the article too long. The Finnish section stilll one paragraph. Facts doesent make the article POV. Please, dont vandalize the article --Nixer 13:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
The NPOV needs that same facts should be presented from other participants. THAT would make the article too long. Also, I have nothing against the facts, I'd like to see more of them. But you doesn't present the facts but generalizations and innuendo.
For example, your first edit about war crimes was: "Finnish forces also participated in several military crimes in the Soviet territory." It hints that there vere numerous serious crimes done by Finns in the Soviet territory. But when we look closer, we find: "Soviet Union also provided the list of war crimes Finnish forces had done in the Soviet territory, and in accord with armstice treaty 14 men were convicted from few months to three years to prison." So, Soviet Union itself provided information about those war crimes, and it turns out that only 14 people had done there something Soviets considered crime. And none of them so serious that needs harsher conviction than three years. Those two versions give quite different view from the issue. --Whiskey 14:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Heh, they were tried in Finland, not in the USSR.--Nixer 21:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Naturally. Finland used before, during and after the war western legal system. It was quite in the line with Swedish or British ones. Also for court decisions.
Soviets were not really unhappy with the results. If they would be, Zdanov would have contacted Paasikivi and demanded harsher sentences as he did in war-responsibility trials. (And which were then delivered.)--Whiskey 22:48, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
May be, there were political reasons? USSR did not want to threaten Finland when concentrated on the German front and wanted to encourage other German allies to do the same thing? And, of course, these crimes were not so terrible, in comparison with German ones.--Nixer 23:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Romania had changed sides at August and Bulgaria at September. Hungary was occupied by Germany. So there wasn't any intencives to smaller axis hidden on the decision. Also the army of Finland was demobilized by early december and remaining forces were tied to fighting in Lappland. --Whiskey 10:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Case study: Finland

It seems Nixer and I are in the middle of edit war, so let's try to find suitable wording here instead of article self.

Nixer:"Finnish forces launched ethnic purges in the occupied territory, several concentration camps were established for population of non-Finno-Ugoric origin in Karelia. There was also a concentration camp for Jewish POW's, which were planned to transfer to Germans."

From the end: Nope, there wasn't a concentration camp in Finland for Jewish POWs. There was a POW camp where Jewish prisoners were collected, as well there were different camps for officers, political officers and also other major nationalities of Soviet Union.

Heh, what the difference between Soviet labor concentration camps, the German and the Finnish ones?--Nixer 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
There is a certain difference between POW camp and concentration camp. Which one are you referring here?
The issue of POW camps is a little sore for Finns, as the death rate during the first spring was horrible. Of all Soviet POWs 30% died. It is too close to Japanese 35%, Soviet 40% (for Finns) and German 60% (for Soviets) instead of German 11% (for Brits). The main reason was the faulty belief that POWs could manage with official ratio for light laborer, but they didn't notice that normal labor force could buy additional food and receive additional rations from home. (Finland was still pre-industrial agricultural country then.)

Finnish Jewish community helped Jewish POWs materially and verified that their religious needs were fulfilled.

Yes. But they were allowed to do this after the German defeat became evident.--Nixer 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Well... At first there were no separate camp for Jewish POWs but they were located in the same camp(s) as Russians. Only after the request of the Finnish Jewish community a separate camp was created late 1942. The decision for the move was done before Uranus, so German defeat was far from evident.

There was never plans to extradite those to Germany. After the war Finnish Jewish community certified that Jews were not persecuted in Finland during the war.

Why then a Finnish officer in his speach to the first Jewish prisoners said that Germans hate Jews, Finns hate Jews too and they were planning to extradite them to Germany under German conscience?--Nixer 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
There were naturally also right-extremists in Finland and among the Finnish officers, but you really think this rank of officer would be responsible for that kind of action? The political and military leadership was against extradictions. (Could you cite the source?)

In Soviet Karelia there were around 470 000 inhabitants, of which 130 000 were Fenno-Ugric. two thirds of them were evacuated or called into arms before Finnish occupation, and from the remaining 23 000 (at maximum) were enclosed to concentration camps. It is true that Finns planned to exchange them after the war to the Finnic people from elsewhere from Soviet Union.

So there were ethnic purges in some areas.--Nixer 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Especially where partisan activity was high or frontline security demanded it. On the other areas the blanket order to collect Russians to camps was quickly clarified to concern only industrial and political leadership, members of communist party, police and NKVD and highest officials.

