Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 4

Belligerents
Any opinions on having something like this as our belligerents section? It is more informative and I think avoids most of the controversy we have above. Oberiko (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I would add Finland to the "Third Parties" section, because the Finns were fighting a concurrent war against the Soviets, just like Iraq did with Britain. Other than that, I think it might be a good idea. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Finland is the thorn here, but I'm going to toss my hat in the "Axis co-belligerent" corner, being that they signed the Anti-Comintern Pact and fought in relatively close cooperation with the Germans. Iraq, on the other hand, was the British suppression of a rebellion which had limited air support from the Germans.


 * It feels kind of strange to list Iran and Iraq without listing the UK and the United States, but it seems good overall. "Western Allies" sums it up, doesn't it? Perhaps the belligerents in each section should be separated with commas instead of paragraphs, I think that would look better. And an "and others" should be listed along with the "third parties" as well, since there were many combatants alligned with neither main faction (Baltic states, Ukrainan nationalists, Thailand before 1941, etc).96T (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As a comparison, is the "third parties" column better being there or left out? I'm having visions of new edit-wars springing up regarding who was a third party vs. Axis-aligned (i.e. Finland, Vichy France, Thailand, Iraq, Yugoslavia etc.).
 * I think a version including the third parties gives a better and more balanced view of the war. 96T (talk) 20:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My two cents - how come the Soviet Union is not the first among the list of allies (as a nation that killed more axis soldiers than all the other allies combined)? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's one of the things I'm worried about. I put the Western Allies first because this is the English encyclopaedia, so most readers are likely to be from the United States or a Commonwealth nation.  In terms of who should go first, there are arguments for several ways.  In the case for the Western Allies:
 * Contains two of the "Big Three" allies (as well as Allied France)
 * Were in the war since 1939
 * Fought in both the European and Asian theatres of World War II.
 * I'd hope that the fact that we list the Soviet Union by name (which we're not doing for France, the United States or the United Kingdom) would be enough that most pro-Soviet's wouldn't need to push for it to be listed first as well. Oberiko (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that keeping such bias is ok cause apparently most users of English wiki are already accostumed to that? As for you arguments:
 * But allies together, including the "two of the Big Three", France, China, Poland, etc, killed less axis soldiers than the Soviet Union. While it's certainly not the only aspect of "war effort", I don't think there would be much problem to provide sufficient evidence to show that the USSR did more, than the rest together.
 * Canada fought in the war since 1939. Was than Canada more important than USSR?
 * The Soviet Union also fought in both the European and Asian theatres of World War II.
 * So my point still stands - the Western Allies should not be listed above the Soviet Union in the infobox. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Soviets fought in the Asian theatre for about a week, not really a major player there IMO. But your point is valid, people will fight over the order if we leave it in.  Probably better to keep it as Allies and Axis then. Oberiko (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * IMHO, in the Far East the USSR was the third most important allied power (after USA and China), despite the relatively short campaign time - but this is not too relevant. If the Soviet Union is not given it's rightful position in the infobox, we are better off using the old good Allies and Axis compromise. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd contend "rightful position", and the Soviet's being more important then Commonwealth forces in the Asia-Pacific theatre, but to each his own I suppose. Oberiko (talk) 18:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think plain old Axis and Allies is best. We all will never agree on ordering, what countries to list, and other aspects, so I think it's best to keep it as simple as possible. Parsecboy (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The simplest possible list has one heading, not two, three or more. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Listing sides doesn't work for me. Having the Soviet Union on the same side as Poland is grotesque when you consider the events of 39-40. And several countries formally changed sides, such as Italy and Romania. So I suggest that you simply list the belligerents in one list without categorising them. The great vice of this place is that editors constantly try to pigeonhole and categorise, even when the material does not conform to a tidy schema. If you can't categorise accurately then don't mislead - let the article explain the complexities of the matter. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to take that as support for plain "Allies" and "Axis", wherein the linked articles can get into the details. After all, war makes for strange bedfellows. Oberiko (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Axis and Allies is not acceptable because it is bound to be inaccurate. My suggestion is a single list of belligerents which does not try to assign sides.  This is not a game and so there is not a requirement for formal sides to be assigned. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Almost every history on the subject refers to it as a war between the Allies and the Axis. Not putting any factions does the reader a disservice, as it prevents them, at an immediate glance, from getting as much information as possible.  Maybe not 100% accurate, (after all, we have nations like Finland, Vichy France, Iraq, those that switched sides, etc.) but it does cover the vast majority of it. Oberiko (talk) 14:15, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If the belligerents were the Allies (or United Nations) and Axis then that's all the information appropriate for a summary. Leave it to the linked articles to explain the full complexity of who these were at the various times.  As just about every country in the world was involved by the end, listing them all is too much detail for a summary. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that WWI has done as I suggest. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for informity, so I also suggest that we list at least a few of the combatants. As for the ordering, perhaps list them in order from the % that their economy was affected from the war. -- penubag  (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the number of enemy soldiers killed? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 03:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think the amount of deaths is the best way to order them, although a good alternative. I could have blasted a boat of 20 million people, but if the economy is totally unaffected and the country only plays a minor part in the war, they should not be listed first. -- penubag  (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So what do you exactly mean "affected" in regards to economy? With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe economy affection isn't the best either. Maybe list in order from greatest influence on the war, although this would be hard to determine. Maybe we could determine from amount of resources spent from the nation, although this would be equally hard to decipher. -- penubag  (talk) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably, if we try to list the participants according to their "importance", listing them by the number of enemy soldiers their armed forces killed in battle is likely to be the easiest way. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Forgive my Wiki-lawyering, but any attempt to rank participants on any metric constitutes original research. We've been through this so many times it makes me want to cry, but there are reliable sources for any combination of countries, none of which agree with eachother. Therefore, the best, non-subjective option, is to just keep it at Allies and Axis. There's really no other option, unless you want to list every country that participated. Parsecboy (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, perhaps. But it's not even the point. Axis and Allies is so much easier to maintain as opposed to any other list, that we shouldn't look for alternatives to that perfectly sound compromise. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What were the effects on the jews in germany?
i was just wondering if people could help me? i have a test tomorow and need to revise this subject but unfortunatly i have no idea !!! so if anyone has any ideas please tell me! thanks x —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.60.38 (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Partipicpants
I think we should name the partipcipants--69.157.65.49 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)UNknown

Collage is placed
I have replaced the collage with an earlier version. My reasons are that the copyright of one of the photos cannot be established, and that the collage as a whole is recommended for deletion.

This came about as a part of a discussion on the WWII page.

The points that are cogent for my change are only 1 and 2. This is NOT an attempt for me to push my opinions in points 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. The copyright issue is paramount, and I don't want to muddy the waters with other issues. I have copied my opinion below, however it is ONLY to provide context for points 1 and 2.


 * "This collage must go on several grounds. I was quite surprised to see it. 1) It's been nominated for deletion since 7 June 2009. 2) A collage source for this photo is "BuriedAlive.jpg", which has been deleted, so that nobody can check what it's about, when it happened, or whether it is properly copyright justified, 3) It includes a grotesque scene casting one particular group as outstandingly "evil", where, as I recall, the Japanese, Nazis and Soviets would all bury people alive, 4) This is an article that is highly likely to be seen by young children, and the image is inappropriate, 5) There are no dates, but with the choice of subject the photos aren't well ordered, e.g., the Japanese planes -- echoing Pearl Harbor to the later war, would come before the Soviets in Berlin. 6) The number of dead in a particular theater is not pertinent to photo selection. What is pertinent are the signal events of the war -- ones that English speaking readers associate with it today. Not where editors have an international political axe to grind. There should at least be: an atomic bomb exploding, D-Day, aerial shots of Battle of Britain, a bombed out city. 7) The photos themselves are poorly chosen, even given that particular events are agreed as central. The bunker shot is practically incomprehensible, the "buried alive" shot shows a tiny bunch of figures where the activity is unclear. Planes on a flight deck are nowhere near as evocative as bombing Pearl Harbor or a sea battle. The troops in the desert are a soldiers in positions that could be any of a dozen wars, rather than showing action, or place. A U-boat picture should show a U-boat and a ship sinking.

