Talk:World War II/Archive 21

paradoxically?
I had some problems with the article mentioning world war II is the 'last' conflict in european history, and thought i'd put forward a revised draft of the following segment of the introduction:

"Paradoxically, while World War II was the last, and probably worst, conflict in European history, it has led to a desire for unification in order to avoid future conflicts, which has transformed the difficult process of reconstruction into an unprecedented opportunity for prosperity."

I also had a problem with the reference to the reconstruction process as seeming to be a current struggle, instead of one that has been considered part of history for some time.

Here's my suggested version:

"Paradoxically, while World War II was probably the worst conflict in European history, it contributed to the desire for unification in order to maintain peace. The creation of the United Nations following the war was based on the idea of finding peaceful solutions to the many problems that occur in the constantly changing international political struggles. This was one of many major changes that occurred during the the difficult process of reconstruction of an unprecedented conflict; from which Japan and western Europe emerged into a new era of wealth, while many eastern European countries and Russia dealt with the massive loss of life and less robust economic conditions, but all fearing another conflict." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.217.71.201 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * I'm not so fond of any of this flowery stuff. Why not just say that the war was destructive and the UN was established to prevent a recurrence?  The paragraph has only been up there for about a week, so don't worry about being too bold. Haber 19:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The predecessor of the united nations was established by pres. Wilson, after world war ONE with exactly the same purpose. however, WWII is the worst conflict ever in history up to now, no discussion about it. For your information: former yugoslavia is ALSO european.


 * Actually that paragraph is referring to the EU and European federalism, not the UN. Otherwise I agree that it was not the last European conflict and that reconstruction is a past event.--Caranorn 12:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree totally with it not being the last European conflict i.e. Hungary, 1956; Czechoslovakia, 1968. CanadianMist 19:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Cold War itself was a conflict. Not only that but there might be an even larger event sometime in the future. WWII was not the last major European struggle. --Eiyuu Kou 16:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I think we clearly agree that there have been wars in Europe since World War II. Hungary and Czechoslovakia are mentioned above, and there was a series of wars in the Balkans, the last of which took place in 1999. I am going to make a small edit to remove the reference to WWII being the last war in Europe. NoIdeaNick 19:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Vlasov Army
In the list of Axis members we have "Vlasov Army" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Liberation_Army

I have 2 problems with it.

1) How Vlasov Army was able to join Axis in 1941 if it was not formed until 1944? 2) How Vlasov Army can be part of Axis if it did not represent a state (it was just a military formation headed by defector)?

So, my suggestion is to exclude this from the list - it does not make any sense. Wikisib 19:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC) One clarification - how it is possible to put a military formation which never even been in action (on the axis side) in the same row as, say, Japan or Romania.Wikisib 19:59, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Russian --> Soviet
This is something to reiterate regarding the edits I just made. While the bulk of the Soviet army was made up of Slavic troops, it's completely erroneous to refer to the troops as "Russians" and not the more correct "Soviet" because the USSR consisted of several republics that weren't made up of Russians or Ukranians or Bylorussians. These included Armenians, Azeris, Georgians, troops from Central Asia, and even some from the occupied Baltic republics so it is a disservice to refer to the troops, generals, or even political leadership throughout the article as "Russians". Thanks.--MarshallBagramyan 18:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if there is anywhere in the article we should fix that. --LtWinters 21:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yea, i think this is one of those tihngs you cant debate, If any fixes it its cool with me(Esskater11 14:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC))

The European Library
Hello, I have added a link to Europe's National Library Resources. Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 21:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That should be fine as long as there is a direct association to WWII and the events during its duration. I would assume the ENLR would already have that, though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eiyuu Kou (talk • contribs) 16:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC). The thing beat me to it, lol. --Eiyuu Kou 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted "three major battles"
There are to many battles that can be considered "critical" to omit. Plus, the Battle of Britain was a campaign, not a singular battle. Oberiko 22:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Operation Market Garden
Operation Market Garden was incredibly important, as it stalled the entire allied advance to scrounge supplies for it, even though it failed. All we have mentioned is "Allied paratroopers and armor attempted a war-winning advance through the Netherlands and across the Rhine River with Operation Market Garden in September, but they were repulsed." I'm thinking we need a bit more than that heesham. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --LtWinters 20:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ok. I edited your contribution but feel free to edit it again if you still don't think it's perfect. Haber 20:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

yea, it sounds alot better, i ain't not good in grammer --LtWinters 01:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Casualties
I think we should keep the total casualties as it is now, 62 mill +. However, take a look at World War II Casualties. I've been trying to correlate their figures with ours, but they won't budge to the numbers we have. Take a look, see if you can get them to agree with us. --LtWinters 01:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is more than just a should; we can't use another Wikipedia page as a reference (too unreliable!) and the references we do have do not support a figure of 72M+. - Eron Talk 01:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I looked, but my eyes blurred. What a boring article! Haber 03:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point. What they actually did, is take a bunch of sources and add them up, so all the ones that lied made it way over than the actual amount. It was like over 72 million, thats the highest I've ever heard. --LtWinters 00:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

World War II Ending?
Looking through old newspapers back in 1945-1950 suggest that World War II ended sometime in 1946, please confirm this. -- Duskrider 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC) (talk • contribs)


 * Every history I've read has WWII end on VJ Day. After Japan surrendered, who was left to fight? Oberiko 12:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing happening by 1946 was the Nuremburg trials, right? All fighting (relating to the specific declarations of war) ended in Europe (VE day May 8, 1945) and in the Pacific (VJ day Sep 2, 1945 - although Japan signalled surrender on Aug 14). What's interesting is that I find a couple of websites that reference WWII as 1941-1946 which is wrong since 1941 refers to American / Pacific theatre involvement, but traditionally the start is listed as 1939.  Additionally, in the bodies of the articles there are no further mentions of any 1946 dates, just in the title.  Entirelybs 21:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well they're going to say that because of what entirelybs said and also a large majority of troops was not back in the states till '46.--24.225.156.40 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Soviet Union denied the death of Hitler so they may have claimed the war to continue until Hitler's demise. Firthermoore there were fears that top ranking Nazis might have escaped so the "war" against them still continued in this respect.Tourskin 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont have any sources but ive heard the 1946 thing is becuase we delcared a end to all hostiities which i think means that there is no more threat for anything(Esskater11 01:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC))

Move to Second world war
i think it should be moved to the second world war as that is the more offical and common titel. could you please give me your opinions on this and rember just because its a common internet speeling doesnt mean its correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Esskater11 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. Who says second world war? Although it is a name for it, it is most often referred to as World War II. Google gives 136,000,000 results for World War II, while it gives 120,000,000 results for Second WOrld War. And plus, the World War II article is redirected from Second World War and WWII. --LtWinters 12:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * You've contradicted yourself there a bit Lt- I think 120 vs 136 million hits suggests that many, many people use the term "Second World War", and it is predominant outside of the US as I understand it. But as you say, with the redirects in place it doesn't matter, and the use of one or the other term is not going to significantly impact on reader understanding. Badgerpatrol 09:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also i was wondering why google resulyts are used as offical "name deciders" google reapts alot of stuff and other radom things un realted to the war, and The second world war is the more offical title, its used by most of the world why shouldnt it be the title, i dont get why common names are used not the offical or oprorate names, its like the AK articl it says AK47 whixh refers to 1 model only while the page refers to many dirffernt models

Operation Varsity
Although this is a small operation, it could be considered the 4th most important event/operation (after D-day, Market-Garden, and the Bulge) (I know some of you are thinking this or that is more important, so I'll say its in the top ten western front events/operations). There is no mention of Operation Varisty, and I feel a sentence should be included so at least to give a link to the operation and to give the main objective of it. Do any of you object? --LtWinters 19:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A sentence or two might be warranted but certainly no more than that. Looking at the article it seems pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. Lisiate 23:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Casualties, civilian impact, and atrocities
This wants looking at. Says '12 million civilians died in Holocaust camps',

'The Holocaust was the killing of approximately six million European Jews, as part of a program of |||deliberate||| extermination planned and executed by the National Socialist government in Germany led by Adolf Hitler.'

Did the rest die through mishaps, faulty German plumbing, or other work-related accidents like being shot by a camp guard. I find the statements in the article presume authority, but do not address the subject area with any kind of grace. It would only take a line or two to replace the arrogant statement, dismissing the suffering of those who died at the hands of the Nazis inside the camps is not on. 86.149.209.189 18:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you think that section sounds arrogant, but somehow in all the editing the Holocaust had nearly disappeared from this article (the first statement and some images being the only parts that remained). I copied the second statement from the Holocaust article intro, with some trimming to avoid redundancy.  I agree the treatment of the Holocaust in this article is rather graceless and could use more work, but I figured something was better than almost nothing.  You're welcome to edit it if you see room for improvement. Haber 18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused, are you asking what happened to the other 6 million people? Because the deal with that was they were the other minorities. And 12 million sounds a bit higher, I've usually heard 11 million.--24.225.156.40 00:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Low intensity edit war at infobox
I just wanted to point out that this low intensity edit war there some users add combatants to infobox and others remove them is totally ridiculous as it has been going on for some time already. Saddest part of dispute is the fact that it is completely matter of taste, as there is no accurate way to measure which is actualy better.--Staberinde 07:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get how some people don't see the 5 v 3 list. Everyone knows it, people are just being stubborn because they don't want to cooperate. It makes no sense to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.205.199.7 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is appropriate to characterize different points of view as "just being stubborn." There are valid arguments to be made on all sides. - Eron Talk 14:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be better if you identified yourself in future. Many people have taken great pains to co-operate and build consensus here. A perfectly fair poll was taken where the result was very markedly against infobox participants. It was ignored. A mediation exercise was undertaken. This was largely ignored (although I blame the mediator for this more than any other party or parties). The arguments against including participants have a sound logical (and policy) basis and have been elucidated on these pages and elsewhere many, many times. The argument of those in favour of including participants can effectively be summed as "because we want to". It's manifestly not intuitive that those 5v3 are the "major" participants, as the very long and varied discussions on these pages testify to, as well as the position of other infoboxes on other language wikis beyond //en.. Many have expressed sentiments both for and against individual nations. I'm not in favour of edit warring and people shouldn't do it. But I can certainly see why frustration has welled up, prompted by the obstinacy and stubbornness of certain editors in this debate. Badgerpatrol 14:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Calling it stubborn for one side but not the other is rather kettle-pot-ish, wouldn't you say? Original research aside, I would probably see it as more of a 3 v 2 list. Oberiko 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could get behind 3vs2, especially when viewing the military-industrial capabilities of all nations during the 1930s and 40s. But I'm not sure if original research is a real part of this issue.


