Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 10

Major affiliated state combatants
I was already writing about it a couple months ago, I can't find that topic now so I am starting this once again. Anyway that time I had no time for making and showing you the analysis of the subject.

In the article you can find 5 honoured countries as the major Allies:

2.1 United Kingdom 2.2 China 2.3 France 2.4 Soviet Union 2.5 United States

Among the others there is no Poland which was much more "important" state during the war than Australia, Belgium or Czechoslovakia. Meanwhile it is showed here as the minor affiliated state together with countries that had almost no contribution in war.

Moreover if we say about major state Poland deserves much more for this title than France. I do not want anyone to understand me wrong. I haven't got anything against France but as the citizien of the country that suffered the most during the War, I can expect puting my country in the place that it deserved in this kind of articles.

In order to show you that my words are not just a result of national pride or something like this, below you can find my arguments.

I will be grateful if people who are able to edit this article will consider my arguments and move Poland to the section of Major states.

First of all Poland was the first state that fought against Nazi Germany. The war in Europe begun in Poland and the Poland was the first state that decided to stop the Nazism and defend itself. Poland was the country that fought the longest during the second World War. Started at the very begining and continued the fight during the whole war.

Secondly as I wrote before it suffered the most out of every countries. In numbers the biggest amount of deths were in USSR, China, Germany and... Poland (5,900,000 to 6,000,000). If we will look at it proportionally to the number of citiziens from 1939 Poland suffered the most (16.93 to 17.22% of population died). The number of military wounded Polish outnumbers the French. That may show the involvment in figths. Poland 766,606; France 390,000.

Of course the fact that you suffered the most maybe not the best argument to say that your country is the most important (however the last factor could somehow show the invlovment) but it may you anable to appreciate the achivments and influance of Poland that were able to do a lot beside such a great losses.

I claimed about the influance of Polish pilotes in battle of Britain. I also told about the size of the Polish resistance. Moreover I should add that was the only example of resistance for such a big scale, that had both military and civil administration and through the whole war was cooperating with government in exile. Also Polish Intelligence had a lot of succeses, that helped a lot in winnig the war and judgeing of the war crimes (breaking of the Enigma, delivering of V2 parts,delivering the proofs for Holocaust). Polish troops had fought at every battlefronts of Europe and in Africa from begining till the end, from the East to the West, from the Narwik in Norwey to the deserts of Sahara.

I think there is more than enough reasons to put the Poland among the major Allies forces especially if there is France. Otherewise I would not say that this article is lying but it is manipulating the history.

After the war Poland had been situated by the Great Three in Soviet ocupation zone. Thus it could not develope as good as countries of western Europe, it could not use the Marchal Plan, it could not get its own occupation zone in Germany and it could not be placed in any way in The United Nations Security Council as the fixed state. France could do all of this things and that is why may be seen as the more important Allay.

I think someone who wrote this article has used this key (UNSC fixed members) to choose the major Allies but as I said this set of major states is manipulating the history, that should not happen in Wikipedia. That is why I ask you to consider my arguments and changing the article.

--Dusi91 (talk) 20:09, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I would agree that Poland and Yugoslavia should be indicated in some way that were not "major" but neither "minor" Allies. FkpCascais (talk) 20:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * In other words, Poland and Yugoslavia were closer to "major" than "minor". FkpCascais (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * While I certainly dont disagree about the key role of Poland during WW2, in one way one can say that WW2 was about Poland. But according to WP policy we should use the labels found in reliable sources. «The major (allied) powers» often refers to the 3 big ones: US, UK, Soviet (for instance at Jalta and Potsdam). France was later included among the allies that occupied Germany. --— Erik Jr. 20:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Poland was important only for a few weeks in Sept 1939 and should not be in the top ten allies, in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I searched Google Scholar and to me it appears that "major allied" refers to four countries or governments: USA, Soviet, UK and France. For instance: I also searched full text of some 300,000 volumes in the National library of Norway, and it is clear (albeit in the Norwegian language) that "major allied powers" original referred to UK, USA and USSR, later France was included in Europe and China in the Asian theatre. China was of course not involved in the occupation of Germany and Austria, so in that context there 3 major powers while, later the French zone was carved out the US and UK zones. --— Erik Jr. 21:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * "In 1943 the major Allied powers in Eu rope were England, France, the United States and the USSR, but several other powers were also deemed Allied. Ultimately, 19 of them acceded to the London Charter of August 8, 1945, which was one of the bases for the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, 82 UNTS 279 [hereinafter London Agreement]." (Bassiouni, M. C. (1994). The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992). American Journal of International Law, 88(4), 784-805.)
 * "The year 2015 marks the 70th anniversary of the end of World War Two (WWII), and the major allied powers—China, Russia, the United States, Britain, and France..." (Ming, L. (2015). Northeast Asia Order after WWII: Continuity, Compliance, Power-Transition and Challenges. The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 27(2), 163-186.)
 * "While judges from only the four major Allied powers sat on the Nuremberg Tribunal, judges from 13 nations (the nine nations that signed the Instrument of Surrender of Japan on September 15, 1945, ...." (Stover, E. (1995). In the shadow of Nuremberg: Pursuing war criminals in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Medicine and Global Survival 2&3, 140-147.)

Dear All,

Thank you for your answers.

Frascati Thank you for your support. If you say so, we should do something about this. It is very unfair to put a countries with such a big imput in one group with Cuba or Luxemburg. Maybe there should be additionall group for countires such as France, Poland and Yougoslavia. Or there should not be division. Or countries should be grouped in the order of entering the fight that would not harm anyone and that would have an extra eductational effect. The current situation is "refracting" the reality.