The selection of which copyright-ok images to use at this point I leave up to others. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this new collage fits better than the original because the images used represent WWII better than the other (as what I'm guessing the purpose of an infobox is). Almost anyone could look at the collage and identify it as WWII whereas the previous one does not as clearly represent the most notable events. Other users previously brought up that this collage was lacking in other areas such as the naval and aerial fronts. Also another point, that I tend to agree with, is that the image is lacking d-day. If necessary, the images of the jews may be replaced with an image of d-day landing. -- penubag  (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So where and when are those "German Nazi Troops" marching on top left image? Collage for some reason fails to specify it, maybe because it seems that those who are marching are actually policemen and event is Anschluss which took place before World War II?--Staberinde (talk) 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI the copyright problems of one of the candidates has been fixed, see Deletion requests/File:WW2Montage.PNG. (IT was fixed four months ago, but the issue only got closed a few days ago)Hohum (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

new collage discussion
Takes place here.--Staberinde (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jodl?
I am wondering why Jodl has been listed as a second German commander in the infobox. I believe this decision is based on purely formal reasons (he was a chef of staff). In actuality, he was not a highest rank Wehrmacht officer: he was a Keitel's subordinate, and that fact, among others, was a reason why a ratification of the German instrument of surrender (signed by Jodl in Rheims) was needed. In addition, Jodl (by contrast to Zhukov) did not organize or directly command any major military operations, he was not a political leader (unlike Marshall, who was also a Secretary of State, and unlike Tōjō who was also a prime minister). I propose to replace him with Keitel.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I had already proposed putting Keitel (along with Eisenhower, MacArthur, etc.). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Soviet discussion
Oh and one other point I'd object to unless we had a good source to back it up is having the Soviet Union listed with the Axis as happened a few times in the past.--Caranorn 11:36, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * WWII for dummies Caranorn. The author makes it quite clear the Soviets were bad at one point. --LtWinters 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That isn't really going to be enough though, we don't call the Allies the "good guys" and the Axis the "bad guys"; the geo-political situations of the 20th century were quite complicated and can't be neatly summed up in black and white like that. For example, some nations/leaders in the Middle East and Asia saw the Axis powers as a way to rid themselves of colonizing powers and gain independence; the French and the British were quite willing to sacrifice Ethiopia to Italy if it meant having potentially having better support against Germany and so on.  You'll tend to find that there were no "good guys", in history there rarely are; instead, you'll find all nations (and/or their leaders) to be acting in self-interest.


 * What you'll need to do is find a sources which describe the relationship between the Soviets and the Germans. I think you should be able to find one calling them military allies (as they had a military alliance), but you shouldn't be able to find one calling them an Axis. Oberiko 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * USSR and Germany hadn't military alliance. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact isn't military alliance. El gato verde (talk) 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Oberiko, in the archives you said that you wanted the USSR as a cobelligerent up until 1941 (when we had like 10 nations on each side for the infobox, not what we had now). Right now, no, I don't think we should have a 5 v 4 saying the the USSR was a cobelligerent. But remember what I wrote-

Let us not forget the Soviets were bad. I quote Lieutenant-Colonel Keith Dickson, "World War II For Dummies," Page 81, Chapter 5 subtopic: The Soviets Take Over- "In the eastern part of Poland, the Soviets began their own campaign against the 3 million Poles who fell under their control: The Soviet secret police (the NKVD) arrested and deported to Siberian concentratino camps (Gyulag, from a Russian acronym) anyone suspected of being hostile to Soviet control. More than 15,000 Polish officers who surrendered to te Soviets were moveed to camps near Smolensk in the Soviet Union Because the Polish officers represented the leadership of the Polish nation and potential resistance to Future Soviet control, Stalin ordered them all killed in 1940. Each man was shot in the back of the head with a German bullet (to disguise the true criminals) and buried in a mass grave in Katyn Forest. Among the innumerable tragedies that occurred in Poland in 1939, the murder of the Polish officers was one of the most terrible. These officers joined the many millions of unfortunate victims of Stalin's desire for absolute unchallenged power." in the archives on June 18.

I understand some say that the Soviets were protecting their flank, but all it was not neccessary to execute all those men. I just feel that is a big reason why they should be cobelligerents, because they did more than they had to, those officers weren't going to rebel. --LtWinters 01:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Doing immoral actions does not make a nation an Axis. My reasoning for having the Soviet's as co-belligerents (in 1939) was due to their alliance with the Germans in the training of German soldiers, the assisted production of poison gas and aircraft (both prior to the start of the war), and the cooperative invasion and dismantling of the Polish state.


 * Execution of prisoners, while against the Geneva Conventions, does nothing to push them towards being a member of a specific military alliance. I stand by the Soviets being an early co-belligerent, but not a member of the Axis Powers, which, formally, only includes those who signed the Tripartite Pact. Oberiko 13:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As Oberiko has already pointed out, the Soviet Union doing horrible things doesn't make it part of the Axis - WW2 wasn't a war between "good" and "bad", no wars are, both sides performed many immoral actions (examples of Allied evils in many people's opionions here, here, here, here, here ...). The Axis weren't the only aggressors either (the Allies attacked Vichy France in Madagascar and invaded Iran unprovoked, the Allied Soviet Union attacked Bulgaria and Japan unprovoked, etc.). So LtWinters, your good/bad argumentation can't be taken seriously (even though most people, including me and you and most other Wikipeadians I guess, view the Axis as the 'bad guys' ... but that's not academic). As for considering the Soviet Union for the Axis side in the infobox as a major Axis co-belligerent, I think it would be wrong not only because we have no sources refering to it as such, but also because the USSR only fought along with the Axis in Poland while other countries such as Romania and Hungary and even Finland contributed much more to the Axis cause. 96T 15:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point is being missed, there unneaded actions demonstrate that th ey were agressors. Mm kay let's look at it this way- until the German invasion of Norway and Denmark, the Soviets and Germans had each done a similar amount of damage. The Soviets invaded Poland, the Germans invaded Poland. The Germans began the Holocaust, Stalin had his purges. The Germans executed millions of Poles, well, the Soviets only executed in the tens of thousands, but it's still the point of executing innocent people. And not to mention the USSR's invasion of Finland. --LtWinters 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are forgetting a number of other issues with Germany. 1) Remilitarisation of the Saar, 2) Annexation of Austria, 3) Occupation of the Sudetenland, 4) Occupation of Bohemia Moravia, 5) a number of other international agreements that Germany violated. Poland wasn't the first issue. And no, the purges aren't comparable to genocide (and people like me (dissenting communists) were certainly among the first purged by Stalin, whatever his many crimes he doesn't come close to Hitler). But none of this is really helping to improve this article (template).--Caranorn 20:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but the Soviets did do some of these things. They did lose parts of the USSR during the revolution (as Germany did after WWI) but regained some of them after the revolution as Germany did in the late 30s. And the USSR did break international laws, http://www.infoukes.com/history/famine/bibliography/, is just one thing Stalin did, it may not be a purge but it killed millions of people. I'm not trying to offend you by saying the Communists were bad, it was just a handful of people with a lot of power who made bad decisions. --LtWinters 22:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * LtWinters, you're thinking of this the wrong way. Just because the USSR did some "less than nice things" prior to becoming a member of the Allies doesn't make them co-belligerents of the Axis. Their invasion of Poland in concert with Germany does, but committing war crimes such as Katyn, or unrelated conflicts such as the Winter War are essentially irrelevant in deciding what portion of the infobox they should be listed under. Americans did plenty of horrible things during the war. But is it relevant to a discussion of military alliances and co-belligerents? No. In short, base your arguments for including the USSR as a cobelligerent on valid points, not "they did bad things". Parsecboy 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ? Parsec, what on earth are you saying? The Americans did plenty of horrible things too? We did do a few bad things, but compared to the Germans and Soviets we practically did nothing. For example, SHAEF ececuted I believe 70 troops on the western front, Hitler executed 50,000 German troops. The Americans had the Japanese citizens imprisoned- Hitler had the Holocaust and the Soviets executed the Poles. THere are many different criteria to have the infobox be listed under as. And if you would have read the whole conversation, I made it clear I don't think that they should be put in the axis because they did not so good things, the bad things they did I listed because (as I said) "My point is being missed, there unneaded actions demonstrate that th ey were agressors."--LtWinters 03:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What about the untold number of Japanese soldiers who were wounded, attempting to surrender, or otherwise incapacitated that the American military essentially murdered throughout the vast majority of the Pacific War? Read this article about the "take no prisoners" attitude which was more or less standard procedure until the top brass realized that taking prisoners was better than just killing them (i.e., interrogating them, etc.). Parsecboy 12:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Parsec, you and I both know that the Americans did commit atrocities, some for good reasons and some for bad ones, but we both know the axis did these atrocities 10 times worse. --LtWinters 12:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is getting off on a tangent, but is the man who killed 10 any less of a murderer than the man who killed 20? Parsecboy 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, true. I spose we shall end it here as currently there are no edits to the infobox. --LtWinters 01:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not everything that happened in 1939-45 is part of WW2. Personally, I tend to regard the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) as being separate from, but related to WW2, much like the German-Hungarian-Polish partition/annexation of Czechoslovakia (1938), the French-Thai War of 1940-41, or the Anglo-Iraqi War of 1941.


