Talk:World War II/Archive Combatants

Infobox ...
I think that this, or similar box (specifically the combattants part) would be better. Theres little to discuss about the fact that Japan, Germany US, GB and SU were the leaders of their "factions" but the was wasn't just Italy, Japan, Germany vs. US, SU and GB.


 * You think wrong. Please do some more research as to the purpose and spirit of infoboxes. --NEMT 21:48, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Because of the lenght of the conflict there has been a continuous shift of power. At first the French had more troops than Britain, but they were rapidly defeated but untill that moment they were a major participant ... Same goes for itally ... they were defeated relatively early while again others joined the war later. Rex 18:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem with this is that it over-simplifies things. Belgium is mentioned here, but not China and India. I would contend that India was more important than Belgium, as it fought (usually out-fought) the Italians, the Germans and the Japanese. The Indians were involved in major battles, usually the nasty ones that really count. Again, it is easiest to stick with the major powers, who were the United States, Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan and the United Kingdom in that order. The war only became a world war when Germany declared war on the United States. Wallie

You're not supposed to look at how it looks now, it's a working concept. But if you don't like over simplifying you must certainly oppose the current box. Rex 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am saying is that if you bring in this level of detail, it can become inaccurate, or at least start a complicated debate. As mentioned, Canada and Poland will be included. And then everyone will want to bring in their country too. Wallie 21:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

So? Rex 21:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So it doesn't quite work, does it? Wallie 21:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it work? Rex 22:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell you why. There are at least 60 countries involved in WW2. That means 60 countries multiplied by 7 years. That's an awful lot of flags! (around 420?). You might have to include Hawaii too. After all, it was invaded... Wallie 21:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My idea is to include the countries that notabily engaged in combat (per time period).That would limit the numbers greatly. Rex 17:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Society#Military_conflict_infobox

Haber 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most of them were engaged in combat all the time. Take India for example. They fought solidly from 1939 right through to 1945, and in Asia, Europe and Africa. The same applies to Australia. They fought in all these places plus Australia and the Pacific sea battles too. There are a lot of other countries that never stopped fighting. This has to include all countries, not just current EU members. Wallie 20:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case perhaps a grade system can be made, in which major, secundary and minor participants are represented. Rex 20:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, or we could leave things the way they are, you know, the way that works just fine and isn't ridiculously cluttered or byzantine. --NEMT 00:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, many people would think their own country was a major participant every year. I'm sure the Chinese would, given the number of people they lost. Your own country fought the Germans, including while occupied. So how could you leave the Netherlands out in any year. (OK maybe 1939, but no others, please). Wallie 18:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence the major minor difference. Rex 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should include Poland in the axis after 1939, as Poland declared war on USSR in late 1939? Just joking, although they did declare war on the USSR, but Polish military effort was insignificant (so was the French) - as in reality over 95% of axis were taken out by the Big Three and China, with at least 75%-80% of Germans and their european allies and up to a 1/4 of Japanese and their asian allies were taken out by the USSR. People who claim that Polish, Dutch, French etc. war effort on the allied side was significant either don't understand what happened during WW2 or are lyers. If there were 100 evil monkeys, and I killed 1 while 4 other guys killed the rest, claiming that my effort was SIGNIFICANT is bull. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I've added Canada and Canada's Commander to the main info box...it should please the rest of us Canadians, and quite frankly it should be there. Thanks, this is not intended as vandalism but to show that canada was involved.

Missing Combatants
For combatants Canada and a bunch more like France etc, should be added. It is disrespectful to these nations which lost tens of thousands of men to not even be listed! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs)

For combatants, Canada and a bunch more like France etc, should be added. It is ignorant, and disrespectful to these nations which lost tens of thousands of men to not even be listed! France was the biggest player aganst Germany prior to her defeat. Canada took huge losses at Normandy, etc, etc. Australians fought and died agianst the Japanese, and the Germans in N. Africa. You might not be able to list them all, but these are needed. BTW, italy became allied and was never a major threat to the allies, unlike France's potential threat to Germany. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.100.171 (talk • contribs)