 * That's a false statement, Badgerpatrol. Wikipedia's policy is not against listing the major members of an alliance, especially if links are provided to view the full list of membership. It is true, however, that more than a few editors are unsatisfied with 3vs3, or 5vs3, or 8vs6, for various reasons, not all of them valid. Since Wikipedia is not paper, there is room for even 15vs15, but settling on the specific countries to list seems near impossible. I have come to the view that the best reasonable argument against listing individual countries is for the sake of stability. It would therefore behoove us to come to a consensus on which countries to list on this talk page, before putting that list in the main namespace.


 * Even should such a list be agreed to by a majority of editors, the future will bring new editors who will cite weak, and perhaps strong, arguments for adding or removing one or more countries. None of those arguments can be stronger than the defense against the slippery slope to instability. Listing more countries will be better than fewer, although only to a certain point. Those countries called the Big Three from both camps are undoubtedly major, while less than a dozen and a half countries can be called major, however questionably. Those countries with the fewest arguments against their majority contribution should be listed.


 * For example: Thailand is more questionable than France, true? Poland is more questionable than China. Finland is more questionable than Hungary. Brazil is more questionable than Canada. And so on. These few examples shouldn't be taken to assume I intend to exclude Poland and include China; I recommend including them both, actually. Xaxafrad 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, lets define what the infobox is for. It's not an exhaustive summary, that's what the article(s) are for.  Instead, it's a quick, concise, at-a-glance overview.  With that in mind, here are the problems and potential issues I foresee with a massive list:
 * Confusion from some nations being listed on both sides of the conflict (Finland, USSR etc.) and nations being listed under multiple instances (Kingdom of Italy, Italian Social Republic etc.)
 * Inclusion of non-nations fighting under the banner of a nation (Free French, Polish volunteers etc.)
 * Inclusion of resistance movements (partisans etc.)
 * Inclusion of "paper" participants (nations who joined for political reasons, but only made a token contribution, if anything)
 * Loss of readability from large list (When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article.)
 * Inevitable arguments over list order (Do we use when the nation entered the war? If so, when do we consider a nation like China to have "entered" World War II? Do we go alphabetical?  If so, then the "Big 3" Allies - the United Kingdom, USSR and United States - will appear near the bottom of the list.
 * Nations that were not officially part of the war, but had more involvement then many that were. (Spain etc.)
 * Same problems and more with the commander box. Are we going to list the effective national leaders, symbolic national leaders and significant military leaders for each entry we have listed in the combatants section?  If we do, the already enourmous list (which would be useless by this time in my opinion) would more then triple in size, making it totally overwhelming.  If not, who will we exclude and why?


 * As has been argued several times, it's a very slippery slope to say that nation X is major and nation Y is minor. Is the French Third Republic major? If so, then why not Canada, which was in the war for close to three times as long? Is Italy major?  If so, then why not Finland? What about the fact that Poland had the highest % of its population killed (close to 1/5), how can they be considered a minor combatant with that in mind?  What about the fact that Poland was in the war as a nation for only just over a month (less then 5% of the wars duration by any measure), how can they be a major combatant with that in mind?


 * No, I may personally think of it as 3 vs. 2 but I can't empirically validate it. I base my way of deciding the major combatants on dividing the war into four sections (Germany vs. Western Allies, Germany vs. Soviet Union, Japan in Asia, Japan in the Pacific) and tallying rough percentages for the combatants in each (Germany 2, Japan 2, U.K. 1 (0.5 of Western Allies, 0.5 of Asia), U.S. 1.25 (.25 of Western Allies, 1 of Pacific), USSR 1, China 0.5).  However, I doubt many people would agree that it's the best way to decide the issue, and expect no one else to follow that scheme. Oberiko 18:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should definantly stop basing major countries off of how many people died. For example, in the USSR, a sensible general would have surrounded Berlin and bombarded it until it gave up. But Stalin ordered a direct assault on it, resulting in I believe 100,000 casualties, mainly from gurilla warfare. So it took Berlin, but it could have done that with a significant lower number of casualties. Doesn't make too much sense that they should be credited for that because they did something stupid. --SurfingMaui540 20:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd debate that, and I'd debate that it was a stupid move. To Stalin, the nationalistic and economic value of capturing Berlin by hand and not as a mere pile of rubble was probably worth more then the lives it cost to do so.  Plus, obliterating the capital of Germany would have made the Germans more resentful and, hence, more difficult to control in post-war.  A massive bombing campaign might have even sent a vast percentage of the population running west into the hands of Anglo-American forces. Oberiko 21:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying to go have to edit this and that. We voted, I have no idea what's wrong with it. The majority voted to have no countries in the infobox. Some of us may not have voted for that, but it was chosen. If your candidate doesn't win the election you don't leave the country, you deal with it. I don't get what's so hard about that. It doesn't really matter if the 5x3 one is "right" and the allies & axis one is "wrong". Bottom line is we voted. Allies & Axis won.

Xaxafrad just made the most sense out of anything I've read about this, though. There are three undisputible major combatants, and if we have to put any countries in the infobox listing those three would probably be the only way to keep people from arguing. The whole stem of this debate is "If China is a major combatant, who's to say Canada or Poland isn't?". If we go and have countries outside of the big three, I think it'll just bring questions on why X is included and Y isn't. Even having the Big Three would probably bring those up, actually... Until we all can come up with some kind of compromise - whether it be no countries, 3x3, or all countries like the War on Terrorism - it should just stay like it is now.

I'd just like to say, though, that while I'm against countries in the infobox, I'm not against commanders. Mabye that could have people from china and everything. It seems to be less controversial. I mean, who would argue that Hitler or Stalin had a bigger role in the war than Mackenzie King or others? --Plasma Twa 2 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care whether there are 3 or 5 major. The principle of the matter to me is that we have somthing to give the public. So I am in support of the 5 v 3 and the 3 v 3 --72.79.124.78 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Cant we just put up a map and show the countries who were Allies and those that were Axis? Mercenary2k 06:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The alliances shifted as the war went on. If you check the participants of World War II article, it has an animated gif of such. Oberiko 06:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's put that. What's wrong with doing that?--LtWinters 15:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's good, but where would we put it?--SurfingMaui540 20:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to encourage anyone who is interested to read back into the former discussion a little bit. I will respond to newcomers if you have any questions. Haber 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I would second that strongly, and I'm also happy to respond to any queries. Badgerpatrol 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I feel that we should be able to agree on something, even if it takes long arguements. We really should be able to supply something to the reader. --SurfingMaui540 23:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Similar to surfer, I think something must be supplied- anyone see w hat 96T put, although Oberiko removed that? I thought it was an interesting proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs)

I'm in favour of the axis being Germany, Italy, and Japan, with the et al extension, becuase then people can just go find out for themselves the minor players. --64.205.199.7 14:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally disagree with putting individual countries in the infobox, but I actually like 96T's proposal; the one broken down by years. LtWinters also apparently thinks it's worth consideration. What do other users think of it? Here's the version to which I'm referring. It's not perfect (I for one would put China at 1937, not lumped in at 1941), but I think it might be a good solution to this issue. Any thoughts? Parsecboy 23:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a few exceptions. China should definantly be 1937, Romania, Bulgaria, and Finland should not be included, and where is Japan? It's not even listed. But I think with a few exceptions, a list of that sort wouldn't be too bad. --LtWinters 00:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Japan's in there, at 1941, but again, it should be at 1937 with China. Romania and Hungary should be there, because they contributed sizeable forces to the German campaigns in the Soviet Union. Parsecboy 00:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, its not that I'm saying Parsec, I'm saying they should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia. --LtWinters 01:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, right, gotcha. Parsecboy 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Too complicated. Likely to confuse new readers and cause edit wars among experienced ones.  The 5v3 is clear and direct, and gives enough useful information. Haber 02:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. I would prefer the 5 v 3, but if we have to because no one agrees, I would be willing to agree to that thing by 96T. --LtWinters 10:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