 * After all, the German invasion of Poland was the casus belli. The British and French did not see the Soviet invasion in the same light, as is clear from Churchill's famous quote in 1939 (see below) and they did not declare was on the USSR. Grant  |  Talk  10:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Nah, the Soviet invasion of Poland was indeed part of WWII. It entered Poland as an ally of the Germans. For that part of the war, the USSR was on the "Axis" side, albeit not as a formal member of that particular political entity. For the entire duration of the Soviet-German Pact, the Comintern directed the communist parties in Europe to cease fighting with the fascists and to support them instead. This ended with the German invasion of the USSR. Technically, the rolling map should reflect this as shading the USSR as "Axis-aligned" until the summer of 1941. Askari Mark (Talk) 16:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any credible historian who has ever described the USSR as an Axis country. Grant  |  Talk  18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I explicitly said it wasn't "an Axis country"; I pointed out that it was aligned with an Axis country in the case of the Polish invasion. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Axis country" is somewhat misleading term - generally to "Axis" belonged only 3 countries signing Tripartite_Pact - and now it seems to be extended to the meaning "anti-Ally". And I am pointing out below that the USSR was anti-Ally between 1939 and 1941. --EAJoe (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm pointing out that the "alignment" is fiction. The Soviet invasion took place for totally different reasons to the German one.
 * The foundation stone of the Axis was the Anti-Comintern Pact, signed by Germany & Japan in 1936; Italy in 1937. No guesses as to whom that was directed. The western Allies understood only too well at the time that the general tone of Soviet-Nazi relations had been hostile since 1933 and the main reason for the Non-Aggression Pact was that neither Britain nor France nor Poland would enter into a military alliance/co-operation with the USSR. The Non-Aggression Pact was a tactical move. Grant  |  Talk  02:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Reasons" or "general tone" don't matter here. Only the facts count - Soviets invaded Poland (one of Allies at the time...) in concert with Nazi Germans. This alone is enough to count them as member of "anti-Allies" until June '1941. Formal declarations of war are irrelevant here (e.g. in 1939 Germany didn't formally declare war on Poland) --EAJoe (talk) 22:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Britain and France were far more critical, in public, of Stalin's invasion of Finland and the Baltic states. They offered a joint army corps to Finland (although for murky reasons). Its transit was blocked by Norway and Sweden. We could have had a whole different WW2, with an Anglo-French-Scandinavian-Finnish alliance ranged against the Nazi-Soviet pact. But we didn't. Grant  |  Talk  13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Every once in a while, someone (usually a Polish nationalist or an American libertarian) wishes to flog this horse which has been dead for two thirds of century. At times like these I like to quote Churchill.

That the Russian armies should stand on this line [i.e. in the middle of Poland] was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail (Winston Churchill, September 1939).


 * And:

I understand the historical difference between ours and the Russian standpoint on Poland. But at home we pay a great deal of attention to Poland, for it was the attack on Poland that prompted us to undertake the present effort. I was also very well aware of the Russian position at the start of the war, and considering our weakness at the beginning of the war, and the fact that France went back on the guarantees she gave in Munich, I understand that the Soviet Government could not at the time risk its life in that struggle. (Winston Churchill, to Stalin and Roosevelt, Tehran 1943.)


 * Is there a higher authority on who was/was not an ally than Churchill?


 * The historical background, of which Churchill had a far greater awareness than you or I, doesn't support the suggestion that the USSR was an axis power in 1939-41, inc. the anti-Bolshevik/Russophobic attitudes of the governments of Britain, France and Poland 1917-41, the Nazi termination of good relations between the Weimar Republic and the USSR, and the Soviet attempts (pre-Munich Agreement) to defend its ally Czechoslovakia (blocked, inter alia, by Poland, which also participated in the partition of Czechoslovakia). Clearly Churchill's understanding was that the Soviets did not wish to deal with the Nazis, but had little choice in 1939, because Britain, France and/or Poland (let alone any other powers) were not prepared to entertain an alliance with Stalin. Grant  |  Talk  04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Belligerents and leaders in the infobox
Although I agree that belligerents and leaders should be displayed in the infobox, I think only the major belligerents and leaders should be shown rather than trying to cram in every country involved including which years they were active. It's not that user friendly or practical and I believe that articles like Allies of World War II and Allied leaders of World War II exist for a reason.

