Talk:World War II/Infobox

The template is used in this article: World War II.

Picture should include something about the holocaust

One of the most culturally significant events of the second world war (and modern history) was the holocaust and I believe that this should have some representation in the collage Mikeonatrike (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of France

The list of main Allies in the infobox has been created in a strange way. Of course USSR, UK and USA undoubtedly belong on this list, I can hardly understand (more frankly: I can't understand) the reasons for including France and excluding Poland, Canada and other countries. I.e. what makes France a "more main" ally than Poland? Sir Wolf 16:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a long, long debate and discussion about who to put in the infobox. If you check the archives over at the Talk:World War II page, you'll see it in more detail. Personally, I don't believe France belongs there, my opinion has always been to leave it at Allies and Axis. Oberiko 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel to settle this problem, there can be no concensus. No one is going to agree, and we've tried at least 10 times. We can't keep waiting and saying 10 times is not enough, this needs to be settled, not let it fall into place. I am supportive exactly how the infobox is right now. --LtWinters 23:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

But why are you supportive? What criteria are you using to say that France (and which France?) is a major power? Why is the cut-off line where it is?

I'm kind of busy with an article and map I'm working on at the moment, but once I'm done with it I'm going to do a bit of research as to who the experts (various authors) consider to be the major powers; ultimately, none of us are qualified to make the decision. Oberiko 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If we can agree to the simple "Allies and Axis" I'd have no problem with that. On the other hand, if individual states are listed then the Allied side at least has to list the five post war UN Security Council permanent seat holders. Not only does that arrangement within the UN demonstrate their importance for the Allies, but their wartime contributions were also greater then those of other countries (like for instance Poland or Canada). None of that is said to belittle the contributions of any states involved in WWII (well at least not Allied ones), I for one come from a state that contributed very little to the Allied cause.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Apparently the Allies considered France enough of a power to be one of the 4 occupying powers of Germany after 1945. No other allied power, occupied or not (Canada, Belgium, Greece, Netherlands, etc) controlled parts of Germany. The main allies are usually listed as: USSR, USA, UK and France (not Canada, not China). I would limit the list at those 4. Arnoutf 17:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would China, which wasn't involved in the European Theatre, be in any control of Germany? And, as shown below, France was given post-war power, at British insistance, to off-set the Soviets, not for their contribution (which is why the U.S., U.K., U.S.S.R., and China were). Oberiko 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recall that you have not to pull up your own historical analysis. The question is not to know if France deserve his historical position, but if historian agree on the fact that France was one of the principal nations among allies. The answer is yes.--213.103.28.83 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there was two France during the War... On the french Wikipedia, the infobox does not enlist any country, but links to Allies and Axis instead... I think it's the best for the infobox... -Ash_Crow 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another issue USA, was involved in America, Asia, Oceania, Africa and Europe; the UK in Asia, Oceania, Africa and Europe; USSR in Europe and Asia, France in Africa and Europe, Japan in America, Oceania, and Asia. China only in Asia. That makes China the only combatant limiting its efforts to its own continent (and basically to fighting the occupation of its own country). What makes the difference there between China and for example Luxembourg (not often mentioned as an important ally)? In other words, this seems a fairly subjective issue, depending on POV. Arnoutf 18:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union fought only Germany until the very end of the war. Geographical location doesn't mean much of anything. For example, Polish soldiers fought in almost every theatre the British did, does that by default make them major? Oberiko 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

De Gaulle
How can he be considered as significant as Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill or Chiang? He was a figurehead. He never had operational control of Free French Forces, he barely even had a division until the end of 1942 (by which time the tide of war was turning anyway). He wasn't even a head of government until late 1944. Grant | Talk 19:10, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone you would prefer in his place? I agree that his role was relatively minor, but I think to an extent, it would be a bit unfair to list France amongst the major powers (which I myself disagree with, but this is neither here nor there), but not list a leader for them. Parsecboy 19:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point, dude. It doesn't matter if you disagree that he was an important figure, the fact of the matter is that he was the most important figure of France during WW2 following its defeat in the mainland, and since France is listed as a major country, it needs a leader to be listed to follow its template. There has never been a problem before, and since only YOU seem to have a problem with it, I will continue to undo your edits. Tribulation725 21:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not make any alterations to the infobox until we have a rough agreement here.

IMO, it seems we have two potential solutions: either list France and De Gaulle (I don't think Paul Reynaud, Édouard Daladier, Philippe Pétain or any of the Vichy France prime ministers would be satisfactory), or don't list France at all. I'm personally in favor of the latter. Oberiko 22:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Oberiko; stop reverting eachother, it won't get either side anywhere besides blocked for edit-warring. I think my support of the latter option proposed by Oberiko is made clear in my earlier post. Parsecboy 22:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we have to have a leader for France. This "five countries = five leaders" thing is cartoon history (dude). It presupposes that a state is crucial in being a major military or political leader. Not that the comic opera figure, De Gaulle was either, before late 1944. By way of comparison, Gandhi and Chairman Mao survived without control of a state for much longer and even they were more significant in WW2 than De G (whom Churchill summed up as "the most ungrateful man since Judas Iscariot. Some ego, Winnie.)

Anyway I've long been on the record as opposing France's inclusion in the box in toto, so I support the Oberiko-Parsec plan wholeheartedly. Grant | Talk 00:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And for what reason, exactly? The nations that are listed are listed because they are the five nations that were granted permanant veto power on the United Nations following the Second World War, ranked in order of importance and in their involvement. If you choose not to include France, then I vote we remove the United States or the Soviet Union, as they seem to be of equally little importance in this war due to the current context of our little situation.Tribulation725 03:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Emphasis on "following the Second World War"! As in: "not during". See also Dumbarton Oaks Conference.

Tribby you're at a disadvantage because I've debated this very issue on these pages more times than you've had hot breakfasts. Grant | Talk 04:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, Tribulation, in what campaigns were the French of vital importance? What crucial supplies and war materiel did the French industry produce? Where was their participation in the Pacific theater of the war? I don't see how the USA or USSR are in any way in the same category of France. Parsecboy 10:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, beyond the Norwegian Campaign and the immediately following Battle of France, the closest battles/campaigns I can think of where the French provided "significant" contributions was the Syria-Lebanon campaign (5000 French troops out of ~ 35000 Allied troops vs. ~ 35000 Vichy French troops) and the Battle of Bir Hakeim (with 3700 troops).

It looks like significant numbers of French troops didn't start to fight with the Allies until the formation of the XIX Corps (France) after Operation Torch. In the Free_French_Forces article it states that the FFF eventually raised 1.25 million soldiers by the end of the war, but there's no citation on it.

So, in comparison, do we have the figures for Canadian, Australian, Indian or Polish soldiers? Oberiko 11:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I should correct myself, the most important thing for us to do is to avoid WP:OR find sources as to who the major powers are. I know that the sources will vary, but if we can determine a consistency among them, we can probably work it out from there. Oberiko 12:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Statistics comparing total personnel are problematic, because there weren't single, official, distinct Polish or French military forces after their respective defeats by Germany.

However, comparisons can be made using military deaths (from World War II casualties).

China experienced 3,800,000 Nationalist/Communist military dead (including 400,000 taken POW) in 1937-45.

French (Allied) war dead = 210,000: 150,000 regular forces (1939-40, 92,000 + FF 1940-45, 58,000) + 20,000 French resistance + 40,000 French POWs in Germany.

Polish military deaths = about 160,000 ("66,300 in the 1939 Invasion of Poland, 10,000 in Polish Armed Forces in the West, 24,700 with the 1st Polish Army alongside the USSR and 60,000 Polish resistance movement fighters".) I guess that includes those who fought against the USSR in 1939. But I'm not sure if Polish POW deaths are included.

For India (inc present day Pakistan and Bangladesh), total military deaths were 87,040.

In WW2, the total number of Australian and Canadian veterans was about one million each, with 40,000 and 45,000 dead respectively. Significant contributions relative to their populations (just under seven million and just over 11 million respectively).

Needless to say, death and suffering is not proof of military might and the personnel of many other Allied suffered in similar proportions to the French resistance and POWs, especially in Asia.

In addition, the Free French contribution was clearly much less than that of Poles, Indians or Australians for three long years in 1940-43. (During which time the Canadian Army was mostly left champing at the bit and later suffered high casualties in Italy and NW Europe.) Grant | Talk 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough choice guys, but after consideration I don't think France should be listed as a major power. If this would be the case, I think we would have to list Poland and other Allies as well, and Romania and Hungary on the Axis side. Nevertheless, if France is listed, I think we have to list a leader as well, and this will be tricky! De Gaulle on the Allied side and Pétain on the Axis side? No, I vote for the "Big Seven" only: USSR, China, US, UK and Germany, Japan and Italy. After all, there are "et.al." links to the Allies and Axis below the "big ones". My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Something else to consider is that sources can be found for the U.S., British Commonwealth and U.S.S.R. for having critical contributions that won the war or prevented it from being lost. I haven't found any such item for France. Oberiko 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking the World War II casualties page, it looks like over 2 million Indians served in Commonwealth forces, more then the number of French soldiers at the end of the war. France's 1.25 million places it (if number of soldiers is our only metric for the moment) below India and just above Canada's 1.1 million. I think that's a pretty unreasonable cut-off point, especially considering the larger Allies (U.S., British Commonwealth, U.S.S.R., China) fielded over 10 million each (just over five million for the U.K. if discounting its Commonwealth forces). Oberiko 14:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

According to Battle of France, by 1940 the draft had swollen the French armed forces to a peak of six million (presumably including forces in and from French colonial countries around the world). I would assume that a reasonable proportion of those were also included in that 1.25 million in 1945 (which also included a large proportion of the resistance). That makes for a total of about seven million French WW2 veterans on the Allied side. However, only 5-10% of those saw active service for more than a year, fewer than the comparable numbers of Polish, Indian, Australian or Canadian veterans. Grant | Talk 16:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, there was no major allied power called "France" between mid 1940 - mid 1944; there was occupied France, Vichy France and Free France... --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 19:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye, that's a kicker, we have 5 different political entities potentially called France.

