Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 7

Free France was not a country
This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies....

Free France was not a country and should be removed. I requested a source to proove that Free France was a country. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 18:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I agree that the case is a little bit complicated, therefore I posted a message on the Free French talk page, let's see if someone provided additional arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You mix the term "country" with the term "state". The article tells about states, not countries. Did Polish state ceased to exist after 1939? With regards to France, after 1940 defeat it was succeded by Vichy regime. However, not all French officials and not all parts of French colonial empire decided to recognize Vichy. Some of them decided to fight against the Axis, and they did that neither as a part of some country's colonial empire nor protectorate.
 * Free France was neither a state or a country.--Jacurek (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is not listed in League of Nations members, it should be removed. --Martintg (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The League was virtually defunct by that moment (1940), so this criterion doesn't work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. I checked the League of Nations members, it does mention Free France ("Of the 42 founding members, 23 (or 24, counting Free France)"), however, for the reason explained above, it adds no additional weight to neither my nor Jacurek's point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul sorry I can't see Free France on the list of countries. Could you link it? Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Naturally, you cannot see it because after 1940 the League was virtually defunct, and no update of the member's list were being made. However, the third article's para starts with the words I quoted. (Again, although formally it supports my point I don't want to use it as an argument).--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but you said above :I checked the League of Nations members, it does mention Free France . Can you provide the link to what you saw. Thanks Paul.--Jacurek (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant, I checked the League of Nations members article. The article implies (see the quote) that Free French may be considered a successor of France. Again, I don't think this discussion to add much to the question we argue about. Membership in the League meant nothing during that time.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh .o.k. but I think that membership in the Ligue of Nations is a criterium that one could go by to check the independence--Jacurek (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Membership is a criterion, but not membership means nothing.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course Free France should be counted as an 'Ally'; it had its own government (initially located in Brazzaville in Africa) and fielded substantial forces which ultimately reported to the Free French political leadership. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case "This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies" should be removed from the lead of the article and Polish Government in Exile added, don't you think so?--Jacurek (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * but I still think this is wrong...we would have to add all the Governments in Exile now, eg. Danes etc, etc...it is going to be a mess now... --Jacurek (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be too formal: of course, only three countries continued to fight after they were conquered by Nazi: Poland, France and Yugoslavia. And this fact should be reflected in the article. If these countries do not fit the article's criteria, then the criteria should be changed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

That "independent states" thing is nonsense and should be changed to "formally independent states". And even when I don't understand what British Raj is doing there.--Staberinde (talk) 09:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC) only three countries continued to fight after they were conquered by Nazi: Poland, France and Yugoslavia. Um, didn't most countries maintain governments in exile/colonies which stayed members of allies? France is only one who I remember actually making peace.--Staberinde (talk) 09:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, that is too formal approach. The historical fact is that Yugoslavia, France and Poland made considerable military contribution even when their territories were conquered by the Nazis. Not to reflect this fact is a direct insult of these nations, and, it would be simply incorrect. If some formal approach doesn't work then the criteria were chosen incorrectly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Poland joined on 1st september 1939, it never made peace with Germany so its joining remained in effect. It wouldn't make sense to include same country twice. French situation is different though as France actually surrendered. I don't know what exactly happened in Yugoslavia. Anyway my main complaint with current "independent states" thing was actually the fact, that countries like Iran and Iraq, which were occupied with military invasion, and British Raj, which was essentially colony, don't really count as "independent" in proper meaning of word.--Staberinde (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Re: "France actually surrendered" Only a part of France supported this decision. Another part didn't obey that and continued to resist. Both Vichy and Free French may be considered successors of Third Republic with equal ground. With regards to colonies or occupied countries, I agree, especially regarding Iraq, where a pro-Nazi coup was suppressed by external military force.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I totally admit that details about legal continuation of the Third Republic isn't really my strong point so I can't argue on that topic. Just my point was that if country continued to fight after German occupation in exile, then there is no point to mark it joining allies again because it never left in first place.--Staberinde (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By contrast to Poland, the French case is somewhat controversial. France under Petain did surrender and, therefore, ceased to be an Ally. However, since not all French supported that decision, and since some leaders and some colonies decided to fight, it should be stated explicitly that Free French, that may be considered successors of Third Republic, became a new Ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * France is already listed as an ally in the section Allies_of_World_War_II. The "Free French" is not a state, but a body of individuals that elected to fight on in various military units. Note that the full name is Free French Forces. It would be like claiming Russia joined the Axis because many Russians joined Russian National Liberation Army. --Martintg (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Martintg. Should we vote on ?--Jacurek (talk) 03:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, the literature sees "Free French" as a movement rather than a sovereign state. --Martintg (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(od)Re: vote. WP is not a democracy.