Erik Jr. You agreed with me that Poland had not the minor role in WW2. Now the problem are the sources as you wrote. In this case there is no problem. I have already given you the sources in my table. Actually it is already accepted by Wikipedia that Polish imput in WW2 could be bigger than French, it is written in article about Polish contribution in WW2, there are given the sources. If the claim that Polish imput could be bigger then French is accepted that means that it was bigger or it was very similar. If it is similar and France is among the major Allies than there is no reason to not put there a Poland. I know that France had it's own occupation zone but as I wrote the fact that France did and Poland did not was mainly caused by the geopolitical place of Poland and the policy of USSR. If the France would be in eastern Europe it would not have its own occupation zone. Anyway this is not the topic what was the situation of any country after the war but what was its role during the war. In my opinion above you can find enough proofs for a major role of Poland. The proofs with a given sources. '''All I wrote above is actually labeld by Wikipedia already. '''

See below:

" Numerous sources state that Polish Army was the fourth biggest Allied fighting contingent. Steven J. Zaloga wrote that "by the war's end the Polish Army was the fourth largest contingent of the Allied coalition after the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain."[53] Jerzy Jan Lerski writes "All in all, the Polish units, although divided and controlled by different political orientation, constituted the fourth largest Allied force, after the American, British and Soviet Armies."[54] M. K. Dziewanowski has noted that "if Polish forces fighting in the east and west were added to the resistance fighters, Poland had the fourth largest Allied army in the war (after the USSR, the U.S. and Britain)".[55]"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_contribution_to_World_War_II

This is just a part of longer text. Anyway you have a labels, you agreed that it is not a minor force, you agreed that the war somehow was for Poland, so the only problem may be a good will.

Rjensen May I ask you than why do you agree for France among the top Allies? Above you have a proof with labels that Poland was at least simillary important (in my opinion more important during the most of the time). By importance I mean the forces involved in the fight.
 * Free France played a major role in taking control of the overseas French Empire, as well as fighting inside Europe in 1944-45. The Polish government in London seems to have little or no control over Polish forces inside Poland.  Polish forces in Britain were under the control of the British.  Polish forces under Kremlin control were part of the Allies & played a more important military role--and took over Poland when the war ended, but they get largely ignored here. Rjensen (talk) 00:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

--178.235.40.21 (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC) --178.235.40.21 (talk) 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can not support the conclusion that Poland was among the major allied powers or major affiliated combatants. We can not conclude based on the coverage on Wikipedia (see WP:NOR, sources must be external to WP. Reliable sources consistently talk about the 3 big powers (UK, US, USSR) + France (government in exile) + China. No sources talk about Poland as one of the major powers. This does of course not change the facts about Poland’s contribution and suffering, but WP should reflect the way these labels are commonly used in the sources. --— Erik Jr. 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * As I suggested last time this issue was raised, I think that the article would be better off without the split into 'Major' and 'minor' combatants. We should just list the countries, as this classification is meaningless (for instance, 'minor' combatant Canada contributed a high proportion of the Allied forces in the critical Battle of the Atlantic and played a prominent role in the 1944-45 European campaign, Australia did much of the heavy lifting in the South West Pacific in 1942-43, South African forces had an important role in the Allied campaign in East Africa, etc, etc). Regarding the specific suggestion here, I've never seen a historian state that Poland was a major contributor to the Allied forces and the editor proposing this change is not providing any such references. Their argument appears to be based on their own views, which are irrelevant. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Once again, if something is on Wikipedia it is also in external sources. You said it yourself. If it is so, then why can't we quote one source twice?

"Steven J. Zaloga wrote that "by the war's end the Polish Army was the fourth largest contingent of the Allied coalition after the armed forces of the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain.""

Steven J. Zaloga; Richard Hook (21 January 1982). The Polish Army 1939–45. Osprey Publishing. pp. 3–. ISBN 978-0-85045-417-8. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

Steven J. Zaloga (born February 1, 1952) is an American historian, defense consultant, and an author on military technology. He received a bachelor's degree cum laude at Union College and a masters degree at Columbia University, both in history.

If it is 4th contingent after USSR, USA and GB but before France and France is included in major forces, than sth. that is before France should be also the major force. I don't think that it is neccesarry to have it written directly in the source that "major allied forces were this and this".

If one source is too few than next ones:

Jerzy Jan Lerski (1996). Historical dictionary of Poland, 966-1945. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 18–. ISBN 978-0-313-26007-0. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

M. K. Dziewanowski in E. Garrison Walters (1988). The other Europe: Eastern Europe to 1945. Syracuse University Press. pp. 276–. ISBN 978-0-8156-2440-0. Retrieved 6 March 2011.

Is this enough external? --Dusi91 (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One problem i see is that the Poland section of the article gives one sentence to the LWP -- that's where most of the Polish & Ukrainian soldiers actually were. If you want to use LWP numbers, then it should get 75% of the space. Rjensen (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Zaloga's comments on the size of Polish forces in 1945 does not state that Poland was a major member of the Allies: he's just saying that the Polish army was large. The Polish Governments were locked out of the main decision-making processes, etc. I have no idea what the other sources say. I'd note that various sources also state that Australia or Canada had the world's fourth largest air force in 1945 and the Canadian Navy was apparently the third-largest in the world at this time  so if the same kinds of sources are used, then Canada and Australia are suddenly also major Allies. Which they weren't as they were also locked out of the decision making processes and their armed forces weren't huge. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

If we are talking about decision making countries than neither China nor France don't deserve to be in Major Allies. Let's be honest. Decisions were made by big 3 - USA, USSR and GB. I am not even trying to compare Poland influamce with influance of this 3. Dyplomatic situation of Poland since USSR was attaced by Germany was very bad - I am aware of it. Anyway if you already expandimg the group of Major Allies with France and China than I see no reason why the Poland can't be there.

In case of Ukrainians in LWP I don't agree that they shouldn't be counted as Polish soldiers. Ukrainians, Belarusians, Jewish, Lithuanians they were also in army of Poland in 1939 and nobody thinks about excluding them from Polish imput. In British and French armies were a lot of people from the colonies. Why don't you try to exclude them from their armies? What about Soviet army? Would you also count for them onlu 75% because there were Ukrainians, Belarusians, Georgians, Kazachs etc.? Dusi91 (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that not very wise, recent movements of my goverment may have a bad influance ofr your sympathy for me. Anyway I can assure you I am far awy from supporting the currently rulling Parthy in Poland and I hope it does not influance our discussion.