On another note, how much power and how involved in the war was people like Göring and Hirohito really? Should they really be displayed as the most prominent leaders of Germany and Japan during WW2? --Nirvana77 (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I have to disagree. It seems wrong to put in Hungary or Rumaina (Romaina) and not add in the Japaneese puppet states like Manchuria. It seems to be "not covering the whole truth". As for the leaders, Göring should go as he was not a major "leader" other than the nominal head of the luftwaffe. I do think that Hirohito should stay though as he was the de-facto leader of the Japanese forces during the whole war.-- Coldplay Expért Let's talk  03:36, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When I point to the "major belligerents" i refer to the "big four" of the Allies, USA, USSR, UK and China and the three major Axis nations, Germany, Japan and Italy. Other than the points why I think this that I have already listed in my original post, it's also easy to have edit wars and disagreements why some nations are in the infobox and some are not, like for example "why are Norway in there and not Denmark" etc. --Nirvana77 (talk) 10:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is kind of arbitrary. Although I'd agree that adding belligerents like Luxembourg, the Szalasi regime, or Manchukuo might be a bit too much, I find it kind of useless and boring to restrict the belligerents to the "big four", "big five", or whatever. By including an insufficient number of belligerents, we lose the notion that this was a world war. Granted, some subjectivity is bound to take part in that choice, but I think the current infobox is too dry and does not do justice to the extent of the subject. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point. I would avoid using puppet states as Manchuria or minor states like Luxembourg, Denmark etc. Iraq played such a minor role so I don't really see it being in the infobox. I would also avoid using the dates the nations was involved, in my opinion it becomes to much and most governments continued their war in exile. Some leaders could be exchanged, like Hermann Göring or Plaek Pibulsonggram. Alfred Jodl was Cheif of Staff during most of the war and should perhaps be included. This is a suggestion/compromise on how it could look. --Nirvana77 (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nirvana77, I do not see how your last edit reflects in the "suggestion/compromise" above... So I reverted it. By the way, Tōjō was only PM from 1941 to 1944, so it is very difficult to justify keeping him as the sole Japanese leader... --Flying Tiger (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but I don't see your point. You will have to be a little more specific. I would like to avoid all the number and year scribble and emphasize the "major" nations regarding involvement and not have people like Hermann Göring or Plaek Pibulsonggram like the most prominent leaders of the Axis which is misleading. That Tojo was "only PM from 1941 to 1944" is a peculiar statement as well, should you list all the three Japanese PM's that served after Tojo during the last year of the war as well? Besides both Hirohito and Tojo were listed in the suggestion I wrote. --Nirvana77 (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is simply that your proposal dose not reflect in your last edit. For example, you argue that "both Hirohito and Tojo were listed in the suggestion I wrote", but in your edit, you only keep Tōjō ...[] As for the prominent leaders of each country, this has been a continuous matter of quarrel between users for many months and this is why there was a time when we reached an agreement that it could be better to only refer the main articles. For the "year scribble", I do no think however, it is a bad idea as it does not take so much space and give useful info. --Flying Tiger (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, limiting too much the belligerents and leaders makes the infobox not only too dry, but also not informative enough. Iraq played an admittedly minor role, although its inclusion can help putting the whole conflict in perspective (i.e., by showing that sovereign arab states were also concerned, and not only on allied sides). BTW, I would not include the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as a belligerent, as that specific regime did not exist until after the conflict (ok, the Partisans had proclaimed their own government, but they were far from being in power, and the Republic had not been proclaimed however).
 * As for adding the Provisional Government of the French Republic : ok, why not, but I still think that Free France took a more important part in the conflict (1940-42, then 42-44 as the "French National liberation committee"). Trouble is, Free France does not even have its own article on the english wikipedia, which only adresses the Free French Forces. Moreover, I find a little annoying that the infobox should use "Vichy France (1940-44)" and "Provisional Government of the French Republic (1944-45)" as it gives the impression that France was 100% on Axis side between 1940 and 1944 : the Free French Forces may have been a relatively minor belligerent, at least before late 1942, but they were always more active on Allied side than Vichy (officially neutral) was on Axis side. If we were to include a complete and exact summary of France's participation in WWII, it would look like this : Third French Republic (1939-1940), Free France (1940-1943), Vichy France (1940-1944), French National Liberation Committee (1943-1944 : once they had merged with Giraud's administration, the FF stopped using the term "Free French" on an official basis, though it remained unofficially used), Provisional Government of the French Republic (1944-1945). This is a bit too complicated for an infobox IMHO, and this is why originally  I simply used France as a generic belligerent. (Poland might be another matter of debate, though).
 * Not that I want to cram the "leaders" section, but I find it a pity not to put Eisenhower and MacArthur, or Wilhelm Keitel. Antonescu is a welcome addition. I would personally put Pibulsonggram, as the leader of Japan's only fully sovereign Asia ally, but I won't start a war over him. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * May I propose that all countries that went through several regimes in the war - France, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary etc - link only to the name of the country? Considering one regime to more representative than another appears rather POV and problematic to me. As the infobox is now, I especially find Poland problematic - the Third Republic ceased to exist in 1939 but Poland later made a huge effort both as the London government with the Secret State and as the Moscow puppet government in Lublin, which one may consider illegitimate now but which was recognized by the Allies in the final stages like this. Yugoslavia could look like this:  Yugoslavia. As for leaders, I think they should be limited to great powers only - that is, four or five Allies and three Axis. Antonescu and Horthy weren't really more important that leaders of minor Allies. And in my opinion all leaders of governments of the main combatants should be there (perhaps except those who were only in charge for very brief periods, such as Dönitz), that is, not just Roosevelt and Churchill but Truman, Chamberlain, and Attlee as well. This goes for France too, which arguably was more important in 1939-40 when Daladier and Reynaud were in charge than in 1944-45 when de Gaulle led the government. 96T (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not for France, Poland and Yugoslavia, but I think Hungary should definitely keep pointing to the 1920-46 "Kingdom" (I'm currently doing some double-checking about the Horthy-Szalasi transition, and I think there might be a mistake somewhere in wikipedia). Not sure about Antonescu and Horthy, they certainly weren't MAJOR leaders, but where still at the helm of European sovereign states allied with Germany. There is the danger of cramming the infobox, of course (although I'm personally not adverse to infoboxes with lots of data). The importance of leaders is a matter of debate : France possessed in 1939-40 a military power which was arguably superior to the Free French Forces, but de Gaulle certainly was more important throughout the war than Daladier and Reynaud. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since Germany, Italy and Japan were the three major Axis member, I believe Italy's name should be in bold-face. With regards to the Big Three, I am interested to know why do they listed in that order. Obviously, their contribution was too different to make a direct comparison: Britain's contribution during the second half of the war was much smaller than that of the USSR or US, however, it was the most consistent Nazi's opponent; the US contribution in victory over Germany was no so significant, however they bore a major brunt on the war in Pacific (although not in Asia), and provided a valuable economic aid to other Allies; the USSR made a decisive contribution into the victory in Europe, however, during 1939-first half of 1941 it was neutral in Europe and in 1941-first half of 1945 it remained neutral in Pacific. Therefore, I propose to list the Big Three members in the order they entered the war, namely, the UK, the USSR and the US.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC) By contrast, Tunisian campaign, Overlord etc were not more than a sideshow. Soviet military contribution was definitely greater than that of the US. Some authors (Glantz, Bellamy) even believed that the USSR was able to win the war even without Allied assistance: after Germany surrender Japan was doomed, however, Allied victory in Pacific would have no considerable impact on the European theatre. One way or the another, my point was that, since it is impossible to compare overall contribution of the Bir Three's members, they should be listed according to some different criterion. The best solution would be to list them chronologically (based on the date they entered the war).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmmh, not quite convinced. The US' contribution was very significant in the victory against Germany and Italy (Operation torch, Tunisian campaign, Italian campaign, Operation overlord, etc.). Also, they did play a role in Asia (the pacific war generally includes Asia, even when the term is not used in its broader sense) : they were crucial in the Pacific itself (Philippines) and also contributed to the burmese and chinese theatre. Given the fact that the USSR played a relatively small part in the victory against Japan, I think we can keep them in the current order : UK, US, USSR. (UK : most consistent foe of the Axis, active on all fronts, crucial in Europe, Africa, Asia. US : same, but only active after 1941. USSR : crucial in Europe, not crucial in Asia, inactive in Africa, only on allied side after 1941). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eastern front (in terms of the number of troops involved and losses sustained) constituted a half of whole WWII. Even after D-Day, more Axis troops fought in the East than in the West. Moreover, some axis countries (Hungary, Romania) and Finland fought exclusively against the USSR. With regards to Pacific, Soviet invasion of Manchuria was arguably more decisive event than atomic bombing: Kwantung Army's leadership had significant political weight, and they were vetoing any Japanese attempt to start negotiation on surrender; Japan even considered to move its government to Manchuria in the event of the US's landing on Home Islands.
 * PS. I am waiting for serious arguments from you supporting your claim that US contribution was greater than that of the USSR. If I get no proof in close future, I'll restore a chronological order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming that US contribution was greater than the USSR's as far as death tolls and number of military personnels were concerned, I'm just pointing that the USSR's contribution to the Asian theatre was not crucial, as Japan was on the brink of utter defeat before the invasion of Manchuria. It may merely have hastened japanese surrender for a few weeks. Moreover, writing that Operation overlord, the Italian campaign, and all joint UK-US operations leading to it were sideshows is, excuse me, simply ridiculous. I'm waiting for serious sources for that, too. It doesn't make sense to say that the US/UK liberation of western Europe was less important than the Eastern front : it helped shaped a great deal of the world's history after that (try to imagine all of Europe being "liberated" by the USSR... yikes !) Hence, I do not think the order should move. The fact that the USSR was allied with Germany in the first stages of the war is also an argument for putting it in the third place despite its importance, as it could be considered to be "Axis-aligned" before operation Barbarossa. IMHO, we should first of all talk about this with other users instead of going into an edit war, source requests, and all the usual wikipedia annoyances. thanks, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely, there were two Allied countries whose contribution into the WWII was critical: Britain and the USSR. The former bore the major brunt of the war in 1939-early 1941, and its failure would automatically lead to the Axis' victory: the troops involved in African campaign (and the troops guarding the Channel coast) would serve as a straw that broke a camel's back (I mean victorious end of Barbarossa). As a result, Germany would be able to seize whole Europe (and to get resources she desperately needed), to re-locate its military industry near Ural (so no US strategic bombing would be possible) and to make a land connection with Japan (that would mean a dramatic change of balance in Pacific). The latter won the war in Europe (of course, contribution of other Allies was significant, but in no way was it decisive), and helped to end the war in the Pacific. With regards to the US, their contribution was enormous, and their help allowed to save millions of Allied lives, however, the war could be won without their participation.
 * On surrender of Japan, see: Robert A. Pape. Why Japan Surrendered. International Security, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 154-201. You may also read Donald E. Shepardson's "The Fall of Berlin and the Rise of a Myth". (The Journal of Military History, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 135-154), where he provides an estimation of how long would Pacific War last and how much it would cost for the US without Soviet intervention.
 * On European theatre, try to read David Glantz's http://www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/sg-war41-45.pdf. Although it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it combines the ideas and conclusions Glantz made in his numerous books and peer-reviewed publications. You may also find similar conclusion in the Chris Bellamy's "Absolute War".
 * Finally, even if we assume that US contribution was at least equal to that of the USSR (although my point is that such a comparison is simply incorrect), it is still unclear for me what are you argument in support of the present order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS With regards to the US role in preventing Western Europe from liberation by the Soviets, I totally agree. However, it has no relation to the WWII proper.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I keep not seeing how the US participation would not be crucial. Of course, each theater influenced the other, and the soviet invasion of Manchuria was instrumental at least in scaring the Japanese and hastening their surrender. I don't think however it would have reversed the outcome. On the other hand, it would be interesting to see how long the Soviets would have taken to defeat the Axis if it had not been busy on the African and West European theatre. Not sure they would actually have prevailed, although the reverse also applies of course for the UK and US. Sorry if I seemed a bit impatient, but I initially found your remark calling Operation overlord and the Italian campaign "sideshows" not only ridiculous, but somewhat offensive, though I'm sure you didn't mean to be. Regarding the role of the US in preventing Europe from soviet dominantion (had it won in the East without the other theatres), I just wanted to point how the US' role was crucial in what the outcome of the war looked like. Anyway, I don't want to bicker for long about this, since diminishing or agrandizing anybody's role is not my point : if a significant number of other users think that a purely chronological order can apply to the template, I'm not going to oppose this. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "I keep not seeing how the US participation would not be crucial". That is simple. The USSR and Britain could theoretically win without American help, whereas the US (with or without the UK) was unable to win had the USSR be defeated.
 * It is impossible to compare African and Western European theatres: obviously, only the latter deserves to be named the Second front. Obviously, Western allies provided enormous help to the USSR and thereby saved millions lives (similarly, to what the Soviets did in Manchuria). However, European theatre was the primary WWII theatre and one must keep that in mind.
 * Re: "if a significant number of other users think..." WP is not a democracy. Not a number of votes matters but logical strengths of arguments. My rationale for changing the order is quite simple: since it is incorrect to compare the relative contribution of the Big Three's members, they should be listed in the order they entered the war. You argue that, since the US contribution was significant (who argue about that?), it should occupy a second position. I see no logic here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On France - shouldn't only sovereign states be listed as belligerents? The government of France signed an armistice on 22 June 1940. The Free French Forces and the French National Liberation Committee were not government entities, no state recognized them as such. On the contrary, the legitimate government of France, "Vichy France", had full diplomatic relations even with Allied powers, Foreign relations of Vichy France. Only after the Vichy regime had dissolved, and longer held jurisdiction over France, did the Allies recognize the Provisional Government of the French Republic as the legitimate interim government of France, on 23 October 1944. If non government entities are going to be treated as belligerents, a great deal more would be appropriate to add to the list, and it would get out of control. Lt.Specht (talk) 20:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I obviously wouldn't call the African theatre the second (or even third) front, but it undoubtedly influed on both European theatres. Anyway, I don't want to start anything as formal as a poll, I just think it should be discussed. We could go on and on for hours about who contributed the most (IMHO, the UK, the US OR the USSR couldn't have won without the other two), and it would be fruitless. My point is that since the USSR began the war as an ally of Germany, and did not conduct major operations with the other two, it should go first. Anyway, if other users agree that we stick to the chronological order, then so be it, I won't lose any sleep over it.
 * As for France : being French myself, I don't want to be chauvinistic (for example, I appreciate the French resistance members for what they were, but I personally think that they were wusses compared to the Greek or Yugoslav ones) but I think it should stay. First, because it was one of the major sovereign belligerents in 1939-40, and the fact that it crumbled (pathetically, I know...) was a major upset. Second, because the situation that followed was fairly complex as far as legality and legitimacy are concerned. The Free French Committee was not recognized by the Allies as a legitimate government (because they actually weren't positive about which was the legitimate government of France was) but it definitely was a military and political partner. As for Vichy being the "legitimate" government, you raise a sensitive point : Pétain was admittedly legitimate as a prime minister, but the legality of the vote for his full powers has been debated. Moreover, he pretty much named himself as Head of state after receiving full powers. Plus, Vichy gradually and arguably lost popular support as it shifted more and more towards collaboration. Now, if we get to 1944, first the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF) proclaimed in june that the surrender of France in 1940 was null and void, and that henceforth Vichy was equally null and void. Second, the GPRF was subsequently recognized by the Allies as the legitimate government of France (october 1944). Since the 1944 ordinances are still in force in France, the legal truth is that France never surrendered at all, and that Vichy never was a legitimate government. Yes, I know, that's rewriting history (very recent history) but that's the legality of it, and it's internationally-recognized. So the official, post-1944, consideration is that France as a sovereign state was always a member of the Allies, never stopped fighting, and that the Axis-aligned Vichy government was devoid of all legitimacy. Granted, the French government-in-exile was recognized as such much later than the Polish equivalent, but they were equally contributors to the war. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "the legal truth is that France never surrendered at all, and that Vichy never was a legitimate government." "...and it's internationally-recognized." "the Axis-aligned Vichy government was devoid of all legitimacy." - Have any sources regarding this stuff? I don't know how a signed armistice can suddenly become null and void. Why would Canada and others recognize Vichy as the legitimate government if it was indeed illegitimate? Don't see how a French ordinance that declares the past to be void and invalid would suddenly affect real history. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't want to be judgemental, but even I find this stuff to be rather weird. I certainly didn't make this up ! Anyway, you can find here a chronology (alas, in French) stating that the GPRF was recognized by the Allies on 23 october 1944 (date also here). Before this, the French National Liberation Committee (i.e., Free France, or its successor entity), predecessor of the GPRF, had been recognized as a valid political partner by the US, the UK, the USSR, and a number of other countries, on 26 august 1943 source : national assembly of France. You can read here at the University of Perpignan website (alas, it's also in French) the ordinance of 9 August 1944 which explicitely states that the surrender never legally took place, that the French Republic never ceased to exist, etc. Vichy is referred to as "the de facto authority which purported to be the government of the French State". This was issued by the GPRF, which was subsequently recognized as the legitimate government by all the Allies, and that means also recognizing its laws. This is still into force in France. Ok, one is perfectly entitled to debate the logic and/or validity of it, but it was recognized by the Allies. Keep in mind that after the Syria-Lebanon Campaign and especially Operation Torch, the Allies were in open conflict, if not officially at war, with Vichy, so they could not pretend that they still recognized its authority and legitimacy. The point in the ordinances was not to rewrite history (well, as a matter of fact, they also did that, and quite shamelessly) but mainly to reassert legality in newly-liberated France and to deny all legitimacy to the pro-German regime (take note that if Vichy had still had any legitimacy, the Allies would have treated France as a defeated Axis enemy : nobody wanted that, and the Allies couldn't afford such tensions with the new french government). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 21:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This appears to be a rather complex subject. It would seem appropriate to at least list Vichy France in the Axis and Axis-aligned list for the time being, in my opinion, anyway. Lt.Specht (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally wouldn't do this, quite simply because Vichy was never officially at war with the Allies. Its only actions were to fight back against the invasions of Africa and the Middle East, and it purported to be "neutral", even though it did help the Germans a great deal (especially with its war industry), rounded up jews, provided backup against the French Resistance with the Milice, allowed the creation of the Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism (which it did not control), etc. But they were still not officially at war (the residual army in mainland France was inactive and was dissolved in late 1942 by the Germans, after the French overseas army massively joined the Allies), so that makes them a rather minor Axis partner, if we are to consider purely military matters.
 * I'm open to debate, though, because it was arguably the most powerful and autonomous "Axis puppet regime" (it actually went beyond being a puppet regime, which makes the matter of its legitimacy a rather touchy subject). One could argue that it was a more powerful and well-structured state than the Independent State of Croatia or the Slovak Republic but still, and unlike them, it never actively took part to the war in the sense that it did not pursue active offensives. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: Vichy. If it declared no war on at least one Ally it cannot be considered a belligerent.
 * Re: "but it undoubtedly influed on both European theatres" Everything affects on everything. The question is how significant the influence was.
 * Re: " since the USSR began the war as an ally of Germany, and did not conduct major operations with the other two, it should go first." This phrase is quite obscure to me. The USSR had never been a Germany's ally, it had a serious conflict with Japan in 1939, it kept more than a half million troops on Manchurian border from 1941 to 1945 expecting Japanese attack (and, by the way, forcing Japan to keep Kwantung Army, her primary fighting force in Northern China), so I don't understand what do you mean. With regards to placing the USSR at the first position of the list, it was not my proposal. I believe it should go second to reflect the fact that before 1941 the USSR (as well as the US) was neutral.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, what about the soviet-german pact ? As for the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, it was certainly important, but it wasn't so difficult a campaign anyway and, as said before, Japan was losing on all fronts anyway. Anyway, I don't think this should be debated forever, we should just see what the other users think. That's a relatively minor issue anyway.
 * Vichy was a de facto belligerent since it fought back against the Allies on several occasions (Dakar, Syria, Operation Torch, plus the Milice and police operations against the French resistance in mailand France) but it was officially neutral, although it had a hostile attitude towards the UK. Plus, as said before, Hitler disbanded all the remaining French troops in mainland France as soon as the overseas troops massively merged with the Free French Forces. Hence, that shows that his trust in Vichy as a co-belligerent was nil. So, while Axis-aligned, Vichy is not IMHO a belligerent serious enough to be in the infobox.
 * I'm not completely sure we should use the flag of communist Yugoslavia, as this was not a state flag before late 1945. Should the royal flag be used ? That's a complex issue (more complex than Poland, IMHO). Maybe we could dispense with Yugoslavia altogether in the infobox ? Not sure about this. (the difference with countries like, say, Norway and Greece, is that both countries had a relatively clear situation, with the escaped troops fighting alongside the Allies on behalf of a recognized government-in-exile. The Yugoslav situation was 10 times more messy than the French situation)
 * Adding Marshall, Brooke and Jodl in the leaders section is a good idea, in my opinion (though we should also include Keitel, Eisenhower and MacArthur). Maybe Osami Nagano, too ?? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Well, what about the soviet-german pact?" It was a non-aggression pact. The fact that some sources incorrectly refer to it as to an alliance changes nothing: the USSR was neutral before 22 June 1941, no country declared a war on it and the USSR itself declared no war on any state (the Soviet-Finnish war was a quite separate case, and most sources consider it as a separate conflict). Of course, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (along with the Munich agreement) was one of key events that triggered WWII. That is why I do not propose to place the USSR at the first position. However, more serious reasons are needed to violate a chronological order thereby giving more weight to the contribution of the US (that were neutral even until the end of 1941) than to the Soviet contribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That went beyond a non-aggression pact, as they invaded Poland together after that and pretty much worked hand in hand in dismembering the country. Anyway, as I said, I don't want to agonize over this question if there is consensus over a purely chronological order. I just think it would be nice to have other opinions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They didn't invade together: there were no coordination between them, and Stalin decided to start his invasion only after it became clear that the Polish defence had collapsed. Let me remind you again, that during the same time the US provided Japan with oil needed for hostilities in China. No war in China would be possible without this oil. I see no reason to place the US before the SU in the list. With regards to other opinions, we need not other opinions, but fresh arguments. In the absence of fresh arguments the chronological order should stay.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Noting that the talk is very long, wondering whether you guys think we should archive. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 03:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