Nixer:"Soviet Union also provided the list of war crimes Finnish forces had done in the Soviet territory, and in accord with armstice treaty 14 men were convicted from few months to three years to prison."

That was my original modification, but all in all I consider it is not relevant here at all. It should be better located in Continuation War. If we start adding this kind of information to this article, we are really opening the can of worms, as then we should add same information to all other participants, which makes this article a mess.

Nixer:"Why not? But those only that are parts of WW2 - for example, Treblinka, Babiy Yar, camps for Japanese in the US - we should show the character of the regime, that it was not only forced ally of Nazis."

But that is in fact exactly what it was. Due to Soviet actions there were no other option to Finns but to choose between Soviet occupation and German help. It is also extremely likely that Soviet occupation had resulted frontline running twice over the Finland, devastating the country and it's inhabitants. --Whiskey 14:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

May be, and what? Do you want to place this excuse sentence in the article? I will not be against the idea.--Nixer 21:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Nope. It doesn't belong here. The right place would be somewhere in Continuation War, War-responsibility trials or History of Finland. The Finland section here is already too long and it should be shortened. --Whiskey 00:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I dont think Finnish section too long. Other sections are too small for me. Seems all the information in Finnish section relevant. Of course, we can shorten the section upto 2 lines, but now it is much more informative. It's rather long even without my edits.--Nixer 00:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Even before your edits it was too long by third. This is not an article for military history of WWII, but merely a redirection page to country based descriptions. There are a lot of countries and areas in the world which should have entry here, but to make this page manageable, those entries should be as short as possible. Adding stuff to the sections would make them naturally more informative, but that doesn't mean they or the article as a whole would be more readable. --Whiskey 10:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

There were no "agreement to attack Poland" in the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. It simply stated: if Germany invade Poland in a case of German-Polish war, it should not occupy WHOLE Poland, but should retreat from the eastern part and give it under the Soviet control. USSR was not obliged to attack Poland with this pact--Nixer 17:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, you might want to pay attention to the niceties of diplomatic language. That's about as blatant as it gets, considering what the circumstances of "a German-Polish war" (ie, the invasion planned for the following weeks) were. And yes, this is diplomatic code for a joint invasion, with territory agreed in advance. There is no great disagreement among historians on this point. ProhibitOnions 17:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there any table of diplomatic codes?--Nixer 17:50, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Nixer's reversions

As the conversation above suggests, Nixer seems unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion, and reverts any changes to the portions of the article dealing with the Soviet Union, responding with sarcasm when these reverts are queried. This seems to be his standard modus operandi on other articles as well.

I do not consider his reversions neutral, as he claims, as their intent seems to be to justify whatever the Soviets did under Stalin, while deprecating other countries; while arguing that the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was not an informal alliance, a position that can only be described as original research, or worse revisionism,

Is there any reputable sources in which USSR named an ally of Germany? --Nixer 15:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

he has — to cite one example — added information about Finnish "war crimes" elsewhere. Furthermore, corrections to non-standard English were also needlessly reverted, and even my mention of the Battle of Stalingrad and explanation that the Soviets were not considered Axis members were removed as "Polish nationalist propaganda" because they occured in the same edit as background information on Operation Barbarossa. (For the record, I am not Polish.)