Nick-D I am not doubting that Canda had a big navy and Australia had a big air force. Anyway I am talking about the whole size of the army, not separated parts. If they had armies bigger than Poland than I am not against puting them among the major allies as well. I am only noticing that Poland during most of the war had a bigger army than France and/or was more invloved in fight with Germans. This are facts that I hope you don't deny.

The second thing that I wish to notice is that both Poland and France had not too much to say about the post war order, during the war. The decision making was mad by USA, USSR and Britain.

In contrast to France Poland never surrundered and did not create the goverment that would colaborate with Germany.

Morover I gave you plenty of important (for the whole war result) succesces of Polish troops.

As you can see the military engagement of Poland was bigger than French and the diplomatic strength during the war was similar in Poland and France.

That is why I claim that Poland, not France or both of them should be among "Major affiliated state combatants".

My English is maybe not as perfect as yours but according to the dictionary: Major is greater in size, extent, or importance.

Poland was both important for the history of war (that some of you confirmed) and greater in size of the armies than most of the countries including France (that is confirmed by historical sources which is the most important for Wikipedia).

Having big armies that are actively engaged in fight automatically makes country important during the war.

So if we have two countries with relatively small diplomatic importance and one of them has bigger army than the other I do not understand why you see the second one as the major and the first one not.

As I already wrote the bad luck of Poland was getting into the soviet zone of influance. France in contrast got to American zone. Most of the western historians writing after the war did not have a matter to write that some small country given away to soviet zone of influance had such a big share in winning the war. First of all that would look bad that allies agreed to send a companion to the soviet influance zone. Also the participation in war of Polish troops in the west was a possibly hidden by western politicians just after the war in order to not to annoy Stalin (did you know for example that because of that none of Polish troops in the west took part in the victory parade?). Secondly Poland soon became the "enymy" of the west as the communist country so again there is no reason to gloryfy it. Moreover if someone didn't focus on studying the history of Polish armies during the WW 2 it could be hard to notice such a big participation - some of armies were in the west, some of them in teh east, some of them were guerillas. Neither USSR wanted to gloryfy its satelites too much. Different situation is with France that was not hidden behind the iron courtain and it got its occupation zone after the war and it got the place in UN security council. All of this makes it easier to notice the importance of the country, however it is importance after the war not during the war. Of course you can say that bigger importance of France than Poland after the war is caused by the bigger importance during the war but in fact this is caused by geographic place of both countries. If through 40 years after the war the authors were not writing about Poland as the major allay than it is hard to expect that the young ones will do this as most of them are petterning themselfs upon the older ones.

I don't think that it would be agianst the Wikipedia rules to place Poland in upper group as you agreed yourself that it was rather major than minor. Even if it was not directly written there are sources that are showing that Poland was important.

This is my opinion about this article and place of Poland and France in the structure that we have right now.

I am not optimist and I think that without a source where will be written that Poland was a major allay you will do not change the article.

However there are solutions that would not harm anyone and some of you already wrote about canceling this division. We could:

- put all countires in alphabetic order - put the countries in order of entering the war. As I saw this solution is made in most of articles about allies. - put countries as it is in the box on the right so: first big four (I would even put big three as China was joined later), than the occupied countries, than the rest.

None of this orders would harm anybody, noone could deny that some country should be in different place. Personally I would prefer the secon otpion. Eventually the third one. Dusi91 (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

It is very clear from the sources and established terminology that there were 3 major powers (UK, USA, USSR) + France + China. So there is good reason to keep this distinction and the heading "Major" is justified, but we change the second heading from "Minor affiliated state combatants" to for instance "Other countries". Note for instance that India is merely listed as a "client state" despite the fact that India was one of the largest supplier of troops on the allied side. — Erik Jr. 19:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Turkey
Why is Turkey shown as an Ally on the map? It was neutral country during WWII. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.28.175.154 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Turkey declared war on Germany in february 1945. Historical Dictionary --— Erik Jr. 21:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction necessary (France)
'' France: 3 September 1939[74] — On 22 June 1940, Vichy France under Marshal Pétain formally capitulated to Germany, and became neutral. This capitulation was denounced by General de Gaulle etc. etc. It is true that France effectively'' became neutral, and even, in some cases, "collaborators". So, of course, it should be mentioned. Nevertheless, it should also be mentioned that not only did de Gaulle lead on France's cause in the war, but even Pétain's France, throughout its existence, de jure had the state of a partially (later fully) occupied enemy of Germany who had signed an armistice - and not that of a neutral state. So, even Pétain's France legally remained an Ally.--2001:4CA0:2FFF:1:0:0:0:11E (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think you need a source for the conclusion that Petain’s France was among the Allied. A claim based on synthesis of existing information is OR. --— Erik Jr. 21:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Charter of the United Nations
How exactly are the countries in this section organized? At first glance it looks like it's trying to be alphabetical, but a closer look shows that it is not. Kiwifist (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alphabetic on the common name of the country, not necessarily on the first word of the name. The Banner talk 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see. I was in the process of making it alphabetical on the first word of the name. Should I continue, considering I'm almost done? Kiwifist (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No. The Banner talk 22:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll leave it as is. But I'll just leave this here for what it'll look like it was the first word of the name, which kinda looks cleaner in my opinion:


 * 🇦🇷 argentina
 * undefined
 * 🇦🇺 australia
 * 🇵🇭 Commonwealth of the Philippines
 * undefined
 * Democratic Federal Yugoslavia
 * 🇩🇴 dominican republic
 * 🇨🇦 canada
 * 🇳🇿 Dominion of New Zealand
 * 🇪🇹 Ethiopian Empire
 * 🇫🇷 French Republic*
 * 🇱🇺 luxembourg
 * 🇮🇷 Imperial Kingdom of Iran
 * undefined
 * 🇧🇪 belgium
 * 🇩🇰 denmark
 * 🇪🇬 Kingdom of Egypt
 * 🇬🇷 Kingdom of Greece
 * 🇮🇶 Kingdom of Iraq
 * 🇳🇱 Kingdom of the Netherlands
 * 🇳🇴 norway
 * 🇸🇦 saudi arabia
 * 🇱🇧 lebanon
 * 🇺🇾 uruguay
 * 🇧🇴 bolivia