NATO and Warsaw Pact
"Creation of NATO and Warsaw Pact spheres of influence in Europe leading to the Cold War" - that's not right. NATO and the WP were formed in 1949 and 1955 respectively, long after the Cold War began (some time between 1944 and 1947). Should we change it to "US and Soviet spheres of influence", replace the sentence with "Beginning of the Cold War", or remove it? 96T (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Combatant's order.
I see the combatant order has been unilaterally changed twice. The Jean-Jacques Georges' argument on Soviet late entry into the war against Japan reminded me an anecdote about the atomic bomb that that always hits an epicentre: although the USSR joined the war against Japan at the very late stage of the war, it was its entry that forced Japan to surrender. Otherwise, the war would last much longer. The El gato verde's argument on the decisive Soviet role in defeating "most of armies of the most powerful Axis" is quite valid, however, Soviet neutrality during first two years of WWII and its de facto (although not de jure) co-belligerence with Germany in Sep 1939 may serve as an argument against placement of the USSR on the first position. Anyway, since this issue has already been discussed, and since no arguments has been proposed against chronological order, I restore the last stable version.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Therefore, by keeping the chronological order we simply abstain from any attempts to estimate relative contribution of these three countries into combined Allied efforts. BTW, I believe, a footnote should be added to the infobox explaining that the Big Three's members are listed just in the order they entered the war. By contrast, Italy was clearly a junior member of the Axis, and there is no doubts that two major Axis members were Germany in Europe and Japan in Pacific. Hence, I see no reason for chronological order here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * USSR wasn't co-belligirent with Germany. German and Soviet invasions in Poland weren't cooperated. 95.52.122.189 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we might keep the chronological order, because otherwise it might be endless. On the other hand, if we follow that logic, we might put Italy before Japan in the Axis infobox, since Japan signed the Tripartite pact after Italy joined the war and invaded France. Then again, it would seem weird as Italy was decidedly less important than Japan, and left the Axis in 1943. I don't think it is possible to find a solution which would be 100% satisfactory. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I proposed to list the Big Three in a chronological order because based on different criteria each of the Big Three's member can be placed first: Britain for being the first and the most consistent the Axis' opponent, the USSR for fighting against the strongest and the most numerous Axis' armies, both in Europe and Asia (and for defeating them), the USA for making important contribution in Europe/Africa, for being a primary fighting force in Pacific and for providing all other Allies with enormous amount of materiel and armament. Similarly, the argument against Britain's first place is that during the second half of the war her contribution was much smaller than that of the USA (I even don't speak about the USSR); the arguments against placement of the USSR have been already presented above; similarly, arguments against the USA are relatively low importance of the Pacific theatre in 1942-44 (the battles for remote islands in Pacific had a minimal impact on the course of the events in the theatres where really decisive battles occurred), their late entry into the WWII, and the fact that by D-Day the Wehrmacht was just a pale shadow of its former self.