I removed this sentence because you stated that the USSR was not considered an Axis power because of operation Barbarossa, which is your original research. How it can be an Axis power, if it had military conflicts with such Axis powers as Finland and Japan?
Could you please check your facts somewhere before producing frogs like that? Could you also please, please, tell us what are the sources you are using? I think it would be a general interest if you reveal us how Finland was axis country November 30, 1939??? --Whiskey 20:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It was future axis country.--Nixer 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It is interesting to hear Kremlin had working chrystal ball. I'm even more curious about the sources you are using. How they present the leaning of Finland 1939? Do they say Finland leaned to Germany? Or Britain? Or Sweden? Please. Cite. Your. Sources. Please? --Whiskey 21:41, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
What sources? Finland became an Axis power, what sources do you want?--Nixer 22:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Don't try to play games! It is evident that you have more than casual knowledge on the issue, but it also seems that you don't have very specific knowledge, so the question one is what books have you used as sources to form your opinion on the issue? The second question is "How they present the leaning of Finland 1939? Do they say Finland leaned to Germany? Or Britain? Or Sweden?" --Whiskey 23:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
It's a difficult question. I have read many books of different authors with different points of view. We have to present here facts only. Not opinions.
Unfortunately I disagree. If we only present facts here, then these pages will come so crowded that no-one can read them. Another reason is that even in environments where is free press and freedom of expression we don't have all the facts, not to mention authoritative or dictaturial systems. That is why we have to express opinions on these pages. We just have to make them as neutral as possible. So I like to know some of those books, for example those which influenced most to your opinion?
How would you determine which opinion is more "neutral" ? This is encyclopedia article, not a newspaper review.--Nixer 15:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That is why we need sources, my fellow Wikipedian. Please read NPOV.
If I properly understood the second question, my personal opinion that it was in general clear in 1939 and even in 1936, who will fight against whom in the future world war. Some details of course had to be changed, but the USSR was prepairing for war with Germany and Japan.
Naturally, but also with Poland, Britain, France and USA.
Yes, but I will repeat. In general it was clear who will fight agains whom in the future war.--Nixer 15:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
There were strategical and tactical plans, Stalin's and Molotov's defense lines were in process, Soviet army participated in local conflicts to sharpen its tactics. New types of weapons were developed and produced. The treaty suggested to Finland was intended to enforce Soviet position in the future war with Germany, to move the boarder from the Leningrad and to build military bases on the Finnish territory, not to allow Germans to use this platzdarm for invation. It is not widely known that lend lease program with the US started in 1939 or earlier.
It didn't. The legistature was done 1941.
It did. Maybe under another name... For example Soviet BT-7 tank was built with American technology.--Nixer 15:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
So it didn't. If you have other evidence, please edit Lend-Lease. Lend-Lease concept was quite unique, and one shouldn't confuse it with normal trade. USSR and USA had quite extensive economical contactcs, in large part thanks to Stalin's drive to industrilize and modernize Soviet Union.
I read it in one book, which I cannot call NPOV. I will virify the sources.--Nixer 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Also USSR tried to sign a collective security peace treaty with Britain and France (though without success), proposed defense treaty to Poland. Also it wanted to help Czechoslovakia against German aggression, but Poland refused to allow Soviet forces to pass its territory. So strategically the USSR prepared for war with Germany.--Nixer 04:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
IIRC one of the main stumbling blocks was Soviet insistence to help Baltic countries and Poland without their invitation. The tragedy of Soviet Union was that it never accepted the loss of border states mainly due to Russian nationalism but also because the very idea of marxism. The result was that it never could trust any neighbours fully.
The USSR did not trust Poland and Finland because of territorial disputes, but the main cause was the fact that many officers of the White army escaped to Finland and Poland and made there successful carrier, became members of government or influenced it. They were irreconcilable enemies of the USSR. As you know many former white officers participated in WW2 on one side with Hitler. For example, Krasnov, Mannerheim and many others. There were even units, fully comleted with white emigrants, which were extremly cruel (for example, against Yugoslavian partisans).--Nixer 15:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you think that it was the most natural for officers coming from Poland and Finland to do? Also number of former Russian officers served in British and French armies, so axis din't have the monopoly for them.
To do what? Yes, during the Soviet-Polish war there were several war crimes, commited by Polish officers. Also it considered a betrayal among White emigrans if somebody of them supported anti-nazis, for axample, they called even Denikin a traitor.--Nixer 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
To continue service in their own countries, naturally. Several Finnish born officers returned to Finland from Russia (Mannerheim, Nenonen, Enckell...), but could you cite any Russian officers or officers who served in Russian "White" armies who created a career in Finland?
But you evaded the question again. The orientation of Finland, please? --Whiskey 23:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Finland was anti-Soviet, Soviets named Finnish government "belofinny" which means "white finns". The state emblem of Finland was swastika.--Nixer 15:18, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Good, now we have some progress! So, Finland didn't like Soviet Union. But you still didn't answer the question towards whom Finland was oriented? Germany? Sweden? Britain?
I think Finland was menthally closer to Germany, while in politics tried to game with both Germany and the West. So politically it was in the middle, but anti-Soviet. Poland was certainly pro-German before the German invasion.--Nixer 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean Germany or Nazi-Germany? How was Finnish policy more pro-German than the policies of other Nordic countries? It is interesting to hear that Poland was pro-German before German invasion. You should edit it to World War II article. I guess it will create some discussion. But naturally you have good sources to support your position, don't you?
And for the second sentence: The national emblem of Finland wasn't swastika, it was and still is a lion. Finnish air force emblem was swastika, and it was and still is visible in numerous medals and decorations in Finland (for example, the flag of president of Finland contains swastika (http://www.presidentti.fi/eng/institution/ensign.html)). And those were designed long before nazism and have nothing to do with it (http://www.ilmavoimat.fi/index_en.php?id=624). --Whiskey 16:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Hitler was not inventor of many things such as antisemitism, Aryan supremacy theory, anti-Bolshevism, swastika etc. These things were in use before him and along him by other regimes, which were like the regime of Nazi to some point. For example, Nazi salute was also in use in Italy before Hitler, swastika - in Finland, anti-Semitic laws - in Poland etc.--Nixer 23:59, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That is a reason I don't like the style you are writing. You state facts, but then you create an assosiation, innuendo, where you hint something which is not supported by facts you are giving. Like above the sentence "which were like the regime of Nazi to some point". Especially the ending is brilliant: "to some point". It could mean anything. So, to which point did Finnish regime were like Nazi? And how did other regimes, organizations or cultures which used swastika before Nazis related to Nazi regime or ideology? And you still haven't given any sources? --Whiskey 12:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
And even with Italy and Germany in Spain? And how it can be a member of Anti-Comintern pact, when Comintern was pro-Stalinist organisation? Comintern did not support Poland when Germany invaded because Poland was from the Comintern's point of view also a fascist nationalistic state.--Nixer 15:04, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I would gladly work with Nixer and others to improve any issues here and come to a consensus, but immediate reversions, elimination of pertinent detail, and name-calling are not the spirit of Wikipedia. ProhibitOnions 12:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