 * Two words: and others. --NEMT 16:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? Italy never a threat to the allies? That if I may say so is complete rubbish, and an insult to Italians and those that fought them. Incidentally my uncle was killed in the desert by Italian troops, so to me that comment is bordering on offensive. The Italians put up a hell of a fight in the desert. They completely overran the Allied positions on a number of occasions. Wallie 19:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Populations - Italy 44 million; Canada 11 million; Australia 7 million. Haber 04:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Canada and China
Greetings, Kurt,

The reason for not adding Canada is that at that time in history they were not a soveraign nation. Decisions about whether or not China was a "major power" are necessarily subjective, but Canada was still officially part of the United Kingdom. Canadian soldiers fought bravely in the war, and I would be the last to argue that Canada was not influential, but since they were not a sovereign nation, adding Canada would, IMO, be a redundancy. Additionally, the ROC was a major staging ground and area of activity. While they may not have been terribly effective combatants (mainly due to a lack of equipment, certainly not to a lack of courage), that was where the Pacific Theater of WWII started.

Now, I am more than happy to hear your counter arguments ... but let us, and the community at large, please decide the question before changes are made. Justin Eiler 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * While Canada's full separation was not complete until 1982, Canada was a sovereign nation in 1939 and not part of the United Kingdom. From our Canada article:


 * "In 1919, Canada joined the League of Nations in its own right, and in 1931 the Statute of Westminster confirmed that no act of the British Parliament would extend to Canada without its consent. At the same time, the worldwide Great Depression of 1929 affected Canadians of every class; the rise of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Alberta and Saskatchewan presaged a welfare state as pioneered by Tommy Douglas in the 1940s and 1950s. After supporting appeasement of Germany in the late 1930s, Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King secured Parliament’s approval for entry into the Second World War in September 1939, after Germany invaded Poland."


 * Contrast this with the situation in 1914 where Canada did not issue separate declaration of war. Lisiate 21:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see sufficient context defining this debate (has a portion of text been deleted?) but it is not even remotely accurate to suggest that Canada was "still officially part of the United Kingdom" or "not a sovereign nation" at the outbreak of WWII, if that is what is being suggested. Dominion status (conferred in the 19th century I believe) officially separated Canada from the UK, and as noted above the 1931 Statute of Westminster officially and specifically asserted Canadian (among others) sovereignty. Justin, you are a bit confused, I think. Badgerpatrol 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's quite possible I am confused--to the ill credit of the American education system, my knowledge of Canadian history is less than complete. However, the context ofthe debate is visible in the edit history of the article. A user named User:Kurt Leyman has removed the China flag from the infobox and replaced it with the Canadan flag under the argument that China was not a "major power."


 * And if Canada was indeed a sovereign nation, then there may be a problem with the Patriation article, which states the following:


 * Canada, as a former British colony, was until 1982 governed by a constitution that was a British law and could be changed only by an Act of the British Parliament. Patriation thus specifically refers to making the constitution amendable by Canada only, with no role for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to play in the amending process. Hence, patriation is associated with the adoption of the Canadian amending formula, and the corresponding acquisition of sovereignty.


 * According to patriation, Canada was not fully sovereign until 1982. If the article is in error or I have misunderstood it, I would appreciate clarification from thoe more knowledgeable. However, I do still contend that China was a "major power," in the war. Justin Eiler 07:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the edit to which you refer and pieced the rest together. First of all, I would suggest that the Chinese contribution to WWII was greater than that of Canada and on that basis we might contend that China was a major power. For my part, I would ditch including any countries in the infobox and simply link to separate articles/sections on "the Allies" and "the Axis". As for Canada; the 1931 Statute of West. states: "No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the commencement of this Act shall extend or be deemed to extend, to a Dominion as part of the law of that Dominion, unless it is expressly declared in that Act that that Dominion has requested, and consented to, the enactment thereof.". That is sovereignty. A glitch of the 1931 statute and those before it was that it was an Act of the UK parliament, not that if Canada; the 1982 Canada Act addressed this. It is worth noting that aspects of UK law- especially constitutional law regarding succession- cannot in fact be changed without the assent of the Canadian parliament, and others throughout the Commonwealth. I don't think anyone seriously challenges the sovereignty of the UK on this basis. Similarly, the UK's highest court is in Luxembourg. In any case, I'm not certain how legal semantics re sovereignty are actually important; the real issue is full independence, which in Canada was assured well before 1939. Your point re the infoxbox may be correct; your reasoning isn't however. We can however argue the issue of UK sovereignty if you like? ;-) Badgerpatrol 08:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * lol No, thank you--arguments about sovereignty are enough to make my head spin. :-)