Let's count British impact before 22 June 1941. Let's count: 2 decisive victories (Britain, Iraq), 3 embarrassing defeats, 2 betrayals of allies and 1 provocation resulted German occupation of Scandinavia. Soviet Union, at the same time, never betrayed his allies, took one strategic (though Pyrrhic) victory over German ally (Finland), put end to 3 fascist regimes of Baltic states (took out 3 potential allies of Germany), took diplomatic victory against Germany ally (Romania). Few words about "consistency" of Britain. Let's open "Trading With The Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949" of Charles Higham. Surprise! Britain companies cooperated with Germany (for example, transfered back Czech gold when Wehrmacht occupied Praha, transfered back Belgian and French gold)! What did Soviet Union with collaborationists with Germany? Yes, sent them to GULAG, shooted or hanged. What did Great Britain with its own collaborationist businessmen? Nothing. How should we consider it - the state agreed with the actions of his citizens? So UK cooperated with Germany in financial services? Germany also needed chromite - for war, of course. Germany is fully dependent of chromite trade (see Albert Speer). Germany bought chromite from Turkey - and Great Britain did nothing to prevent it, though after Syrian-Lebanon Campaign it would be best opportunity. Let's imagine: Red Army may bleed out at the battle of Stalingrad, British units are defeated in operation Agreement - but Britain did nothing to prevent Turkey from selling chromite to Germany. Who was co-belligirent after that? And what about co-belligirence with Germany? Soviet Union helped to Second Spanish Republic, Czechoslovakia and offered help to Poland (which wasn't accepted: Poland wanted to invade Soviet Union with Germany, not to sign alliance with USSR). Great Britain let Germany and Italy strangle Second Spanish Republic, offered air space over Gibraltar for Luftwaffe (how should we consider it - cooperation in aggression?) and became an ally of Germany in its aggressions against Austria and Czechoslovakia. Well, I forgot about Western betrayal of Poland. Who aided Germany? Not Soviet Union.95.52.122.189 (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) UK (and France) did nothing to help his ally Poland and let Germany continue the war, though if French and British armies would launched the offensive in September 1939 (like it had been promised to Poland) against Siegfried Line, Germany would collapse. If you consider Soviet invasion in Poland (which army was almost destroyed by 17 September) like help to Germany, let's consider Phoney War like help to Germany too.
 * 2) UK (and France) provoked (Plan R4 and Operation Wilfred) Germany to invade in Denmark and Norway.
 * 3) Battle of France. Defeat.
 * 4) Battle of Britain. Decisive British victory, of course.
 * 5) Bombing of works quarters of German cities. Germany didn't collapse but raised quantity of military production, achieving the record in 1944.
 * 6) Battle of Greece and Cryte. Defeat.
 * 7) Desert War, East African Campaign, Iraq Campaign.
 * 8) Betrayal of France (see Operation Catapulta).
 * 9) Sea battles on Atlantic and Mediterrian which meant a little to land monster named Third Reich.

What about documentation to this template? Aha! "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command."

Who took out "most of armies of the most powerful Axis"? Who made the biggest military contribution? And what about political clout? Churchill knew it in Yalta: Soviet Union had the biggest political clout there.95.52.122.189 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, and the Soviet Union was de facto allied with Germany between 1939 and 1941, helping it to invade and crush Poland. I'd suggest we don't waste our time with this debate and keep the chronological order, which is the best compromise so far. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why Churchill refused to call Soviet Union an ally to Nazi Germany? It's look like he knew about situation better than you.194.106.194.106 (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess he did, since he was living at the time, unlike you and me. On the other hand, France banned the French Communist Party because of the Soviet Union's pact with Germany. Once again, I suggest that we dispense with this debate. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Post hoc ergo propter hoc? Anyway, Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is NON-AGRESSION pact. If French goverment punished FCP just for non-agression pact between USSR and Nazi Germany...El gato verde (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you desire to stop this debate - OK, we'll forget about it, but I wish it to be mutual. I stop to write about something that may be considered "British/French aid to Germany", and you stop to write about something that may be considered "Soviet aid to Germany". It doesn't matter what was aid and what wasn't. Just stop it. But then, we will remember this:

"Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command."

In terms of military contribution Soviet Union is leader. In terms of political clout Soviet Union is leader. If we put Axis by the importance, then we should put Allies by the importance.El gato verde (talk) 06:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * IMHO, a non-aggression pact that results a few weeks later in a joint attack on another country should be considered as going further than what its official definition would imply. I wouldn't say the USSR was a "leader" over anyone in terms of political clout (well, probably over Mongolia and occupied Poland, then over Romania, Hungary and Romania). I'd say it was equal with the UK and US during the conflict, even though the UK clearly saw its clout diminish after the conflict. As far as military contribution is concerned, this is open to debate, and I think we should retain the chronological order after all. It is acceptable enough as a compromise. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: " a joint attack on another country". Obviously, this attack was neither joint nor even appreciably coordinated. Already after German invasion of Poland Ribbentrop telegraphed to Moscow asking if the Soviets plan to do something in Eastern Poland. Until Sept 9 Hitler didn't know whether Stalin planned to invade Poland at all. In addition, no war was declared by the USSR on any country (and, accordingly, on the USSR by any country) after Sept 17 (the day the Soviets invaded Poland). All said above hardly fit a definition of "joint attack".
 * Re: "and the Soviet Union was de facto allied with Germany between 1939 and 1941". Just during the last months of 1939. After that, the relations started to deteriorate quickly. Hitler was displeased with many Soviet steps, he realized that the USSR was a serious obstacle to his domination in Eurasia (and, accordingly, Stalin realized that the Nazi-Soviet would be inevitable in close future).
 * He realized it before 1939, by the way. El gato verde (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "Soviet aid to Germany". Ironically, according to Ericsson's detailed analysis, Soviet aid to Germany had no appreciable contribution to German was successes in Western Europe. The only thing Soviet aid appeared valuable for was Barbarossa, the German attack of the USSR itself.
 * Re: Political clout. Enormous political clout of the US over, e.g., Latin America, and UK's political clout over the rest of the world was indisputable. However, the problem is that these two countries had almost no political clout over the regions where more than a half of WWII hostilities occurred. Do you really think that the fact that almost all banana republics joined the war along with the US had even a minimal consequences for the WWII outcome. The fact is that although political clout of the USSR was not high, its political clout in the regions directly involved in WWII was immense. With regards to Romania, don't forget, please, that the military contribution of this country was very large; it used to be underestimated only because it fought only in the Eastern front.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The attack on Poland may have had little coordination, but I was nevertheless a joint attack which resulted in the utter crushing of said country. I see no point in arguing over this.
 * Obviously, the Latin american countries contributed mostly economically, and had little influence on the course of the war. On the other hand, the British colonial empire had its own military weight. But by "political clout", I meant "influence in the chain of command and the course of the war". I'd say it was equally balanced as far as military might and political influence (in Europe, Asia, Africa, the Middle East...) was concerned. Of course it was important that the USSR could bully Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania to join its side at the end of the war; on the other hand it had little direct political influence on the governments France, Belgium, Italy or the Netherlands were most of the western front's action took place. It does not seem to me that the UK and the US were in any way subordinate to the USSR, or the other way around. (on the other hand, Italy was definitely and de facto subordinate to Germany). Then again I find it tiresome to argue over who contributed the most and find it pointless to continue this debate : it is obvious and has already been said here that each front had an influence on the others. There is no point in denying that each of the "big three" among the allies had a crucial influence on the conflict. What I'd find tiresome would be to keep bickering as if we were on some forum with each trying to defend the flag he acts under (to PS : I'm not referring to you in particular). Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * USA and UK was subordinate to USSR in Tegeran and Yalta. USSR defeated most of the armies of the most powerful Axis. USSR may threaten to USA and UK not to declare war against Japan. On the contrary, USA and UK can't threaten to USSR not to open front in Western Europe. USSR was undisputable leader of Big Three from any points of view.El gato verde (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: "it is obvious and has already been said here that each front had an influence on the others". It doesn't answer the question "Which front was the main one?" It doesn't cancel main role of Eastern Front (Great Patriotic War of Soviet nation). It is pity that Western people forget about decisive role of Soviet Union and have little respect to it. For example, you don't say "Great Patriotic War of Soviet nation", but just "Eastern Front". Thanks for propaganda you think that Red Army won the war by zerg-rush, by having thrown flesh to enemy (one rifle for three soldiers, barrier troops, General Frost and so on). But Red Army, indeed, fought more effectively than Western Allies' armies. Red Army was so powerful that Churchill cancelled operation Unthinkable. While Western Allies were in mincing machine in Italy and Normandy (220 000 KIA, MIA, WIA), Red Army made very successful operations, for example, Yassy-Kishiniov Cannae, when Army Group "South Ukraine" was completely destroyed, and whole southern flank of Eastern Front was eliminated. Red Army paid for this deafening success 65 000 soldiers, only 17 000 of them - KIA, MIA and demobilized. Have Western Allies something similar?El gato verde (talk) 06:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: political clout. Please, keep in mind that the opposition between Nazism and Communism was a main ideological conflict during WWII: remember, the Axis started as the Anti-Comintern pact. The USSR was the stronghold of Communism and it has a immense influence on Communists throughout the world: on French and Italian resistance, in Greece, Yugoslavia (before Tito-Stalin split), Czechoslovakia etc. With regards to the "influence in the chain of command and the course of the war", taking into account that the Eastern front was the only major land theatre of WWII during 1941-mid44 (the time period when the fate of the war was decided), and, taking into account that the western powers had zero influence on the course of the events there, I believe by this criterion the USSR must be placed at the first position (note, I do not propose that, taking into account the 1939 events).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Taking into account 1939 events we can't place Great Britain on the 1st position.--El gato verde (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Red Army took out 507 German divisions and 100 Japanese, Italian, Hungarian, Finnish, Romanian, Bulgarian divisions. It 3.5 times more than any other member of Allies.--El gato verde (talk) 06:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Ho, I see this little political discussion has been going on. Well the idea that the UK and US were in any way subordinate to the USSR in terms of political/military clout is entirely POV and debatable (same thing for the reverse). If the Axis hadn't been seriously inconvenienced by the British and US in Africa and the Middle east, the fate of the eastern front might have been different (again, the reverse is also true), not to mention the italian campaign and operation overlord. If we look at Hitler's war directives collected by Trevor-Roper, we see that he actually dreaded more an attack by the western allies, as they were closer to Germany (attacking by the West) and therefore would have been a greater menace to Germany's balance. In Hitler's opinion, Germany could hope to prevail in the Eastern front if the Western Allies did not attack, but the Western front derailed his plans.