Re: As I (and Nick-D) already wrote, Free French was grouped around the African colonies, they fielded considerable armed forces (including the Richelieu battleship) and controlled considerable territory. It is ridiculous to include Honduras and not to mention Free French. Again, if some criteria do not allow to list Free French among the Allies, these criteria must be changed. Alternatively, the footnote can be added that will explain that although Free French met not all criteria of state, they could be considered a Third Republic's successor.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. There is no country article titled "Free France", it is just a redirect to Free French Forces. France is already listed as an ally in the article, in the section Allies_of_World_War_II, it is best make a footnote against "France" in that section mentioning the capitulation of France, the succession of Vichy France in 1940 and the rise of the Free French Movement that wanted to continue the fight and the succession of De Gaulle's Provisional Government of the French Republic in 1944. --Martintg (talk) 05:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Free France was not a country per se, but it still did contribute to Allied war effort. Moreover, the Provisional Government of the French Republic (successor to Free France) was recognized by the Allies as the legitimate government of France in 1944. Free France was not a country, but then neither was the Czechoslovak government-in-exile, as Czechoslovakia had de facto ceased to exist after being split by Germany. I agree with the statement above : if the criteria pose a problem, change the criteria. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Free France shouldn't only be a redirect to Free French Forces on this wiki. The Free French Forces were Free France's armed forces, but Free France was actually an umbrella term for : De Gaulle's government in exile (formally organized as such in 1941, as the French National committee, "Comité national français"; from 1940 to 1941 it was the "Comité pour la défense de l'empire", Committee for the Empire's defense), the Free French Forces, and the Free French Committees of expatriate frenchmen who supported it all over the world. While it was not recognized by the Allies as France's government in exile, it was definitely a co-belligerent. After Operation Torch, the United States favored general Henri Giraud, who set up in Algiers the Civil and military command (unrelated to Free France). De Gaulle and Giraud's respective organizations merged in 1943 and became the National Liberation French Committee ("Comité français de la libération nationale"). It actually stopped using the term "Free France", since it was a merging of two different organizations. The Free French Forces merged with the French North African Army and became the "French liberation Army" (Armée française de la libération), which did not use the cross of lorraine as its official symbol (but former Free French Forces kept using it). Actually there is some debate whether Free France still existed after 1943, but De Gaulle eliminated Giraud after a few months, so the new Committee was actually a continuation of Free France. In mid-1943 "Free France" controlled all french colonies (with the exception of French Indochina and overseas territories, which makes a lot of people. The National Liberation French Committee became the Provisional government of the French Republic just before D-Day. During the liberation, it decreed that the Republic had never legally ceased to exist, and that the Vichy regime was null and void : this decree is still in vigor today (text in french here). The Provisional government was officially recognized by the Allies afterwards, but the Free French organization (under whatever official names it used) had been a co-belligerent (i.e. de facto ally) long before that. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, I forgot to add that the same decision also nullified Pétain's demand of surrender of the 17 june 1940. So, legally, France is considered as having never legally surrendered at all. As the Allies recognized the government, that means they also recognized its laws, which means that from an allied point of view (at least since 1944), France has not surrendered in 1940. This is of course utterly debatable, but it is still legally in vigor in France. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Churchill recognized De Gaulle's French Government in exile as legitimate in August 1940, while the US, which only joined more than one year later, when Hitler declared war against them, preferred Vichy and sent an ambassador there.82.120.232.114 (talk) 17:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

"Allies" in other languages
I've just re-removed the text from the infobox's native_name field which asserts that the name for the Allies in each of the major non-English speaking states was exact translation of "Allies" into the various languages. Aside from such material being of limited use to our readers (this is the English-language Wikipedia), I find it highly unlikely that the exact same phrase was used in each country. Going by Wikipedia article names (not a scientific measure!), it appears that France and Poland might use the same word, while Russia appears to use "Anti-Hitler coalition". Citations are needed to support such translations IMO. Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I can understand including the names if there was significant use of these foreign language names in English works. cf Regia Marina, Kriegsmarine. GraemeLeggett (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * They weren't even consistently called the Allies in English. Roosevelt liked to call them the United Nations and Churchill like to call them the Grand Alliance. Ditch the foreign names, which already are looking unverifiable as consistent usage. --Yaush (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * STOP trying to destroy the article, and pick out exemptions to the rule, because exemptions to the rule are not the RULE. In French as in English and Polish all the referred to the alliance as THE ALLIES in their respective language. If that was not the case in Russian then just remove the Russian text, or keep the Russian equivalent of the name, just like in the Axis powers page. Where each country called the military pact something different in their language. But, to argue that the names are different and the only solution to remove everything is wrong, this is an article which covers a specific WW2 topic and a high level of detail is appropriate. --E-960 (talk) 08:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Switzerland article has in its Infobox names of the country in other languages, including Latin (Confoederatio Helvetica) which is not an official language in that country and does not directly mean (or translate into) Schwyz. And most of all, no reference sources. I suggest we tackle that issue as well. (sarcasm to point out the argumentative nature of this debate over Allies). --E-960 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Official or not, it appears that Confoederatio Helvetica is the source of the 2 letter country code ch used in ISO 3166-2:CH and related cases like .ch Nil Einne (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Calidum is removing the disputed material and the discussion is not even closed
This is a completely bias! User:Calidum has removed the material that is being debated and has placed a Edit Warring warning on my talk page. I'm 100% sure that until the discussion is closed you do not go in and remove the material in question. Again, the very same editors who voted to remove material form the WWII article are now flooding in to this page, and using unethical tactics to get me block. How the heck are you gonna accuse me of edit warring when you are removing the disputed material before the debate is closed?? --E-960 (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What debate? Nobody agrees with you. Srnec (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Whether they agree or not, the debate is still open and that fact should be respected, and time should be allowed for additional editors to make their comments on the issue. --E-960 (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If no one agrees with you -- I don't -- then the debate is over. --Yaush (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors, there is a related discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Removing native names of the Alliance
User:Nick-D first off, stop Edit Warring… and don't try to bring in those same petty arguments that are destroying the infobox on the WWII page here. This page is devoted to a specific subject matter related to WWII and it is an appropriate place to add detail… as you and your colleagues, systematically remove detailed descriptions from WWII page arguing that a reader can go into a specific page that's devoted to topic. Now, all of a sudden you come into another WWII related WP page and your only objective is to remove stuff. You need to quit that. --E-960 (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It takes two to edit war. It has been mentioned in the previous section that the names are uncited. If you feel an editor is in the wrong, the appropriate thing to bring to bear is policy and sourcing not confrontation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At this point, this is long standing material, and the burden of proof in on the person trying to make the change. Look at the Wikipedia edit cycle guidelines (when an editor gets reverted, you don't revert again, but bring the issue up for discussion). Also, Nice to see you in this article as well GraemeLeggett. I noticed that you and User:Nick-D found another Infobox to take apart. Using the same tactic of starting an argument over a petty issue using some "exemption" to the rule and trying to make it the rule, then saying that the only way to fix this is to remove all detail. This is suspect because I have not seen User:Nick-D make any useful additions to this article before, yet strangely he shoots in and starts to remove things form this Infobox as well, then conveniently you come in GraemeLeggett supporting User:Nick-D's actions yet you yourself did not engage in this pager for a very long time. But, just like on the WW2 page the same "group" of editors seem to show up on cue and automatically support each other. You think I'm making a wild accusation, just look at the WW2 talk page. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I am actually rather happy to discuss this matter (hence why I started the thread above), but I don't fancy engaging with conspiracy theory type stuff like what you're trying to advance here (I've actually been editing this article for years, for better or for worse), or wild accusations that I'm trying to "destroy" the article(!). As Graeme says, please provide sources to support your contention that what's in the infobox are in fact the "native" names for this grouping of countries. It would also contribute to the discussion if you could explain your perspective on why this material is helpful in the infobox. Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It's fairly obvious that the name of the military alliance was the Allies in all those languages (take out some personal variations from Roosevelt or Chruchill; not going to base this article on personalities). You yourself provided the sources above. BTW: Hitler called the United States... the North American Union. So, should we take that into account when referring to the US from a German perspective??? These are stupid arguments designed to saturate the debate with exceptions to the rule, then you Nick-D come in and say "this is so complicated" the only reasonable solution is to take everything out all together. This strategy is fully on display in the WW2 and this is what's happening here, now --E-960 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * If it's obvious, can you please provide the sources which support your position? Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Quit being a nuisance, you provided the links above yourself… do you want me to find sources in the native languages as well. If you want I can get books in French or Polish to do so. But, then are you gonna argue that we can't use foreign language references in a English Wikipedia? --E-960 (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be great if you could provide references to the names used for the allegiance in France, Poland, China and the other countries listed. If you can't provide those references, WP:V isn't met. There's also the issue of what value this material adds: could you please outline your views on this? Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with foreign language sources (WP:NOENG). Just for the record, this page has been on my watchlist since an edit I made in 2005; which probably shows I need to do maintenance on my watchlist. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The material add depth, something that the average Australian sorely lacks. So, I guess your next suggestion will be to deconstruct the page even more, and just suggest links to other articles which detail each countries' specific contributions to WWII… no need for depth on this page right, or why even have this page in the first place?... example: Cuba during World War II. --E-960 (talk) 11:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "Something that the average Australian sorely lacks"?! I strongly recommend that you reconsider your tone, E-960. Personal attacks and apparently racist remarks will not help you or anybody. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello, User:Cliftonian, nice to see that you also joined this debate. By the way, I'm confused a bit by your statement, what Australian race are you referring to? --E-960 (talk) 11:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it is in your interest to try to argue that it is acceptable to make disparaging comments about entire nationalities (or individual people based on their nationality). I strongly advise you to apologise. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  11:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reported the above at WP:ANI Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC) By the way where were you guys when this page was a mess not that long ago: country order (some alphabetical others ad hoc), breaks in format, poor grammar etc. At least, I can say that I added something to this page, but now the same group of editors from the WWII is migrating over just to deconstruct this article, using the same tactics that were used on the WW2 page to remove detail for the article. --E-960 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I don't see why " " is necessary for the infobox. I see a similar bit in the Axis powers and Central Powers infoboxes as well and there it's also treated in the article lead (which is where it should be IMO). These other language descriptions can be mentioned in the lead and should be left out of the infoboxes (redundant clutter)... in all three of these articles. – JBarta (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've removed it because there seems to be no consensus to keep it. I personally favor removal as I don't think it adds anything but unneeded clutter to the infobox. -- Calidum  05:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Should also make an effort to do the same for the other two articles I mentioned if only for the sake of consistency. – JBarta (talk) 06:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Iceland
Officially, Iceland was neutral. However in practice, it was a major Allied supporter. The British invaded and took control of Iceland in 1940, and later the US replaced Britain. Iceland broke its ties with Denmark and gained self-government. The legislature voted overwhelmingly to allow the United States to build a major naval port. The "neutrality" was quite meaningless, for the Germans on the island were all arrested by the British, and the island became critical in the battle of the Atlantic. At the peak there were 52,000 Allied soldiers in Iceland, as compared to a population of 130,000. [ this has a brief account of what happened] Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to discuss a revert made by User:Denisarona in which the flag of Icelend icon was placed back in the middle of the infobox (rather odd formatting method), and an explanation was made that "ref says Iceland was officially neutral". That's all fine, but in that case the Iceland flag should not be on this page especially when we have an article titled Neutral powers during World War II. Is if that's the case that the flag icon should be removed all together. --E-960 (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought that I had removed the flag completely, rather than just putting it back to where it had been. Denisarona (talk) 09:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But, in any case lets not mess with the format, by coming up with an alternative place for the Iceland flag icon. We either remove the flag all together and keep it in the Neutral powers during World War II article or create a separate subsection for it. --E-960 (talk) 09:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, problem fixed, the Iceland flag icon has been removed as originally intended. --E-960 (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)