 * But I do thank you for the clarification--this makes quite a bit more sense. Justin Eiler 13:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel that Canada should be placed on it's own as our contribution was extremely significant to WWII. The logisitics of sovereignty seem irrelevant when the people during the war and to this day know it was Canada that was so successful and have not lumped us in as "British". They don't have museums in France, Belgium and the Netherlands for "the British", but for Canadians, and Canada was home to the Dutch Royals during the war, not "Britain". Still today, people in Europe praise Canadians for our outstanding efforts that really did surpass many of the nations that are more noted on the list, which has been composed as such simply because they were sovereign at the time. Our efforts were marked too in WWI and that really opened the door for us being recognized as not just some British Colony. I'm sorry but for me as a Canadian this feel like another stab in a long line of them from Americans and Brits who are bitter or uninformed about how truly astounding Canadians were in the war and how much Europe still praises our nation. Rapunzel In Van 08:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a general truth about the second world war that the "British" contribution in fact consisted of very many separate and important contributions from the (then) empire forces, and one could particularly highlight the armed forces of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and India. All of the troops of these countries were committed at the forefront of key battles and conducted themselves bravely and in defiance of any resentments between them and the "mother" country. In addition of course, many brave people from occupied Europe, particulary the Polish and Free French forces also fought in Britain and alongside "British" soldiers, airmen and sailors. The term "British" should perhaps serve as a catch-all for these many nations, or as some might see it, a euphemism. MarkThomas 18:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

So because Canada was a part of the UK it wasn't a sovereign nation? Therefore today Scotland would be considered not a sovereign nation? please answer that. Socialismo01 4:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it seems fairly obvious that Canada should be on the list of 'Major Allied Powers'... Canada's name and flag are still not present on the list, and all arguments pointing to why it shouldn't be there have been pointed out to be wrong, so why isn't it up there?!?
 * See section dedicated to Canada only further down--Will2k 01:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Canada was NOT OFFICIALLY PART OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. It was DEFINATELY SOVEREIGN, it was its own nation since confederation in the late 1800's, and had been a Colony, a Dominion, and during WW2 was a Commonwealth Realm AS IT IS STILL TODAY. I don't know WHERe you got that false piece of information, it hadn't been part of the UK since before confederation. During WW2, it had full control over its own legal system, government, and foreign defense policies following the statue of westminster. Seriously, look up the facts, buddy. Canada WAS sovereign, and WAS NOT part of the United Kingdom. You obviously have not studied the subject, and obviously are not a Canadian. So, I am adding Canada to the list, as IT WAS SOVEREIGN. NOT PART OF THE UK!. It had been its own country since 1867. Also, the part in that article about it being influenced by British Law, was about something totally different, Canada was a sovereign nation since WAY LONG BACK, however its law system was and still is today based from Britains due to it being a Commonwealth Realm, just like Australia and New Zealand. It had a few links that were directly controlled by Britain, and then after the statue of westminster, only one remained, which had to do with the governer general or something of that lot, nothing to do with sovereignity, or it as its own nation, its own defense laws, its own constitution ETC. To say it was part of the UK is very wrong. That one final DIRECT link to the United Kingdom's parliament was removed in the 1980's as you see there, replaced by a unique one, however it had long since been its own nation. And definately WAS during WW2. RyanRP 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Canada
I believe that Canada should be included in the immediate list of allies. Canada was a Nation as of it's confederation in 1867. Also I would like it if there was information on them in the whole of it since Canada played a big part.


