Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 11

Government in exile, France, etc
I still think this version is illogical and misleading. An impression that a reader may draw from that infobox is that the major driving force in the war belonged to the Bid Three, governments in exile, and other states played auxiliary roles. All of that is incorrect in two major aspects.

First, many combatants are described as governments in exile incorrectly. Thus, Poland's war efforts can only partially be attributed to the "London Poles": first, in 1939 and 1944-45, Poland was a full scale combatant (in 1939 and 1945 in Poland proper), and "London Poles" had no relation to that. The same can be said about France: in 1940, there was a full scale campaign that involved several million troops, and the Third republic was by no means a "government in exile". In addition, Free French were based on French territories (including colonies in Africa), so they could be only conditionally considered a "government in exile". Yes, France lost its capital, but China lost her capital too, which didn't make it a government in exile. In general, calling some combatant a "government in exile" is usually not precise. That may work for such countries as Czechoslovakia, which was occupied without any hostilities, but in majority cases a full or partial occupation was preceded by some armed resistance (and, in many cases, there was also some armed participation in joint Allied war efforts by the end of war). In connection to that, it would be misleading and insulting to describe a state that was occupied during just some part of WWII a "government in exile"

Second, a contribution of true governments in exile into Allied war efforts was minimal, whereas the role of such countries as Poland, Yugoslavia, France, China, Canada, Australia etc was much more significant. It would be fundamentally incorrect to separate these combatants from the Big Three (and the fact that it was formerly "Four Policemen" change nothing in that aspect).

In connection to that, this version is much more factually correct, whereas the current one is deeply misleading. I couldn't see any satisfactory rationale that would support the current version, because any reasonable reader expect to see France, China, Poland, Canada immediately below the Big Three, but not Ethyopia etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * After I've made this post, I noticed that change. I fully support it, and I propose everybody to refrain from reverting it without discussion, because the previous version is not a consensus version anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Having a sub-category for governments in exile is ridiculous, since almost all of those countries were combatants at one point, with the exception of Czechoslovakia. Also, Havsjö does't even bother to join the discussion, just keeps re-adding the questionable section, even in the face of presented facts which show that these states were not just governments in exile, that's nothing more then a stonewalling tactic. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Its not a section for "governments in exile", but for "allies which had a government in exile", so its not implying they were only exile-governments. But that section could be merged with the "other allied combatant states" with "Greek exile government" just becoming "Greece", I agree --Havsjö (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Poland fought a war with Germany — what you are implying by your version of the list is that all those countries were just annexed by Germany like Czechoslovakia and then just had governments in exile. What kind of non-sense is that? Just stop with the POV! --E-960 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * E-960,
 * you should stop edit warring, and your approach is as well erroneus, since you are presenting some entities as states, although some were not states, just govt-in-exiles. Havsjö joined the discussion, which has been conducted above. Please stop saying like Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, because it was not, just the Sudetes. So some separation has to be done, and if you check one of my trials would solve the problem about Poland, but this Havsjö rejected for now. And I tell the last time, discussion and consensus should be built here, anyone should stop abusing that part, until we don't decide a new consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

@Havsjö - Could you define your motive behind this particular edit of yours? What was the exact reason you focused on this specific country after your edits were reverted? Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the order other than the one you linked to in the edit immediately previous to what you linked. That previous edit was done since China (arguably the "Big Fourth") and France (whose position as a "Main" Allied power made them a permanent member of the UN Security Council, along with China) were very low in the order of the countries. I also restored the removed info regarding Free France's precarious position and removed Denmark, as they were not an Allied power. After those adjustments were made I saw that Poland, who fought "normally" for 1 month before becoming an exile-government (no ill-meaning intended with this statement), was listed above countries like India, Canada etc which fielded several millions men throughout the entire war period. I therefore adjusted Poland's position to group it more together with similar countries like Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Greece etc. --Havsjö (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I can add that I hold no bias against Poland, as claimed by E960, who incorrectly asserts that because Poland was listed among "Allied powers with exile-governments" in the previously used listing-style (on account of the country participating in WW2 as an exile-government in 71 out of the wars 72 total months), it somehow implies they were not participants in the war at all. --Havsjö (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll tell you my honest opinion after reading your response. I strongly believe that you should discuss your preferred changes further with Paul S. and E-960. Also, I think you might find this article helpful I'm relating to this part of your comment in particular - quote --> "Poland, who fought "normally" for 1 month before becoming an exile-government (no ill-meaning intended with this statement), was listed above countries like India, Canada etc which fielded several millions men throughout the war entire period." I'll adjust your edits to the version I believe is favored by editors here, okay? Thanks -  GizzyCatBella  🍁  11:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I know Poland contributed to the Allied war effort, this is why they are comparatively high in the listing. But they are more suitably listed among the other countries who also fought a "conventional" war before continuing to fight as an exile government. To this explanation you linked the article "Polish contribution to World War II" as a response/"counter-argument", I guess this is meant to imply that Netherlands/Yugoslavia/Greece did not particularly contribute to the war effort since their position was "okay'ed" and separated from Poland. I guess they should not be associated with Poland's superior efforts? Well I would say that those countries also contributed to the war, but that they, along with similarly situated Poland, should not be given arbitrarily undue focus placed above the top power's who had army groups with millions of men throughout the war or became main UN members --Havsjö (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * @Havsjö ---> Please re-read my comment and notify me if you are still standing behind your response, okay? Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I legitimately dont get your point. The appropriateness of the change to the current style of listing was already questionable considering the above discussion regarding ordering (above this section). Ignoring that, I dont see anything controversial or wrong (unless a nonexistent anti-Polish bias is inferred) for my given reasoning of grouping Poland with similar European powers (and still as the "highest" of these) in this imposed new style of listing, with main belligerents (as declared by UN etc) and contributors of entire army-groups/campaigns being somewhat "prioritized" in their positioning vis-a-vis the previously very prominent position awarded to Poland by its self-professed "fans" --Havsjö (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Havsjö, think about my proposal/diff which is presented above Gizzy's question to you (it's not fortunate the discussion soon splits into three), that would solve all problems, namely which entity when trasitioned, then there would be no debate.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC))