I support Nixer on this--Caligvla 16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Belgian Congo

Why belgian Congo is coulored like neutral? --Francomemoria 19:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the Free Belgian Forces should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.222 (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Korea

Shouldn't Korea be included also? It was annexed by Japan in 1910 but her civilians were conscripted by the Japanese Imperial Army and had great casualties during Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Darkstyx 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder it is local wars, sir. Nippon attempt to expand their colonized area, far-far day before WWII. A country invaded by nippon, doesn't automatically make them being WWII participant. Except there are valid source that clarify the korean goverment being participate in WWII ;1.by declare the war or 2). by send/donate their military or weapons --to nippon-- for WWII (without war declaration).Arwnips (talk) 08:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

France/Vichy France

Is there any justification for having a separate listing for "Vichy France" than for "France"? This seems absurd to me - Vichy is generally considered to be the legal government of France from 1940 to 1944. It was certainly the de facto government, and received diplomatic recognition from most countries. Going through this article, I added a bit on Vichy to the main "France" part. But it seems as though the original purpose was to separate France's activity as one of the allies from its activity as an axis-leaning power. This is unjustifiable and just seems basically wrong to me. john k 03:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems basically right to me. Vichy France was recognized by which allies? The Vichy government remained in power until 1942, not 1944. France was both good and bad- Vichy France and France not only governments, but sometimes referred to as the good and bad of current-day France in WWII, such as how it was Vichy soldgiers fighting the allies in Operation Torch, not the good Free French. Perhaps we should ch ange the title of France to Free French then. --LtWinters 00:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The French colony in China Kwangchowwan should be included in this article, because other European colonies in China, such as Hong Kong and Macau, have separte entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.222 (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


No, their is no "france" from 1940 to 1944, or more exactly they are two france. Maybe we shall separate french section in france (1939-40 and 44-45) and free france (40-44) and we shouldn't open a section on vichy france, because it was a neutral state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.87.219.201 (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

De Gulle did not claim to be head of the legal government of France until 1944, really. As far as I'm aware, virtually all foreign powers, neutral and belligerent, recognized it as such, including Britain, which only broke relations with Vichy after Mers el Kebir. Canada and Australia maintained relations with Vichy until late 1942, as did the United States. Nobody recognized the Free French as the government of France until after the liberation of France in 1944. john k (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Southern Rhodesia

Southern Rhodesia was not controled by Britain as stated in the piece. It was not a crown colony, rather a colony of the British South Africa Company until the late 1920 when their right to govern was terminated and she joined the Empire formally, was subsiquently governed jointly by and appointed governor general and an elected prime-minister until the declaration of a republic, though the GG slowly lost his powers. Normally Britian controled only the foreign affairs of Southern Rhodesia. Southern Rhodesia was never formally either a crown colony or a dominion (a significant cause of the declaration of UDI in the 1960s). With regards the second world war, Southern Rhodesia declared war independantly of Britian though she was also covered by the British Declaration of war. Both Rhodesias (though mainly Southern) were used as the main airforce training bases for the British Empire and Commonwealth Forces, Tony Benn (famous or imfamous labour politician) trained there. The Southern Rhodesians raised several RAF squadrons, which later formed the RRAF and sent Infantry Regiments, Artilary and engineers to serve in the North African and Itailain campaigns. The most famous (pre-1960s war) Rhodesian unit, the Rhodesian African Rifles served in Burma. Also, Ian Smith never lost an eye in the war, he may have lost his sight in one eye, but I couldn't say with any surity that that is the case. He definately, to this day, still has both eyes.