 * 🇨🇱 Republic of Chile
 * undefined*
 * 🇨🇴 colombia
 * 🇨🇷 costa rica
 * undefined
 * 🇪🇨 ecuador
 * 🇸🇻 el salvador
 * 🇬🇹 guatemala
 * undefined
 * 🇭🇳 honduras
 * 🇱🇷 liberia
 * 🇳🇮 nicaragua
 * 🇵🇦 panama
 * 🇵🇾 paraguay
 * 🇵🇪 peru
 * undefined
 * 🇹🇷 turkey
 * Syrian Republic
 * undefined
 * 🇿🇦 Union of South Africa
 * undefined*
 * 🇬🇧 united kingdom*
 * 🇲🇽 mexico
 * 🇺🇸 united states*
 * undefined
 * 🇻🇪 United States of Venezuela

Kiwifist (talk) 23:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a garbled list would be reverted quite soon. Not necessarily by me... The Banner talk 23:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

GA–worthy?
Do you think the article looks good enough to be nominated as a ?&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 04:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Honduras and Guatemala
Both Honduras and Guatemala should be added considering every other Central American country but them were added. Both nations declared war on the Axis powers and had people fight. UnitedFront1821 (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Allied leaders (chronologically)
As about the priority position of the Allied leaders in the mainbox, I believe that the name of Winston Churchill must be the first name of the Allied leaders. I propose that, beacause the United Kingdom was the first country declared the war on Germany (not by a two countries difference, but by an allied anti-Axis view), but also because Churchill worked hard about the establishment of the Alliance.


 * Agreed. Qaei     &#9742;  23:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Denmark
Denmark is included amongst the Allies in the section Timeline of Allied nations entering the war, but nowhere else in the article. Its inclusion also seems odd given the Danish government's acceptance of the German terms and collaboration with the occupying power. Listing Denmark here is essentially equivalent to listing Iceland under the Axis Powers. Mgs2804 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * True. Norway and Denmark were in a similar situation. Both were neutral. Denmark quickly surrendered and officially objected to the subsequent british occupation of Iceland. Norway's government did not surrender, only the army surrendered after 2 months. In 1941 Norway signed a detailed military agreement with Britain effectively leaving Norwegian personell under british command. Nothing like this happended in Denmark. --— Erik Jr. 00:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Denmark was not neutral, but a fierce combatant of national socialism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.228.216.59 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Legie - slavnostní nástup.jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2019
Place the United Kingdom as the first of the listed Allied powers as it was the first of the "Big Four" that joined the war making it a truly global war, then place China second, the Soviet Union third and the United States fourth. User1524 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * True, the US was the last to engage in war with Japan/Germany. But not a big deal? — Erik Jr. 17:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Gangster8192 01:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Put the "big four" at the top again EAMCFC (talk) 19:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the United Kingdom should be first, the original article in 2005 also put the United Kingdom first so I have no idea why the United States is on the current article. Support

2A00:23C8:2586:4701:DDC3:6581:2B17:3FFC (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Some crap academic input
QUOTE: At the start of the war on 1 September 1939, the Allies consisted of France, Poland and the United Kingdom, as well as their dependent states, such as British India. END OF QUOTE

This is the way to write history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.173.190 (talk) 03:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Format of the allies
Maybe put the "Big Four" at the top of the allies of world war 2 page instead of a list of allied combatant states EAMCFC (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why break the allies into two separate groups? I understand if you'd like to showcase the big 4, but to have a list of allies, then further down another list is awkward. I think the compromise shown in the article now works well. Gizapink (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I have restored the last stable version. This table tennis game is not leading to anything of use. The Banner  talk 09:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no undue weight in listing the big 4 at the top as the "main members" (which was the stated rationale for clumping all members together). As even the lede of this very article describes the big 3 dictated the allied strategy and were officially recognized in the deceleration of the United Nations as the big 4 together with China. The notion them being noted as the main members at top as opposed to the other listed nations with varying degrees of involvement is "undue" or some kind of "interpretation" is therefore false, as this was officially proclaimed. The far longer standing version of this article with them being distinguished is therefore the "long standing stable version" and the stated rationale for changing is invalid. This will therefore be restored and a real reason for change would have to be presented to change this long-standing status quo --Havsjö (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not taking part in another edit war, but this is exactly what is the present point of proceedings... The Banner  talk</i> 12:59, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"United Kingdom" should come before the USSR
On that table to the right, "United Kingdom" should come before the USSR, since UK fought the Nazis before the USSR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31A9:38:5BAA:1413:B60 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Include the The Crown Colony of the Island of Malta and its Dependencies as part of the Other Allied Combatant States
I ask an editor to add (British) Malta with the Flag of British Malta/Crown Colony of Malta in the section of Other Allied combatant states as part of the Allied combatant states. Malta was the most heavily bombed place in WWII, and was a valuable stronghold of the Allies because it was only a stepping stone to the rest of Europe and was literally under Italy's shoe.

The Germans also sent Messerschmitts and U-Boats to massacre our country, though Italy is the one who attacked the most. I ask for Malta to be included under 4.1.2 Occupied states of Britain