• The French Third Republic
• Vichy France
• Free French Forces
• The 2/3 of France occupied by the Nazis
• Three-parties

Which one(s) is/are the ones in the Allied box? Oberiko 19:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

So, we seem to have a lot of material as to why France shouldn't be included, anyone want to put forward some reasons why they should (more so then India, Poland and Canada)? Oberiko 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems there aren't any editors involved here that support France's inclusion, with the exception of Tribulation, but he/she hasn't posted anything here in a couple days. I posted a notice on the main WWII talk page several days ago, when this discussion started, and no one has responded from there. I suppose there are two options before us: make the change based on this apparent consensus, or we can post notices elsewhere, perhaps at the Milhist wikiproject and at the RfC:Hist in an attempt to bring more opinions to the discussion. Oh, and thanks for labeling the archive, Oberiko; it just slipped my mind :) Parsecboy 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

No worries Parsec, and WP:MILHIST is always a good idea, I'll post a notification there. Oberiko 23:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This does raise some interesting questions, doesn't it? There are a few points I'd like to make. First and most importantly, we're in danger of slipping into anachronism here. It's not how we perceive France at 60 years' distance that matters, it's how France was perceived at the time: was it treated as one of the Great Powers or not? I think the evidence on this point is clear. If you look at the various agreements that ended the fighting and began the occupation of Germany, France was clearly treated as one of the four principal Allies: see for instance the German Instrument of Surrender and the Berlin Declaration (1945). None of the other Allied countries were included in these key agreements. On this basis alone, we must include France in the major Allies box. Second, France was a co-equal with Britain during the period between the fall of Poland and the Battle of France; it played an absolutely central role. Third, with regard to Oberiko's point above, what's not been mentioned is the fact that while metropolitan France may have been occupied, much of the overseas French empire (with a vastly greater area and population than France itself) went over to the Free French and was used to aid the continuing French war effort - there was never a point at which the French government lost all of its territory, as happened with Poland or Czechoslovakia, for instance. And fourth, I noticed the mentions of India, Australia, Canada etc - they're usually treated as being in the British column, since some were under the direct command of Britain - as in the case of India - while others like Australia (if I remember rightly) were effectively under operational control for much of the war. -- ChrisO 01:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at this point by point.

• France was not included in several major conferences, including:
  • Moscow Conference
  • Tehran Conference
  • Dumbarton Oaks Conference
  • Yalta Conference
  • Cairo Conference
  • Potsdam Conference \ Potsdam Agreement \ Potsdam Declaration
  • Second Quebec Conference
  • In fact, taking a quick glance at List_of_World_War_II_conferences, France was prominent at two of them; one being FFF, the other Vichy. Even Canadian Prime Minister King was in two of them.
• Next, France was Britain's equal in the beginning, true, but most of that consisted of the Phony War, when no combat was actually being waged. France's contributions, militarily, are three demi-brigades, two cruisers and eleven destroyers in the Norwegian Campaign (compared to four brigades, four battleships, three aircraft carriers, four heavy cruisers, twenty-one destroyers etc. by the British) and in the Battle of France, where France indeed mobilized over two million soldiers, but only for a little over a month.
• Regarding the overseas empire, most of France's colonies remained in Vichy possession, not aligned with the Free French and the Allies, but against them.
  • Even after Operation Torch, when many colonies joined France, they still can't have contributed significantly, as can be seen by the small figures of FFF strength at the end of the war, just over 1.25 million
• While India was administrated by the U.K., Canada and Australia were not, see the discussion below on that.
• France and the U.N.: As has been pointed out many times before, France on the U.N. really doesn't mean much, they were only there since the U.K. wanted a strong France to help keep the Soviet Union in check after the war:
  • Regarding the U.N., the U.S. State Department specifically states [1] "The major Allied Powers--the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China..." and later "The basic framework for the proposed United Nations rested on President Roosevelt’s vision that the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and China would provide leadership in the postwar international system. It was these four states, with the addition of France, that would assume permanent seats in the otherwise rotating membership of the United Nations Security Council." Note that France is something special, and not considered a "major power".
  • Further "At the insistence primarily of the British government, France was accorded a major role in the formation of the United Nations Organization..." (A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II, pg. 901)
  • "In 1943 at the Allied summit meeting in Tehran, FDR described his latest vision of internation organization: an assembly to which all states belonged, an executive committee of around ten membes made up of the Big Four plus two representative of Europe, and one representative apiece of Latin America, the Middle East, the Far East, and the British dominions, which would deal with nonmilitary subjects, and, as a distinct group, "The Four Policement" who would deal with all military matters... Unhealthy, and distracted by greater priorities, Roosevelt permitted the dilution of his original vision. During Dumbarton Oaks Conference of 1944, he agreed to the British suggestion that France be included on the Security Council, while suggesting that Brazil too should have a permanent seat" (The American Way of Strategy, pg. 180)
  • "The makeup of the conference raised eyebrows. Roosevelt insisted that China be included as the Fourth Policeman because he wanted to replace Japan someday as the power of Asia in the post-war world. The idea of China developing into a world power struck Churchill as ludicrous. He would have preferred France at Dumbarton Oaks, for he looked on a rejuvenated France as the vital balance in Western Europe against any westward moves by the Soviet Union. But Roosevelt, though he finally accepted the principle of France as Fifth Policeman..." (United Nations: The First Fifty Years, pg. 7) Oberiko 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

(This is not a comment on ChrisO:s post above). Sorry if I complicate things, Oberiko, I sincerely don't want to...but has this vote been invalidated? (even though I am personally for a listing of major participants). Sorry for messing, I took no part in that voting, I just wonder if it was invalidated...--Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 02:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Howdy DNA, that vote was a straw-poll and never actually took effect. Revert wars began when it was attempted. Oberiko 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

For the inclusion of France and not in a mood to argue this over and over again. Note, don't forget the Saar Offensive of 1939 (minor indeed but still some action, particularly compared to Norway) and the Italian Campaign 1943/44 to France's credit. Back on leaders themselves it should not be forgotten that de Gaulle was already minister in the 1940 cabinet and on official mission to the UK at the Armistice and has a good claim for continuity. And I'm far from a Gaulist.--Caranorn 15:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Saar Offensive was conducted by 11 divisions and met "negligable resistance", the same can not be said of Norway where Germany lost the bulk of her surface fleet.
• In the Italian Campaign, "... the French Corps was French by name only, comprising the Second Moroccan and the Third Algerian Infantry Divisions, where only the officers were French. The French Corps also contained the Fourth Moroccan Division and the First Motorized Division, but both these these units were still in Africa." (Poles in the Italian Campaign, 1943-1945 - Page 38)
• Continutity is very contentable. Vichy was legally recognized as being the state of France by the United States, who even appointed an ambassador ("The United States also found it expedient to maintain relations with Vichy France, which had averted occupation by collaborating with the Nazis. But even though the Roosevelt administration sent lend-lease material to areas under Free French control, it refused to recognize the government of "Free France," then in exile in London and led by the imperious Charles de Gaulle. The U.S. ambassador to Vichy France, Admiral William Leahy, authorized shipments of coal, sugar and cotton to persuade the French to withhold naval assistance from the Axis." -- Crucible of Power: A History of U.S. Foreign Relations Since 1897, pg. 195) Oberiko 20:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there anyone else who wants to venture a contribution to the discussion? If not, I'd like to take it to a straw poll to further gauge the level of consensus. Oberiko 18:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources regarding France's status as a major/minor power

• The Economics of World War II: Six Great Powers in International Comparison
  • The book focuses on the following on the UK, the United States, Germany, Italy, Japan and the USSR.
  • China
    • "a low-income great power"
    • "Between 1938 and 1942 the UK was joined by the USA, USSR and China in the alliance which would eventually become the United Nations"
  • France (Ally)
    • The author refers to France as a great Allied power in the beginning.
    • In his "Armed forces of the great powers" table, he includes France for the years 1939 and 1940.
  • France (Axis)
    • Post 1940, the author puts their resources at German disposal.
    • "France provided Germany with as much food as all of the occupied USSR and more industrial materials... German occupation policies successfully extracted 30-40 per cent of the wartime national products of France, the Netherlands, and Norway." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oberiko (talk • contribs) September 17, 2007 (UTC)

• The Chinese Army 1937-49: World War II and Civil War
  • "It has been estimated that in the period 1937-45 some 14 million Chinese served in the armed forces, losing about 1400000 dead and 1800000 wounded." Oberiko 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• The Transformation of Southeast Asia: International Perspectives on Decolonization
  • "France had lost its great power status during the Vichy period of occupation and collaboration and was then only reinstalled as a great power because of Britain's desire to concentrate more on its empire and less on the European continent."

• The Rand McNally Encyclopedia of World War II
  • "France was refused representation at Yalta, due to the United States, who did not agree with England's desire to build France into a Great Power again. However both Allies supported giving France a zone of occupation in Germany."

• From World War to Cold War: Churchill, Roosevelt, and the International History of the 1940s
  • "France had been occupied and never again achieved great power status." Oberiko 23:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to say that there is a mistake in the post by Oberiko in saying that only the officers of the French Expeditionary Corps were French. That is untrue, despite modern popular opinion (influenced, for example, by the new film "Indigenes"). The divisions, though indeed composed in Africa (the re-Allied French North African Army), comprised a very significant proportion of ethnic French (as opposed to North Africans). In fact, this French portion was about 48% of the total French Expeditionary Corps composition; the other 52% were primarily North Africans. Although most of the officers were French, that in no way comprises even close to a majority of the 48%, and, in fact, there were also a few North African officers as well.

I personally am a supporter of the inclusion of France in the infobox primarily because, as others have mentioned, the inclusion of France in the UN security council, but also because, to a lesser extent, military contribution. Ignoring the famous Free French, one could say that the French government was Allied in the periods of 1939-1940 and the end of 1942 until the end of the war. (If you are confused, that is because the Germans invaded the free zone of Vichy France following the cease fire in North Africa, breaching the terms of the armistice and therefore re-establishing an active state of war between France and Germany; when Admiral Darlan declared for the Allies, it is because he had the right to under French law, which stipulated that there can be no recognized French leader, i.e. Petain, under the captivity of an enemy state. Since no peace treaty had been signed, this meant that the cease-fire was null and void, and authority passed to he of highest rank who was allowed to govern, i.e. Darlan, who was not under captivity of an enemy state. Again, for those who are confused, the United States, who indeed had Darlan captive during all this, was not defined as an enemy state. Neither was, for that matter, the United Kingdom. The irony of course, is that Darlan declared for the Allies in the name of Petain, since Darlan thought, arguably rightfully, he was fulfilling Petain's private wishes as had been expressed to him in private. In any case, the resumption of armed warfare between France and Germany and the return of France to the Allied war effort at the end of 1942 is a sentiment universally shared, not only in primary source editorials in American newspapers, modern historical books, such as An Army at Dawn, but also on a governmental level, where the United States no longer recognized the occupied Vichy regime in mainland France.)

Besides being not only instrumental to, but also by far the primary Allied force during the May 10th campaign, France, upon rejoining the war effort in 1942, fought at one point or another in every campaign of the war in varying degrees. The French were a primary and very important force in the Tunisian Campaign (again, not even including the Free French, who were both integrated in the 8th Army and fighting within the Leclerc column) and the Italian Campaign, where they provided the breaking of the Gustav Line during the Fourth Battle of Monte Cassino. France was also the primary force in Southern France following the often overlooked Operation Dragoon, where, after the initial landings, France provided about half the soldiers (French First Army, initially called French Army B) and liberated the crucial port towns of Marseille and Toulon, which would provide 1/3 of Allied supplies to the northern Allied armies until the liberation of Antwerp.