bad map

The color-coded map is inaccurate. How could "Korea, part of Manchuria, and part of China" be included as "Axis" forces. If the map were to depict the extent of the Japanese Empire, it migh make more sense, but the current map is very misleading. Oyo321 05:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree. Why is it color coded for a single "entered after" date? Shouldn't one, for consitency, then make the Republic of China it's own color? Or for that matter, the Soviet Union?--72.201.81.188 23:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The map omits several axis powers, notably Italy, but also Hungary and Romania.

Protected...

OK, since this is just getting silly, I asked for the page protection... Now, perhaps we can reach some sort of agreement on the talk page? :) -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 19:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Actualy discussion is going on paralelly at 2 places, one is here at talk page under Baltic states and other one is here: User talk:Nixer.(it may be little hard to read as Nixer has put some of his newer comments in the middle of other people's older comments, cutting them into several pieces).(Staberinde 20:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC))

Occupation vs Annexation

It seems that anti-Soviet lobby here is pushing the word "occupation" regarding Soviet control over Baltic republics. I want to point out that the word in this context is incorrect. The republics were annexed (or accepted) in the USSR, so the term "occupation" after the annexation is unapplicable (although it existed initially). The two terms are incompatible. The republics did not have their own national socvereignity at that time.--Nixer 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

"It has been discussed before".--Staberinde 09:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not contest the states were occupied initially, but when they were accepted into the USSR, it cannot be called "occupation" anymore. Staberdine, did Estonia have their national sovereignity during the war? If it did, then it was in fact "re-occupied" by the USSR and we should list it as an Axis power. If it didn't then it was not "re-occupied".--Nixer 17:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

We should restrict ourselves to the de facto situation, it seems to me, which is that the Baltics were annexed by the USSR. That this may have been de jure illegal ought concern us no more than the de jure illegality of the French First Republic, as far as I'm concerned. john k 16:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

De jure Baltic states never joined USSR(its explained quite well at that same discussion page). There was short lived(few days) attempt to restore estonian independence in september 1944. Of course it failed(as being sandwitched between 2 hostile giants) BUT as it was de jure continuance of the Republic of Estonia then saying that USSR "reoccupied" Estonia is completely correct.--Staberinde 10:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
De jure the USSR annexed Estonia.--Nixer 11:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

De facto, the USSR annexed Estonia. Whether or not this was de jure is debatable. It is best to avoid such debates, and focus on the fact of the issue, which is that Estonia was administred as part of the USSR. john k 17:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Estonia was restored as part of the USSR, which is fact and as much as possible neutral wording. Staberdine continiously removes that.--Nixer 17:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Firstly de jure, annexation of Estonia by USSR was illegal. Now about de facto, there was atempt to restore independence of Estonia in september 1944. That government was overrun soon(and continued to exist in exile) but it de facto controlled Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, for few days. So both by de jure and de facto its most accurate to say that USSR reoccupied Estonia.--Staberinde 18:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization Suggestion

How about re-ordering the list of countries by continent (N.A., S.A., Europe, Africa, Asia/Australia) with the possibility of then offloading the information to separate pages for each subsection? --Stux 23:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Also, this would allow a brief summary by continent to precede the country list. For example, it appears to be the case that most South American countries entered on the Allied side too late to make much of a difference, with Brazil as the only possible exception. Statingt his in an intro paragraph could make it much more understandable. Binarybits (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Iceland not in the list

I noticed that Iceland is not in the list. Although Iceland wasn't a direct participant in the war, Britain did "invade" the country and stayed throughout the war, until they were largely replaced by USA, even though USA was still not officially a participant in the war. Submarine hunting was conducted from Iceland, there were refueling bases for the ships crossing the Atlantic and so on. Some say that Iceland played quite some part in the war in the Atlantic. Don't know what criteria is used for participants in WWII, but I think Iceland should be on the list. 85.220.41.217 11:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Jonas

probably by their goverments do. (as i read, incude indirect act, like sending the troop for WW II, not for local war).
a country passed by military unit (of another country in WWII) are not included, or a country invaded by participant country in WW II are marked as local war. Except that country surrounder, being client states, and send their military unit and/or weapons for WWII with or without declare. Arwnips (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Tibet