This request should be acknowledged as this remembers the Men from different families who left their wives and children alone to fight alongside the English/Americans and the Allies. Mtonna257 (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Malta was not invaded or occupied during the Second World War. It was already a British protectorate since 1841. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for page protection
Given the frequent edit warring over the last week, I've lodged a request for page protection at WP:RFPP. Stopping the edit warring might help with resolving the discussions above. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nick, I am not sure we need a page protection in that situation: there is just a very small group of experienced users who (I hope) are quite prone to a dialogue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we should be okay here Nick-D. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With respect, my experience is that a period of full protection is a good way of stopping the kind of back and forth editing which has been happening, and bringing the kind of discussions above to a resolution. The article history over the last couple of weeks is dominated by reversions of edits people have made without first gaining consensus in the discussions above. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nick-D - sure - GizzyCatBella  🍁  01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I propose to postpone protection to the next revert. I hope no reverts will follow until a new consensus is established.
 * Actually, my proposal to play a "naive Wikipedian" may be a good alternative to the article's protection (if others are ready do join me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have no particular objection but what I see here is mostly good faithed BRD, and I think various reverts were on different topics. One thing that I think might help, however, is a semi protection, a recent edit by a likely sock is not helping. Can this be considered instead? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the above I will decline the request at WP:RFPP. Sorry but I can't quickly see a need for semi-protection. Ping me if problems resume or request again. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Could you reconsider semi given Talk:Axis_powers? It's a closely related discussion. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw the claim but I don't see recent edits by IPs and a half dozen accounts that I looked at would not be affected by semi-protection (if they're new, they are not new enough to be affected). Post a couple of recent diffs with a problem and I'll look. Same for Axis powers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Three / Big Four in the infobox
I changed the order of the Big Four in the infobox to chronological order of joining the Allies. Otherwise, the order is subjective. Comments welcome. Whizz40 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a better reasoning than just a personal opinion to change the long standing order of those four? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 20:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Any other order is subject and open to endless debate. Chronological order is informative for the reader (alphabetical is not) since the Allies grew in number over time and few joined at the outset. Any material differences in relative roles and contributions among the Big Four is better described in the lead and body of the article than conveyed subtly through order of the four in the infobox. Whizz40 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 21:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See for example Britannica's article on Allied powers:
 * "In World War II the chief Allied powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on December 8, 1941), and China."
 * -- Whizz40 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That quote does not backup your claim. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quoting from the source:
 * "Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree...."
 * They have explicitly used chronological order to introduce and summarize the main allies of World War II. That is was we are doing in the infobox.
 * Here is another source, Encyclopedia of World War II - Volume 1, not quite the same chronology, but a similar result:
 * "France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China—the Allies."
 * We could add in the lead and the body of the article "the United States, the strongest economically and the least threatened by the Axis powers, played a central role in liaising among the Allies and especially among the Big Four". (note:US govt source)
 * -- Whizz40 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That still does not cover your change. And in fact, I am bothered by other unsourced edits from your hand. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please would you provide some sources to substantiate your opposition? As regards other edits, happy to discuss and improve any you would like to bring up. Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You make the claim, so you have to prove it. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources have been provided. Any alternative to be used in the article would need sources provided as well. Whizz40 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure why so much attention is paid to a purely US-centric concept of the "Big Four". The "Four policemen" idea was advocated by Roosevelt, but it was not supported neither by Churchill nor Stalin. The alleged "Big Four" never meet together, in contrast to the Big Three (which met three times. The Big Four never signed any declaration similar to Tehran, Yalta or Potsdam. The involvement of ROC into any theatres but East Asia was negligible, and they never played a decisive role in China itself (Japanese troops surrendered in China undefeated, the surrender was due to the general surrender of IJA as a result of military defeat in Pacific and Manchuria). Therefore, it would be much more correct to replace US-centric "Big Four" with commonly accepted "Big Three". Note, when you cite EF, it mentions China along with France, but if France is excluded, I see no reason to include China, because their roles were comparable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @ I think your points are consistent with sources and would summarise as follows (sources provided below):


 * 1) Wikipedia should be consistent with reliable secondary and tertiary sources;
 * 2) sources attribute the decisive strategic decisions and outcomes to the "Big Three" rather than the "Big Four";
 * 3) however, sources do not support calling out the US above the USSR, we should be consistent with this on Wikipedia;
 * 4) given the above, chronological order is an impartial way to present the Big Three Allies [in this article, which is about the development and composition of the allied nations, and the order does not have to be consistent with the order of the Main Allied leaders in the Infobox of the World War II article].
 * Quoting from The Western Allies and Soviet Potential in World War II by Martin Khan (2017), pages 1-2:
 * Most American and British government observers predicted, when Germany attacked the USSR, that the Red Army shortly would suffer a decisive defeat. If the war had developed in accordance with these pessimistic predictions the British, and - in the long run - the US strategic situation would have been worsened very seriously. There would have been no credible enemy, in terms of military strength, opposing Germany on the European continent, and the overall Japanese strategic situation in the Far East would have improved. The final outcome, however, was different. Since the Red Army defeated the bulk of Germany's military might, the United States and Great Britain were able to fight the war with more flexibility and without sustaining the huge losses suffered by the Soviet and German Armed Forces. The major Soviet effort against Germany limited the Anglo-American need to commit large ground forces, as the British was forced to do in World War I. Averell Harriman, an adviser and personal friend to President Roosevelt, believed that the president had it in his mind "that if the great armies of Russia could stand up to the Germans, this might well make it possible for us to limit our participation largely to naval and air power".
 * Quoting from How the War Was Won by Phillips Payson O'Brien (2015), pages 6-7:
 * Paul Kennedy ... ranges widely over the global war, but it is obvious what he considers to be crucial. He describes the Eastern Front war between Germany and the USSR as "clearly the campaign of all the major struggles of the 1939-45 war."
 * The best overall military history of World War II published recently is Williamson Murray and Allan Millett's A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War, released in 2000. Though Murray and Millett see regular improvements in the fighting qualities of all the Allies in the war, it is particularly the USSR that develops the fighting power needed to destroy Nazi Germany.
 * Andrew Roberts ... when writing a book devoted to British and American grand strategy, he feels it necessary to mention the supremacy of the Eastern Front. Roberts echoes one of the most important groups of American foreign policy scholars of the past fifty years, the "Revisionists", on the origins of the Cold War. This group partly base their arguments on the understanding that the USSR contributed far more to the destruction of Germany than did the USA and UK.
 * -- Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See also discussion at Talk:World War II. Whizz40 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whizz40, Pls stop re-ranging the country lists every few days. I don't understand the logic of placing countries such as Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, etc. ahead on nations such as France, Poland, Greece or Yugoslavia. Finally, why did you list France twice as 3rd Rep. and then as Free France, you can do that for just about every country, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. The long-standing infobox list was and is fine. I could understand a minor change here or there, but re-ranging everything, and using arbitrary logic is not the way to go here. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree all of your changes are good improvements except the change in order of the Big Three, which is not supported by consensus in the discussion above based on the sources provided. The title of a book is for marketing purposes. The contents of the source are what is relevant and the sources above provide a survey of the literature that do not support calling out the US above the USSR; we should be consistent with this. Consensus above is to use chronological order for the Big Three in the Infobox for this article. Chronological order makes sense for this article because it's about the development and composition of the Allies. Whizz40 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Restored Big Four in the infobox per discussion at Talk:World War II. Whizz40 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whizz40, I restored the original longstanding infobox country list of Big 4 (this way for at least 2 years now). Pls stop re-arranging the countries every few day, it seems like you do not have a sold rationale in place and are causing disruption. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The article started in a neutral fashion (9 July 2005). When you added the infobox on 8 November 2014, you put the Soviet Union first.. You switched to the US first on 13 February 2015 but then were reverted on 20 February 2015,, which you reverted, after which you were reverted again with an edit summary mentioning "consensus in article ww2 which put USSR in front of US", which was reverted, to be reverted back to the USSR again, which was reverted.  By 29 November 2015, back to USSR first.). And thus it has continued ever since. If the promotion of the US in the Infobox has never been stable, then the last stable version is the USSR first (as with the World War II article) and we are discussing here using chronological order instead based on the sources provided above. Whizz40 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop your POV-pushing? This is leading to nothing (or to page protection). The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Banner, accusation of POV-pushing without evidences is a personal attack. This article is under ARBEE so that behaviour may lead to sanctions. If you guys will not switch to a more polite discussion, I am going to put a DS warning template on talk pages of each of you. Second, I still see no convincing arguments in favor of the Four Policemen over the Big Three. Britannica lists five countries, not four. Chinese role in a global WWII was neglidgible. Therefore, if China is included, why France is not?