One thought I've had - the flag images do not help. They make it harder for people with vision problems to hear the article, and the pretty colors and emotions associated with flag images attract so much attention that the infobox becomes the focus of edit wars. Military infoboxes do not require flags. I'm not going to revert if people include them, but I'm going to ask that everyone think about it. Haber 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * See also WP:FLAG and similar. Badgerpatrol 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I like this, a lot. It's not perfect because I still think it would be best to include all or none at all, but we are clearly not going to get there and this current situation is somewhat rancorous and unsustainable. It could be tweaked and we can discuss that here, but this is a really good compromise. I have to disagree with Haber- the average reader is not an idiot, and if they are they are most unlikely to benefit from reading the article anyway. The fact is, alliances shifted as the war continued, and the situation was far, far more complex than a simple list can adequately encompass. That is a key point that is well worth transmitting to the casual, perhaps uninformed, reader. I don't actually find this format complex or confusing at all, but even if it is- those are the facts, that's the way it was. This is an encyclopaedia, not a children's picture book. The argument about edit warring is not really valid, because that's basically what we have now anyway, with no obvious end in sight. This is a potential solution. I strongly support this elegant compromise. Badgerpatrol 11:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have to disagree with Haber; the proposed solution isn't very complicated at all. A simple list doesn't show that the alliances shifted throughout the war. Nor does it show how long the countries were fighting. A casual reader might assume that China fought Japan only for as long as America did, which we all know is not the case. Again, there already IS an edit war over the 5v3. How worse off can we be by trying this version? On a side note, does anyone find this to be a little odd? Parsecboy 11:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Yes, I do find that a bit unsettling. Badgerpatrol 13:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on Lt.'s talk page about it. Badgerpatrol 13:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you guys aren't suggesting that I think the average reader is an idiot. On the contrary, if someone with no prior knowledge can walk away from this article being able to name the eight combatants and eight-nine commanders, and tell me that the war happened in the early 1940's, I would consider them very smart indeed.  I'd also think at that stage that they would have a better, more balanced understanding of the war than most Wikipedians. Haber 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A few points on my proposal: Haber: ''Too complicated. Likely to confuse new readers and cause edit wars among experienced ones.'' Too complicated, eh? Well, the thing about World War II is that it was complicated. It was not a war with UK/USA/USSR/France/China fought Germany/Italy/Japan. It was a war where dozens of nations fought the Axis. Yeah, the UK, the USA and the USSR were the main powers of the Allies, but why France and China and not Yugoslavia, Poland (which fought Germany virtually alone for the first months of the war), Greece (which resisted the Italian army alone for half a year), Australia, or Canada (which participated in far more operations than France did)? For lots of countries, especially European ones, WW2 was the largest conflict in their histories. Listing only a few countries on each side will be misleading, in my opinion. Haber: The 5v3 is clear and direct, and gives enough useful information. Well, actually, it doesn't. It says nothing about the five million Poles or the one million Yugoslavs that died during the war. LtWinters: ''I'm saying [Romania and Bulgaria] should not be on the allies in 1944. They only declared war so to try to please Russia.'' They certainly did, like Canada and Australia declared war to please the United Kingdom, and like Romania & co. had declared war to please Germany in the first place. Why they declared war is irrelevant, what is relevant is that what was left of their armies fought with heavy casualties in Eastern and Southeastern Europe for the final stages of the war. The countries and years I included are the ones found in the WW2 template, by the way. From what I know, these countries are the indepentent nations that actually participated in the war (in more than sending a few hundred soldiers or signing a paper to declare war or were simply annexed without resistance like Luxembourg and Denmark were). I don't find it necessary to add any other combatants unless there are some very important ones that the editors of the template have overlooked. Sorry 'bout my English if it's bad. 96T 23:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding? It's aside the point the Canadiens declared war, there are several other reasons they did, which is that France was overrun and wanted to share in the spoils after the war. If Bulgaria was as important as them, then why did they not get a part of Germany to govern? But besides that, I mean it's absolutely rediculous to say they were on our side, I don't even believe they mobilized their troops against Germany. Italy didn't either, as they declared war in 1943. And I mean come on, let's not try to put the bad guys in a good light. They still fuoght the Russians, although without a decleration of war, for a good 3 years until things got sour for them. --LtWinters 00:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh? Are you suggesting that France was occupied by the time Canada declared war in 1939??!!?? Badgerpatrol 10:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but Canada declared war 7 days after France did, and it was more of the fact that they had relations with the U.K. Again, it's aside the point and both sides can be easily be argued, but Badger, do you really feel that Bulgaria and Romania should be included on the allies list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs)


 * Lt., please sign in before contributing and use only one account consistently when adding to the discussion. If you don't do this in future, I'm afraid I won't respond to your points. I still don't really see your point about timings or intent. I feel that any country who contributed troops to fight the Axis at any time should be included on the Allies list. Or none at all. Any country that contributed troops to fight the Allies at any time should be on the Axis list. Or none at all. If this can't be achieved, arranging things chronologically, as is being argued above, is an acceptable compromise. Badgerpatrol 13:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign in there. But anyway, I see it acceptable to put it on the list of allies in ww2, but not as a major player in the ww2 page. You may have misunderstood that point of mine- that I'm saying it should not be a major player, yet should be kept as an ally on the allies page. And additionally, as you just said, I believe there are other nations who put troops foward (http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=226140, scroll down to see list of nations who declared war and when), and many others who severed economic and political relations with axis nations, so regarding 96T's suggestion, I think he would be missing a few nations there. But must we continue this? Are we going to keep what we have now, so will it matter? --LtWinters 14:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The current compromise solution is just that- a compromise. It isn't perfect, but since Haber has made it obvious that he will revert anything he doesn't like regardless of consensus, and since, to be frank, you have implied that you will create even more sockpuppets if necessary in order to edit war, I don't see any choice. I suggest we get behind this compromise and put an end to this extremely tedious internecine squabbling as quickly as possible. It's disgusting that such tactics have been adopted to enable a small coterie of editors to get their way in spite of consensus, and this whole situation could and should have been resolved months ago. However, that's that. Let's draw a line under it. I suggest that we take a couple of days to discuss this latest compromise effort and refine it as best as possible. And then we institute it. If it's reverted, we can !vote here on the options (this compromise, no nations, 5vs3). I hate to have votes because it is not the Wiki way- discussion, consensus-building and compromise should be enough. Obviously, in this case, some editors will not accept those principles and cannot be reasoned with. (By the same token, it takes two to tango, and no-one escapes blame in an edit war, regardless of provocation.) If that vote is ignored, then we go to arbitration, although I would still like to attempt another mediation with a proper mediator rather than the very poor one we had before. Comments welcome. Badgerpatrol 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Badgerpatrol, that sounds like a reasonable way to proceed forward. I'd like to see some of the other editors who have participated in these discussions voice their opinions on this compromise attempt. Perhaps we should put in an RfC if we need more outside opinions. If that doesn't work, I will support another attempt at mediation. LtWinter's blatant sockpuppetry is very disturbing, as is his apparent wantonness for edit-warring.
 * LtWinters, if you continue down this path, I see no other option but to report you as a sockpuppeteer. Please cease and desist, and preferably delete SurfingMaui540 and any other socks you possess. There is absolutely no justification for this kind of behavior.
 * Haber, why the obstinance in the face of consensus? Why is it so important to have your precious 5v3? Is that really so important? Why can't you even attempt to make a compromise here?
 * Parsecboy 16:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * A. I don't know how to delete a user name. B, I think it would be a good idea to have that vote, but honestly it's got to be a vote just where you put your name under what you want, not a 5 paragraph thing where it's so confusing you have no idea what's going on. I wanted to do that in April because a look at the archives showed something like that would obviously accomplish nothing, but everyone insisted on stating their opinions in paragraphs instead of just saying yes, no, or I vote for this or that. --LtWinters 17:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, your vote in April was more or less an attempt at a replica of the previous, properly conducted poll, except with the interesting alteration of removing the "no countries" option, which most people had supported before. The previous vote was not confusing at all. The format was very clear, and very fair, and thus produced a very clear and fair consensus (despite extensive sockpuppetry even at that early stage). That result was ignored for no reason whatsoever. And so here we are, months later. Your reasoning is flawed. Polls on Wikipedia are meant to engender discussion, and it is perfectly appropriate to discuss and debate the issue as the "vote" continues, until we come to a clear conclusion. Explaining the reasoning behind one's !vote is just as important as the individual vote itself. If you find that format confusing (to be honest, it isn't confusing at all and is the format widely used on Wikipedia) then I'm afraid you'll have to concentrate harder. I don't really see another option. If you want your sockpuppet accounts deleted, contact an administrator and explain the situation, they should be able to sort it out quite easily. As I've stated before, please don't use sockpuppets again in an effort to mislead other editors, but I'm glad that you have recognised that this is inappropriate and that your are willing to take remedial steps. As an aside, I also agree with Parsecboy that it would be useful for Haber to state here clearly what he will and will not accept. Everyone else has shown willingness to compromise throughout the process. This is not getting us anywhere. Let's try and come to some sort of conclusion. Haber, what is your thinking? Badgerpatrol 17:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Your endless rhetoric is redundant, boring, incivil, and often false. There is nothing new here. Haber 21:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Endless and boring, I may be prepared to grant you- incivil, false and redundant, I think not. ;-) Please point out what's false about the above, or indeed any falsehoods I've ever come out with on Wikipedia. Yet again- please describe a compromise that you would find acceptable. I think most everyone else has- rather than chucking around accusations, let's have your input and try and bring this sorry episode to a conclusion. Badgerpatrol 22:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to disfigure this talk page by encouraging any more of your grandstanding. Anyone can easily read back into the talk page history and figure out what is going on for themselves. Haber 04:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Badger, please in your response, leave the word yes or no somewhere, do you want to change the infobox as it is? --LtWinters 22:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do I want the infobox left as it is at 23.22 on 17/5/07 - no I most emphatically do not. I would have thought that would be obvious if you'd actually read any of the previous discussion. I want the infobox changed to just "Axis" and "Allies". If that can't be achieved, I want it changed to something very, very similar to what 96T has proposed. I hope that is clear enough for you to follow. Badgerpatrol 22:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LtWinters, I should think Badgerpatrol's position is pretty clear. Haber is the editor who continually avoids discussion and compromise. Haber, I ask again, why is 5v3 so important that you cannot compromise? You've said your opposition to links to the Allies/Axis pages is because we need to provide more information in the infobox, so the average user can gain some knowledge about the basics of WWII. What about 96T's proposal doesn't do that (and better than 5v3, I might add)? Badger and I are clearly willing to compromise here, and agree to this new proposal instead of holding fast to "no countries/leaders in the infobox". Why can't you meet us halfway? Parsecboy 00:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to go for a compromise, but what would you be suggesting? You know, just throw something out there you would consider good and some of us opposed to allies/axis will state our opinions. But thankyou for being tolerant and willing to comprimise. --LtWinters 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LtWinters, have you been paying attention at all to the discussion here? Badger and I have been talking about something based on 96T's proposal for some time now. Parsecboy 01:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that, but I mean to name a specific one. Or are you 100% for the one 96T suggested, without any revision? --LtWinters 01:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

VJ day on August 15 local time
Shouldn't the date for the Victory over Japan be on August 15th, as the surrender was broadcastet that day local time, and the date August 14th is just used as the date it became known in the US, because of the time zone difference? In other word, shouldn't the date be given in the local time the event mainly took place? Alternativly, if we use GMT, it will still be August 14th, as the broadcast was made at noon that day local time. M4c 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC) Changed! M4c 17:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Resistance and Collaboration
I wanted to edit this earlier as seen up there somewhere, but the time escaped me and I gave up on it. I dunno, I think could use some improvement and could use some editing. Any suggestions? --LtWinters 21:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Added some stuff. Should be ok. --LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Operation Dragoon
There is no mention Operation Dragoon. Considering there were only 3 allied army groups and it consisted of the 6th army group, we should include it. All we have is

By August 1944, Allied forces stationed in Italy invaded the French Riviera on August 15 and linked up with forces from Normandy. The clandestine French Resistance in Paris rose against the Germans on August 19, and a French armored division under General Philippe Leclerc, pressing forward from Normandy, received the surrender of the German forces there and liberated the city on August 25.