 * Canada's population was 11 million, at least an order of magnitude less than the major Allied Powers. Please provide a reason that they should be included and other minor Allies should not. Haber 03:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1st i wouldn't consider any of the allies minor. 2nd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada_during_the_Second_World_War | read the stuff from that link and you will know why Canada was also a major Allie. Also Canada was in the war before either Russia(USSR) or the USA. It's about what the country CONTRIBUTED TO the allie cause not its population. After this please respond with your thoughts.

Your Statement is saying because it had a low population it wasn't a major influence on the war. That is certainly not true. More then 40 000 canadians sacrificed there lives during world war 2. The war created an unprecedented demand for military as well as civilian goods, since Canada was Britain’s principal supplier of war materials until the United States entered the war. To cope with these demands, in April 1940 the Canadian government created the Department of Munitions and Supply, headed by C.D. Howe. Under Howe’s direction, the government created 28 Crown corporations for large-scale production of manufactured goods. Production expanded rapidly: by 1942, Canada was producing more than 4,000 aircraft a year. In September 1939, Canada declared the state of war. Standing up for its allies and summoning all its human, industrial and financial resources in an ongoing war effort, Canada mobilized the mightiest military force in its history. At sea, on land and in the air, Canada was involved in the great campaigns that led to the fall of the German Reich and brought back peace.


 * On D-Day, June 6, 1944, “Operation Overlord”, the long-awaited invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe, began with Allied armies from the U.S., Britain and Canada landing on the coast of Normandy. On D-Day, the 3rd Troops of the Queen's Own Rifles, 3rd Canadian Infantry Division, land at Bernieres-sur-Mer, Juno Beach, on D-Day. From a silent film shot by camerman Sergeant Bill Grant.Canadian Infantry Division landed on Juno Beach. The Canadian assault troops stormed ashore in the face of fierce opposition from German strongholds and mined beach obstacles. The soldiers raced across the wide-open beaches swept with machine gun fire, and stormed the gun positions. In fierce hand-to-hand fighting, they fought their way into the towns of Bernières, Courseulles and St. Aubin and then advanced inland, securing a critical bridgehead for the allied invasion. The victory was a turning point in World War II and led to the liberation of Europe and the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Fourteen thousand young Canadians stormed Juno Beach on D-Day. Their courage, determination and self-sacrifice were the immediate reasons for the success in those critical hours. The fighting they endured was fierce and frightening. The price they paid was high - the battles for the beachhead cost 340 Canadian lives and another 574 wounded. John Keegan, eminent British historian who wrote Six Armies in Normandy, stated the following concerning the Canadian 3rd Division on D-Day: “At the end of the day, its forward elements stood deeper into France than those of any other division. The opposition the Canadians faced was stronger than that of any other beach save Omaha. That was an accomplishment in which the whole nation could take considerable pride." Socialismo01 4:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree that D-Day was a turning point. It was more part of the final conquest. It is like saying that the Battle of Okinawa was a turning point. The Germans were already losing. Canada's timing was very good in being involved in victorious campaigns. El Alamein, Midway and Stalingrad were more "turning points". Wallie 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

All of the above is true, but in the context of Wikipedia, we should make sure articles are correct in context. This page is about the whole second world war, and on that very large canvas, the role of Canada whilst of importance is perhaps not deserving of high placement, regardless of any current feelings one may have about the relationship of Canada and the US / UK, etc. For good or ill, Canada was in the war because it was then part of the British Empire and was required to be part of it by Britain; the people of Canada were keen to help of course because they also supported the allied cause. But you slightly give the game away in your opening sentence Socialismo01 Also Canada was in the war before either Russia(USSR) or the USA - of course, Canada was in the war early because Britain was - Australia, New Zealand and others were also in the war early for the same reason. We need to reflect a high-level overview of the war on the grand scale on this page. MarkThomas 19:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Understand that Canada's decision to become involved in the war, while influenced by Britain, was not dictated by Britain. A seperate vote was held and passed. From the article Military history of Canada during the Second World War (note my emphasis):