 * The current infobox is bad. I have no idea why we are distinguishing Allied combatants with governments-in-exile or why they are listed above "other Allied combatant states". The whole setup is ridiculous. Why is Czechoslovakia above China? Why is Luxembourg above Yugoslavia? Why do we see Free France rather than just France? Kiengir's proposal is better, but I still think we should ditch the "exile" baloney. The chief contribution of Yugoslavia was not from its gov't-in-exile. Nor was Ethiopia's. Even after the fight ended in Belgium and the Netherlands proper, they fought from their unoccupied colonies. And Norway's main contribution was made before its gov't went into exile. I agree with Paul Siebert's comment at the top. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Practically what you call as current is akin with the status quo one (and it's definetly better unlike some trials in the intermediary edits which were worse), just the govt-in-ex list was moved upwards and other allied combatant states downwards, because E-960 suggested that earlier. Havsjö thought my proposal would be undue, however, he tried to improve the section with good faith, with notes. Still I think my proposal would fix the transitions to govt-in-exiles, and as a second phase we may discuss the order of listings (in this I won't even intervene as by the main leaders, for me it's irrelevant, I just care about factual and professional semantic categorization of the respective entities).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

Thanks KIENGIR. Paul Siebert Could you please take a closer look at it when you get a chance? (see Srnec comment above) Havsjö Please hold on making additional changes, for now, okay? Thanks - GizzyCatBella  🍁  02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much need to specify which Allies got gov-in-exile. The case for Czech and Ethiopia is that they were already in exile by the time the war started, but so what? My preference is for but merge Czech and Ethiopia with the rest. I'd also support adding time periods to all Allies, currently those are given only for the Big Three and the ones that switched sides. Why not for the rest? And finally, yes, the current version with Free France but not France is misleading. France was a major ally, then it became... difficult. This can be explained in a note, as can be the situations of other stranger cases (Czech, Ethiopia, China... oh, and Korea - which currently gets an unreferenced(!) section and no infobox entry... that's a mess). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your first preference with merging the rest would be even worse, since you would identify an entity as a state, which was not a state. If my understanding is correct, your second preference with time periods are that trial I introduced, in which transitions are highlighted regarding the status change. Free France has a note, mainly the current listing opts to highlight the exact status' duration at first. Still I consider my proposal would be the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC))
 * I agree that all "other" Allies could be grouped together regardless of gov-in-exile status or not. Dates for everyone I think would be a clusterf*ck, it makes sense for the former-axis, since they obviosuly were against the allies until those specific times. The dates for the Big 3 could have some arguments for/against it, but its can be usefull to show since 2 of the "bigs" didnt join until some time in. But for everyone is just too much and would introduce tons of endless arguments regarding what dates should be used for each case when it comes to formal declaration of war / de-facto participation / formal joining the allies etc etc etc. "Free France" instead of "France" (obviously with the note explaining "France"'s situation) I personally think is better since "Free France" (and its subsequent re-name in 1944) represented the French contribution to the Allies from 1940-1945, compared to "France" only in the first months... (and against, the note ensures "France" is not ignored!). Lastly, Korea had no recognition and was not considered a member of the allies --Havsjö (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Havsjö, I understood you from the beginning, you choose that entity that duration has been longer, similarly to Poland in the given timeline. However, any plans you express in your first sentence may be only safely conducted if the section title is accurate. There are some entities which were not states, just govt-in-exile, there are which were both, etc. I won't agree a sloppy/lame/erroneus solution, the grouping should be accurate and not every entity may be in the same level, so even if you would consider clusterdates as an overkill, if it would only satisfy demands, then it should be done. However, if not, the current version is acceptable, as it is avoiding to say that all of them would be states, so the list may contain either states or just govts-in-ex's, or even entitities that were both.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , Infobox should be simple. Poland and France were the primary participants. The fact that Poland was in fact Second Polish Republic replaced by the Polish government in exile (as well as the Soviet puppet faction in the later years) is not as important. Same for France. France is France, and the split into Vichy and Free factions later is not that important to explain in the lead. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * maybe you to noticed my concern is the accurate semantical grouping, and how this is grouping is called. If this is solved, double listing is marginal. I reiterate, the current version is acceptable, but if there would be a demand to change, that has also to be conform with these principles.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , First, I am not sure what is your preferred version (the proposals are not clearly explained in the op section of this discussion, maybe someone should create a subsection clearly explaining this and a vote/RfC?). Anyway, I would support simplifying everything to Allied combatants. 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents' is also a confusing heading as it doesn't make it clear those countries became 'Allied combatants' eventually. Either they should be merged with the rest (with a note) or the heading needs to be 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents [which switched sides/which later became Allied combatants]' or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , First, I am not sure what is your preferred version (the proposals are not clearly explained in the op section of this discussion, maybe someone should create a subsection clearly explaining this and a vote/RfC?). Anyway, I would support simplifying everything to Allied combatants. 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents' is also a confusing heading as it doesn't make it clear those countries became 'Allied combatants' eventually. Either they should be merged with the rest (with a note) or the heading needs to be 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents [which switched sides/which later became Allied combatants]' or such. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  03:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, a situation with Third French Republic is similar: like Polish Second Republic, she was a principal belligerent during some period of WWII, and its relation to Free France was not direct (and I don't understand why the flag of France is not present in the infobox, for the scale of hostilities Free France was involved in is hardly comparable with that of the Third republic).