Tibet is shown as a neutral county on the map but there is no corresponding entry for it in the article and no discussion of its involvement in the war under China. Eluchil404 18:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Did it have any involvement? The Tibet article makes no mention of anything. It doesn't sound like it was capable of or interested in involving itself. Leushenko (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A list of participants in the war doesn't need to say "so-and-so did not participate in the war". I just deleted the Vatican entry for the same reason. 66.60.238.85 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:03, 22 October 2008 (UTC).
So, what the participate of Tibet in war?.
Arwnips (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Latvia and Lithuania

I think the reason why we have the same number for both the Latvians and the Lithuanians killed from Krivosheev is a mere typo. A different version of it must be found. With respect, Ko Soi IX 03:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Nazi Germany's name

The use of "Nazi Germany" is more common than in the UK, where Nazi Germany is often referred to as simply "Germany". "Nazi" was not it's name but a term coined by their enemies. In the same way, the US should not be referred to as "Great Satan America" even if another country calls the US by that name. This discussion should not be interpreted as support for the evil Nazi regime or for war crimes. Jerseycam 08:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Vatican and the "Massin Graud"

The entry under the Vatican heading is cryptic to say the least. Does anyone know what the Massin Graud is? Google has two hits, both from wikipedia and mirrors. It doesn't appear to be a typo for Massin Guard. What, then, is it? Nonsense? gnfnrf (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Macau

Why is Hong Kong mentioned but not Macau?

Sovereign Military Order of Malta

Does anyone out there know what happened to this "country," located in a building in Rome, in WW II?

Supporting evidence and bibliography?

Hi All. I believe that this is an important article, about a quite delicate topic that has triggered a fair ammount of discussion. As such, its contents should be adequately supported by sources and bibliography. However, I was unable to find those references in the article.
Is it possible, please, that the editors that contributed to it quote the bibliography and sources that had been used?
Many thanks & kind regards, DPdH (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments about Argentina's section in the article.

I'd like to express my opinion in particular about this section, as its content is not supported by relevant sources and bibliography (even though I believe it's basically correct in spirit).
1- Although most people would agree that in the first half of the XXth century there were "fraudulent" and "dictatorial" governments in Argentina, I cannot find a relation between those adjectives and the topic of the article in general and of this section in particular.
2- In addition, the sentence opening the second paragraph ("It is worth noting that many citizens opposed the nation's official neutralist stance.") states as a fact something that is not evident from any source cited in the article. How many citizens opposed? Where is this documented?
In conclusion, my feeling is that the article in general and this section in particular needs some rework to add sources for most of the statements cited in it (which might be true, I'm not challenging that). Can anyone please contribute with this task? I'll try to add an adequate banner/tag for this.
Many thanks & Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Second Philippine Republic

The existence of the Axis Second Philippine Republic should be mentioned in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.222 (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where is Palestine

It was a British mandated country at that time. Robin Hood 1212 (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too so I added it with some general information. Didn't want to put too much effort into it because of vandalism associated with all Arab-Israeli issues. Also, I am not sure one can use the term 'country' for the British Mandate of Palestine since that denotes a measure of at least nominal independence. Authority was vested solely in the hands of the British appointed governor with no democratically elected representation. There wasn't even a nominal local ruler such as a khedive or a maharajah. If Palestine was a country, one could argue that so is Puerto Rico or more notably, the American protectorates in the pacific. 132.229.189.116 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Costa Rica

Where did the source for the airfield on Cocos Island come from? I can't seem to find anything on it, on the net! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.129.150 (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

mongolia, tibet, and tannu tava

they were internationally recognized as china's territory, even by the USA, you can see the prpaganda films the USA showed its troops, showing them as CHINESE TERRITORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.142.146 (talk) 02:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Had to run WikiCleaner several times, due to size of article. Please do not revert!! Thanks! Also, per the MOS, the wikilinks in the section headings (titles) need to be removed, and the template:main could be used instead, at the beginning of each section.--Funandtrvl (talk) 16:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Poland

 When called upon by the Brits, the polish army scampered back to Poland not defending the allies ground."... 
         When and how? Details please or remove rubbish. --Polcan59 (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

Quote from article: "Fifty years before the battle, Baku produced half of the world's oil supply: Azerbaijan and the United States are the only two countries ever to have been the world's majority crystal meth producer."