 * Finally, this discussion should be seen in a context of a similar discussion on the WWII talk page. The behaviour of E-960 is considered very questionable by several users, and I totally agree with them. I think E-960 should stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At this point, I agree with 's edit summary Whizz40 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no mention on this page that the article is under ARBEE. So I am not impressed by your threats. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 10:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * All articles that discuss USSR are under ARBEE, and what I am writing is not a threat but a reminder that we should make more emphasis on facts, not on the opponent's behaviour. If you believe someone is POV-pushing, report them at AE (but warn before that). If you don't want to report, there is no need in throwing such accusations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960, if Whizz40's summary of the history of the change of the Allies order is correct, then it seems it is you who are edit warring. Please, self-revert this, otherwise some actions may follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again threats to get it your way? The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 14:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, if some arguments have been presented in support of a change, then a previous consensus does not exist anymore. You should either address new concerns or accept new changes. A simple reference to the version that existed for 2 years is not an argument in that case. If new arguments in a support of a previous order will not be presented, I am going to restore Whizz40's version.
 * Meanwhile, we have a situation when the mother article (WWII) lists Allied leaders in that order: Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, whereas this article lists the Allies in that order: UIS, USSR, UK. That inconsistency implies that Stalin as the Allied leader was relatively more important than the USSR as the Allied state, despite the fact that actual situation was quite opposite. Should we understand that as a hidden attempt to glorify Stalin?
 * In addition, no arguments in support of showing a link to "Four policemen" (which is a US-centric and post-WWII concept) were presented. I am going to remove in.


 * Furthermore, I find it illogical that other Allies are separated in the infobox by occupied countries. These two groups must be swapped.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul - I tell in advance I don't care about the order, once I proposed alphabetical in the RFC, but I find this such a little issue, despite such a big fuss about in several articles, stealing so much time -, a new consensus has to be built still if new arguments arise. On your last sentence, I don't find it illogical, since govt-exiles and/our disabled countries are not comparable with combatant, sovereign states, however, I would suggest to change the title to simply to "Allied governments-in-exile", since it even refers to pre-war happenings, which should not be conflated.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC))
 * The Declaration of St James's Palace put combatant Dominions before govts in exile. The following sources support the Big Three rather than Big Four: I also think forming a stable consensus is the most important outcome. Whizz40 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Their was a stable consensus before this circus. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If our arguments are not new, and they have already been addressed during the previous consensus building process, then your argument is valid. To demonstrate that, please, point at the fragment of the previous discussion where these arguments were put forward. Otherwise, we cannot speak about any consensus anymore, and our arguments should be addressed before a new consensus will be established.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is no surprise that you too do not recognize the earlier consensus nor my arguments. I keep my earlier criticism standing. And I do not recognize your perceived consensus. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 13:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronological order is the natural thing here. UK and France were the original major allied powers. USA and the Soviet union were obviously important with their vast resources, but the UK was clearly key from beginning to end. — Erik Jr. 23:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, no. The alliance between France and Britain was de facto the WWI Entente Cordiale (-Russia). It ceased to exist when France surrendered. Neither the USSR nor the US joined the Anglo-French alliance, they created a new alliance de novo (and Free French joined it later).