--LtWinters 22:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I added some stuff. Should be ok. --LtWinters 00:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph Logic
In the last sentence of the opening paragraph of this 'good' article, the word 'paradoxically' is used to describe the ever-burgeoning desire for some form of greater European integration in the aftermath of a second, devastating world war on that great, complex continent. I can tell whoever wrote this nonsense now that not only is this an illogical statement, in that it does not in any way recognise that such a desire/ideal for harmony is perfectly reasonable and rational after such appalling conflicts, the origins of which date back another 1000 years or so, it is quite understandable in the general sense of human nature. Either way, the sentence is woolly and ahistorical and needs either urgent attention from someone who really does know their history (and not just of the 20th Century) or complete omission. Post-war European cooperation and success is one of the greatest achievements of our time. It should not be dismissed so thoughtlessly. I would also recommend that people who are coming to the subject of the Second World War, its origins and aftermath, for the first time try reading some of the major studies of this period (books) rather than starting with 'Wikipedia'. Look them up (in your local library). JL 19/5/07

Plan for infobox stability
Anything goes within these parameters: Haber 15:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) 5v3, in alphabetical order or the following order: USSR, USA, GB, Ch, Fr vs. Ge, Ja, It
 * 2) Hirohito or Tojo
 * 3) United Kingdom or Great Britain
 * 4) Five to seven Allied leaders (+/- Truman and Chamberlain), ordered in the same order as combatants.  Three axis leaders.
 * 5) "Et al." or "and others".
 * 6) Flag images or no flag images.
 * 7) Allied Powers or Allies.


 * So basically, you're saying "My way, or the highway"? Lemme tell ya something, Haber, this is not a dictatorship. You must participate in discussion, try to reach consensus, and COMPROMISE in order to get there, like the rest of us are willing to do. This will not work at all. Parsecboy 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * See Godwin's Law. Haber 17:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see anyone having called anyone a Nazi or Hitler here... there have been rather a lot of other dictatorships in history. —Krellis (Talk) 17:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit summary was, "Ja, mein Führer".. Haber 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I apologize, your Godwin's Law reference is, in fact, apt. I didn't think to check the edit summary.  The level of personal attacks in this issue continues to astound me. —Krellis (Talk) 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just expressing my frustration with Haber's refusal to participate in any kind of discussion in which he must compromise. Haber, if I have offended you, I apologize. I have no problem with Haber himself; I have participated in discussions at other articles where we have agreed; his unwillingness to budge in this issue is what irks me. Parsecboy 21:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm fluent in German if any of you don't know what that means, it means yes, my leader. --LtWinters 19:36, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to say to give my opinions for the future compromise... I think # 1 is good, Hirohito, United Kingdom (if that's the one including New Zealand, Australia, etc.), yes to et al after the nations invloved, and yes for flags--LtWinters 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think haber's idea is good. I'd choose hirohito for the japanese leader. Blueshirts 04:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lt., I think we were all grasping for the meaning of that obscure and little-quoted German phrase ;-) Those parameters leave very little wiggle room and I wouldn't call them much of a compromise attempt, but at least we are all now engaged in the discussion, which is a big step forward. I would be tempted to perhaps have another go at mediation now, although I realise this may not be popular. Otherwise we could present yet another vote with the two/three options now on the table. That isn't ideal either. Or we could continue to discuss in the hopes of reaching a mutually acceptable outcome, but let's face it, that doesn't seem likely at the moment. Comments and ideas welcome from everyone. Badgerpatrol 10:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am 100 % pro listing combatants instead of just axis vs allies, but I repeat what I have said − that the 5 vs 3 list is short and misleading (especially beacause I don't see why France should be listed, and not Canada, Poland or Australia). Therefore, I suggest a long list of all the indepentent, not-puppet states that actively participated in the war, either chronologically (as I have already proposed) or ranked by number of troops or something (eventually with the Big Three on each side first, then all the others in alphabethical order). As for commanders, it should either be left empty or include only the Big Three (Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt vs. Hitler, Hirohito or Tojo, Mussolini). When it comes to naming, there is no reason to write "Great Britain" instead of "United Kingdom" − Great Britain is an island, not a country. And as far as I know, it's Allies, not Allied Powers. 96T 13:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a danger here of arguing about what colour we want to paint our car when it's sitting on the driveway without an engine. The minor details (whether to include Northern Ireland a part of the British involvement (it should be in my view- there are obviously political considerations, but NI was and is part of the unified country and participated in the war just like every other part of the nation- UK is the correct term, not GB) and re the Japanese leader (Tojo would make sense to me, but it's not a big deal) are surely not that important relative to getting the main issue sorted out. On the substantive point, I would be happy with a long list, or no list at all. I don't think I'd be comfortable if countries were listed according to number of troops, but I would be happy if they were listed chronologically. For me the suggestion on the table from 96T is a reasonable one and I whilst it's a significant departure from what I would consider ideal, I personally would certainly accept it in the spirit of compromise. Badgerpatrol 00:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let's see what such a list would look like....Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Croatia (et al?)


 * vs United Kingdom, Soviet Union, (China?), United States, Canada, Australia, India, South Africa, and who else? Xaxafrad 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a modified version of 96T's infobox to the talk page. If it's acceptable to most, and nobody beats me to it, I'll copy the combatant fields to the article. I'll also try to add flag icons, if they don't become cumbersome. Xaxafrad 02:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That looks fine to me, Xaxafrad. I think adding flags would get ugly pretty quickly though. I think it's fine as is. Parsecboy 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just want to throw something out- some kid changed the Japanese combatent to Tojo instead of Hirohito. I changed it back, anyone with a problem with that?--LtWinters 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know enough about Second World War-era Japanese politics to comment on this, but I will say that if the only rationale is "Hirohito was supreme leader of Japan" then Winston Churchill should also be removed in favour of George VI. (I am not suggesting that you do this, btw). Badgerpatrol 00:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * there's a wealth of info on Hirohito's page that shows he was a lot more than a "figurehead" and participated much in war decisions. Blueshirts 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems like if we do do a Japanese leader then, were good for Hirohito. --LtWinters 21:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I oppose adding France. France was considered to be major power only 1939-1940 and majority of that time was Phoney War. I am not even sure if China deserves spot but considering its huge losses it may have it.--Staberinde 16:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably forgetting about the Free French Forces, that France had a more than million men army invading Germany on 1945, was given a significant share of germany to occupy and got a seat at the security council of UNO. I think it is more than enough. Med 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What does everybody think of 2vs2: Soviet Union and United States vs Germany and Japan? I excluded the UK due to disunity in the British Empire, while Italy's military needed German backup throughout most phases of World War II. If some umbrella designation like UK/Commonwealth can be used to refer to the dominions, then I can see that added to the 2vs2 list. The fact is, the remainder of Poland and France's political leaders and military resources retreated to one of the few places the Nazis could invade: the island of Great Britain. Meanwhile, China was square in the middle of the 23-year long Chinese Civil War, itself the last vestiges of the infighting resulting from the gradual decades long collapse of the Qing Dynasty during the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries, can hardly qualify it for "major" power status.

Or 8vs6: Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States, China, France, Poland, Canada, Australia vs Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria? Those Allied countries keep popping up a lot, but nobody cares to argue over the expansion or contraction of the list of Axis countries. I wonder why that is.

To respond to Haber's suggestion: I find 5vs3 acceptable, in alphabetical order. Given the hierarchical nature of Japanese society, I'd put the emperor, Hirohito as the leader over his top general, Tojo. UK is the country, GB is the island. Extra leaders Chamberlain and Truman should be listed. "Et al" means "and others", and using Latin makes us sound smarter. Flags are better than no flags, just look at all the other infoboxes. The Allied powers got together in contrast to the Axis powers, but everybody was an ally of somebody; grammatical harmony points to "Allied powers vs Axis powers" instead of "Allies vs Axis powers". Or, if Allies and Axis are well established nouns, then why not just "Allies vs Axis"? Xaxafrad 01:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Of all the proposals ive seen that list any nations at all the infobox in this section at the current time is the most acceptable ive seen so far. Demerphq 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the proposal that Badgerpatrol and I favor, if there are to be countries listed in the infobox. It might need some tweaks here and there, but I like the general concept of it. Haber, however, has thus far refused to discuss it. This is a problem, because Haber apparently owns the infobox. Parsecboy 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