Is this vandalism which has thus far gone undetected? I don't really get the sudden crystal meth reference. Dex Stewart (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Axis Powers (possible vandalism)

The first line of the Axis Powers section reads "Originally founded on the island of drugs (the Pact of Steel) and later on,"

Surely some guys, in some edit, had put that in for fun... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.26.120 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

China-neutral?

Why is China(or most of it) listed as neutral? They were fighting Japan long before anyone else, they were clearly a part of the Allied powers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.186.81 (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought, neutral in goverment perpective, the china vs Japan are look more like local war (not world war), like Japan vs Dutch in Nusantara (indonesia now) aren't world war, even it happen during WWII. Arwnips (talk) 07:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
This logic is so flawed! You could call the war in Europe "local war" too. Japan was part of the Axis and had already conquered Korea. The Soviets had to fight on two fronts to push back Japan. It was not a simple conflict between two countries. --2.245.136.114 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

"England"

Why does England appear in the list? England is not a sovereign country. Other lists of countries don't include 'England' because it is assumed that anybody who's not completely ignorant knows that it is a part of the United Kingdom. Maybe we should add 'Texas', 'Disneyland' and 'Tasmania' to the list as well if England's there.--Xania talk 00:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Australia

Australia never declared war on Germany. Not as such. The Prime Minister Robert Menzies announced that, because Britain had declared war, Australia consequently was at war. It was, in his mind, an automatic thing over which his government had no say. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

So what you are saying is, that there was no official declaration of war? Also, is there a source regarding this? Outback the koala (talk) 03:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Certainly - here.
Also, from Commonwealth realm:
  • When this threat became reality, there was some uncertainty in the Dominions about the ramifications of Britain's declaration of war against Adolf Hitler. Australia and New Zealand had not yet ratified the Statute of Westminster; the Australian Prime Minister, Robert Menzies, considered the government bound by the British declaration of war,[47][48] while New Zealand coordinated a declaration of war to be made simultaneously with Britain's.[49] Canada and South Africa made separate proclamations of war against Germany a few days after the UK's .
And from Dominion:
  • Britain's declaration of hostilities against Nazi Germany on 3 September 1939 tested the issue. Most took the view that the declaration did not commit the Dominions. Ireland chose to remain neutral. At the other extreme, the conservative Australian government of the day, led by Robert Menzies, took the view that, since Australia had not adopted the Statute of Westminster, it was legally bound by the UK declaration of war – which had also been the view at the outbreak of World War I – although this was contentious within Australia. Between these two extremes, New Zealand declared that as Britain was or would be at war, so it was too. This was, however, a matter of political choice rather than legal necessity. Canada issued its own declaration of war after a recall of Parliament, as did South Africa after a delay of several days (South Africa on September 6, Canada on September 10). Ireland, which had negotiated the removal of British forces from its territory the year before, chose to remain neutral throughout the war. There were soon signs of growing independence from the other Dominions: Australia opened a diplomatic mission in the US in 1940, as did New Zealand in 1941, and Canada's mission in Washington gained embassy status in 1943. --
To prove it beyond doubt, I'd have to prove that there was no formal document or gazette notice issued that amounted to a declaration of war. If there was no such document, I'd be looking in vain forever; what I hope to find is confirmation that no such document ever existed. Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 07:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
And here it is:
* A special issue (no. 63) of the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette on 3 September 1939 contained the formal proclamation of the existence of a state of war.
Note the wording that I’ve highlighted. It does not say “formal declaration of war”. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done! And I see the article has already been so changed, Keep up the good work! Outback the koala (talk) 17:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

The particular contributions were manpower (see above), food, armaments, and its unique geographical location.

Doesn't every country on Earth have its own "unique geographical location"? How could this be a "contribution" in the same sense as the supply of armaments or food? What is this trying to say? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the mean to say in relation to Great Britain and the Atlantic? Seems fairly vague, so I'm not sure. Outback the koala (talk) 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Image Error?

Am I the only one that is getting an error message where our informative map should be? All I see is, "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or image file with more than 12.5 million pixels" Anyone know? Outback the Koala (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Caribbean Islands

The Caribbean Islands provided troops and mechanics to the war effort. why is this not included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonewsbear (talk • contribs) 11:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Brazil and World War II

Brazil should be included and marked as allied forces on the map. Their contribution of 21000 soldiers is significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chez alexito (talk • contribs) 00:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Obviously the map is showing the situation in September of 1939 and just as obviously the animation is not working.
Forget Brazil. The 1939 picture shows Italy as a non-combatant.
Varlaam (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The map should be changed or deleted. It´s wrong regarding Brazil and Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.49.91.48 (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What do the last two paragraphs have to do with Brazil??? Borneo, Brunei, Indonesia, etc. seem unrelated and perhaps deserve their own section or belong in another. --RapunzelaTX (talk) 06:02, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

links to articles in some of the other languages wikipedias are not correct. many links are connected to axis powers.