 * One significant problem here is not the order of listing, but grouping of the Allies. For some unclear reason, a US-centric and post-war concept of "Four Policemen" was introduced into the infobox, and the four states are separated from other combatants, including such important states as France and Poland. In reality, there were three main Allies (Britain, USSR, and US), and China, France, Poland, and few other made a comparable contribution (although most of them suffered smaller losses than China). So far, the only argument that I see here is that that version is a "consensus version", although there is no consensus here anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Declaration by United Nations did recognize the Big Four by putting them first. Whizz40 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, during 12 critical months from june 1940 to june 1941 UK was the only major power that opposed Hitler, and UK was de facto allied with several governments in exile prior to the entry of Soviet Union. There is for instance no doubt that Norway was de facto or tacitly allied with UK (and France) from april 9, 1940. The Norwegian government formally signed a military treaty with UK in May 1941. It is completely uncontroversial to list UK as the key or "original" allied power. — Erik Jr. 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We have to come up with a consensus based on a worldwide view of World War II. One argument for chronological order is that it is both objective and informative for readers. Churchill was "the most important of the Allied leaders during the first half of World War II" However, there are comparably valid arguments for putting the US or USSR first which have been discussed at Talk:World War II. At the start of 2015, after the Infobox was added, it was USSR first, then an edit war led to US first overturning the asserted consensus at the time, then there was an edit war for UK first, which went back to USSR first, then, per E-960 it has been US first for the last couple of years. Whizz40 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I definitely think we should stay with Big 4 and not change over to Big 3, because the WWII article lists the Big 4 and it makes sense since China was the main Asian allied power. Also, the US should be first for many of the reasons and references listed on the Talk:World War II. The current long-standing list has been the most stable version for quite some time, so I think it should remain in place. Also, I do not agree with user Whizz40's approach (proposed edits) on how the remaining countries should be listed, there are several issues with that as well, you are listing countries like Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico over nations such as Poland, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece. --E-960 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Three / Four label and weight
I see in the discussion above that the order of nations is being discussed, but I have a huge problem with the label "Big Four" which is a little-used and minor revisionist label. The major label, the one used by the great majority of sources, is "Big Three". China may have been the fourth largest, but was not considered so large that Three became Four in the majority of sources. If we count sources, Big Three wins by WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  the change made to present the Big Three in chronological order then Other Allied combatant states with China at the top. Based on the weight of sources and discussion above. Whizz40 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is the change that I myself proposed. The question is even not in the number of sources: as I already explained, "Big Four" is (i) US-centric POV (opposed by Britain and USSR), and (ii) mostly a post-WWII concept (the Big Four played no global role in WWII, and they never met together, and never issued any joint declarations: there were either a broader list of signatories, or the signatories were the Big Three). I also propose not to separate the Big Three from other Allies (in contrast to what we have in the current version). The best solution would be this (but other Allies should be moved up, and occupied states should go down.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to chronological order. Yes to "big three". A search in Google Scholar indicates that "Big "three" is the predominant term. --— Erik Jr. 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Reluctantly 'yes but in the order of the last stable version] before this circus began. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not an up or down vote, and it seems we are using criteria for change that runs contrary to some of the arguments used on the WWII talk page. So, for the WWII article chronological order was not accepted for various reasons, but here it will be used? We can put the countries in chronological order if that approach gets accepted on the WWII article, then we can use it here, as for now, I think keeping the long-standing versions is optimal to prevent endless debates. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I support Big Three as more common myself, but I notice recent edit changed Big Three to Big Four . But I don't think we had a consensus for such a change here?
 * Maybe a compromise would be to list Big Three then China with a note of it being part of the Big Four? I.e. eat the cake and have it? <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal. Would you put that in the infobox or just the article text? Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting proposal. Would you put that in the infobox or just the article text? Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments & discussion
Taking into account that SSJW has never been officially declared, China was not at war with Japan until Dec 1941. Similarly, Soviet-Japanese border wars didn't lead to a war declaration, but their scale was significant. Therefore, if we do not focus at Europe and Nazi too much, we must accept that China, and then USSR (in that order) were the two states who were de facto at war with future Axis before Poland, Britain, and France joined that war. I am just demonstrating how convoluted a seemingly simple solution to put everybody in a chronological order could be.

Do you have any rational arguments (besides your old argument that a "stable version" is sacred)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Start reading the history of this page. The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The Banner, I am not sure that is a good approach. I presented my arguments and facts, and I did my best to be brief and focused (to save your time). In a response, you propose me to read the whole talk page history, without even attempting to give any clue. Imo, that is a sign of disrespect. I am not a novice, and I am heavily involved in the work on the WWII article (this article is a spinoff article of the latter). On the WWII's talk page, I am patiently explaining to every newcomer that their arguments had been already raised and addressed in the past, and I am expecting to be treated with the same respect here. In addition, as I already explained, this article and WWII are not independent, they should be consistent with each other, and the arguments presented at the WWII talk page are equally relevant to this article. Therefore, it would be similarly helpful if you familiarized yourself with a recent discussion (last 6 moths) at the WWII talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We are talking about Allies of World War II, not another article. So the arguments have to be brought up here to explain and justify why the breaking of the standing was valid. And no, I am not a novice.  The Banner  <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 23:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Spinoff articles are allowed only if they meet some criteria. Therefore, all what was said on that subject in the WWII article (including the talk page) has a direct relevance to this article, because it is the WWII's spinoff article. If you disagree with that, you view directly contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Paul Siebert, pls stop threatening me with "action", that's nothing more then intimidation. You fail to take into account the fact that Wikipedia rules give long-standing material precedent over new edits, as in BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so once reverted user Whizz40 should not be restoring the text while the discussion failed to reach a consensus, so I'm not sure how you assume that restoring the original long-standing text is the disruptive behavior in this case. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite an opposite: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). Therefore, your argumentation style directly contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960, I reverted you as the change to Big Three in chronological order has been discussed for some time now and does have the support of several editors on Talk and with their own edits to the article. It is not correct to say I made the recent change. Whizz40 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The key conferences and agreements regarding the war involved UK, USSR and USA. China and de Gaulle had minor roles in these decisions. "The Big 3" is the most common label in reliable sources. WW2 began at 4 in the morning, September 1, 1939, without the US involved while UK formally involved on Sept 3rd. While Stalin kind of switched side in 1941. With UK involved Australia, NZ, Canada and British India followed. Smaller European countries (even Iceland) were defacto allied with UK from 1940, and formally from may-june 1941 (prior to Barbarossa for some countries). Timeline is crucial. At least until June 22, 1941, the global alliance opposing Hitler clearly had London at its centre. — Erik Jr. 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are going to use chronology for the list, then at least use it for all the countries, not just for the some. Also, there is no point in sub-dividing the other allies, for example Poland was a combatant state in 1939 then it had a government in exile, so what's the point of sub-dividing such nations into a category of governments in exile. --E-960 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, agree this is a good simplification and improvement. Whizz40 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, I would suggest the same approach for the WWII article, list the leaders in chronological order and only keep the Big 3. --E-960 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disgaree, as I said govt. in exiles should not be conflated with combatant states, even technically/factually incorrect at some instances. Chronology may applied all subsections in the infobox, but those grouping should not be conflated. Regarding those cases what you said, duration of status may decide which grouping would fit better, i.e., however regarding this I think it's quite accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Comment - the First Inter-Allied Meeting took place after the continental European governments were in exile. Before that, there was the Franco-Polish alliance, Anglo-Polish alliance and Anglo-French War Council. This leads to: 1) the governments in exile were the principal members of the Allies, rather than the governments before exile. France is a case in point: although the French Third Republic was allied with Poland and Britain from the outset of the War, once the wider group of allies formed at the First-Inter Allied meeting, it was De Gaulle, as leader of the Free French, who joined the allies and eventually formed a post-war government. 2) There is a distinction between them and other combatant states. For example, the Dominions were listed first in the Declaration of St James's Palace and being in exile limited the ability of the governments/countries to participate in most of the War. Denmark fought the Nazis at the outset but is not usually included in the Allies because after it was occupied the govt broke relations with the Allied powers.(Axis_powers) From this point of view, the list of Allies ought to include Free France rather than the French Third Republic, and similarly, it was the other governments in exile that were members of the Allies. Given this, two distinct sections may make sense in the Infobox after all Whizz40 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I say, the issue is complex, each entries should be discussed and chose the best solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I adjusted the title for the exile-government allies from "Allied governments-in-exile" to "Allies with governments-in-exile" to remove supposed grouping of "pure exiles" like Czechoslovakia with other countries... Otherwise I think the overall infobox is good as it currently is. I personally think China should be included as part of the "Big Four" when considering the role of Chiang Kai-Shek as a Supreme Allied Commander and China's dominant role in the continental Asian war (which is why Chiang was chosen to be a "Supreme Allied Commander" of such an area). That role was only divided up to a few men for the large overall Allied war-zones across the world, and China held one of these like the other "Big's", putting China a step "above" France/Yugoslavia/Poland etc in my opinion. Guess its a matter of discussion (as seen above...) considering their more limited role globally/diplomatically speaking. But putting them as the first listed "other combatant" is okay too, I guess. --Havsjö (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Havsjö, I am sorry to see others continue edit warring instead to build consensus here, so I will revert to yesterdays version, but we can revert further. Everyone should follow our rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC))
 * As I already explained, there are some problems with that approach: first, do we focus at war declaration on Germany, only, or the order should reflect a start of hostilities against any of the Axis "Big Three"? Second, do we speac about de jure or de facto war? That is important, because China joined the war de jure only after Pearl Harbor. Before that, there were no state of war between her and Japan, and no de facto war with the European Axis. However, keeping in mind that a major part of SSJW hostilities occurred in 1937-41, such an approach would be too formal.