France Debate

 * Problem with France is that if we count Free France in, then it raises immediately issue of Poland because we then also need to count in Polish forces who fought at both Western and Eastern front and also Polish resistance which makes Polish contribution also quite notable. 2v2 does not work out in my opinion because UK is too importnant to ignore. I would suggest then 3(UK, USSR, USA) vs 2(Germany and Japan) as leaving out Italy is not very big problem.--Staberinde 08:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give me the source telling that Poland got a seat at the UNO security council and a part of Germany to occupy please? They have not obtained that. The role of France has simply been more important. I don't want to minimise polish contribution, but the french one was just larger. A large part of the colonies also fought during all the war. Med 12:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Postwar occurances carry no weight when considering what countries were truly important during the war. Do you mean to tell me the fate of the Allies was as dependant on the French as it was on the Soviet Union, America, or the United Kingdom? I'd say France was just about as important as Poland in the grand scheme of things (resistance fighters, stateless army groups, etc.) Parsecboy 12:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Postwar occurances reflect what happened during the war. Frankly comparing Poland and France contributions is a bit dubious. Large territories of France remained fighting during the war, you can't say the same for Poland. France had quite a large army fighting against axis all along the war, i don't even talk about resistance which existed pretty much everywhere. Free France also had a significant navy, including battleships, polish contribution was pretty much restricted to a few submarines and a few loaned boats. France contribution was significant, that's why France obtained some advantages at the end of the war. Med 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Med, How can you say large territories of France remained fighting throughout the war? North Africa was Vichyist until Torch in late '42. Their colonies in Syria/Lebanon? You mean the ones that fought the British in the Middle East, under Darlan? And what about Madagascar, which fought the British with Japanese support? Oh, that's right, you must be talking about French Indochina. Wait a minute, those were surrendered to the Japanese without a fight. So what "large territories" supposedly fought alongside the Allies? Hmm? As for your claim that they had a large fleet, you must be exaggerating, a little. Either that, or talking about the French Fleet before Mers el Kebir and Touloun. You're partially correct, though. The French Navy did have A battleship, the Richelieu, that never really participated in a major campaign. Seems like a huge contribution to me. Pardon my sarcasm, by the way. The French recieved a portion of Germany to administer because the victors wanted to "make it how it used to be", in order to speed the national healing process. Part of that was massaging France's bruised ego. (No offense intended to anyone French, I'm a good chunk French myself, just telling it like it is.) Yes, the French did have a large army prior to 1940, and again, after the liberation of France. But so did Poland. Their army was around 1 million men in 1939. They also contributed substantial forces to the Soviet Campaign and in Italy and elsewhere. In short, most of your claims are total exaggerations if not half truths. The French contribution is not noticeably more important than the Polish one. Parsecboy 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsecboy, you are completely forgetting the French empire, which was a huge provider of men, equipment and ressources. Poland did not have a million-man army at the end of the war, nor did it field armoured divisions, not did it sail some of the most advanced naval units of the time. Poland was not present with a battleship at the Japanese instrument of surrender. And this is the state of France at the end of the war ; if you think of what it was at the beginning, the difference is even more obvious. Rama 13:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I stated above, the Empire that was willfully given away to Axis members? And in some cases fought against the Allies. Yeah, that's real significant. So what if Poland wasn't present with a battleship at the Japanese surrender. Did the Richelieu participate in anything more than mop up operations? Parsecboy 16:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, at 1945 France was again importnant, unfortunately by 1945 decisive part of War was over and collapse of Germany was just matter of time. Also for most of the war free french were completely dependant of equipment what UK and USA gave them. I am sorry but France does not qualify even close as importnant as Big Three(UK, USSR, USA).--Staberinde 14:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In 1939, neither the USA nor USSR were even considering entering the war. France was one of the two major powers opposing Nazi Germany. Nobody is saying that its contribution to the defeat of the Axis equals that of the USA or USSR, but comparing it to Poland is ludicrous. Rama 14:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, France has bought some military equipment from the USA. So what? With this argument you can discard the UK contribution and the USSR contribution as they have been during a part of the war dependant on the US supply. I frankly do not understand why you want to remove France. Its contribution was really significant, certainly more than Poland one and not less than China one. Med 14:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, until November 1943 Free France used borrowed British equipment, from then they swicthed to lend-lease equipment. That is huge difference from UK and USSR who themselfly also had notable war industry all the time during war. Also lets look at casualties: France 92,000(1939-40, Battle of France)+58,000(1940-45 on Western Front)+20,000(French resistance)=170,000, Poland 66,300(Invasion of poland)+10,000(Polish Armed Forces in the West)+24,700(1st Polish Army alongside the USSR)+60,000(Polish resistance)=161,000. Minimal difference. So I support 3v2.--Staberinde 15:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * France did have a notable industry. They produced ships like the Richelieu or the Fantasque class (the fastest destroyer ever to this day), were capable of producing state of the art tanks (Char B1 bis) and capable airplanes. They switched to large amounts of leased equipment after the mainland was occupied, but the British did the same. Rama 16:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for your "casualty criteria", France lost much more people than Italy; but China lost much more men than the USA ; do you really want to suggest that we ignore Italy, that that the list of the Allies goes "USSR, China, Yugoslavia" ? Rama 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was speaking about Free Frech military industry which was limited to whatever they had in Chad and Cameroon. And where you studied WW II history? British mainland was never occupied(except Channel islands). Yes its true that british used some USA equipment, but they still had their own war industry also working all the time. Free France, same way as Poles, depended completely on equipment that what others gave to them as mainland industry was controlled by Vichy and Germany. There is reason why big three consisted of UK, USA and USSR and not anyone else.--Staberinde 19:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Free French held Tchad, for instance. But your point is moot, you cannot restrict "France in the Second World War" as "Free French" : France fought before the Free French (from 1939), and after them (after 1943). Rama 20:21, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that was my whole point in case you did not notice. France was major power only 1939-1940 and 1945. 1940-1944(those years include most decisive fighting) French participation was limited to Free France which was compared to UK, USA and USSR very small player.--Staberinde 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, your whole point is unsound. France was one of the major powers in 1939; her contribution to the war was on par to that of the UK until 1940; the entirety of her territory was never occupied; when the mainland was occupied, she managed to contribute more than token forces to the Allies; after liberation, she was a non-negligeable player; and she emerged the war as an indenpendant State, was represented at bot German and Japanese instruments of surrender, and was considered as one of the four victors in Europe. Comparing her to Poland is ludicrous, period. Rama 21:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, in case you haven't noticed, I do not want to add Poland, I want to remove France because French contribution in 1940-1944(which were decisive years) was not notably better then Polish contribution during that period. --Staberinde 10:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you haven't noticed, I say that comparing France and Poland is ridiculous. You just did it again. You're free to disagree, but you can't dismiss my objections as being irrelevant. Rama 11:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not notably better? Either you really don't know much about Free France or you must be joking, right? You have been demonstrated already that France contribution was significantly larger than Poland one. I won't repeat the arguments, i refer the current thread. Med 11:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, I refer you to my post following yours about the French contribution, where I showed that most of your claims are absurd exaggerations or apparently pre-war conditions, which are irrelevant when discussing the impact on the actual war. Parsecboy 11:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Listen, France was one of the two great powers to enter the war on the side of the Allies, along with the UK; it ended the war as an independent State and was recognised as one of the victors by the USSR, the USA and the UK.
 * If we do not take this into account, what prevents from contesting the presence of the USA ? It did not join the war before 1941, and their contribution was ultimately irrelevant since the USSR would have won in any case... We have to base ourselves on clear criteria, not personal opinions and evluations. Rama 12:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How very Eurocentric of you. What about the Pacific War? Surely you can't say the Soviets won that theatre too. And there is a case for the argument that without American supplies and materiel, the Soviets would've fallen to the German onslaught. The whole problem with listing the countries in the infobox is it always turns into these kinds of discussions, for any country other than the Big 3 (the Axis, for some reason, doesn't get this treatment). Parsecboy 12:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's the problem with starting to discuss our personal appreciations of how things "really" were. And for the record, I am not in favour of removing the USA, obviously ; yet you're starting making an arguments about the USSR versus Japan. While the only correct answer to this is "Historically the USA, France, UK and USSR were victors because they signed the surrender of the Axis powers and occupied Germany, period". Oh, that includes France ? How curious... Rama 12:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * PS : and yes, without necessary oil, without heavy tanks, with a huge part of their ressources spent on their Navy, Japan would get slaughered by USSR, of course. Rama 12:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that French blood was more valuable than Polish blood simply because France was lucky enough to be liberated by western allies while Poland got raped from both sides(Nazis and USSR). Well, I agree that France was little more importnant then Poland but difference of importnance between France and Poland is a lot smaller then difference between France and the rest of Big Three(UK, USA, USSR).--Staberinde 12:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Blood is blood, period.
 * As for your "difference of importnance", it depends on your metrics. If I say that what's relevant is having a large battleship in Tokyo bay in 1945, France if more important that USSR. If you say that what matters is the number of men killed between 1941 and 1943, Francs is a minor player. If you say that it's the number of men killed between 1939 and 1940, the USA are negligeable. Etc.
 * What we know for certain is that France was treated as equal by the USA, USSR and UK in 1945. The rest is personal opinion or Original Research. Rama 13:11, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Treated as equal in 1945? Now that is very disputable. And no need for original research, even few old photos can do the job. [Yalta conference] [Potsdam conference]. I don't see De Gaulle in those pictures.--Staberinde 13:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The seat at the UN security council is worth all the photographs in the world. And it's not the only symptom, you have the quadripartite occupation of Berlin and Germany, or the instruments of surrender. Rama 10:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But, the problem with using the UNSC seat and occupation of Germany argument is that it's contradicted by the fact that during the war, France was not included in any of the negotiations, not even at Potsdam in 1945. Still just Truman, Churchill, and good ole Uncle Joe. A picture's worth a thousand words. Parsecboy 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Photographs are photographs. UNSC seats shape the world.
 * By the way, our own article on the subject says "The Council seated five permanent members who were originally drawn from the victorious powers after World War II". Rama 16:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Since when do we cite Wikipedia? Moreover, your quote from the article is irrelevant. It doesn't state "the 5 major powers" or anything like that, just that they were victorious parties. They could've included Cuba instead of the UK and said the same thing. Parsecboy 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * UNSC seats shape post-war world. During war world was shaped be Big Three.--Staberinde 08:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Parsecboy, I did not suggest that we cite Wikipedia, I was merely pointing that consensus on other articles seems to be that France is one of the 5 most important victors.
 * Staberinde, either this is irrelevant, or you are suggesting that the seats at the UN were distributed without regard for the role of the countries during the Second World War, which is nonsense. Rama 09:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pointig out that contribution to war and importance in period 1939-1944 was not primary category for deciding who gets seat and who doesn't, that was decided by importance state had at 1945 when war was already ending. Analogy: after WW I Japan got permanent seat at council of League of Nations, but its clear that states like Romania, Serbia and Russia contributed more but did not get seat. Its well known fact that leading decisionmakers on Allied side were Big Three.--Staberinde 10:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now, let's not forget France did not only fight for itself, but the Free French drove with us to Germany. The French Resistance also lost a lot of people too. Petain did screw the Free French over a bit, but he was condemned by De Gaulle. So perhaps we should say the Free French were major players. --LtWinters 20:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Size of Infobox
I agree with Badger. Before we argue about France (and I'm sure probably China and Poland in the future) let's see everybody's feelings about the infobox being allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players. After that, we can go from there and say ok, I want US, Britatin, and USSR as allies, or france and china in addition to that, and etc. We should choose on one of those (allies and axis, a long list of everybody, or a list of major players) and then go from there. --LtWinters 15:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Long list should be immediately out of discussion. We can't even agree about short list, having long list will cause never ending debates and edit wars about adding different co-belligrents/puppet states/collaborator states/states that switched sides/etc.--Staberinde 15:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If we make a certain criteria for what countries to be included (which in my opinion should be any independent, non-puppet country that was formally at war with the other side and actively participated in military operations with more than a few soldiers for more than a few days), edit wars should not occur if we use a long list. In my opinion, collaborator states should be included only if they were actually at war, puppet states should not be included at all, co-belligrents should be included with a note that they were co-belligrents, and states that switched sides should be included on whatever side(s) they actively contributed to (which would, for example, put Finland on both sides and Yugoslavia on Allies only). 96T 18:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm curious why most of the combatants from the Western Hemisphere were excluded from your list.  Why only the US, Canada, and Brazil?  Seems rather oldworldcentric. Haber 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I could be ill-informed, but I was never aware of Brazilian troops actually participating in conflict. What troops did they supply to what areas? Also, what countries (other than Brazil, apparently) contributed forces to military campaigns? Parsecboy 21:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said before, before we continue argueing about who and what, can we try to keep our opinions to one of the three different possibilites (allies and axis, short list of major players, or one long list of everbody). I'm interested to see what everyone thinks of that, then we can go into long-winded debate of one of the three, obviously unless we chose axis and allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs)