 “The Canadian government fully intended to enter the war, but Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King insisted on recalling Parliament to allow a debate on Canadian participation and to underscore Canada's autonomy from the United Kingdom. After three days of discussion and debate in the House of Commons (and the passage of a slate of war measures), King's cabinet produced a declaration of war, subsequently signed by Governor General John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, in the name of King George VI as King of Canada, on September 10,[1] one week after the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany”
 * --Will2k 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur with you, but I think that anyone who is interested should do some research and show the contributions of each country that is considered a "small" allie. Seemingly in one of my statements it says that Canada was a major supplier of war materials to Britain therefore you have to ask yourself these questions: What if Canada did nothing during this war? What if Canada joined the war but never supplied Britain with anything? Would the USA be in the war if the Japanese hadn't bombed Pearl Harbour?. AS it states from another part of a wikipedia search "On 25 August 1939, units of the Canadian Militia were called out to defend vital locations throughout Canada in light of the deepening crisis in Europe. Following the German invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, Canada mobilized the Canadian Active Service Force, a corps of two divisions. The Canadian government fully intended to enter the war, but Canadian Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King insisted on recalling Parliament to allow a debate on Canadian participation and to underscore Canada's autonomy from the United Kingdom. After three days of discussion and debate in the House of Commons (and the passage of a slate of war measures), King's cabinet produced a declaration of war, subsequently signed by Governor General John Buchan, 1st Baron Tweedsmuir, in the name of King George VI as King of Canada, on September 10,[1] one week after the United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany. Between September 1 and 10, Canada used its neutral status to purchase $20 million worth of arms from the still neutral United States before entering the war on Great Britain's side. Mackenzie King's government embarked upon the war with one overarching concern: that the war effort not undermine national unity. King promised a war of "limited liability" – wherein Canada's principal contributions to the war effort would be economic and productive rather than military, a view which was also shared by such early-war leaders of the Conservative opposition as Dr. Robert Manion. King, recalling the Conscription Crisis of 1917, was sensitive to public opinion in French-speaking Quebec, where conscription was unpopular, and feared the consequences for national unity – and indeed his party's chances for re-election – should heavy casualties force his government to enact conscription for overseas service." Canada subsequently declared war on Italy in June 1940 and, on Japan, in December 1941.

I do not see where it says because of England, Canada joined the war. Thank you. Sincerely, Socialismo01 4:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. We all like Canada.  However, Canada, Poland, Belgium, Norway, Australia, Greece, Yugoslavia etc. were minor Allies.  This is not an insult.  If you include them all, then you clutter the infobox and make it essentially useless as a quick reference tool, because suddenly Costa Rica wants a spot, cats and dogs mass hysteria.  If you think that Canada is special, then tell us what makes the other minor Allies not special. Haber 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you mean't to say we all like the United States. Perhaps it would be better to say that the United States was the only major player in WW2 anyway. That would make it easy. Anyway, as mentioned, India played a more important role. Canada picked the more glamorous battles, like D-Day and cleaning up in Germay, and tended to stay away from the hard bits like New Guinea, the Pacific Sea Battles, Crete, and the early Desert Campaign at the start of the war. Wallie 10:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If one wanted to make so far as to oversimplify the war to a single allied combatant, that combatant would certainly be the USSR, not US. Ko Soi IX 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have long been opposed to this major/minor distinction. It's facile and belittles the contribution of countries like China, Poland, Canada and Australia. I would prefer that only "Allies" and "Axis" be listed in the infobox and that people read the Allies of World War II and Allies of World War II.  Even we must have the distinction, how would one exclude China as a major ally?! It fought Japan continually from 1937 until 1945 and suffered almost a quarter of the total number of deaths in the war (see World War II casualties). Poland, Canada and Australia also fought for almost six years.