In addition to these major French actions, one could also mention the minor actions (little things like Ouistreham, liberation of Elba, etc.), but of particular note are the Normandie-Niemen airforce regiment, which fought on the Eastern Front, and the March 9th 1945 coup by Japanese forces, which pitted hopelessly out-classed French and Indochinese forces in French Indochina against the Japanese in some particularly bloody fighting (for the small size of the battle; this is not to mention earlier fighting against the Japanese in 1940, and the related French-Thai War of the same year to 1941). Thus, France fought in essentially every campaign of the war, not including the Gaullist Free French of 1940-1943.

And yes, France fought against the Allies several times from the fall of France to 1942. However, it should be noted that at each of these occurrences, the cause of the fighting was the Allies themselves, who attacked/invaded French territory. The French military in particular, remained anti-German in morale, and indeed this was a theme of many French commanders, including General Weygand, who saw the resumption of conflict with Germany and Italy as inevitable and thus proceeded to build up the French African Army accordingly. In short, the primary motivations behind resisting Allied invasions were the following:

-A sense of honor; i.e. a sentiment like the following: "we have been attacked, we will fight"

-A need to stick to the terms of the armistice; a term of the armistice was that the French would resist ANY invader (including the Axis, as shown by fighting with Japan and Japan's soon-to-be ally, Thailand, though technically the Tripartite Pact wasn't signed until a day after the fighting in Indochina, 1940, began to die down). Failure to comply to this agreement would have resulted in repercussions from the Germans and probably a breach of the armistice, as happened in 1942 when France re-entered the Allied side.

Finally, it should be noted that casualties taken by Vichy forces fighting the Allies is nowhere near the level of casualties taken from fighting the Axis post-1940. To put this in perspective, under 3,000 (almost the exact same number of dead Indians in the Indian National Army that fought against the Allies) opposed to 58,000, and I am unsure if that under 3,000 even includes Vichy Indochinese forces fighting the Japanese and Thai. By contrast, that 58,000 death count alone (which does not count Resistance deaths; these are military deaths only), not including the 92,000 of the May 1940 campaign, is greater than the death counts of Canada (45,300), Australia (40,400), and even post-1939 Poland excluding resistance fighters (34,700). And while an exorbitant death count may be an indication of bad leadership or deployment, those 58,000 troops who died post-1940 were neither very poorly led (as opposed to the failures of the May 1940 campaign) as they were under a unified Allied command (Anglo-American) nor poorly supplied (supplied primarily by the British, then the Americans), except in the Tunisian Campaign of 1942-1943 or the Indochina campaign of 1945, where French forces used entirely outdated French equipment. Nevertheless, even removing the death counts of those two campaigns, the French death count post May 10th would still be above that of Canada's. (Of course, these are all from a military perspective and not necessarily from an economic one, where Canada, for instance, played a very large role.) India sustained more deaths during the war than the French 58,000 post 1940, but it was a British administration, as opposed to an independent country, and therefore is represented by the UK's inclusion of the infobox.

As for Charles de Gaulle, I believe he is the closest France had to a unified leader. Putting Daladier would be like putting Chamberlain. Reynaud ruled only for the May 1940 campaign. Petain wasn't in charge of an active war state, since he was in recognized power only from the end of the May/June 1940 campaign until the end of 1942. Darlan was shortly assassinated. Giraud lost his power to de Gaulle by 1940. Thus, for the crucial end-of-war phase, as well as the occupation of Germany and UN representation, it was de Gaulle who was in charge.

Nevertheless, I like many others, support mostly an Allied/Axis infobox as opposed to one that lists individual nations. - Jean de Pied (not sure how to sign my name here...)

You sign like this ~~~~. There are two main issues here:

France. No-one is doubting that the contribution of the Free French forces was substantial, especially for a country under occupation. Nevertheless, it was not anything like the scale of the Soviets, USA, UK or China, except for a brief period in 1939-40 (and no, I wouldn't say it was in the same league in 1944-45). The UN Security Council reflected post-war military strength, not wartime strength.

De Gaulle. He — unlike Stalin, Roosevelt/Truman, Churchill or Chiang — did not have operational control or French forces. De Gaulle was purely a political leader and really only a symbolic one at that. Grant | Talk 09:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of France's status is original research

This discussion is all original research. Never mind interpreting the facts about various countries' participation; never mind even sourcing those facts.

Which countries do the important historians list as major participants or "great powers" of World War II? That's the only question which needs be answered to settle this. Pull out your big history books and see what they say. —Michael Z. 2007-09-19 04:41 Z

Did you see Oberiko's last post? He provided several sources, all relegating France to a secondary position, behind the Big Three and China. Those who favor France's inclusion on this list have provided no sources to support their position. Parsecboy 12:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

One should look at the opinion of the majority of WWII historians. What do they say? While France's role in victory is only marginal, being the fifth power and one of the largest armies at the time of the declaration of war (that made the conflict global) is surely not secondary. 132.248.81.29 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Oberiko has provided several sources that relegate France to a secondary position. Those arguing for its inclusion have produced zero sources, but speak in vague terms about "the majority of WWII historians". Either provide sources, or your comments are pointless. Parsecboy 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not fully correct. Oberiko has provided some informations and quotes but nothing overwhelmingly convincing. I mean, most his quotes refer to the formation of the UN and the fact that France would have received the 5th permanent seat only at the insistance of England. Interesting, but remains the fact that when the 5 permanent seats were granted, France got one.

Oberiko has also interesting arguments regarding Yalta and other conference where France was not represented....well, China was not in Yalta either :-)

Very convincing argument on the other hand brought by ChrisO, mainly: "If you look at the various agreements that ended the fighting and began the occupation of Germany, France was clearly treated as one of the four principal Allies: see for instance the German Instrument of Surrender and the Berlin Declaration (1945). None of the other Allied countries were included in these key agreements. On this basis alone, we must include France in the major Allies box." That is a very good point I think (by the way, I am not French, in case the information would interest anybody): the discussion on why France was treated as a main allie is interesting, but it appears it was treated that way at least for a good deal. Bradipus 22:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the last three sources provided by Oberiko above. They explicitly state that after the French defeat, they were no longer a major power, and only regained that status after the end of the war, at the insistence of the British. Parsecboy 23:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote on Allies/Axis vs. Nationality in the infobox (2nd attempt)

Below is a vote on whether to use "Allies" and "Axis" or listing of the major participants in the "combatants" section of the war info box. The first option will be that the only listed combatants will be the "Allies" and the "Axis" with links to the appropriate articles. The second option will indicate a preference for major participants instead of only Allies and Axis.

Each Wikipedian is allowed one vote in each poll. For the sake of clarity, discussion and opinions beyond simple name-tagging are requested to not to be added to the voting section, but instead to an attached "comments" section.

Each poll will have a duration of one week unless otherwise specified.

The following applies if, and only if, the nationalities option wins in the vote
Should the second option win in the first round, it is suggested that discussions commence to attempt consensus on three (with possibly more added later) issues prior to discussion the metrics of individual nations:

• The upper limit of combatants per side to list (not which combatants, but how many)
• If Axis and Allies should still be listed in addition to the major powers (ie: Allies: Nation X, Nation Y; Axis: Nation A, Nation B).
• Discussions on how nation "groupings" should be handled (ie: France vs. French Third Republic, Free French, Vichy; British Commonwealth vs. U.K., Canada, Australia etc.)

Note
WP:!VOTE states that polling is not an alternative to consensus. This poll is initiated by myself (Oberiko) as it appears to me that consensus is not a possibility in the matter. The results are, therefore, not binding. This is more of a means to gauge editor directions.

Allies/Axis or Nationality listings poll (Started: September 26, 2007 - Ends: October 3, 2007)

Support Allies / Axis

1. --Dna-Dennis 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
2. --Grant | Talk 09:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
3. --Oberiko 11:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
4. --Parsecboy 12:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
5. --FactotEm 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
6. --wbfergus ^Talk 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
7. --Eron ^Talk 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
8. --Staberinde 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Support Nationality listings

1. --Ko Soi IX 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
2. --96T 17:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I've previously been for nationality listings, but now I vote for Allies/Axis only. Why? Well, for starters, we will avoid a lot of controversies and continued "wheelgrinding" on who, why and how to sort etc. Let's delegate the matter to the articles Allies and Axis - "they knew what they were into, I say: Let 'em crash!" :). Regards, --Dna-Dennis 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as we limit the list to major players only. With respect, Ko Soi IX 04:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As shown in many places, the issue of who major players are is highly debatable. The only ones who we (and every source I've ever read) universally agree on are the U.K. (and sometimes its Commonwealth), the United States, the Soviet Union, Germany and Japan. Powers that I've seen sometimes, but not always, labeled as major (depending on the author and theatre or nation the book focuses on) are China, Italy, Finland, France, Romania, Poland, Canada, India and Australia. Oberiko 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Four policemen" pretty much defines who the major allies were. France and Italy - is a little bit shaky. Thus it could be either 4 vs 2, or 5 vs 3. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Presumably if Allies/Axis only is settled on, the 'Commanders' info box will become irrelevant, or will the discussion simply leak over into that section? --FactotEm 12:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There already is an Allied leaders of World War II and an Axis leaders of World War II. If we do decide to just list the Axis and Allies in the combatants table, these will go in the commanders section. Parsecboy 12:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Allies and Axis for the WWII infobox (and probably WWI as well), makes perfect sense. It's short and sweet. Additional detail on who was in which camp can clearly and much more eloquently be stated in either a section or another article. No sense in cluttering up the infobox more than is neccessary. It also avoids any problems that may arise in cases like France. Though I don't have any references that I can readily quote, I do remember seeing in the past some references that listed France as both an Allied and an Axis partner, since France was against the Axis, but after falling, many in France collaborated so that 'historian' decided that at that time, they became an Axis partner. Things like this (whether true, documented or otherwise), can clearly be more accurately stated in someplace better than an infobox. wbfergus ^Talk 13:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• I do like it the way it is now, though I could be perfectly fine with simply listing "Axis" and "Allies" as a compromise towards avoiding the inevitable debates over which countries were involved, what order they should be listed in, etc. LordAmeth 13:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to throw a ball out there, what if we listed the combatants as:

• Western Allies, Soviet Union, China
• European Axis, Asian Axis (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?)

This would encompass everyone (sans Vichy France, Iran, Iraq, Yugoslavia and probably a few other small nations) and keep the who-was-fighting-who slightly more accurate (SU didn't fight the AA until the end, China never fought the EA etc.). The main problem I can see is that the terms European Axis and Asian Axis aren't often used (though I have found them in a few sources). Thoughts? Oberiko 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko. I think you're on to something here. However, I would leave the Axis as just the Axis, or I would describe its branches as Axis, Europe Branch or Axis, Japan. From my reading about WW II , I do not believe that Japan ever had any ally other than Germany, and the Greater East Asia Co-Prospertiy Sphere was just another name for the temporarily expanded Japanese empire. Identifying the Western Allies separate from the USSR would set forth their positions correctly in view of what happened before, during and after WW II. By the way, see this discussion from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#New_map>. 69.239.87.23 00:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)IMS

That infobox is cursed anyway, I am confident that no matter how vote ends, result will be stable only for short time before argument restarts :) --Staberinde 13:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but a strong enough general consensus should give us a "solid" version that we can actively protect and maintain until general consensus shifts direction. Oberiko 16:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be in a different order though, SU, Western Allies, China. The USSR took out more axis troops than all other allies combined. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Having watched several previous discussions on this, it is clear to me that the only thing people can agree on is that it was the Allies against the Axis. If we decided "no countries" then the Infobox should become stable. If we include a list of countries, it will never stabilize as there will never be agreement. There are no clear, universally accepted criteria for who should and should not be listed. Anyone favouring the inclusion of one country, or the exclusion of another, will be able to pick the criteria that support their position. That complexity suggests that a discussion of who were the major players is best left for the Allies and Axis articles. - Eron ^Talk 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems like pretty strong consensus to change to just Allies and Axis. I'm going to make the change. Oberiko 17:57, 4 October 2007 (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)

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)

Combatant ordering

Currently the table suggests that the USSR was the first of the Allies - and doesn't even mention Poland. I'd add the country that was the first to become an ally (Poland) and move USSR somewhere down the list. Otherwise an uninformed reader might think that the WWII started between USSR and Germany, and other joined later. Sure, to some extent that's true that the war was started by USSR and Germany, but since we have USSR listed among the Allies... //Halibutt 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The countries are listed after military contribution, not chronologically. 96T 19:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is determining military contribution? And isn't putting the USSR first under that criteria a tad bit Euro-centric? What about the whole Pacific Theater? Parsecboy 19:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty biased to me then, as we exhaustively discussed earlier, there are dozens of ways to determine contribution. I say we either have it chronologically or alphabetically. Something based on an indisputable fact instead of someone's personal metrics. Oberiko 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why this insignificant issue is so damned intractable. I think alphabetical would be a good way to go; with chronological order there's the issue with "Do we use 1937 or 1941" for China and Japan, etc. Parsecboy 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alphabetical is fine with me, much better than the current one. Especially that the very concept of "military contribution" here is a tad absurd. Does it mean that the USSR should be listed before Germany on the list of Axis powers? After all Stalin had more soldiers in 1939 than Hitler. If we are to use chronological order (which is also fine with me provided we don't include - with all due respect for contribution - states like Ecuador or Panama), I'd go for listing China and Japan under 1941, as the war became a world conflict only in 1939-1941 period. Otherwise we'd have to include other similar conflicts into the war (say, Ethiopia vs. Italy) as part of WWII, which is not what most history books do. //Halibutt 19:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If the idea is to base it on when the war became global, I'd argue that that didn't happen until 1941, when the two separate theatres became joined into one conflict. Up until then the fighting in Europe was just that; fighting in Europe, with a few scattered battles in North Africa. Parsecboy 19:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it in alphabetical order, as no one has voiced any objections thus far. I also removed some redundant wikilinks to Axis and Allies. Parsecboy 19:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the alphabetical order, it seems like the most logical and neutral choice.--Caranorn 19:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why it matters which nation is listed in what order. I mean, it's not like we said ok, the ones at the top did the most, and the ones at the bottom did the least. I'm fine with alphabetical order. --LtWinters 15:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an accuracy by implication type of deal, people tend to assign order of import based on ranking in a list. The best way to counter this is by putting that order in some kind of context, like chronological. We are also dealing with a rather limited amount of space, as we are writing an infobox not an article. This inherently limits our ability to truly explore the nuances of national alignment. For example: I wholeheartedly agree the USSR was not an Allied nation when it invaded Poland in mid September 1939, but then again neither was France after 1940 nor was Italy an Axis power after 1943. (There's also Finland, a co-belligerent till 1944 because they were resisting Soviet efforts to invade.) We can't go into these intricacies in the space allotted, so we're better off arranging them by date they entered (Soviets not included in 1939 since war wasn't declared on them) like this example or not listing specific countries at all and leaving it as Allied vs Axis nations. Anynobody 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always supported just having a link to Allies of World War II and Axis of World War II. However, if countries are to be listed, chronological order has flaws too. What about China? Do we use 1937 for the date? Or 1941? I think plain old alphabetical order is the best option here. There's no question whether "A" comes before "Q". Parsecboy 11:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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).

Oh, I didn't know that Churchill is one of wikipedians now :/ - and he was generally veeery "non-NPOV" regarding Central and Eastern Europe... --EAJoe (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Grant | Talk 10:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'd like a listing according to military casualties, but for the sake of NPOV and in order to deflect further controversies as stated above, I vote for an alphabetical order. --Dna-Dennis 06:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I for one am against the alphabetical order. The previous one, that listed countries according to their war effort (ie. the number of enemy personell/material taken out), was better, even though it did provide room for many arguments on who did more; while in my opinion it's safe to say that the Soviets took out more axis troops than all other allies put together, the other nations are not as clear cut - plus, how does one compare, say soldier casualties and destroyed aircraft?

Regardless of the above, I support the previous order (SU, USA, UK, China, France). With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record I'd also rather support such an order. Alæxis_¿question? 17:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I also support the previous order. Tribulation725 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt 2

Alright, I don't think we're going to be able to get it by contribution / importance (no real way to decide between U.K., U.S. and Soviets, different metrics / authors support each), and it looks like alphabetical doesn't have overwhelming support, so why don't we do it by the date each of the Big Three powers officially declared war on the Axis Powers, then put China, then France? Oberiko 13:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

What a can of worms. I would have to tend to agree with Parsecboy above, that "Allies..." and "Axis..." would be the best approach. It's far cleaner and avoids the "controversy of the day". It also avoids those funky looking flags in the infobox. The subsequent linked articles for "Allies..." can then go into the details of during timeframe each country was with which side, or casualties, or whatever. Making any other choices will just continue to fan the flames. wbfergus ^Talk 16:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Japanese POWs

I'm going to have to find the books mentioned in that article on Americans massacring Japanese soldiers. My understanding, from numerous books on the subject, was that Japanese soldiers didn't even try to surrender, but instead took great pride in honorable death in battle. My understanding is that they were socialized to view surrender as cowardice, which also allowed them to treat American POWs as dishonorable and only worthy of torture or painful deaths.

In speaking about whether a murderer of 10 or 20 is more or less of a murderer, you're missing the point. When you look at the systematic murder of many thousands, sanctioned by the military leadership or of hundreds by men who faced justice administered against them by their own military for their crimes, we're talking about completely different issues. --Habap 19:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for not replying sooner. The problem though, is that very few Americans were punished for war crimes committed, especially in the Pacific. No, it wasn't organized from higher levels, like Katyn, but war crimes are war crimes, whether they were tried or not (and not to mention whether we'd like to think so, or pretend they never even happened). Parsecboy 23:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Habap, see Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II#Treatment_of_POWs. This matter has been the source of much debate on the talk page there.

By the way, the rate of prisoner taking by Allied forces in Burma was even lower than that in the Pacific. The Chinese Nationalists were not great prisoner takers either, whereas the Chinese Communists were the opposite and even recruited a large number of Japanese soldiers. Grant | Talk 16:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Image improvements

Now that we've settled on the image, I'd like to suggest two improvements. My GIMP skills are a bit rusty, but I can probably handle most of what I propose myself if there are no objections.

1. Better colorization: I'm going to try and fix it so that there are multiple colors at first for the various factions within the two separate wars, until they are replaced by just two when the war is one unified conflict. They will be as follows:

• Grey - Neutral
• Light Brown - Unaligned warring factions, not officially part of the war (Finland etc.)
• Light Blue - Allied Powers (1939 - 1945)
• Dark Blue - China (Until joining Allies)
• Green - Soviet Union (Until joining Allies)
• Red - Axis Powers (1942 - 1945)
• Dark Red - European Axis (until end of 1941)
• Orange - Asian Axis (until end of 1941)

2. Magnification: I'd like to have a few magnifying globes (with the "lens" positioned in the oceans) to highlight areas like Central-Western Europe, and the Pacific Islands which at one point were under control of the Empire of Japan. Oberiko 18:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that will make it to complicated. Now it's simple and understood. Also, it may sound a little stupid, but i would prefer the Red colour to not be given to the Axis. M.V.E.i. 20:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The color scheme I'm not concerned with (Red Allies and Blue Axis work fine for me as well), but an issue I have is that the Soviet Union is colored prior to its "official" entrance in the war in 1941, but China is not. I'm also not sure that the Soviet's should have a distinct color even after becoming a member of the Allies; Germany and Japan are given the same color and there was far less material support and collaboration between them then there was between the Soviets and the Western Allies. Oberiko 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok that i didn't notice, your right. P.S. But with the color thing be cerful, it might be confusing. The Axis should be green or brown, better brown. The allies should be red or blue. M.V.E.i. 20:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Red, Blue and Green; or Cyan, Magenta and Yellow; tend to be most recognized as the primary colors, so major map entities should try and fall into those. My revised would thus be:

• Red - Allied Powers
• Orange - China (Until Allied Power)
• Green - Soviet Union (Until Allied Power)
• Blue - Axis Powers (after war turns global)
• Cyan - European Axis (until war turns global)
• Teal - Asian Axis (until war turns global)
• Grey - Neutral
• Yellow - Non-aligned countries in conflict

Thus, it would start off as multiple colors and gradually shift to a two red-blue map, and eventually an (almost) fully red map. Oberiko 21:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I dont mind as long the Red one is not Axis. Actually after i thought of it would be much more exact then the one that is now, so feel free to do it. M.V.E.i. 14:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as it gets the point across... Jmlk17 10:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom to British Commonwealth

Can we change the United Kingdom in the infobox to the British Commonwealth? Oberiko 13:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tough choice, again. I remember that this has been discussed before, probably somewhere on Talk:World War II. On a first glance, I would say no, since the participants in the Commonwealth were practically independent, and thus not directly a part of a major power. I know the following example is a bit far-fetched, but Participants in World War II#Philippines states that the Philippine Commonwealth was a semi-independent commonwealth of the United States - thus we could argue for re-labelling "United States" to "US Commonwealth". But as I said, it's not a clear-cut matter; the label "British Commonwealth" has its advantages, since it encompasses more Allies. But, at a first glance, I'd say no. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 13:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the United States though, the British Commonwealth (India, Canada, and Australia primarily) provided roughly half of the British manpower (close to 5 million troops out of a total of 11 million). My personal opinion is that that would be significant enough to warrant using British Commonwealth without the risk of having to do the same for the U.S.; clearly the U.S. was not even close to being as reliant on its non-domestic forces. Oberiko 14:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with Dennis. My reasoning is this: it makes a lot of sense to refer to British Empire in WW1, because not even the Dominions had official independence in foreign policy (or international trade) at that time. Their forces served within British field armies or smaller formations. However, there was more than a change of name between the wars: by 1939 the Dominions were fully independent and Eire (which was a Dominion at the time) proved this by staying out of the war. Australia and Canada, in particular, dealt separately with the US and Allied powers other than the UK. There was also no British Commonwealth command structure, separate from general Allied commands. While they were nor represented on the Combined Chiefs of Staff, Dominion forces frequently took orders from US generals rather than British ones. The British government sometimes represented the Dominions at Allied meetings, although that could cut both ways. I think we should leave it as "United Kingdom" and the Dominions as "et al." Grant | Talk 14:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, it is a far-fetched comparison, Oberiko :) I have no strong opinion on this matter, there are clear advantages with the label "Commonwealth". I just stated some initial opinions. Oberiko's manpower arguments are very strong arguments. Grant65's arguments are very strong too. Hmm, I'm not sure...they were practically independent though... I think I rest my case for now, I'll have to consider it more. My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 14:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I just came to think of another argument against the "Commonwealth", and it's a tricky one: if we replace UK with the label "British Commonwealth", who would be listed as leader/commander? Winston Churchill? I think Canada, Australia etc. would have a thing or two to say about this... Regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 17:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favour of British Commonwealth, personally- large chunks of the Commonwealth weren't actually independent (India, anyone?), and they were all using the same equipment, wore similar uniforms, and co-ordinated their military operations to a greater or lesser extent. That's not to lessen the military acheivements, contributions, or prowess of any of the Commonwealth countries, but the reality is the only reason any of them even got involved in WWII in the first place was because Britain declared war on Germany (and later Japan). --Commander Zulu 00:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding their command structure, AFAIK it would be the exception, rather then the rule, that Commonwealth troops fought under the command structure of another nation other then the U.K.. Looking at the North African campaign, the Italian Campaign and the Western European Campaign (1944-1945), all Canadian, Indian and Australian formations were part of larger British formations. Prior to the formation of joint-command with American forces, this usually did indeed mean they were directly or indirectly ordered about by Churchill himself. Oberiko 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Myths abound...

Oberiko, the vast majority of Australian forces were under MacArthur's South West Pacific Area (command) from March 1942. An absolute majority of his forces were Australian for about a year. Anyway, the issue of which person of what nationality commanded which forces is neither here nor there, as they were all joint Allied supreme commands and it would have been counter=productive to have separate national operational commands. As for being "ordered about by Churchill", well he tried, but didn't always succeed. For example, the attempted diversion of the Australian I Corps to Burma in 1942, when it was on route to the Dutch East Indies (not Australia, as is sometimes stated), which was thwarted by the Australian government. (Even though it didn't have to, and was facing possible invasion, in the spirit of compromise two brigades were detached to garrison Ceylon for six months.) After the 9th Division left North Africa in January 1943, the only Australian units still under British command were several RAAF squadrons based in the UK and Mediterranean, and some destroyers and corvettes with the British Eastern Fleet.

Commander Zulu, in many cases, they weren't using the same equipment or uniforms and these are meaningless facts anyway.

The US, USSR and China also "co-ordinated their military operations" with the UK.

Your reasoning about Britain's declaration is incorrect. The Dominions were voluntarily supporting the UK in an hour of need. Eire, which was a Dominion at the time, never declared war and the issue of whether to declare war caused a purely internal political crisis in South Africa, culminating in the fall of a Prime Minister (J.B.M. Hertzog).

Grant | Talk 10:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To that I'll concede. I was focused on the European Theatre and not on the Asian one. Your right, quite the different story there. Oberiko 20:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It was the British Commonwealth at the time, but the article is Commonwealth of Nations. Thus, please use a direct link to it, this way: [[Commonwealth of Nations|British Commonwealth]]. It really saves effort in cleaning up the links. Hu 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

To be honest I was totally suprized to find out that this crappy map animation had been added to infobox. It looks fancy, indeed, but it had factual mistakes:
1) Belgian Kongo is showed as Alled territory from beginning, in reality it was neutral until Belgia was invaded
2) Western part of New Guinea island is shown as allied from beginning, in reality it was Netherlands colony and therefore neutral until Netherlands was invaded
3) Vichy France is shown as full member of axis, giving false impression that Axis states controlled whole east africa, and even had foothold at south america, which is bullshit, vichy should be neutral, or have its own completely unique colour
4) Japan is shown as member of axis from beginning, but nationalist china is shown as neutral at beginning, this is ridiculous, either both are neutral until pearl harbour or china is also as member of allies from beginning.
Please do not readd that animation until mistakes have been removed.--Staberinde 17:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If you scroll above to the section titled "image improvements", you'll see that Oberiko is planning on fixing the map. Perhaps make your suggestions to him directly, to make sure he sees it. As for Vichy, occupied France provided a great deal of supplies to the Germans, and there were numerous instances of combat between Vichy and Allied forces, so it's better to lump them in with the Axis than not. Parsecboy 20:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oberiko is planning fixing map? Great. Then put image to infobox then its fixed. Until that it is factually inaccurate and stays out from infobox until problem is fixed. That if there was some consensus earlier is pretty irrelevant as obvious factual mistakes will be removed no matter how many users support them. Btw, most of those mistakes have been pointed out at image discussion page for about year.

About Vichy, yes there was combat, but as far as i know it was practically always initiated by allies, i can't remember any cases where Vichy would had waged agressive war aganist allies. Also many states(Spain, Portugal, USSR) provided Germany with supplies and Spain even sent volunteers. Currently animation gives false impression that Germany and co. controlled whole east africa and even had foothold at south america, that is ridiculous, so Vichy should have separate colour or it should be simply gray like rest neutrals. Currently it just gives false imperssion to people who do not know so much about WW II.--Staberinde 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hum, Vichy is far from neutral. When you see this: Syria-Lebanon campaign. Barraki 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then give Vichy some unique colour, like if Axis are black then let Vichy be brown or something. Currently it just gives false impression to people who know less about WW II, and I believe this map is actualy meant for those mainly because bgger WW II fans know most of it anyway. Simple Joe(no offence anyone) will look that map and think "oh shit, axis had like huge territory in africa and even got foot at south america". Vichy was not clear case of being neutral or axis, but somehwere between, map should reflect that.--Staberinde 08:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Maye use shade of Axis' color. And maybe we should color only the colonies which were involved in the war. North Africa was a battlefield, and here it is important to underline who was with de Gaulle and who was with Vichy. Barraki 11:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

We're in critical mode at work here, so I haven't been able to do much on the Wikipedia recently (a situation that doesn't look like it will change for the next little while either), but there are some things to consider if we're changing the image box to have more colors to increase accuracy and handle the vast number of special cases:

• Separating the German-centric Axis from the Japan-centric Axis
• Finland, which wasn't a formal member of the Axis (never signed the Tripartite Pact)
• Countries that were "Axis-friendly" but not significant contributors (Spain, Vichy France, Iran, Iraq etc.)
  • And which Axis they were friendly towards. Vichy lent support (airfield usage etc.) to Germany, but was in conflict with Japan and Japan's Thai allies
• Countries that were "Ally-friendly" but not members (USA prior to the Attack on Pearl Harbor)
• The Soviet Union pre-Barbarossa
• Italy before joining the war in 1940
• Allied countries which were at war with either Germany or Japan, but not both (ie. China, Italy after joining the Allies, and the Soviet Union before Operation August Storm)
• Nations where combat took place, but the government wasn't really at war (ie. Egypt etc.)

In my mind, making all this accurate and simple for the reader to understand is quite the task. Oberiko 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the map. The 5-pic collage looks better. Real pictures sum up the war better then some plain ass map animation. --PDTantisocial 12:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've summed up my thoughts about this mess better than I could myself. Let's just get it done. Haber 16:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and have you looked at the discussion over what images to include in the pic (it's over there)? That's why I prefer the map.

I think it should be as simple as possible. Why should only Vichy be separated from Axis? Let's also use then some other colours for Slovakia, Croatia and the likes (this is irony, in case someone does not understand). It did not just lend airbases but collaborated with Nazis in their crimes and fought against the allies. Yes, they were attacked by them but it takes two sides to have a fight. One can always choose to surrender. Alæxis_¿question? 14:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Marking "friendly" countries and making other niceties could be done in future if someone is interested in it. However even without this stuff the map (if obvious factual mistakes are corrected) is reasonably accurate and appropriate for the template. Alæxis_¿question? 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Allies attacked Vichy does not automatically make Vichy member of Axis, Japan and Thailand also attacked Vichy(at Indochina), does that make Vichy member of Allies? World War II was helluva complex conflict, trying to simplify it too radically will only cause problems.--Staberinde 16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't checked the paper sources but the article about Axis powers of World War II defines them as those countries opposed to the Allies during World War II. Vichy would be classified as Axis if this definition is used. Alæxis_¿question? 16:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, what about this, we divide it up based on which country was fighting what Axis (European or Asian)? Here's the color scheme I propose:

• European Axis - Vertical black stripes
• Asian Axis - Horizontal black stripes
• Western Allies - Blue
• Soviet Union - Green (Blue after Barbarossa)
• China - Red (Blue after Pearl Harbor and Japanese invasion of European colonies)
• Vichy France - Purple
• Non-aligned opponent - Yellow

In order to show who was at war with whom, we'd use the stripe orientation.

For example, China would have horizontal stripes throughout the entire war since they weren't at war with Germany, while the Soviet Union would represented with vertical stripes until Operation August Storm since until that time they were neutral against Japan. Allied nations who were at war against both Germany and Japan would be solid blue.

For cases where a non-aligned territory is in conflict with a non-Axis member (ie. Winter War, Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran) the non-listed nation (in this example, Finland and Iran respectively) in question would be shown in yellow with diagonal stripes the color of their opponent.

Vichy France is included as a special case due to the number of engagements and size of its territory. For cases like the Japanese invasion of Vichy territory, the same rules would apply: hence the assaulted territory would be presented as purple with horizontal stripes. If they are invaded by Allies, they would be purple with blue diagonal stripes.

Frankly, I don't think we'll need to show Vichy conflict or any yellow nations, as none of those conflicts were significant or long enough that we'd need a map image to display it. Oberiko 17:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

New map

Since the problem with the existing map is primarily about Vichy, what about the map on the right? Oberiko 19:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko. Great efforts and results. I figuratively tip my hat to you. I think the Western Allies and the USSR need to always be colored or shaded differently from each other, similar to what you proposed in the discussion above. I think it is clear that although the various members of the Allies cooperated with and had common goals with the other members to various extents, there is a clear distinction between the allegiances and goals of the Western Allies on the one hand and the USSR on the other. Effectively, there were two camps with a principal common enemy (i.e., Germany). The image here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armia_Czerwona%2CWehrmacht_23.09.1939_wspólna_parada.jpg> of German General Heinz Guderian and USSR General Semyon Krivoshein at a common German/USSR parade of Wehrmacht and Red Army in Brest, Poland, 1939, after Germany and USSR had cooperatively invaded and carved up Poland (first published in Soviet Union by TASS in 1939), 1956 Hungary, 1968 Czechoslovakia, and the discussion below from <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II> at least partially prove the point. Thanks. 69.239.87.23 22:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)IMS

I don't quite understand the debate over the current picture. Looks fine to me. Tribulation725 17:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather inclined to agree. Although the Western Allies and USSR had very different motives and political stances, I'm going to leave the exploration of their differences to the Cold War folks. For our purposes, they were allied to each other in the end, even if it was an "enemy-of-my-enemy" situation. Oberiko 21:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

If World War II started in Poland in 1939, then, at least at the beginning of WW II, the USSR was on the same side as Germany.69.238.219.14 15:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

It's quite a bit more complicated then that, and in a singular image we don't have the space to show all the shifting alliances. The USSR wasn't really on the same side as Germany, regardless of their various treaties (including the Treaty of Friendship). The early war is really set against five major powers: the Western Allies, European Axis, Soviet Union, Japan and China. Alliances between them were pretty fair game.

For example, just prior to the Second-Sino Japanese War, the Germans actively supported the Chinese, while after it began, the Germans started to back the Japanese instead while the Soviets began to back the Chinese.

The Soviets initially wanted to form an alliance with the Western Allies against Germany, but that was halted due to mutual mistrust and the signing of the Munich Agreement between the Western Allies and Germany. Also keep in mind that at the time of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Soviet Union was in a border war with the Japanese, you'll note that when they began to believe that they were going to have to fight the Germans, they concluded a neutrality agreement with the Japanese. Looking at their track record, Soviet agreements were usually about making sure that they would only be fighting one enemy at a time. Oberiko 17:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Oberiko. However, the USSR and Japan were in a de facto neutrality pact since September of 1939. Whether the USSR really "initially wanted to form an alliance with the Western Allies" or really was looking for an excuse for aggrandiizement at the expense of the independence of its neighbors is open to a debate (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact>). I'm in the camp of those who believe that history shows that the USSR sought aggrandizement. You are partially correct when you state that "Soviet agreements were usually about making sure that they would only be fighting one enemy at a time." However, I think the evidence shows that the USSR supported Germany's war against the West, even if only to ultimately support the USSR's own purposes. Also, I think the USSR's track record shows that its treaty demands with European powers were about giving the USSR free reign over its neighbors. See also <http://books.google.com/books?id=_u6RUrOZi8UC&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=soviet+join+tripartite&source=web&ots=v7z7yvEDsM&sig=w7Sis4V7f3P26os1WC-QrGrEOBM#PPA202,M1> for evidence of the USSR's willing to join the Tripartite Pact as late as January, 1941. The USSR was significantly different from its Western Allies before, during and after WW II.69.238.219.14 18:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

All this talk about motives is irrelevant. No country has ever acted in any way other than in their own best interest; to pretend otherwise is foolish. It's even more foolish to pretend that it's a bad thing when an opponent does it, but wave flags and cheer when "we" do it. Parsecboy 18:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The biggest issue is not the "pacts" or "motives", but real invasion on one of Allies in 1939. What more do you need to count someone as "anti-Ally" than invading half of its territory together with Hitler? In 20th century formal declarations of war or pacts do not seem to mean much, so we should rather stick to facts --EAJoe (talk) 21:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

EAJoe, this has been discussed to death. Somewhere on this page, someone, I believe it was Grant65, placed a quote from Winston Churchill, about his reaction to the Soviet invasion of Poland. It goes something along the lines of "The USSR has created an unassailable wall the Germans dare not attack [by invading Poland]". Until you provide reliable sources backing up your assertions, you won't be making any lasting edits in the matter. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the animation at the top of this page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers> gets it right.69.238.219.14 19:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

With the main exception that Vichy was neutral, not an Axis Power. If that can be fixed, then we might be good to go with it. Oberiko 20:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko. Referring to Vichy as neutral is problematical. With various degrees of effort, the Vichy forces fought against the Western Allies in North Arfrica, the Levant and Madagascar. See, e.g., <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vichy_France>. On the other hand, Vichy France was really an occupied country, with up to 1 to 2 million of its people held hostage in Germany. (Given a free choice of whom to support, I am sure that at least 90% of the French, in Vichy or outside of Vichy, would have supported the Western Allies.) However, I do not think the animation at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axis_Powers> points one way or the other to Vichy's neutrality or not. It colors those areas under Vichy control as black because such areas were effectively under Axis control until they changed allegiance to the Free French or were occupied by Western Allied forces.71.128.4.148 20:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

A big point to consider is that Vichy France was always the one being attacked, never the instigator. Also keep in mind that it was not only the Western Allies who attacked Vichy, but also Japan and Thailand. Lastly, in order to be a "true" Axis Power, the nation would have had to sign the Tripartite Pact. Even Finland, which actively fought with the Germans, is usually considered a co-belligerent, and not an Axis Power. Oberiko 00:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oberiko. I think the animation shows the areas under control of, respectively, the Western Allies (and their closely aligned allies), the USSR (and its closely aligned allies) and Japan. I think that keeps things accurate and relatively uncomplicated. So, Denmark is also colored black for much of WW II. Of course, if you want to show a static image, the idea you had of showing certain countries with stripes might work. Or, you could use the image you suggested in this heading, just color the USSR different from the UK. Since one could justifiably argue that there would not have been a Vichy but for the USSR's supplying Germany (in contradistinction to the USA's cutting off trade with Japan in its vain attempt to discourage Japan from continuing its war of aggression against China), it makes sense to color the USSR different from the Western Allies. In this regard, since at least as early as Operation Torch, the Western Allies, on the one hand, and the USSR, on the other, each feared that the other would make a separate peace with Germany. To understand WW II, I believe one must understand that there were three main camps, with, fortunately for the world, two of the main camps being against the most evil part of the other camp for most of the war.71.128.7.132 02:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)IMS

Hi Oberiko. Here is another idea. A static image illustrating the real lineup of combatants (those who were making things happen rather than merely jumping on the bandwagon once it was clear that Germany had no chance of winning) would be an image of the combatants on July 1, 1942. The major combatants making up camp 1 would be the British Commonwealth, the USA and the Free French, whose holdings of equatorial Africa (see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Equatorial_Africa>) were key at that time, and whose contributions later were key as well. The major combatant making up camp 2 would be the USSR. The major combatants making up camp 3 would be Germany, Japan, Italy and the European countries which more or less voluntarily signed on to the Axis to fight the USSR (e.g., Romania and Hungary). That is the lineup for the major part of the war. Oberiko, thanks for taking on the laboring oar in connection with this big project. 71.128.7.132 03:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC))IMS

Animation is currently unacceptable as it has mistakes in it. Belgium Congo is shown as Allied in 1939, western half of new-guinea is shown as Allied in 1939, Japan is shown as Axis in 1939 but China shown as neutral at same time, Vichy is shown as Axis which gives inaccurate impression like Germany and co controlled whole east africa and had foothold in south-america, and finally i just noticed one more mistake: Italy is shown as Axis in 1939 although in reality it joined in 1940.--Staberinde 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Breaking up the discussion page

It seems that our discussions are all about either the image or the combatants. Would anyone object to having those discussions somewhat segregated from other discussions? ie. Template talk:WW2InfoBox\image and Template talk:WW2InfoBox\combatants? There certainly does seem to be enough discussion on the topics to warrant it, and it would make archiving much easier and more meaningful. Oberiko 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't object, I'm a mergist. Or at least, often. Or sometimes. Or rather, when I feel like it. I'd say, make it so. --Dna-Dennis 07:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to separate the 2 discussions. 2 archives would be good too. --Timeshifter 02:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Aye, the archive separation is what I'm now thinking. I don't think we need to separate out the discussion page anymore though, things have died down quite a bit. Oberiko 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

One image in the collage has been deleted

One of the images currently in Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg has been deleted from the commons.

See commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:1anschluss.gif

I am talking about the image labeled:

Left Upper: German police entering the city Imst in Tyrol/Austria National Archives, source: http://www.temple.edu/history/amhist2images.html

The collage image version I am looking at is the one dated:

• 00:04, 15 September 2007

I believe the image was correctly deleted from the commons.

See the discussion today at a commons notice board: [2]

Can it be uploaded to wikipedia maybe, instead of the commons? I have been studying

• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags
• Commons:Copyright tags
• Commons:Licensing.

This tag might work:

Template:Non-free historic image

I see that the non-free historic image tag is used on the wikipedia images listed here: Category:Non-free historic images.

I guess those images are just more fair-use images used only on pages directly related to the image, and where no other historic image can be found for the subject at hand. --Timeshifter 04:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

File:German Troops In Warsaw.jpg

::I think that this annexation of Austria image should be replaced on collage anyway. After all it was pre war event. I think it should be replaced with that --Staberinde 18:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Or, instead of the obsession with Germany, and to reflect the truly global nature of the war, and the epic scale of fighting and suffering in Asia, it could be replaced with one from the China theatre. Grant | Talk 20:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Grant. Right now, the only image from the Asia/Pacific theater is the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. Surely one from the A/P theater should be included in the old picture's stead. Parsecboy 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of moving Staberinde's suggestion up and to the left and made a couple of my own on the right. The baby at Shanghai Station is a famous image and symbolises worldwide civilian suffering and the effects of bombing, in addition to representing mainland Asia. Grant | Talk 10:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow guys, I am preparing my thoughts on this, and you are right in the middle of talking here... I'll soon post here. Regards, --Dna-Dennis 10:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys, just noticed this talk here! Since I've been thinking of improving the image quality of the montage, I might as well take your thoughts here into consideration. I am certainly not deaf to the issue of German obsession (3 pics connected to Germany; Anschluss, Auschwitz and Berlin - hmm... might be because they started the war). But, as you probably know by now, the issue I've stressed wasn't any geographical or military balance but rather a multitude of aspects - that's why I so strongly opposed to having two Soviet pics before.

• A Nazi pic: That the Anschluss was a pre-war event isn't actually any good reason for not having it; it is firmly connected to WW2, and the WW2 article deals with background as well as aftermath. But Staberinde's suggestion of marching German troops in Warsaw is not bad at all. But, I'd actually be a little sad if the swastika isn't present in the montage (never thought I'd utter those words :) ), and you probably understand why, considering the implications. This is the 4th time (!) a nazi picture is requested to be deleted/replaced in the montage. Obviously, there are copyright issues regarding pictures from Nazi Germany, but I am having big troubles now finding a suitable nazi image with flags or swastikas. Sadly, I am seeing a future problem arising - a lack of images depicting this time in German history.

• An Asian pic: Grant has brought up this issue before on my talk page, and his suggestion was Image:BattleOfShanghaiBaby.gif. IMO, this is the best suggestion yet, as this will be about suffering and include China. But I remember hearing somewhere that this photo might have been staged. Might be b*llshit, and it doesn't matter that much to me - it sufficiently illustrates what it's meant to illustrate.

My personal standing now is that I think the best modification is replacing Auschwitz with the baby. But remember - we will lose the entire Holocaust, as well as these aspects: concentration camps, slave work, deportations, political/racial oppression. A somewhat tough choice... but if we go for the baby, I'd rather lose Auschwitz than Nazis (never thought I'd utter those words either). I would love to hear your thoughts on all these matters (incl. the swastika matter). My regards, --Dna-Dennis 11:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Ju 87D Stukas over Russia.jpg

I support having German soldiers in warsav because the rest of images at collage represent allied victories(d-day, stalingrad, hiroshima) + holocaust. But I think that something depicting early axis success, and German army(which i think we can call without doubt most importnant axis armed force) itsself should be also there. Fall of France itsselfly would be better event but I havent seen so good picture about it.--Staberinde 13:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, one more interesting image. Depicts Luftwaffe(so we would get air warfare), and also should make eastern front fans happy. I dont have clear opinion about using it myselfly but maybe someone is interested.--Staberinde 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Einmarsch in Dornbirn.jpg

Anschluss

Regarding marching Germans with swastikas, I found this pic as well (to the right, also Anschluss). It seems to be public domain, and I might be able to work it into the montage. Regarding Axis success: it's already covered by Anschluss. Regarding Stalingrad: I do not favor it in the montage, and it's not present in my original montage, for a number of reasons stated here. Regarding air warfare: This is in a way already covered by the atom bomb, and by the baby, if it is incorporated. Anyway, this is IMO of much less significance than other issues (it's not about warfare, and we have no ships etc.). I'm still happy to hear opinions, particularly on swastikas and baby vs. Auschwitz. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 13:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont think having swastikas in infobox should be considered very importnant. Of course it may be little bonus if we have one but nothing crucial, as picture is going to be rather small anyway swastika will probably be very hard to see. And its little strange to have pre-war Anschluss then we are already clearly lacking room to depict all importnant events that happened during war. So I generally oppose using images of pre-war events in infobox.--Staberinde 14:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

If we don't want pre-war, then the Shanghai bombing picture shouldn't be used either as it is from 1937 - even before the Anschluss.

I think it is worth looking at the whole collage and determining what five major themes or images should be represented there. I also think we should consider ensuring that photos in the collage are not repeated in the body of the article as two of them - the Red Flag on the Reichstag and the mushroom cloud - currently are. I suggest that we deal with the immediate copyright issue by replacing the deleted image with a thematically similar one, like the Warsaw picture, and then take more time to discuss the collage as a whole as part of the current restructuring and rewriting of the article. - Eron ^Talk 14:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Warsaw ghetto boy 630.jpg

I don't support removal of the Holocaust from the montage, as it was a crucial element of the context of the European theatre. If we could find an image which combined the Holocaust and German personnel, such as this famous one on the left, then that would be better, I think.

Also, I seem to recall there was a version of this template which reduced the D-Day pic. I think that Normandy 1944 deserves an image, but not one double the size of the others. Grant | Talk 16:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the Warsaw one, if used also has the advantage that it includes Poland, a nation central to the war. Grant | Talk 14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

On the right is another one worth considering (right): Japanese aircraft preparaing to attack Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Grant | Talk 16:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have replaced the deleted Nazi pic with another. I've also improved (hopefully) the overall quality (Normandy - better crop, zoom; Atom bomb - better source, better crop, Soviet flag - better source, better crop, zoom). A note on Eron's issues of "duplicates": I don't consider duplicates a problem (but I've thought of it). If you think about it, the montage is a thematic pic, with adjusted photos - "thumbs" if you like - much like the text's table of contents and introduction is a "thumb" of the entire text. Furthermore, it's more complicated than this: this montage is in Commons, and not used only in the English main WW2 article; I checked today and it is used in 101 pages in 49 projects..! how to check: click image, click "commons" to go to commons, and click on the tab "check usage"). This is no reason for not altering the image, but definitely an issue to consider if we talk "duplicates". Now, I will visit a friend and afterwards sleep on the matter. Thanks again for all opinions and suggestions; I'll get back here tomorrow. See you guys! My regards, --Dna-Dennis 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point on the duplicates; I hadn't considered the use of the collage in other articles where the duplicates might not exist. Thanks. - Eron ^Talk 18:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems someone has bad understanding, or brobably bad knowledge of English, so i'll try to make it clear

It was decided that a map will be here, it was the big concensus. If not a map, then the 6-photos image. NO WAY THAT THE IMAGE WITH THE BIG NORMANDY PHOTO WILL BE HERE, a majority already said it's ethnocentric. M.V.E.i. 17:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems that someone has reading problems so i will repeat it here for one more time. Please take your time and read it until you understand the point. Map has mistakes and will stay out from infobox until mistakes are fixed! I have already pointed out all mistakes here twice. Thank you.--Staberinde 18:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so you returned the collage that coused the whole conflict. Very smart. Couldn't you see Oberiko suggested another image for that case?? You could at least talk to Oberiko on that. M.V.E.i. 18:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

You smart one, next time actualy check if animation is allright before adding it to such place like WW II article infobox, most mistakes have been pointed out at animation talk page for about year. That if normandy photo is big or not is matter of taste, irrelevant for me, i picked first collage which i found on article history. And I havent edited infobox since removing the animation so everyone have been free to replace it if they have better one.--Staberinde 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok i see you really dont understand the case, so i owe you an appology and an explanation. This metter of taste, brought to a conflict about the images NPOV. People were blocked, it was areally big and brutal argumant. A huge discussion, whole history pages of reverts. The compromise was a map. If you would remove any image, it would be understood. There were two parties who weren't going to find a compromise, and the powers were equal by number. I started the first party claiming for replacement of the image you returned, and a second party defending the old one led by Dna-Dennis. And there was Oberiko who tryed to offer to form an image together, but the discussion wasn't going to well so it didn't help. Then someone proposed to insert a map insted (can it get more NPOV then that?). 99% of the first and the second parties (including me, Dna-Dennis and Oberiko) joined that third party. And since then the concensus was kept. What you did could have started a second war over the image, thats why i so brutaly came against it. Now i see that you just haven't known the story so sorry. M.V.E.i. 13:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just jumping in that I wouldn't worry about the map so much. We're working on a new summarized article structure (much shorter, much fewer pictures etc.) so we're going to have to do the whole infobox montage thing again anyway since we're not going to want to duplicate pictures in the infobox and article. Oberiko 15:11, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Having the map as our infobox image

As Wikipedia's image policy states, images should not be used more than once in the same article no matter what. In our WWII article, we have a picture of the map with the WWII countries, twice, with exactly same caption. Since our WW1 infobox has an image of the 5 most major events of WW1, our WW2 infobox image should do the same as [Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg]. I will be changing our infobox image to [Image:WW2 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] per policy.-- Penubag  04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good move. Duke o Puke 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it only seems reasonable-- Penubag  05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

view the WW2 talk page-- Penubag  04:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My edit summary might have been not very clear. I meant that before replacing the map with an image the agreement should be reached over what image should be used. Alæxis_¿question? 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I would assume that [Image:WW2TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] should be used since [Image:WW1 TitlePicture For Wikipedia Article.jpg] is used for our WW1 article. I think we should keep consistency. Besides, in general, it is a good picture that reflects the events of WW2. The WW2map, merely shows the combatants of the war, and does not fully represent the article. -- Penubag  06:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that quite a few people are unhappy with this image. If you read this talk's archive you will understand why. So replacing the map with this image will most likely cause a good deal of revert warring which is not good imho. Alæxis_¿question? 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that people may be unhappy with the WW2titlepicture.jpg but it is definitely better than a map nonetheless. It also seems the discussion on which images are to be used have stopped. Maybe readding the image will start the debate again. I'm just saying WW2picture.jpg is a better placeholder than the double-used map until the debate on which pictures will be used are resolved. Having the map as the placeholder image is bad because it is already used in the article, and it violates the image policy (no multiple same images). Edit warring and revert warring may not be good in your opinion, but it would atleast force us to create a really good image that suits most people's tastes and one that reflects the article.-- Penubag  07:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The discussion stopped because the map was found to be acceptable for all sides. I can't agree that the contentious image is a better placeholder than the map. Btw, why can't the map be removed from the WW2 article itself and kept in the infobox? Feel free to start the discussion over the choice of the images. Propose your own version, for example. Alæxis_¿question? 08:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We already have great images on our WW2 article. But, an infobox image's purpose is not to just suit everyone's tastes, but to most represent the article. Sure, changing the infobox image to a picture rather than a map may leave some people unhappy, but that is not its purpose. The people were able to agree on the World War 1 infobox image, although I am sure not everyone was happy on the image selected. We will have to bust some guts and suit the purpose. -- Penubag  08:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've understood your opinion. I won't agree to this image though. Alæxis_¿question? 08:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, that image isn't my favorite either-- Penubag  09:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should proceed in the image selection process? Sign your name if you support the image. 5 of the images with the highest scores will be used. Feel free to add your own images to the gallery. (all of these images will need to be cropped before implemented)

• 
  Support
  * Penubag 
  *96T
  *The monkeyhate
  *Duke o Puke (talk)
• Support *The monkeyhate
  Support
  *The monkeyhate
• 
  Support
  *The monkeyhate
  *Duke o Puke (talk)
• 
  Support
  * Penubag 
• Support * Penubag 
  Support
  * Penubag 
• 
  Support
  
• 
  Support
  * Penubag 
  *The monkeyhate
• Support
  Support
  
• Support
  Support
  
• 
  Support
  *96T
  *The monkeyhate
  *Duke o Puke (talk)
• Support
  Support
  
• 1anschluss.gif(deleted image but it was a picture of the German police marching with their flag (it is the first image on [this collage) Support * Penubag  *Duke o Puke (talk)
  1anschluss.gif(deleted image but it was a picture of the German police marching with their flag (it is the first image on [this collage)
  Support
  * Penubag 
  *Duke o Puke (talk)

We cannot have an image for every major event during WW2, but I think these are the most major events/world wide impact and we should at least have these images at a bare minimum:

• Battle of Stalingrad - Turning point of the war
• The japanese campaign - Longest part of war, the creater of some present day conflicts (north/south korea)
  • Possibly Atomic bomb ,maybe merge with japanese campaign - created nuclear warfare, showed world power of nuclear weapons, coldwar, end of WW2
• The Holocaust - Many influential documents written (ie. Night, Diary of anne frank), millions killed
• Possibly D-day - end of WW2 in Europe

Discussion

Where is the Soviet flag over Berlin? Why the only Soviet picture you proposed is of such poor taste (there are plenty of much better pictures out there)? Where are pictures of other allied soldiers, at least of D-Day or something? Overall, if material of such quality is to be used, I strongly oppose having a picture in the infobox. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 09:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• I do not have the time to find the all the best images we have, if you know of some better ones, then please add it. Sure, I may have poor taste to you, but all my votes may not necessarily go on the main picture. and, do you think I can find all the pictures representing WW2 in a few seconds? I will change my image votes when I see some better images.-- Penubag  10:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of replacing the map with a montage, but anyone working on this should review the archived discussion of the image. It's... educational and makes it clear the kind of issues that will be faced. I'm not convinced that simply picking pictures will do; there needs to be some consensus on what particular features of the war the montage will represent, and then choose pictures to illustrate those. - Eron^Talk 11:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good point there. I had a quick look at it but I will look that over when I have some more time. But voting for the suitable images also see like a proper idea, since the opinions and knowledge of one cannot overcome the the opinions and knowledge of many. To the top 5 that get the most votes, we will also have to view each individual image to see if they, as a whole represent the WW2 article. We could also check that list on the archives to see if our selected images truly do represent the article.-- Penubag  12:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind is that an image in the box shouldn't be used in the article. Something like the Soviet flag in Berlin is much more appropriate for whatever section details the "End of the war in Europe" then the infobox. IMO, we're doing this backwards, once we've chosen the images for the article, then we should select those for the infobox. Oberiko (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The map needs to go. I suggest placing this image there for now. The map is also wrong, but that's another story! Thinkharder (talk) 23:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this image... Alæxis_¿question? 18:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I have compiled this image which I personally think is good because it is arranged in a cause-effect type manner and it is chronological for the most part; with the top dedicated to the Germans (Troops marching, Concentration Camp); the middle, soviets, (Battle of Stalingrad, Battle of Berlin); and the bottom the Japaneses campaign (Battles in china, and atomic bombing). What do you guys think? those are the most major points during the war.-- Penubag  10:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that. As Ko Soi IX pointed out above, there aren't any images of Western Allies. It's also heavily biased towards the European Theatre; 2/3 of the images are from Europe. There's nothing wrong with the original montage made by DNA-webmaster. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Except that the image from the Western European front (D-Day) is the biggest of all for no apparent reason. Actually the discussions like this one led us to accepting the map as a template image. Alæxis_¿question? 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem, I think, is that there are far too many good images that could be used for a montage, and too many aspects of the war that should be illustrated. In Penubag's image, there's no illustration of the naval fighting in the Pacific or the huge bombing raids in Europe; no brutal winter fighting in the Eastern Front. In other versions, there are no images of Japanese or Chinese troops. A map is a far better idea, because it's not trying to jam a thousand different aspects into 5 or 6 little boxes. An animated map is best, but there are problems with the one we have (i.e., having Japan colored as Axis from the start but not having China colored as Allied, having Vichy France colored as Axis, etc.). Unless someone can fix the animated one, that leaves us with a static map, like the one that has been there for a while now, until EAJoe started messing with things. I still think that map is the best available to have in the infobox. If someone can find a better map, preferably animated, I would be open to replacing the other map. Parsecboy (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's too tedious to vote under the blocks. I like the old infobox as DNA Dennis originally made, i.e., the bomb, Normandy, Nazis marching, concentration camp victims, Soviet flag over Berlin. Normandy is double-wide and on top. It's not completely all-encompassing but it's the best opening image ever and way more fun than a map. Duke o Puke (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no way a map is going to be better than an montage. The only benefits as a map as the infobox image is that it is easy for us (wiki editors) in a way that we wouldn't have to continue this discussion. A map with simply the combatant sides does not represent an entire war no matter how discussed. The purpose of an infobox image is to represent the war. You can view, American Civil War, World War I, American Revolutionary War, Napoleonic Wars, Korean War, or any other war article (1,2,3) and see that infobox images are generally a quick summary of the war in an image, or a single image that represents the war. The usage of a map is simply a quick way of escaping discussions and edit wars. Sure, there are way too many good article images to use in a montage, but the discussion on which images that would best summarize WW2 must be reached. I suggest you review my image proposal because my image most represents WW2. If you take a poll and ask a group of people from around the world what they most remember about WW2, the will say : the Holocaust, Atomic bombing. If you ask Historians, they will most likely say (including the above responses) : the Battle of Stalingrad, and possibly D-day. Yes, my image does not include any pictures of the western allies because there aren't any good pictures with them in it that helps sum up WW2 (with the exception of the Western European front (D-Day) which isn't of good image quality anyways (however, I may replace the picture of the Japanese in China with this picture because it is an important picture.)) But, overall, my image is good in other terms because it is chronological and is arranged in a cause-effect style. Parsecboy said "It's also heavily biased towards the European Theatre; 2/3 of the images are from Europe" the reason for this is because Europe is where most of major events occurred. There's absolutely no reason to include an image of less significance just to include images from other parts of the world. Also he stated that "In Penubag's image, there's no illustration of the naval fighting in the Pacific or the huge bombing raids in Europe; no brutal winter fighting in the Eastern Front" Again, this is because I do not see that these events are as significant as the other events. Readers can just view these other "less-significant" events by reading the article further, but I do not see that those events were as important as the ones states above; thus are to be excluded from the infobox image.-- Penubag  06:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so atleast we got the original montage up as a place holder. Does anyone have any suggestions on the improvement collage?-- Penubag  01:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Penubag says: "Europe is where most of major events occurred." Not at all and I find it amazing that an American can think this. How about the first and only use of nuclear weapons in history? The largest naval battle in history? The largest naval air battle in history? The first battle fought by aircraft carriers? Midway? Guadalcanal? Pearl Harbor? Bataan? Okinawa? Iwo Jima? The bombing of Tokyo? The Burma Railway? The epic battles in China, which occupied the vast majority of the Japanese Army for most of the war? Then there are all those that you have never heard of, probably because they did not involve Americans. Grant | Talk 03:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of the facts you presented but if you read what I typed above, you will see that a single image cannot address all these major events. Fine, Europe may not have been where most of the events occurred, but I'm sure you will agree with me that the most prominent events (the ones that average Joe know about) are the events stated in bold above. Your comment is totally irrelevant to the discussion of the images for use in the infobox but seems to more fall the guide lines of WP:PA. You need to check your inferences buddy, I am not even full American, but Italian and Japanese.-- Penubag  06:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

File:Warsaw ghetto boy 630.jpg

I know what you are saying. I have expressed my opinion on this above, but there doesn't seem to be a groundswell to change the image to anything that I would consider more representative.

FWIW, my criticisms of the present collage are as follows: 1. Overemphasis on D-Day; 2. Use of an image of the Anschluss, which occurred before the war began; 3. Only one image from Asia/Pacific. 4. Lack of historical sequence in the way they are arranged; 5. Why only five images? A major article such as this justifies a collage of (say) 10 images

My "quick fix" for the present collage would be this: reduce the D-Day image by half, remove the Anschluss and Auschwitz images and replace with them with cropped versions of the images on the right, symbolising Nazism/the Holocaust/civilian suffering and the Pacific/naval/aviation/Japanese military aspects. Grant | Talk 08:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

10 images sounds like a little too much, but what about this one (In case you haven't seen it already)

File:Infobox image for WWII.png

It encompassed all the major (notable highlights) of the war and as stated above, is chronological (for the most part) and ordered in a cause-effect style way-- Penubag  09:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the Anschluss image (top left) for the reasons already stated, I think the top right one (concentration cam inmates?) is ambiguous, and there are no images represeenting naval warfare or aviation, both of which were highly significant in WW2. Grant | Talk 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to have a picture of the Nazis in our picture (preferably with their iconic flag), I just can't find a better picture than the Anschluss one. The top right image ambiguous? Not sure about that, but I see your point, I can maybe fit in your picture although I doesn't depict the concentration camps as well as the other one. I also think maybe replacing the bottom left picture (japanese troops) with your kamikaze picture would be good, (but then the battles in China aren't depicted) (so quick question, which is more iconic in WW2, the air/sea battles in the pacific, or the long Sino-Japanese wars?). I really feel your stress of 'too many good pictures' now, since you are the only other person giving constructive thoughts...-- Penubag  07:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to your argument that the montage should (yes, I'm ok with not using a map, if that's what consensus decides) include an image of the Nazis with their iconic flag, you might want to take a look at the altered montage that's currently on the template by User:Voyevoda. I'd say that's a pretty good picture for that criteria. Parsecboy (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't notice the change, even though I regularly check back...thanks for the update, parsec. Well, it seems the only difference is the replacement of the army picture with hitler and his swastika, which is a good change, I think maybe even better than my nazi pic, agree? But, still, it does not fix some of the issues that are fixable, such as ordering and placement, and a larger scope (maybe another asia pic, and replacing the picture of the gates to the cons.camp with something easier identifiable and iconic). I'm still trying for more agreement in changing more of the images in the montage though.-- Penubag  06:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Listing main combatants in infobox

I think that listing the main combatants in the infobox would be a good idea as an infobox is supposed to give a brief overview of the subject of the article. The way it is formatted now (Allies_of_World_War_II) & (Axis_powers_of_World_War_II) is confusing and unclear and these pages do not immediately list the main combatants. This revision is a lot better than what is currently on right now as someone who has little knowledge of WWII can immediately know the main combatants. The other reason why we should be listing the main countries involved is because it would make the page more consistent with the rest of the articles on Wikipedia that uses an infobox for the wars (Ex: WWI, Vietnam War, Napoleonic Wars, etc.) since they list out the countries. Anybody else think this change would be good? --Hdt83 ^Chat 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I have no idea why the major combatants were removed again (probably because the person who took them out are referring to some stupid agreement they made over in the archives...) but that shouldn't stop us from making a good, informative template for our article. I would just readd the major combatants again, but I don't want to be involved in another edit war.-- Penubag  07:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The agreement is not even in the archives, it's right here on this page. The main issue is that people can't agree on what combatants to list, and what order to list them in. 96T 15:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"Below is a vote on whether to use "Allies" and "Axis" or listing of the major participants in the "combatants" section of the war info box. The first option will be that the only listed combatants will be the "Allies" and the "Axis" with links to the appropriate articles. The second option will indicate a preference for major participants instead of only Allies and Axis." Well, it seems that the link-list won over the major combatants, but, it did not win over having both a link and a short major combatant list in the template as it was before it was reverted. If I get enough support, I will revert it back to include both. And just because we can't agree on which to have listed and in what order does not mean we shouldn't list them at all. I'd rather discuss about it rather than just be lazy and just say, "oh we can't decide so...let's just not have any!". -- Penubag  00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should review the literally hundreds of KBs worth of discussions and arguments (going back at least as far as 2005) in the archives at the WWII talk page before you call any of the editors who were involved "lazy". Parsecboy (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if it offended you, but I ment to say that I rather not be lazy and have a debate than not to, I wasn't reffering to anyone else. Sorry.-- Penubag  18:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken, but you never know how someone else might interpret what you say. That's my point. I'm really very tired of this debate, so I'll state that I do favor just listing "Allies" and "Axis" as opposed to individual countries, and leave it at that. If anyone has any questions for me directly, I suggest asking on my talk page, not here, because I won't be paying attention. Parsecboy (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)