 * By "long list", do you mean the example above (5 PageUps, on my screen)? Xaxafrad 05:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea, the one 96T wants and Badger said he may be willing to compromise for. --LtWinters 10:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The box is looking good right now. Haber 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Haber: ''I'm curious why most of the combatants from the Western Hemisphere were excluded from your list. Why only the US, Canada, and Brazil? Seems rather oldworldcentric.'' The countries I added weren't selected by me, they are the ones found in this template (as of whatever date I edited the infobox). US & Canada are quite obvious choices, eh? Brazil sent 25 000 soldiers to fight in Europe. Mexico sent 25 fighters with a personell of 300 to the Battle of Luzon, not a major contribution in my book. As for the other countries, I can't find anything in Wikipedia naming any active contribution from these countries (of course, if you've got more reliable sources naming military contributions from any of them, please inform about it), and they aren't listed at the casualties article. Like I said, my idea of a long list wouldn't list all the combatans, just those that actually were at war. 96T 18:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's nice that you're exploring Wikipedia, but please consider that it is a work in progress. For example, ten seconds of Google search will tell you that Cuba made an active contribution. Haber 19:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, obviously. But if you think Cuba's contribution was relevant enough, add it to the WW2 template before you demand it listed in any infobox proposal. 96T 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This gives me an idea for a compromise. Keep the 5v3 infobox, and the WWII template can be some sort of long list. Haber 20:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I see we've reverted back to the lame 5v3 list ordered presumably by number of troops. Which is sad given two of them werent even in the war for a healthy chunk of it even if their contribution in the end was significant. Ive never touched the infobox and I probably never will, but I'll just repeat my earlier position of all or none. And frankly the unilateralism of certain editors on this matter seems to me to be quite out of order. And Haber, I'm trying to figure out what definition of "compromise" you are using. What exactly have you compromised on? Demerphq 21:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "Plan for infobox stability" includes a number of compromises. Additionally the WWII template can be any way you like it. Haber 21:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Haber, you make me want to laugh. Either that or cry. What compromises does your plan contain? "Hirohito or Tojo" Ooh, cause that's the crux of the debate here. "Et al." or "and others". Yeah, cause that's a major stumbling block. "Allied Powers or Allies". Wow. Thanks for your munificence. That means a whole lot to me. Seriously, you need to crack open a dictionary and read the entry for compromise. You know what? Cause I'm such a nice guy, I'll help you out.
 * Taken from dictionary.com:
 * compromise: noun
 * a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.
 * I hope that was of some help. Parsecboy 00:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Right now, I'm not for or against Brazil. I've read the previous comments and I understand Haber doesnt want it because it didn't have much of an effect but 96T wants it because it sent 25,000 troops. Just wondering, are there any other reasons you guys feel that way? --LtWinters 23:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think you've got it backwards. Haber was complaining about the lack of more New World countries listed, 96T doesn't think the Spanish contribution of a few hundred pilots/aircrew is notable enough. He/she did, however, include Brazil in his/her initial proposal. Parsecboy 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ok. --LtWinters 01:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think that if combatants are listed then 3v2 is best, that way disputable cases like Italy, France and China can be removed and only states who's importance in big picture simply can not be disputed would stay.--Staberinde 10:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am totally opposed to the idea. Rama 11:23, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno, I like the idea of a 3 v 2. I mean, the name for Germany must be changed to the German empire, because of the land it incorporated. Hungary, which I believe was part of the German empire, or wait, no I actually don't think so but it still might be, lost 480,000 people, while Italy lost 460,000. Interesting, eh? --LtWinters 14:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasn't there someting about puppet states ?
 * And now, what sort of criteria warrants 3 against 2 ? With 5 against 3, we have obvious, undisputable criteria like "was part of the tripartite Axis" or "Had a seat at the UN security council".
 * I really hate it that people keep coming up with particular, arbitrary statistical criteria which give a distorted idea of history. For instance downplaying the role of Italy, when the role of fascism as an inspiration, intervention in the Spanish Civil war, agression against Abyssinia and generally undermining of the Society of Nations was obviously a path to the war. Rama 09:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Had a seat at the UN security council" is not really good criteria considering that it was created after war according political situation at 1945. For most importnant Allies "Big Three" is best and clearly most undisputable criteria. Italy thing is more tricky but here we can use argument that Italy changed sides and was only major power to do so.--Staberinde 14:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The seats at the UN security council are a direct consequence of the course of the war. Why give France a seat if it was not a major winner of the war? Believe it or not but those seats were not given in pure friendship but due to France importance during the war, we are talking about international politics here. Moreoever according to which criteria do you consider the "big three" undisputable? Losses? Date of entrance in the war? State at the end of the war? Because frankly this is extremely disputable. Med 16:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you seriously saying that there is an Allied country that had a larger impact on the outcome of the war than the UK, USSR, and USA? If so, I have two questions for you: what are you smoking, and where can I get it? I personally would consider the Big 3 undisputable in all categories except length of time fighting. Parsecboy 16:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Several things. First, i would be really glad if you can avoid insults when you have no argument to answer. Second, i repeat so you can understand: the "big three" is completely disputable, and not only about the length of time fighting criteria. Selecting only three countries is utterly arbitrary and based on no objective criteria. I still fail to see an objective criteria from your part that would include UK, USA and USSR while specifically excluding China and France and all other countries. Your consideration that this is un undisputable criteria (what criteria by the way? "big three" is a selection not a criteria, to prove that a=b you shouldn't make the hypothesis that a=b) is of no interest here. The objective criteria: got a seat at the UN security council is completely objective and fair. Med 17:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you can dispute the Big 3 as the most important Allied countries of the war. I wasn't talking in criteria, I was responding to your argument that the Big 3 are disputable. I don't want to exclude China or France unless we're going to use a short list like Haber wants. UN council seats are hardly as relevant as crucial participation in the important campaigns, industrial output, etc. You know, the things that actually won the war. Parsecboy 17:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, you mean things like having fought on many theaters on several continents during the war and having a more than one million men army invading Germany? :) Med 18:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me, Med, in which campaigns did the French tip the balance? What campaigns would've faltered without French troops stiffening up those Yanks and Limeys? Parsecboy 19:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, among other things i can cite the battle of Bir Hakeim, which basically saved the british troops in north africa from being destroyed. French troops played an important role at the battle of Monte Cassino, they liberated Corsica, they liberated numerous cities including Paris and Strasbourg, they were an important part of Operation Dragoon also including a battleship and played a crucial role during Operation Cobra, they invaded southern Germany capturing among other cities Karlsruhe and Stuttgart. I don't even mention the number of axis units destroyed. I suggest you to read Military history of France during World War II, 2nd Armored Division (France) and some of the numerous articles in . Med 19:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets put your significant battles in context, shall we? The significance of the delaying action at Bir Hakeim is disputable. By that time, Rommel was overextended and out of gas, as had happened to him in 1941, and to Auchinleck in early 1942. Corsica wasn't an important battle, plain and simple. If I recall correctly, it was the Polish II Corps that proved decisive at Monte Casino. The Free French liberated Paris because the Americans and British let them, to boost morale. I'll give you Dragoon, but that had minimal strategic significance, in terms of destroying German units in combat. By the time Dragoon actually kicked off, the Germans had mostly retreated from Southern France. What role did the Free French have in Op Cobra? It was the American breakout of Normandy. If you're talking about resistance fighters, it's no more notable than Polish resistance or the Yugoslav partisans. As for units destroyed, I'm sure the figure is dwarfed by the combat record of the USSR. The invasion of southern Germany wasn't really significant, in terms of defeating Germany. Before you say "now, just you wait a minute", remember Germany was more or less defeated by late '43-'44. After the Normandy landings, von Rundstedt himself argued the proper course of action was to "make peace, you fools". Parsecboy 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't: influnece at 1945 =/= importance and influence during war. Analogy: Same way we can not use criteria of who got permanent membership in League of Nations council for deciding World War I infobox because that would mean including Japan and forgetting Russia which would be ridiculous. So post-war influence can not be used for measuring importance during war.--Staberinde 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This would be an argument if an important country didn't have a seat like Russia after WWI, which was politically isolated at this time, but here the countries we are talking about got a seat at the UNO security council. The situation is not really comparable. After WII no country was politically isolated if i remember correctly. Med 18:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you try to make that: A(UNSC members are importnant)=>B(UNSC membership is good criteria)=>A(UNSC members are importnant). Sorry, it really does not work that way. UN security council permanent membership, similarly to League of Nations council permanent membership, was formed by post-war influence, not by actual importance during war.--Staberinde 18:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you were trying to exclude China and France based on a fallacious comparison. What i intented to show is that you can't compare with the LON after WWI, we all know the reasons why Russia didn't get a seat. The seat at the UNO security council was based on the course of the war. China and France didn't become suddenly so important that they needed a seat at the security council. And i still fail to see any objective criteria selecting 3 specific countries out of many. To me it seems only like a mix of francophobia and sinophobia. Med 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can make comparison, we can exclude Russia's case, still Japan that got seat clearly contributed less in WW I then Serbia or Romania who were among victors but did not get seat. Analogy still stands. That francophobia and sinophobia argument is ridiculous considering that im one of the few people who cant have potential bias for pushing my own country in this case simply because my state would not qualify to infobox by any criteria.--Staberinde 19:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw, dont you happen to be french? :P--Staberinde 19:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Med, I don't think it's going to help your case to go after the Big 3. I could maybe see your point if you want to argue that France was number 4 or 5 though.  Certainly from 1939-1940 France was number 1, with an army that was arguably as powerful as Germany's on paper and a superior navy, and huge political importance.  But the war dragged on for another 5 years after France was occupied, and during this time the USA, USSR, and UK were the heavy hitters. Haber 19:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no point in limiting the infobox to 3 instead of 5, especially that i still wait for an objective criteria selecting only those 3 countries whereas 5 actually stand out of the crowd. Med 19:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To be clear i am in favour of the current infobox which i find nearly perfect. :) Med 20:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is your mistake, Big Three stand out, they were undisputable leaders and main contributers of allied side, they made most importnant decisions. China and France come in second group and are closely followed by Poland, Yugoslavia and Canada.--Staberinde 20:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Under which criteria, can you tell me? And why do you want to limit to 3 instead of the logical 5? You guys are very quick to establish ranks but are unable to give an objective criteria. Why is it so important for you to erase China and France? Is there so little hard drive left that those two major contributors need to be forgotten? Med 20:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do not know how Big Three stands out then im wondering why are you editing World War II page anyway? Do I need to explain you about every member of Big three(UK, USSR, USA) separately why they were much more importnant then France? Also if we include France then it becomes tough to keep out next preteders like Poland(no, UNSC as post-war creation is not an argument).--Staberinde 20:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, with your "logical 5" is that it's not so logical. Read the archives to properly understand the issue, and various points of view. Parsecboy 20:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, d'accord. I am perfectly fine with the infobox as it is now too. --LtWinters 22:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom Debate