 * By the way, MarkThomas it's simplistic to say that "Canada was in the war early because Britain was - Australia, New Zealand and others were also in the war early for the same reason." By 1939 the Dominions had the constitutional ability to stay out of the war, in exactly the way that the Republic of Ireland (a Dominion at the time) stayed neutral (and South Africa almost did). That they declared war in 1939 was a sign of the closeness of social/cultural ties between the U.K. and most of the Dominions, and a revulsion against Nazism, rather than a legal imperative. Grant65 | Talk 16:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Legalistically correct Grant65, but you have to look at the context of the late-30s empire - it was incredibly unlikely that the governments of Canada, Australia and New Zealand would go against British policy and not urge their populations to support the war. Australia and New Zealand of course also felt directly under threat from Japan, rightly so. Ireland was very different since De Valera and the history of Ireland all pointed against direct open alliance; nevertheless, substantial numbers of Irish people did actually join the British armed forces and fight in WW2. South Africa had the legacy of the Boer war and Afrikaans dislike of Britain to contend with, yet even their the post-imperial power politics prevailed and the RSA came into the war on Britain's side. MarkThomas 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually this is true. Canada did defend Britain. However, Canada was not the slightest bit interested in defending other Commonwealth Countries, like India, Australia or New Zealand against the Japanese. That one was left up to Uncle Sam. Wallie 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not quite accurate Wallie, Canada sent supplies to Australia and New Zealand and also trained their troops and acted as a hospital base for Anzac soldiers. MarkThomas 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gotten to lazy to care if Canada was put in the Major Allies thing, hopefully other people will try to get it there. Now quote Wallie: "I think you mean't to say we all like the United States. Perhaps it would be better to say that the United States was the only major player in WW2 anyway." First If it was just the USA in that war we'd all be living in a world ruled by an old guy by the name of Adolf Hitler. Secondly, not everyone likes the USA...I personally don't like much of the USA, only the people who aren't morons, and can talk about Canada without mentioning "Eh!" or "Maple Syrup" or people who say that America is the greatest country in the world. It is not the greatest in the world, they're are many better environmentally and governmentally and in other ways but this is turning into a run-on sentence. Anyways my point is that I would like everyone to think before they type and to research these things from reliable texts, documents, and webpages. So if you plan on trying to get Canada out in the major allies then give al l the reasons WHY and WHY other small allies should OR should not. (Socialismo01 23:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC))


 * So your reason for adding Canada is because you don't like the U.S. Kind of a shame, because we're really all on the same side.  In case you missed it, my reason for removing Canada was because its population was so tiny, and there is no reason to include it over countries like Poland and Yugoslavia.  The reason I want to keep the big 3 is because it helps noobs to understand WWII at a glance without being overwhelmed by a list over 30 items long, including places like Costa Rica.  If someone wants to add China, I don't mind, because at least those arguments make some sense.  Now go eat some flipper pie. Haber 00:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hear. Hear. I couldn't have put it better myself. (No Canada please.) Wallie 02:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

China and France are much more significant powers in the high-level view. Probably we should have the principal allies listed as USA, USSR (when they weren't in alliance with Nazi Germany :-) ), UK, China and France. The longer allies list can include those countries such as Argentina and Turkey who switched at the last minute when they realised Hitler was stuffed. :-) MarkThomas 09:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * First Wallie, you make yourself sound like an idiot and an anti-Canadian saying (NO CANADA). If this was the USA trying to get on board it would be (YES USA). Second my reason for wanting Canada up there isn't because i dislike a lot of things of the USA.
 * Nope. I an not anti-Canadian. It is unfortunate though that the Canadian media tends to portray the Canadian efforts in WW2 in a rather overstated manner, and that many Canadians unfortunately believe this hype. Contrast this with the modest way that the United States, Germany, Russia, Great Britain and Japan portray themselves. Wallie 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2 So Haber so if a world war 3 broke out, and the sides were the same you still wouldn't add Canada because it only has a pop of approx 30 mill even though it sent the third most amount of soldiers of all the allies through the war? Or perhaps a war broke out between the USA and Russia...and Canada chose the Russian side along with say Japan and China. You wouldnt add Canada as a major allie of Russia because of its small population compared to the other nations. And you would not take into consideration the contributions of Canada. Say 50,000 CDNS died, 55 000 russians  and 15 000 JPNSE died. Canada fought in every major battle in this hypothetical war and saved Russia from take overby the USA. Would you include Canada then. Or is population still an issue?
 * And thirdly Haber, why so hostile?? Eat some flipper pie??? What's that supposed to mean? (Socialismo01 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

Infobox needs to be short and informative. Because of that it should only include major powers from both sides. Compared to UK, USSR and USA, Canada is clearly a minor power.--Staberinde 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Obvious to anyone. except people who live anywhere north of the United States. Wallie 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * MarkThomas, it isn't just "legalistically correct" to say that the Dominions could have stayed out of WW2, it was their decision to get involved. Whereas it was impossible for the Dominions to go against the British declaration in WW1, it was feasible in 1939, thanks in part to the ill-use of Empire forces in WW1.