The link from this article to it's equivalent in hebrew wikipedia and in wikipedias in many other languages is pointing not to Participants in World War II but instead to axis powers. I belive that it is not appropriate and the link should be deleted until such article will existe in thouse languages, or to be corrected if such article already existe. pc84 (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Romania

The article says: "After the war, Romania was considered by Western Allies as defeated country and thus abandoned to Soviet Union hands despite of (i) major war efforts on Western front accompanied by (ii) cutting off the supply of petrol - Ploiesti - to Axis troops starting with middle of 1944, making possible the end of the war in 1945. Consequently to this political post-war status, Romania became a communist country and a key member of the Warsaw Pact after the war.[citation needed]"

(i) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania_in_World_War_II#Campaign_against_the_Axis Romanian Army killed 11 000 German troops, which could be hardly named a Major War Effort.

(ii)When did Romania cut oil supplies to Germany? It was the Red Army, not Romania.

Where is info about Romania engagement in Holocaust? Romania killed 280 000 - 380 000 Jews.

Romania was NOT a key member of Warsaw Pact, see www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/ACF368.pdf . Romania did not intervene in Czechoslovakia and did not participate in major Warsaw Pact events since 60-ies. Warsaw Pact even intended to occupy Romania in 1968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.27.84.128 (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Liechtenstein. it states that crownprince Franz Joseph had "only ascended to power shortly before the start of World War I. Well, in fact he had been emperor of Austria since....1848! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.122.20.32 (talk) 03:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Spain

It wouldn't be far-fetched to say World War 2 technically started in 1936 with the Spanish Civil War, my point being, Spain's participation in World War 2 is a bit more complex than just describing the Franco Regime's position. This section should account for this by not considering "Spain" to be exclusively the Regime and also include a brief mention of the participation of exiled Spanish Republicans like the Spanish Maquis and individuals like Joan Pujol Garcia...Amusing, Human (talk) 05:20, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be far-fetched and incorrect. World War II only began when the British Empire and French Empire declared war on September the 3rd 1939. Before that date any other wars being fought were only 'local' wars, affecting only their participants over a relatively small part of the globe.
With the declarations of Britain and France, and their colonies all over the world, large parts of the world were from then on simultaneously involved, thus making it a World War.
.. that is BTW why WW I was also a World War. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.29.18.153 (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 25 April 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Participants in World War II → ? – The page is not primarily about participants in World War II. It ought therefore to be retitled something else or slimmed down considerably by removing all non-participants. Relisted Calidum Talk To Me 23:11, 22 May 2014 (UTC) --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 02:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose. I see nothing wrong with the current title. It is mainly about countries that participated in the war. What is striking to me is how few Neutral Powers there were (that is linked from the article). This should probably have been entered as a multi-move request, with Participants in World War I, for consistency. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be only about the countries that participated in the war? Also, "participant" is not a technical term. Why should we count American Samoa separately from America? Same with all the other colonies. Why should neutral Sweden or Spain—of great importance to the war—be classed as participants alongside belligerent Honduras—of practically no importance to the war? What purpose does a list like this serve other than to outline the impact of the war on each country, as stated by the proposed title below (which I support)? Srnec (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wbm1058. Ceteris paribus, title consistency is preferable. As I noted below, the problem is with the wp:lede, that would have to be re-written no matter what, move or not. So I {{fixit}}ed it [3] so that it better fits the scope of the article. walk victor falk talk 10:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
That would more accurately summarise the contents, yes. Srnec (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if there isn't a better one though; it feels a bit awkward trying to fit it in the lede. Also, is there a point with Participants_in_World_War_II#Axis_powers? walk victor falk talk 05:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
No the last we thing is another redundancy from other WWII articles. Pipelinking to "axis" and "allies" in the wp:lede is sufficient enough (which should be entirely rewritten btw), so I have now removed that axis section. This article is a List of short history recaps of all the world's countries during WWII. walk victor falk talk 23:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on World War II by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on World War II by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_by_country/Archive_1&oldid=1137331856"