Just for a change from the lengthy debate over the relative importance of France vs Poland, I'm going to renew my claim that the UK was not a major participant in World War II. The UK would've starved without the support of her increasingly independent colonial dominions and the US. And let's not forget the pacifistic attitude of both the UK and France that allowed Hitler to achieve so much, and so easily, in those early days. Was it really a war before the last half of 1941? Was it really a world war before the last half of 1941? No, not technically. Imagine if Japan and Germany actually worked together, and the Luftwaffe had flown Zeros in the Battle of Britain. If Italy should be downplayed because it needed Germany's support, so should the UK be downplayed because it needed the support of the US (see North African campaign). Xaxafrad 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but this is utter non-sense. The empires of the respective countries were part of them, so dismissing the British Empire is like say that Rome was never important.
 * The pacifist attitude which you denounce is, well, before the war. So it is irrelevant. I won't underline that by this criteria, you're putting the USA and USSR below France and UK. Rama 18:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I favor UK, because they took 480,000 deaths, fought the axis longer than we did, lost more territory than we did, gave more aid to other nations to protect against German invasion (although this failed), their economy was so much more financially devoted to the war than ours at the end of the war (an example is the Greek civil war, and they were so poor they couldn't help the good guys so we had to i think). What did the US do that they didn't match or do better? They lost more people (of much a SMALLER population), put more money to the war effort, and fought the Germans longer. All respect Xaxafrad, you say the UK let Germany acheive so much, well, we just said "ain't our problem," while the UK was trying to limit it's advance, Chamberlain was just doing what he thought would avoid war, which was on everyone's mind except obviously the axis' because after WWI nobody wanted more war, including the US. --LtWinters 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Pacifism is not really an argument considering that from "big Three" UK was only state that declared war on Axis on its own, both USSR and USA joined later and only after direct agression aganist them. Also we can not forget that it was Royal Navy which kept Kriegsmarine and Regia Marina in bay and blockaded axis powers. Also battle of Britain and Battle of Atlantic. Also UK fought together with USA in Europe at France and Italy and strategically bombed Germany. Also UK fought Germans and Italians in Greece and in Egypt/Lybia, defated Italy in East-Africa, defeated pro-german Iraq, overran Iran with Soviets, fought Japanese at Malaya and Burma and fought in naval war at pacific. Together with France UK also fought at Norway and at France. And UK part in decryption of Enigma was also critical.--Staberinde 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading Staberinde's comment, I find myself in favour of moving UK at the top of the list of the Allies ! ^^ Rama 09:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. Very strongly. If there is any country that deserves to be in the infobox and deserves to be at the top its the UK. If there is to be a list it should be ordered by date of entry. Especially if a nations presence on the list at all is being done based on size of contribution or size of losses (which imo is much of a muchness) then the order most definitely should be by date of entry. Demerphq 21:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * LtWinters while I dont think you are deliberately trying to annoy anybody by the use of "we" to refer to the USA I think you should realize that to those of us that arent citizens of the USA it is kind of irritating. "We" are from many different countries and frankly in the context of this discussion where one of the objections that is regularly being raised is an apparent USA bias it is particularly inappropriate. Please try to keep this in mind, cheers. Demerphq 21:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * "Major participant" is where you draw the line, right? Yes, out of the Big Three the UK was the least important player, but it doesn't alter UK being percieved as a major participant (and rightfully so, in my opinion) by the majority of historians. With respect, Ko Soi IX 02:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "least important player" simply makes not sense. It depends on your criteria. You could as well say that the UK is the most important player because it was the only strong power resisting the Axis in 1940. Rama 09:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The criteria are that of the overall war effort. War effort is a synthetic term; I use it here as an amalgalm of enemy soldiers/equipment taken out and the industrial/military strenght of the participating nation - all in absolute numbers, not relative to anything. Such concept is, of course, not without fault. For instance, while the quality of Finnish troops was superb, on par with the best German troops, the Italians and the Romanians turned out to have troops of poorer quality, and so forth. However, approximations are possible. Thus the current design of the infobox (USSR, USA, UK, China, France) seems fine with me, as it is accurate, although, of course, not definitive - for instance, in my opinion it's likely that China's war effort was greater than that of UK. However, considering the endless debates such an infobox raises, it's quite possible that the best solution is the "Allies" and "Axis" as opposed to country names, despite it's deficiencies. As for "UK on top" - need I reming you that the Soviet Union took out over 75% of European axis (and a considerable part of Asian axis)? Or that the USA had the largest industry in the world? What you are saying about "1940" doesn't seem to be a valid counter-argument. Or are you refering to the Dunkerque "operation"? In the overall allied war effort, british (and commowealth) effort was dwarfed by those of the Soviet Union (especially Soviet Union) and the United States. It doesn't mean UK wasn't important, nor does it somehow decline the honour to the brave british tankers at El-Alamein (1/17 of Stalingrad in terms of Axis "taken out") or the brave british infantrymen at the Bulge (1/10 of Stalingrad in terms of Axis "taken out" - and not just by the brits too) or the brave british pilots, or sailors, or artillerists, etc. etc. All this just has to be put in perspective. UK was less important than the Soviet Union or the United States. That is all. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Xaxafrad, where are you? It appears as though 6 of us 7 want the UK to be included. Why aren't you responding if you feel how you do?--LtWinters 14:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If I don't get any support, I won't pursue this contentious topic. I don't have anything against the UK or Italy. I just try to call 'em like I see 'em, until I learn something new. If Italy's navy had been comparable to the UK's, or even Germany's, maybe their army would've been correspondingly comparable and more editors would've spoken up in favor keeping Italy on the Axis list of combatants. Xaxafrad 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of combatants
Actualy I remember that for quite long time combatants(at that time there was 3v3 and later 4v3 after adding china) in infobox were listed in order of their joining the war. And in my opinion it is best solution espcially considering the fact that some states joined years after start of war.--Staberinde 09:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It has the advantage of being a firm and objective criterion which does not rely on personal interpretations of the intrinsic merits of such or such country. Rama 09:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree that a chronological order would be the best option in this case. Brisv e  gas  10:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I disagree and would like to see the infobox be based on who joined first, because many of us disagree I would be willing to have it be in alphabetical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtWinters (talk • contribs)
 * See this is how we always end up back at Axis/Allies. A few people want to prove the point that the UK was fighting alone two years before the US formally declared war. Does this point really need to be made in the infobox?  What are you going to do with China and France then, or when people want to add Poland? Haber 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That depends if we add France and China or not. In case you did not notice I proposed 3v2(UK, USSR, USA vs Germany, Japan) for infobox. Btw, for China can be always used date 1941, 9 December then it officially joined allies.--Staberinde 13:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now for Pete's sake people, does it really matter the order? Not too many readers are too concerned with who is listed first, but I mean now I think we should leave this matter to AFTER we solve the combatent problem. When people see 5 discussions going on of us all argueing different issues which can only really be solved in a certain order, people say oh this will never work, welp I guess allies and axis then. --LtWinters 21:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the list is incomplete then the order is most definitely important. Demerphq 21:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. Someone tell me what the order is to signify. Who did the most work? Who lost the most people? Who fought the longest? Well, we can't determine that. Half the economic production was not documented, along with how many people died, both are huge estimates. And in the order of who declared war first (which is what I want) might not work, because I mean, look at France, they declared war on September 3rd 1939 but didn't fight till May 10 1940. --LtWinters 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume that the people in Saar, at the battle of Narvik, aboard warships were foreigners wearing French uniforms... Rama 15:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is that if inclusion in the list is basedon one criteria (such as 'major' status) the order of the list should NOT be the same criteria. For instance if its major status to get in, it should be date of entry. Actually date of declaration is the only totally objectively independent criteria that i can think of. Just about any other criteria could be challenged on some ground or another. I could even imagine an obstinate type quibbling over alphabetical ordering. Demerphq 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization
About a week ago, we had a different organization for this article. You can see if yuo go to the history of the article, it would be like the Atlantic june 1944-may 1945 or the Eastern Front June 1941-February 1942. This was changed twice since then, and is much different now, although with the same content. Personally, I liked it the old way. Any thoughts?--LtWinters 21:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay personally, dont use Lt.Winters as a username, its disrespectful. Second of all, this orginization of the article is fine the way it is, and I will revert what ever you do, even if I have to get banned---Dan