 * As for the "supplies" sent to Australia and NZ, I'm not sure what they would have been, apart from a few Canadian-made vehicles and planes perhaps. I've never heard of Australian soldiers passing through Canada either, although large numbers of RAAF fliers trained in Canada under the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan, on their way to Europe, and served alongside Canadians in RAF formations. But there was no direct RCAF involvement in the Pacific. After the fall of Hong Kong in 1941, there were no Canadian Army units in the Pacific either, except No. 1 Special Wireless Group, Royal Canadian Corps of Signals, which was based in Australia in 1944-45. Some RCN ships and personnel also served with the British Pacific Fleet in 1945. Grant65 | Talk 10:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction: the RCAF, the Canadian 13th Infantry Brigade and the 1st Special Service Force took part in the Aleutians campaign of 1942-43. Grant65 | Talk 03:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not in any way disputing that as a self-governing Dominion Canada had the right to do so. Just stating the political obvious that given that Mackenzie seemed to have no trouble in going to war, was it I believe one day later than Britain? The whole thing seems to have been a foregone conclusion. This is how it was seen in London for sure - the Colville diaries for example talk about the "co-ordinated response" of the "four Dominions". (Colville left out Ireland which was not really regarded as a proper Dominion, despite the talk on this page).


 * I will look this up - fairly sure I recall Canada sent food from the West coast down to Australia and New Zealand. Also injured soldiers from the Pacific war including Anzac forces were medicalised in BC. Will try to find the references - not that it would be added to this article, the whole thing presumably belongs in the Canada history pages. MarkThomas 10:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mark Thomas, Canada was not in the British Empire, rather it was at that time, and still is, a Commonwealth Realm. You are confused with WW1, perhaps? Also, It was not a colony or a dominion in WW2, following the Statue of Westminster. It also declared war on its own decision, after Britain. The relationship with Britain, and its status in the world as it was in WW2 is the same as it is now, it was a Commonwealth member, still is, was a Commonwealth realm, still is, and had the exact same status as its own country as it does now. You should look up some history before you say such things. As for the population... that really doesn't matter. It was a nation, with a relatively big population, and contribued a VERY LARGE ammount in the second world war. Have you been to the Canadian War museum in Normandy? Have you been to Normandy and studied WW2 there? Have you ever read any detail into Canadian role in the war? No? Well I have. So please, do not say that Canada didn't play a big part. Because it most definately DID. And again, it was not in the "British Empire", rather India and Hong Kong were. It, alongside Australia, South Africa and New Zealand was in the British Commonwealth, now the Commonwealth of Nations. And it, along with Australia and New Zealand, was, and still is, a Commonwealth Realm. You seem to be confusing different time periods. Also, if you know anything about World War 2, you should know that D-day was not one of the "final battles", rather it was a critical turning point, as the Western Allies did not have any ground in Western Europe, and Russia was being rapidly invaded. Also many very tough battles critical to the success of the allied cause were AFTER D-day, including the liberation of France, the battles in Caen, and the battle of the bulge etc., whereas something like the battle of the bulge could be considered a final battle, as that was when Germany had no chance of winning. For if the Allies were propelled at D-day, there would likely be no hope for a liberated Europe, and perhaps another invasion of Britain could be attempted. Your opinion of Canada as "minor" is very offensive and biast. So, I am promptly and correctly adding Canada to the list of leaders. Anyone who challenges this, better have a very very good reason why to not include Canada, and post it here BEFORE taking it off, and I will make sure that Canada DOES stay on this list. RyanRP 04:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also to say that USA was the only major contributer in the war is a JOKE! That is SO untrue, and is the typical racist biast obnoxious attitude among many Americans. America did not even WANT to join the war untill it was attacked, and it joined the war in 1942, 3 years after all the other major Allies (which does include Canada). It did not provide the biggest offensive on D-day (Canada did), the British and Canadians had a bigger challenge at Caen than the Americans did in