 * If we choose the start of de facto hostilities as a criterion of chronological order, then what should be do with Khalkhin Gol? That war was also undeclared, but the scale of hostilities was greater than that of the whole "Phony war" (when France was de jure at war with Germany, but de facto was not).


 * All those questions must be clarified before we make a decision about using a chronological order.


 * With regard to the WWII infobox, mixing two different questions (leader's role and involvement of states) is counter-productive. In addition, it should be discussed in a context of the WWII talk page discussion. Some consensus was established on the WWII talk page, and proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * de jure or de facto ...seriously? You can always throw around exceptions to the rule or technicalities, to undermine just about anything. These are just legal terms (you could then argue that Hitler never declared war on Poland, so was Poland in war with Germany), I find that whole approach rather questionable, so think of it that way, when was each of those nations forced into war (as in aggression being waged against it or joined the fight to support other countries). --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, then if we consider WWII as a global conflict, and agree that China was at war with Japan (a future Axis member) since 1937, then China should go first in a global chronological list of all Allies. However, for consistency, the same approach should be applied to the USSR (Khalkhin Gol), which took place before Poland, Britain, and France joined WWII. The argument that no Axis existed by that time is not working, because the Axis did not exist formally by 1 Sept, 1939 either. The only formal agreement between future Axis member that was active by that date was Anticomintern Pact, which was directed primarily against the USSR, not other future Allies.


 * I am just demonstrating how many problems arises if we try to apply the chronological approach consistently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

the Ethiopian-Italian was in 1935 so that's before 1937. --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ethiopian-Italian war, as well as Spanish Civil war (a proxy war between the USSR and Germany) are generally considered as pre-war events. In contrast, a significant minority considers SSJW as a part of WWII (even the WWII collage includes a pre-1939 picture).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WW2 began on September 1, 1939, and the UK and France got involved 2 days later. These are the key dates. — Erik Jr. 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, your comments on the WWII and WWII Allies page have consistency been nothing more then minority views, technicalities and exceptions to the rule. This is not helpful and it makes the article a confused mess — is this your aim? I don't know, but you throwing around technicalities and not providing a clear picture lead to this. Erik Jr. most commonly accepted date is 1 Sept, 1939. --E-960 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No, these are not just technicalities. There was a very long discussion about the date of WWII's start. In general, the date of 1st Sept,, 1939 is just one out of three dates (other two are the start of SSJW and Pearl Harbor). Yes, it is the most commonly accepted date, but other two dates represent significant minority views, and the WWII article implicitly reflects the fact that the WWII's start is considered by many Asian states to be 1937. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul Siebert, all these comments are minority views or just opinions, which are repeatedly being pushed on Wikipedia. Just like in the past, Nick-D's objection to include the term "Genocide" in the WWII article (strange someone would even question this), or the constant pushes to have Stalin listed first in the infobox (without actually providing any reference sources which state that Stalin was the leading figure among the allied leaders). What is the end result of this, well watering down of facts, including that Nazi Germany and Japan were the main aggressors who initiated the war of annihilation and that the Soviet Union was only a convenient short term ally to the democratic West (it did not lead the alliance, and in fact first sided with Nazi Germany). In other words, such editors mentioned are pushing a POV on this article which does not correlate with what most English language sources state, like with the 1 Sept, 1939 date (you don't provide majority view sources, just opinions or synthesis to back up an arguments). --E-960 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)