 * 72.40.132.53 may have a point: LtWinters is an inappropriate username. Taken from Wikipedia:Usernames:


 * Misleading usernames that imply relevant, misleading things about the user, including but not limited to:
 * Usernames that imply the user is an admin or other official figure on Wikipedia, or of the Wikimedia foundation.
 * Usernames that match the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person, unless you verifiably are that person, in which case please note this on your user page. Wikipedians with articles is a list of such users.


 * This page, however, is not the place for this discussion.Parsecboy 22:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * True. I see how it is disrespectful, although how I got it is a whole different story, which did not contain Richard Winters. With all respect to Major Winters, I'll change it in the future. If you have any concern of this matter, please remind me on my talk page, as I'll probably forget with Finals coming up. --LtWinters 00:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Declaration by United Nations
For those that would prefer a long list in the infobox, I am offering this as a compromise, provided that the order remain exactly the same as in the original document:

Declaration by United Nations ...A Joint Declaration by the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, Yugoslavia.

Any Allies joining the war after this declaration would therefore be excluded from the infobox. Using this document might make some sense because it was the formal agreement of the Allies to fight together and was consented to by all signatories. Haber 12:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That list doesnt qualify simply because it lists nations who contributed little or nothing like Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti and Honduras and at same time does not include Brazil which in reality was only Latin American nation which contributed notable amount of troops.--Staberinde 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The signers thought enough of them to list them right alongside of Canada and Yugoslavia. Haber 13:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With this list, we have Luxembourg and Haiti, but not France. Very representative indeed. Rama 14:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Rama is correct, this list is ridiculous. Lots of Central American states who did nothing notable in the list, and some states that actualy contributed to war effort forgotten.--Staberinde 14:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * you'll notice that India is listed, while it was part of the British Empire at the time. I am tempted to fill in a complain against the British Empire for abuse of sockpuppets :) Rama 15:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we may be missing a few... seriousla...--LtWinters 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom of Page Thing
Yea, fix the title if there's a word for that thing at the bottom of the WWII page, because there are ronly 29 nations listed under axis and allies, and I believe we say over 61 nations participated. Why is that? --LtWinters 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Template:World War II Haber 16:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Yea that thing.


 * What's wrong with the title? Xaxafrad 02:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not the title, it's just we said there are 61 nations involved who sent troops. THen why is there only 29 nations? --LtWinters 22:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese war II
Did WW2 really start in Asia in 1937? It's my basic understanding that Japan had been annexing Chinese territory since the first Sino-Japanese war in 1894. Japan went to war with no one else until 1941, when she went to war with everyone, thinking the UK was preoccupied by Germany and expecting the best planned surprise attack would knock the US out of the water. I'm going to move some text around reflect 7 Dec 1941 as the starting date of World War II in Asia, and push to accept this as the starting date of WW2 in general, given the historical military ventures in Europe and Asia. The First Sino-Japanese War, the Second Sino-Japanese War, the first Great War, the second Great War, all started by immoral opportunists. Xaxafrad 05:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if your analysis is historically correct, I'm not sure such creative perspective is a good thing in an article meant for beginners and general public like this one. I suggest you refrain from making drastic changes to the actual consensus. The Japanese invasion of summer 1937 was made in a much more larger scale than the precedent ones. As for the official beginning of WWII, this decision made by occidental historians is now a general worlwide rule. --Flying tiger 17:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

western and eastern propaganda?
I thought this article well written. As a Japanese-American, I would like to bring attention to a few minor questionable statements within the context of this article. Use of propaganda is not described accurately enough. I am not trying to guess your intentions nor do I want to pursue that endeaver. However, use of propaganda in describing Japanese media may be perceived as the unstated assumption being that because Japan lost or were the "bad guys" according to western "propaganda", then all of their films or media were all propaganda. I'm assuming this assumption also is that the U.S. was incapable of such. What specific definition of "propaganda" are you refferring to and please state if you are going to use this word because "propaganda" is not used commonly and carries with it a perception of dishonesty. Probably be best to take your time and state your definiton and explain why it sounds as if you are stating that anything pertaining to the forwarding of the Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere idea is propaganda. Was it certain material you are referring to that is considered propaganda or are you making the assumption that all World War II Japanese materials are propaganda. I don't want to go into a comparitive analysis of Cold War and World War II propaganda. In addition, you are not implying that brutality in the process of achieving goals eliminates the validity of a self-proclaimed intended goal of a country, are you? Simon Bolivar and Abraham Lincoln had ideas of unification or nationalism which were perceived as indivisible. These preceding men are admirable individuals for making a United States for European-Americans and a Latin America for Latin Americans. Asian Co-Prospeity has equitable merit as those and many other forms of mytholo.. excuse me, nationalisms that have and still exist. Nationalism is an instrument used by every country for obtaining goals regardless if those goals pertain to an extension of aggression outside one nation's borders. Brutality has no bearance on the intended goals of a country, it should be looked down upon and emphasized when necessary, but brutality are acts of a military in the process of obtaining political goals. The responsibile Party is the military and political system which allowed this to occur. Blaming the Japanese people for these acts by attacking the ideology they adhered to equates into stating religion and those whom believed in the civilizing missions of western culture during imperialism when taking colonies by force and setting up uncountable puppet governments were culpable of the genocide of the Native Americans and numerous innocent people across the world. It also equates into all Americans responsible for the dead in the Viet-Nam, Korean, and Iraqi War. Or frightengly, all American whites were responsible for slavery and the following negro holocaust leading up to the 70s. If it has in fact stopped because it seems the modern method is discrete discrimination. Japan, like the U.S. in Viet-Nam, made the mistake of seperating military and politics. In both circumstances, both countries' military forces used undescribable genocidal acts of horror to obtain a political goal which could not be achieved by that methodology :)Therefore, make a distinction as to why brutality of a military allowed by intentional negligence by the political system in control at the time of these acts is equitable to the assertion that each and every individual or "Japan" if we really want to emphasize nationalism, are responsible for the attempts of genocide in China, Phillippines, and elsewhere. Here is a shocker, many Japanese could have imagined an Asia for Asians that could effectively compete with western interests in both economic and political aspects. unfortunately, we see Japan-bashing or anti-Japanese hatred expressed perhaps unintentionally because of the effects of this bias taught in the western educational system post World War II. This propaganda has blinded the U.S. from acknowledging real problems it has had in the past in its policies. The U.S. emphasizes Pearl Harbor in the history of World War II to create a continuity of Pearl Harbor to WW II. In western classes this is also taught to little kids. Granted, an initial act of aggression is and should be cause for retaliation (not excessive force (beginning of nuclear war)). Nevertheless, we see that by emphasizing Pearl Harbour, western historiography has succeeded in creating an image of continuity of WW II history beginning at Japanese and Nazi take-overs of colonies, Pearl Harbour, then the rest of the war and aftermath. Antes de WW II or before WW II is purposely neglected because if one looks at western aggression in Asia, one might ask, well did anyone think that Japan may feel like being that they were the foremost national power in that hemisphere, they felt they deserved the right to defend and unite the interests of all asians against western imperialsm? What countries were taken over by Western powers in Asia? What countries were in a position to force the "white man" out? Because western propaganda emphasizes the "evil" acts of the Japanese during Pearl Harbour, the U.S. and specifically Americans have failed to recognize a problem with U.S. foreign policy which has come back to bite us in the buttocks today. The real interesting question is would the U.S. have tolerated an Asian power taking over Mexico and implacing a puppet government on the U.S.'s southern border during thses times? Why did we expect Japan to tolerate it? Worse, even today we cant seem to understand why an independent and nationalistic organization such as Al Quaeda will not tolerate it. Now is the western or eastern version of WW II propaganda correct and why?

[edit] OOOpps Thought to mention that Luis Taruc and Ho Chi Minh have mentioned that their treatment during World War II was harsher from the collaborators of the west and Japan than the actual Japanese or westerners. That leaves China and where else as premises as treatment by Japanese being harsher than western governments. I thought it was collaboraters that Thomas Babington Macalauy made popular as an instrument of imperialism and the very model the U.S. and other countries copied. Let's break western propaganda here, asians wanted neither westerners nor other easterners running their countries. They wanted independence for themselves, sorry to shock american hubris :)

Defining Allies and Axis
Italy, Hungary and Romania are defined as being allies at the bottom of the page. How can this be? My history tells me, they fought on the side of Germany. If you want to say they were allies, as they were defeated then all Axis powers eventually become allies. I would suggest that Australia could be considered an Ally, as you knew all along what side she was fighting on, but not Italy. Wallie 10:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)