their part of France, and the United Kingdom had held its own very well in succesfully deflecting any would-be German invasion that could have happened, with no US anything participating in the fight. Also, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, and the UK were able to hold there own and succesfully defend against the Germans through the years of 1939-1942 when the US weren't involved. And BTW, they were in the British Commonwealth, not the British Empire, as India and Hong Kong were. British Commonwealth still exists today, as the Commonwealth of Nations, and the original members who participated in WW2, still are in the Commonwealth (South Africa having been kicked out temporarily at a point), and those members who were major participants in WW2 (but not South Africa), are also Commonwealth Realms today, having the British Monarch as their own, just as during this war the same rules applied. Also, to compare Canada to Poland in this war, is totally rediculous, as Poland was invaded, and didn't exist as a country in itself during the war, and Polish soldiers who escaped fought in the Allied forces, including the Canadian Army, which was, a major participant. Canada played one of the BEST roles in the war, although, I admit, not the BIGGEST role (although definately one of the greater contributors among the UK and USA, to name a few). Canada definately WAS a VERY LARGE contributor to the war and SHOULD be listed. Also, Canada basically single handedly liberated Holland, and cleared the way (very well and bravely) for US and British soldiers in Italy. I'm sorry, but the USA, although playing a major role for the Allies in WW2, was definately NOT the only major contributor, and not the biggest. I'm sorry, but Canada IS going to be added to this, please look up some history and don't edit based on your P.O.V. RyanRP 04:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, mainly Canadian troops among some British and Indian troops aswell, single handedly defended Hong Kong for two whole weeks against the ENTIRE Japanese Imperial Army, during Japan's first onslaught of victories, which WAS before an U.S. involvement. Also, Canada played a major role alongside Indian and British forces in Asia. Furthermore, to list China in this group of Allies, while not listing Canada is wrong to do. Canada, without argument, played a much bigger role in the war than China. China came close to being fully invaded by Japan! Also, if you've ever actually been to any historical sites in Europe, or even come close to studying World War Two, it would take a blind, deseased chimp suffering schizophrenia, to fail to notice the GREAT Canadian contributions. RyanRP 04:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The anti Canadian edits that have happened here, are VERY American-Centred. Please look up FACTS, and dont focus on your own little American world where you are GODS and Canada is WEAK. RyanRP 05:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Compared to USSR, UK and USA, Canada was minor power.--Staberinde 07:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we'd all be upset if we had to endure 23 hours of darkness every day. Maybe the caps lock on the keyboard is freezing?  Haber 18:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If we could put aside comments on the tone of various contributions to this debate for a second (and really, "blind, deseased chimp"? "23 hours of darkness"? Is that necessary?), it seems to boil down to a question of what constitutes a 'major' or 'minor' power in the Second World War. We can argue all day on what we think those were, but the role of this encyclopedia is to express what the historical consensus is. So... what do the best references we have say on the subject? If there are no reputable references that describe Canada as one of the major combatants, then we can't describe Canada that way. But if such references do exist, then we can and perhaps we should - Eron Talk 19:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

France
Its really France and maybe China should be including. France was definitely major combatant and first to declare the war with England. They lost badly thats like saying Russia not major player in great war because they were eliminated. The defeat of France was a big deal because of France is a primary combatant. HOW can we say who is considered the primary combatant at the time? Looking at the Security Council of the United Nations created for them, Russia America England France and China.Opiner 02:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because France declared war right away along with England does'nt mean it should be listed with major allies. I mean Austrailia and Canada both joined when England did.

Denmark
New comment: Denmark overlooked Denmark was also invaded in 1940. This should be added in the beginning of the article. Kasper T. Mortensen 14:25, 3 November 2006