Anyway, I suggest we dispense with useless debates and nationalist sensitivities, and just keep the chronological order. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what could do Germany with USSR, if UK and USA hadn't open front in Italy and France? Germany was sentenced in Stalingrad and Kursk, it had no chances to win.--El gato verde (talk) 10:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"The United States is well aware of the fact that the Soviet Union bears the weight of the fight."

- F. D. Roosevelt

"Red Army decided the fate of German militarism."

- W. Churchill

"French people know what Russia has done and know that Russia has played a major role in their liberation."

- C. de Gaulle

Source: ""Correspondence of the Council of Ministers of the USSR with the U.S. Presidents and Prime Ministers of Great Britain during the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945., V. 2. M., 1976, pp. 204" "The attack on the Third Reich was a joint effort. But it was not a joint effort of two equal parts. The lion’s share of victory in Europe can be awarded only to Stalin’s forces and it is a fantasy to believe that he was fighting for justice and democracy."

"Since 75%-80% of all German losses were inflicted on the eastern front it follows that the efforts of the western allies accounted for only 20%-25%."

"The Third Reich was largely defeated not by the forces of liberal democracy, but by the forces of another mass-murdering tyranny."

"The Americans arrived too late and in too few numbers to play the dominant role."

Source: Norman Davies, article in "Sunday Times" in 05/11/2006.--El gato verde (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Could we dispense with the diplomatic exhanges (obviously friendly countries will send flowers to their respective allies) and keep the chronological order ? We could bother to find conflicting views on this subject and go on forever with this. No one is contesting that the USSR's role (or the US, or UK, etc.) was a major one. However, I think we can dispense with useless flatteries of russian nationalist feelings. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * El gato verde's point is based on reliable non-Russian sources and by no mean it represents a Russian nationalist POW. Interestingly, since in contemporary Western mentality a human life is the most precious thing, the USSR, who sustained the most heavy losses and, importantly, inflicted the most heavy losses on the Axis, should be placed first in English Wikipedia (that is directed mostly at Anglophone, i.e. Western audience). However, it is only a part of truth, and the dirty policy of the USSR in 1939-40 may (although not necessarily can) serve as an argument against the placement of the USSR in the first position.
 * Policy of USSR in 1939-1940 isn't dirtier than policies of UK and USA. USSR didn't trade with enemy, USSR didn't betrayed allies, if it had declared war, it fought till the end. Well, I wanna listen to stories - what did USSR with Germany against Allies? If you say that USSR made an agression against Poland - well, look at the Western reaction: France and UK didn't declare war to USSR, though they promised Poland to protect it from any aggression. We have 2 variants:


 * 1) France and UK betrayed Poland, when they refused to declare war to aggressor named USSR.
 * 2) Actions of USSR wasn't aggression so France and UK didn't betray Poland.
 * One variant exclude another. If Soviet policy was dirty and aggressive, then British and French policies were like behavior of Judas Iscariot. If Soviet buyings of weapon in Germany before 22/06/1941 (before the war between this countries) were dirty, then American trade with Germany during the war was dirtier. I proposed: I would write nothing about UK, USA and France actions that aided Germany, you would write nothing about "Soviet aid to Germany". I don't wanna asymmetry. So we will forget about "aid" and write only about amount of contribution: who made more for victory. I found English research of Soviet contribution, I found de Gaulles, Churchill and Roosevelt words about Soviet contribution, what's more?--El gato verde (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In connection to that, I propose to keep a chronological order, and to add a footnote that explicitly explains that the member of the Big Three are listed in the order they entered the war. I believe that would be the optimal solution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Chronological order of Allies demands chronological order of Axis.--El gato verde (talk) 08:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it should be for the allies: United Kingdom, Soviet Union then the United States, this can be due to the United Kingdom remaining a free fighting force, pretty much summed up with the Battle of Britain (unlike other European states who had been occupied by Nazi forces). Putting two countries which did not get fully involved in combat until 1941 is rather insulting and chauvinistic to those fighting alone in 1940 i.e. Britain.--SuperDan89 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Military contribution is defined not by amount of time but by the amount of defeated enemy armies.--95.52.70.108 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is by both time and contribution, in any case the United Kingdom would still be top (Africa, Europe, Asia etc), actually maybe the Commonwealth nations should be grouped also with the United Kingdom at the top (Australia, Canada)--SuperDan89 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Please, percentage of Axis divisions defeated by British Empire. Soviet Union destroyed 75% of Wehrmacht, maybe UK overscored it by defeated Japanese and Italian divisions?--78.36.211.106 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It is true that the UK was involved in fighting in more theatres than all other powers, but were really any of these theatres comparable to the Eastern Front in scale? 96T (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The footnote explicitly explaining that the Big Three members are listed in a chronological order (in other words, that the question of relative contribution is left beyond the scope) is able to resolve this dispute.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Question of relative contribution was decided by de Gaulle, Churchill and Roosevelt.--95.52.66.175 (talk) 06:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Really. They were witnesses, they knew who had made more than anyone else. There are a lot of wartime quotes about the main and decisive role of Soviet Union. There is no wartime quotes "UK/USA bears the weight of fight". 3-month-long battle of Britain can't be compared with 1-month-long battle of Kursk. Dunkirk stood for about the week. Brest fought 1 month. Norway campaign was about 2 monthes. Sevastopol resisted 250 days. In France British Expeditionary Corps fought for a half of month. Odessa resisted 72 days. While French, British and Greek armies had been surrendered the day after had been surrounding, surrounded Soviet armies continued fiercest resistance and tried to escape the pocket. Even without quotes of politics is really shown, who made more: one who surrendered after surrounding without resistance or one who fought in besieged cities more than 2 years. And what about "dirty politics"? Who made more for contribution: one who betrayed its allies or one who never betrayed them? --95.52.65.158 (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The facts you presented are well known. Everything you write is absolutely correct, although you miss one point: Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and subsequent Nazi-Soviet collaboration. Without that, the USSR unconditionally deserves the first place in the list of the Allies. However, MRP complicates the issue dramatically (the USSR, probably, can be listed first even in that case, although some arguments against that are quite reasonable). That is why I proposed the chronological order, as the measure to abstain from making a judgement in such a controversial case.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we had Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, it is non-military pact, peaceful agreement. It has no connections with military contribution. And it's look like we told about "collaboration" (what is it - Soviet buying of German heavy weapon and thus preventing Germany from using this amount of weapon in the war with France and UK?) - USSR traded only before the war, but UK and USA traded with Germany during the war.--El gato verde (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Whole combatant's order dispute is good example why we had simply "Allies of World War II" and "Axis of World War II" in infobox for very long time. You can argue forever if France should be before or after China, how important is Poland, should UK be before or after USA etc.--Staberinde (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The main participants should be explicitly listed in any event. It should be immediately clear for the reader who were the major participants of WWII. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If everyone really want to have combatants listed I support chronological order. Also I would heavily cut down number of nations listed to 3 Axis nations (which are obvious), and to 3-5 allied nations (big 3 + maybe China and/or France). Also looking that there are Marshall and Alan Brooke from USA and UK instead of like Montgomery or Eisenhower, wouldn't it be logical to replace Zhukov with Vasilevsky?--Staberinde (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think listing every nation in chronological order is the least controversial option available, otherwise the only option is to go back to the "Allies of World War II" and "Axis of World War II". I also support limiting the number of nations listed on both sides: 3 axis (Japan (1937-1945), Germany (1939-1945), Italy (1940-1943)) and 5 allies (China (1937-1945), France (1939-1940), UK (1939-1945), Soviet Union (1941-1945), USA (1941-1945)). This way the order has no judgemental implication such as who made the most contribution to victory, who suffered the highest casaulty, who inflicted most damage to the enemy..... DCTT (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Listing every nation in chronological (or alphabetical) order is absolutely unacceptable. WWII was the world war, so almost all nations were involved in it in smaller or greater extent. However, despite that, only a handful of nations bore the major brunt of this war, so listing them along with numerous small Allies or minor Axis members means to obscure the question who really fought.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I mean listing the 5 permenant members of the UN on the allied side and the 3 original Tripartite Pact members on the axis side in chronological order. DCTT (talk) 05:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Although that is more reasonable, it would lead to confusion, because the first two positions would be occupied by Japan and China. However, it is well known that Pacific theatre played only a secondary role in WWII, and Germany was, without any doubt, a primary Axis member. Germany must go first. With regard to China, situation is also unclear, because formally it joined the Allies only after Pearl Harbour, so, from this point of view your proposal changes nothing. By contrast, if we assume that China was at war since 1937, then it would be in a contradiction with commonly accepted WWII chronology (it is believed that the war started on 1 Sept 1939). Moreover, China, despite of its importance for the Asian theatre cannot go first. A situation with France, which was under a German occupation during almost whole WWII is even more ridiculous. Someone even consider the contribution of Poland (which didn't surrender, btw, and continued to participate in real hostilities, not in their imitation) to be greater than that of France. One way or the another, your proposal is definitely not an improvement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That'is interesting! Allies should go in chronological order, but Axis should remain in "military contribution"-order? It's the mix of bulldog and rhinocerus :)
 * China and Japan would go last because Sino-Japanese war is generally regarded as separate conflict until after Pearl Harbor. I don't see anything wrong with UK-France-USSR-USA-China for allies, and Germany-Italy-Japan for axis. We will never reach anywhere if we try to discuss who contributed more and who less, but those countries, and only those countries, were very clearly regarded as major powers at those times.--Staberinde (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: We will never reach anywhere if we try to discuss who contributed more and who less. No, if we find objective criterias we will be able to order belligirents. Case of "Big Three" is closed, it is obvious who defeated most Axis divisions. And the same criteria we can use with other Allies. Just count how many Axis armies, corps, divisions and so on %countryname% destroyed. Of course, Germans and Japaneses didn't interested by whom was killed every their soldiers - by Soviet, American, British, Frenchman or so on :) But we can use percentage. For example, let's suppose that in the battle of Berlin Polish army was 10% of whole Soviet-Polish forces in this battle (I don't know real number, it's just for example). And Germans lost 100 000 killed and 480 000 captured. Poles on Eastern Front fought as fiercely as Soviet (not like Anders Army), so we may consider their achievements proportional. So, Polish army killed 10% percent of all killed Germans and captured 10% of all captured Germans - 10 000 and 48 000 in absolute numbers. And such actions we will make by every Ally. The simplest case is calculating by campaign. Campaigns of Eastern Front are harder: if on Italian and Western front, as I know, percentage of every Ally was almost constant, on Eastern Front at the start there were little French and Czechoslovak regiments, then Red Army took under it wings Poles, Romanians and Bulgarians, at the start there were regiments, then divisions, then corps, armies. So percentage of friendly nations never was constant.--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: No, if we find objective criterias we will be able to order belligirents.
 * Objective criterias? This is most basic "wikipedians know it best", that can't end well, or it probably will be never ending. I have plenty of experience with various such arguments around here, they should be avoided if any other solution can be found.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Military infobox demands order by contribution. And another criterias should be argumented before being implemented. There is no consistency in order "Chronology for Allies, contribution for Axis". --El gato verde (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, not. The Big Three made a decisive contribution into the Allied victory and bore the major brunt of the war. China, despite its heavy losses, played much smaller role. France cannot be considered seriously at all, because it surrendered in 1940, and during the most decisive period of the war it was de facto the part of the German Reich. Remember the famous Keitel's phrase on May 8, 1945 in Potsdam...--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my. Okay, lets play it that way. UK-USSR-USA vs Germany-Japan and that's it. All undisputable major contributions. No minor players or anything, short and clear.--Staberinde (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "UK-USSR-USA vs Germany-Japan" - it "chronology vs contribution"?--El gato verde (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Re: " UK-USSR-USA vs Germany-Japan and that's it." Not completely. " UK-USSR-USA" PLUS explicit statement that they are listed in the chronological order. And not "Germany-Japan", but "Germany-Italy-Japan", or "Germany-Japan-Italy". Italy was one of three major Axis members and the oldest fascist state. --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Why should we use another criteria, not by military contribution? Is it so complicated question to find relative contribution? For the first three members situation is clear, the same criteria we can use for another Allies. --El gato verde (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, in Axis list Finland should go before Hungary and Romania, Red Army considered Finland army as more serious rival than Hungarian, Romanian and even Italian one. --El gato verde (talk) 04:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I like that idea Paul, I think: UK-USSR-USA vs Germany-Japan-Italy is best (BTW good this is all being discussed in a civilized manner!) --SuperDan89 (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * How interesting: idea "chronos vs contribution" is best without any argumentation. Why should we order one side by chronology and another side by contribution?--El gato verde (talk) 05:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I could probably argue against inclusion of Italy for few weeks, but at the moment I really don't feel like doing it, so I am essentially fine with this proposal.--Staberinde (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Reverted the rearrangement of the minor Axis powers: According to Romania during World War II, Romania had 1,2 million men fighting on the Eastern front, while Finland, according to Continuation War, had 530,000. I can't find any numbers for Hungary, but it was a larger country than Finland, fought in more theaters (both on the Eastern Front and in Yugoslavia), had tighter formal connections to the Axis, acted as a regional power during the interwar era (the Little Entente was formed to counter it), and was involved on the Axis side for more time than Finland (1940-45, compared to 1941-44 for Finland). So I changed the order from Finland-Hungary-Romania to Romania-Hungary-Finland. I do however disagree that the dictators of Romania and Hungary should be listed when leaders for minor Allies such as Poland and Canada are not. 96T (talk) 10:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, Finland had less soldiers than Hungary and Romania. But did Romanian and Hungarian armies destroyed more Soviet regiments and divisions than Finnish one? Red Army considered Wehrmacht as the most serious rival, then there was Finnish army, then Japanese one, then Italian, Hungarian and Romanian ones. --El gato verde (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First, do you have a source for that? Second, the Finnish army may have been more competent than the Romanian and Hungarian ones, and if they did destroy more Soviet divisions (not counting the Winter War, of course) that counts for something, but measured by most objective terms (more fronts, much closer political ties to the Axis, more men, longer membership of the Axis) Romania and Hungary clearly go before Finland. 96T (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Soviet memoires are on Russian. Well, I don't care much about Finland's place.

What is the significance of Italy other than being the original signatory of the Tripartite Pact? It seems that the Italians surrendered rather quickly after Allied forces landed, and even sided with the Allies which prompted Hitler to began occupation of northern Italy. If no one has a good argument, then I propose that Italy should not be bolded on the axis side. DCTT (talk) 16:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Italy fought in 6 fronts (France, Nothern Africa, Eastern Africa, Balkans, Soviet Union and Italy itself).--El gato verde (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I thought the allies order was agreed to be UK-USSR-USA? So why hasn't it been changed yet?--SuperDan89 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.132.60 (talk)
 * Who agreed? Who argued point of view that we should use "chronology vs military contribution"?