 * In general, I don't see why the existence of a government in exile is really important factor. In my opinion, it would be much better to group all Allies together, and supplement the Allies with a govt-in-exile with a footnote. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of the in exile govts played major military roles-- esp France, Netherlands, Norway. They still had their navy and merchant fleets that were large and important in terms of delivering US arms. Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I do not claim their role was more or less significant, my point is that having a government in exile is not a criterion that requires separation into some specific category: I don't see any advantages in that approach, but I see that that may lead to significant problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , any revision I set since (including) 23:50, 14 January 2021. A vote/RFC is unnecessary since we did not present clear alternatives, just proposals, and before such procedure, they have to be comfirmed that they are semantically correct and accurate. The title of Former Axis powers or co-belligerents may be changed but and complete merging seems unreasonable, btw. in case if you'd wish to have just Allied combatants as a title, then some entries has to be visibly amended as govt-exiles.
 * Paul, in case I don't see a footnote sufficient at all instances. Moreover some users would start to debate the ordering...so it's better to propose here an exact layout of a solution, and here to assess and evaluate and improve it, and when it is finally acceptable to all of us, then launch it.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC))


 * We already are debating the order, concretely, the question if AWGEs should go before OA or after them. And all of that does not answer my major question: is the fact that AWGE had (during some period of time in 1939-19450 a govt in exile really so important that it warrants creation of a separate subcategory? And why AWGE should go before OA? And why the French Third Republic, which was not an AWGE, but was a major combatant in 1940, is not mentioned at all?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - (i) AWGE - OA order for me is irrelevant, may decide others
 * - (ii) yes, otherwise you have to ignore listing some entities as states, and in a way it indicates the weight, compared to other entities which are not occupied and with full control/full power may be sovereign combatants
 * - (iii) = (i)
 * - (iv) = as we discussed, there has been a principle/discussion the duration decided whether the combatant was identified as govt-i-e or not (if both applicable). Double listing would solve, otherwise choose by any principle and footnote amend the other (btw. this is as well not so much relevant to me, but I tend to agree the duration principle, if double listing is voided).(KIENGIR (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I am still not convinced there is a meaningful distinction between powers that were occupied and had in-exile governments and others. Who else besides you supports such a split? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would expect from you exact arguments of your reasons, besides the disctintion has always been, and kept even most of the trials made in past weeks by other editors. The problem is not even this was the main issue, but was a by-product of the Big Four/Big three listing debate, the importance-ordering-listing debate, which are nominally different issues. Additively, the same arisen meanwhile like Brazil or Mexico should be by any means grouped with the other groups (shall they be govt-i-ex or sovereign powers, etc.). As well, meanwhile the sloppy edit-warring like intermediary edits, grouping titles have been updated sometimes without care, and the semantics turned upside down, despite the intention or just because the editor did not had an expert knowledge in the field. As you see, I offered more alternatives which does not necessarily exclude what you would support, but for that (ii) has to strictly kept, next to an accurate title in case of a possible amalgamated group which would exclude any semantic error. I hope you see any new solution should be exactly presented and outlined here for review as I pinpointed, since even nominally unrelated issues may effect each other in the infobox.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I stand by my view that one group (outside Big Three) is best, and importance can be shown through years of activity (so countries that joined the Allies in the last phase and contributed next to no effort like Brazil or Mexico would be visible in that way). If there is a concern of 'too much small text', perhaps we could group the allies by age range sections. Like, by year. By year grouping would also make it possible (although I am not saying, desirable) to include related entities like France and Free France. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I stand by my view that one group (outside Big Three) is best, and importance can be shown through years of activity (so countries that joined the Allies in the last phase and contributed next to no effort like Brazil or Mexico would be visible in that way). If there is a concern of 'too much small text', perhaps we could group the allies by age range sections. Like, by year. By year grouping would also make it possible (although I am not saying, desirable) to include related entities like France and Free France. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Do I correctly understand that AWGE vs OE division is actually a division onto the Allies whose territory was fully occupied vs the Allies whose territory was not occupied or occupied only partially? If yes, why is that so important? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you are correct. An answer was given above that the countries which were not occupied contributed more to the war effort, but I think that's an unproven claim. Poland which was occupied contributed much more to the war effort than Brazil which wasn't. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Piotrus, that means you would merge as well the Former Axis powers or co-belligerents (it would be really strange...)? Btw., now you even listed a few other possible criterias, that's why a visible trial should be maintained the talk for review, since one bunch of proposals will attract likely identical number of ones...
 * - Paul, no, some entities of the AWGE list fell outside the timeline was even non-existent that time.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , I didnt mean to imply that 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents' should be merged with others, those can have their own subsection, although there is still the issue of USSR which was both a powerful ally from 1941 onward but a co-belligerent of the Axis (against Poland) in 1939. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * well this could be understood from your answer at 1:56. I read through the USSR debate, that is partially related to the this issue overall. I think we may return to this if regarding the USSR case there is a result of the debate (in which I will not likely take part with active discussions - unless I notice something really to be inaccurate -, just if there is a clear outcome/ouline to be overviewed and opine). Btw. I have no problem to add a note, but it seems others debating the content of it and the exact terminology.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , Actually, I don't think anyone is debating the note or the sources :( There are objections to including USSR due to the '39 invasion being 'too minor' or 'confusing', or such. Right now there is a jarring inconsistency between the infobox here and in the Axis article (although we are effectively where we were few days ago, since the infoboxes have been inconsistent regarding USSR for a good while). PS. For what its worth and based on the discussion I've seen, I'd amend my note / comments about USSR 1939-1941 that it was both a co-belligerent of Axis and Allies. It acted against Poland (an Ally) but also against Japan (an Axis). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , what do you mean by "jarring" inconsistency (I don't see such, the two cases are at many aspects not identical as they are naturally different at some aspects)? By the exact USSR case, in case we avoid double listing, I don't see either any problem, timeline and note is there. Regarding the note amendment - hopefully you'll build consensus, not I am in your way - it needs to be detailed since USSR signed a pact with Japan not to bother each other until they are engaged in other directions, but this was overcome as the wheels of history have turned, similarly with the other parties. So it is not a problem if the note is lengthy, but should be accurate with dates.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC))
 * , What I mean is that right now, at Axis powers, USSR is listed in the section 'Co-belligerent states', but in here, they are listed as an Ally. Which is all good except I think there should be a note in the infobox noting that USSR was also a co-belligerent of Axis (or Nazi Germany) in 1939 invasion of Poland. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * they are complementer symmetric, obviously due to time duration they are listed here as an ally (and timestamp is there since when), while in the other article it could be only listed as a co-belligerent, since there is no other option in that infobox else would fit (timestamp it does not have, but a note). So in the end, to summarize, you wish here to have a note. I support that.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * they are complementer symmetric, obviously due to time duration they are listed here as an ally (and timestamp is there since when), while in the other article it could be only listed as a co-belligerent, since there is no other option in that infobox else would fit (timestamp it does not have, but a note). So in the end, to summarize, you wish here to have a note. I support that.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC))
 * they are complementer symmetric, obviously due to time duration they are listed here as an ally (and timestamp is there since when), while in the other article it could be only listed as a co-belligerent, since there is no other option in that infobox else would fit (timestamp it does not have, but a note). So in the end, to summarize, you wish here to have a note. I support that.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC))