Talk:World War II/Infobox

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

Poland

...so you're saying Poland continued to fight after its defeat in 1939? A few points:

• I hope we agree that spying and sabotage does not constitute a military conflict.
• Polish volunteers within the military structures of other counties (i.e. the UK and the USSR), do not constitute a separate combatant authority.
• The Polish government(s)-in-exile, while legal, do not somehow prolong the existence of Poland as a separate combatant authority.

To my knowledge, the only post-1939 military battle that engaged Polish forces (outside of foreign military structures) was the Battle of Warsaw. Now, If I'm wrong there, and if the Polish resistance did fight a military guerrilla war (along the lines of Yugoslavia or Greece), then you are right in removing the brackets, am I wrong? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Poland did fight a military resistance and was never knocked out of the war. Poland's troops (several thousands of them) managed to make their way to the west and even a few ships did as well. While Poland was occupied and annexed to some extent by Germany, the Polish government never surrendered along the lines of France (hence the 1939-1940 date in France). Poland did indeed fight a guerrilla war in Occupied Poland as well. (Hence the Polish participation in the Battle of Warsaw)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 22:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

By contrast to France, Poland never surrendered, its government continued to exist and the state of war between Poland and Germany lasted until the Germany's defeat. Formally, there is no more difference between that and the Phoney War, except that Polish soldiers did participate in real hostilities (and Poland fielded more troops than France did).--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I've uncovered a gap in my knowledge of WWII :). I'll read up on the matter, thanks for your time guys. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Free France

While I support greatly reducing the number of countries listed in this infobox, until that's achieved it seems a bit odd to exclude Free France. The claim that they were a movement formed by the British and operated under British direction is simply wrong - the Free French ran their own show to a surprising degree and actually gained more support from the US than British from about 1943 onwards. The Free French contribution to Allied operations was also significant - they provided useful brigade sized forces in the 1941-42 campaigns, had a good quality Corps in Italy and an excellent armoured division in France (which was barely under the control of the US headquarters it was meant to report to for most of the time) as well as reasonably large numbers of aircraft and warships. Moreover, by excluding them from the infobox it suggests that there weren't significant French forces fighting on the side of the Allies between 1940 and 1944, which is misleading. Nick-D (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The Free French movement was almost entirely funded and supported by the British and Americans. Ironically the military units you listed were all supplied and equipped by the Anglo-Americans. To cut-out the nonsense and pc concerns, they were in fact formed by the British around a French general as a (very unconvincing) means of legitimizing the removal of colonies from the influence of the French government. The Free French had no economic base and were, to all intents and purposes, an Allied puppet government. We all heard stories about how De Gaulle quarreled with Churchill etc, but the point of the matter is that in the end, the Free French were by no means an independent country and it is highly misleading to present them as such. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't they storm and take a Vichy French island by Canada, against the wishes of the UK and US? I'd say they were pretty significant – granted, there were more diplomatic and symbolic actions than military contributions, but both were not minor. Besides, if we were removing "puppet governments" with "no economic base" and "equipped by the Anglo-Americans", we would have to remove the Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, and Greece too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

As well as Yugoslavia. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice counter there. :) The Yugoslav resistance was mostly equipped with German weaponry acquired en masse through various means, in particular through the Croatian Home Guard (though this did change somewhat in 1945). The allied equipment was not received until 1943, and then in inferior quantity and quality. It was also not formed by, or under the influence of, any major power. It did not have a significant economic base of its own, but this did not make it dependent on another authority.

Rest assured of one thing: I am not here pushing any sort of "Yugoslav POV", and I resent the implication.

As you say, the primary function of the Free French government was a diplomatic "excuse" as it were, to facilitate the takeover of Vichy colonies which would otherwise be seen as outright British annexation (and in fact were viewed as such by many even in spite of De Gaulle). The military units of various governments like the Netherlands and Belgium were, indeed, as you say, effectively little more than British military units composed of foreign citizens, and I do support the template stating that Belgium and the Netherlands were independent combatant authorities only in 1940.

In general, I honestly feel there should be three criteria for inclusion here: 1) political independence, 2) a (truly) separate military command 3) that engaged in actual warfare (as opposed to mere spying and sabotage). Call me crazy...

"2)" excludes Belgium and the Netherlands after 1940 (but not Greece and Poland and Yugoslavia), which were almost completely integrated into the military commands of other countries. I would use "1)" political independence as a very strict criteria. I honestly think this would be a good way of clearing out the clutter and leaving out only the real combatants of WWII. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are you accused of pushing a Yugoslav POV? - please assume good faith. Rather than apply arbitrary criteria it seems simplest to include all the main participants, of which Free France was one (the Free French forces outnumbered the forces of New Zealand and South Africa for much of the war, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your criteria sounds sensible, and it's true that Belgium, the Netherlands and Norway after they fell to the Nazis don't qualify for inclusion by these criteria. However, listing these countries were combatants only in 1940 is both OR and misleading, as their governments upheld international recognition (from the Allies - but it's the winners who write the history) and controlled (albeit small) military forces and territories outside of their mainlands (Belgian Congo, Dutch colonies in the Pacific), never leaving the Allies or withdrawing from the war. If a country's war effort was large enough for inclusion at one point, the infobox must list all the years said country was formally at war, even if the war effort was small at other stages of the war, if you catch my drift.

As for the Free French, I think including non-state actors would create a slippery slope and overcrowd the infobox. If we include the Free French, why not include the Yugoslav Partisans, who were not aligned to any government before 1943, as an entry too? The Greek and Albanian communist guerillas? The Viet Minh? The Czech and Ethiopian resistances? Mao Zedong's communists? 96T (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Nick-D. Your strange (and rather inaccurate) "counter", as it were, seemed to indicate your conviction that this discussion and proposal have something to do with Yugoslavia. Never mind though, lets both WP:AGF. :)

@96T.Point(s) taken. Belgium and the Netherlands are a very debatable point, I agree. One could argue that the Belgian and Dutch militaries were independent in their colonies, but that those (independent) military forces did not engage in any fighting. But then again there is the Battle of the Java Sea where Dutch forces did fight in a very independent manner as late as 1942.

France, however, surrendered in 1940. As far as legitimacy is concerned, it undoubtedly and firmly rests with the Vichy government, arguably even after the liberation of mainland France in 1944. The Free French Movement was just that - a movement and arguably a puppet government at that.

(Side note: Yugoslavia was formally governed by the London government-in-exile 1941-43 (in that period unaffiliated with the Partisans), then there was a period of dual representation (of one state!) with two recognized governments 1943-44, and then the period of the joint coalition government 1944-45. For the latter two periods the Yugoslav Partisans were recognized as the military of Allied Yugoslavia, so while they are not separately listed they are partially included in the "Yugoslavia" entry as is.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than arbitrary criteria (which seem to change from comment to comment) of what constitutes an independent and important participant in the war, what sources support your view? From a quick run through some of the books I own which touch on this topic, The Oxford Companion to World War II states that the Free French "played a significant role in the political and military history of the Second World War" (p. 336), Gerhard L. Weinberg's book A World at Arms describes frequent instances of the Free French ignoring British and American preferences and doing their own thing and Roger Price's book in the Cambridge University Press concise history series A Concise History of France discusses the growing power and independence of the Free French as their gained control of French colonies and states that the Allies had basically recognised DeGaulle and the Free French as the provisional government of France by 1943 and that Free French forces eventually included an 500,000 man strong army raised from France's North African colonies (pp. 306–307). These three books are among the standard works on the war and France. As such, there seems to be a strong case that the Free French were important participants on the Allied side. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The "Free French" were purely an NGO, and were not treated as a sovereign entity by anyone - they should not be listed. If the same criteria and standards apply, dozens of combatants could be listed. Such as the Provisional Government of Free India ("Free Indians"), which was a government in exile supported by Japan, had an independent army of ~43,000, and was actually recognized by their own allies! Lt.Specht (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide sources to support that interpretation of the Free French? Given that they were running most of France's colonial empire and had half a million men under arms by 1943 it seems difficult to sustain a claim that they were "purely an NGO". Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"purely an NGO" might of been poor phrasing. I'm sure the Free French considered themselves to be a government organization and entity, but nobody else did, which is the point. Other entities during the war controlled large areas of land and had comparable army sizes, e.g. Wang Jingwei's regime and collaborationist army forces, although a puppet state, but recognized by their allies. The Allies also operated as if there was no Free France or gave it little importance for most of the time, and disregarded who commanded the actual French forces. For instance, some material from sources:

In preparation for the occupation of French North Africa, without informing de Gaulle they reached an agreement with Admiral Darlan, a Vichy minister; at Casablanca they attempted to subordinate de Gaulle to an organization to be headed by General Giraud, who was an escapee from occupied France; and in fighting in Algeria and Tunisia they employed a former Vichy commander...all the Allied leaders thought de Gaulle was a pain in the neck or worse. Roosevelt tried unsuccessfully to have him removed; and he doggedly refused to recognize de Gaulle's Committee for National Liberation (CFLN) long after Giraud had dropped out of sight..de Gaulle wasn't even told about D-Day. (No Simple Victory: World War II in Europe, 1939-1945, Norman Davies, p173)

As if Eisenhower did not have enough on his mind, he also had to contend with the displeasure of General DeGaulle, the leader of the Free French...DeGaulle, not politically recognized by the Allies as the French chief in exile and now just being apprised of OVERLORD plans, was not pleased what he found out in England. Degaulle was incensed to learn that Allied troops would be issued francs which had not been printed by the French Committee of National Liberation, for he felt that as President of the Provisional Government he was the only one who could authorize the printing of money...The Prime Minister took him to Portsmouth to see Eisenhower for a briefing on OVERLORD...Eisenhower showed his visitor a copy of a speech he had recorded...Degaulle strongly objected to much of what was contained in the speech. Neither he nor his government were mentioned...Eisenhower talked of having French troops under his command. It appeared to DeGaulle that the Allies were preparing to occupy - not liberate - France... (The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean, Thomas B. Buell, p288)

The underlying argument seems to be that the Free French military contribution alone makes them important enough, regardless of how erratic it might of been, or who was actually commanding the forces. The military contribution may be enough on it's own for them to be listed (if proven). But if so, for NPOV, it would seem that other entities, with equal contribution as the Free French, would have to be listed. Otherwise it's obvious POV pushing for the French. Lt.Specht (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to prove they were a state. Not we. The burden of evidence is on you (argumentum ad ignorantiam). The fact that they "played a significant role" is not the point of this discussion. The point is their lack of independence from the British and Americans and their status as a (quote) "movement", not a state.

Also, the criteria are not "arbitrary", but clearly defined. It is how particular states stand with regard to these same (immutable) criteria that was discussed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Where am I try to prove that the Free French "were a state"? My argument - backed by sources - is that they were a significant player on the Allied side and hence worth including in the infobox. Can you please provide sources to support your position that the Free French were puppets of the Allies? The sources provided by Lt.Specht provide good examples of the strained relationship between Britain, the US and the Free French leadership, which is hardly the hallmark of a puppet relationship. Nick-D (talk) 02:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this template due to edit warring. Please discuss on this talk page instead. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Good call. This contentious WW2 discussion [1] was just archived and can be continued here, and could be a potential cause of warring. FWIW we had a 4-3 simple majority, plus undecideds, of editors wanting the Vichy France flag including in the Axis-aligned section here. I'd be in favour of adding a subdivision to the Axis side, to emphasise the difference between Vichy and e.g. Italy. Seems contradictory for Iraq to be there as it is, while Vichy France is not. I'd add Iraq to a subsection with Vichy France. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Plus is there any reason why Slovakia and Manchuko aren't on the Axis side? -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to talk on Croatia at the top of this page earlier this year, am proposing we also add to Axis-alligned:

Albania (1941-44)
Independent State of Croatia
Nedić regime^a (1941-44)
Montenegro^a (1941-44)

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Albania was in a personal Union with Italy so I'm opposed to that. Same with Montenegro. I'm OK with Croatia though.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 21:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. I'd also thought Alb was in personal union with Italy but then saw that WP's (unsourced) article on wartime Alb starts with "Albania existed as a de jure independent country, (Gheg Albanian: Shqipëria, Standard Albanian: Shqipëria), between 1943 and 1944." Just FMI, have you got a gd source for the personal union info, and does it cover 43/44? -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Since we don't really have any sources on the matter, I'd rather not draw attention to whether Albania is noteworthy to be in the list or not. As a result, I think we should exclude Albania and Montenegro from the list in the infobox. Shire's The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich mentions that the King It Italy was also King of Ethiopia and Albania/Montinegro, putting the region in a personal union with Italy.--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 23:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what would be gained by including those very minor players in the war in the Infobox - it includes an 'and others' link for this purpose. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

In addition, since the '3+3' idea is currently under consideration in the WWII talk page, this discussion seems completely senseless.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Is the 3+3 idea about commanders, or countries? If minor players shouldn't be there, then why is Iraq and Thailand there and Croatia and Slovakia not? I can't immediately find an explanation of this in the talk page archive. Also, on the Allied side, is there rationale for Belgium, Greece and Norway being there that is compatible with Croatia, Serbia and Slovakia not being on the Axis side? -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I beleive it largely has to do with the fact that Iraq, Thailand, Greece, Belgium and Norway were fully recognized soveriegn states while the others were merely puppet governments recognized by a handful of states at most and largely controlled by major axis powers.XavierGreen (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought the 3+3 idea was both for the commanders and the countries, and I support it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Commanders I'm OK with but nations, not really....--White Shadows ^{Those Christmas lights} 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

When I proposed creating a 3x3 system on the infobox, I meant for it to be only the leaders. Limiting the countries in the infobox to three would create a massive backlash and would just lead to vandalism. The way it is now, I believe, creates a good compromise; we list all the countries - which should appease everyone who complains that "China and France did a lot, this is POV!" - but at the same time limits the leaders to the six that had the most influence on the war effort. Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill were the most important Allied commanders; that is a fact and cannot be argued, unlike the overall contribution of the countries themselves.. --PlasmaTwa2 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of which, we have a simple (4-3) majority of editors declaring their support for the Vichy French flag to be included on the Axis-aligned side, and a significant number of editors undeclared. How are we going to establish consensus? I and White Shadows are also supporting the Croatian flag on the Axis-aligned side. There is plenty of empty space there which can be used. But why is Iraq there, and others not? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I do not have a strong opinion, but I would support the addition of both Vichy France and Manchukou on the Axis side. --PlasmaTwa2 16:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, we're starting to get a clear majority of editors who want Vichy France included on the Axis side. With a caution about WP:DEMOCRACY, majority editor preference is at least relevant to the subject of WP:CONSENSUS. I note that Vichy was a collaborator rather than an Axis member, also that its people variously fought both for and against Japan. On balance, the at least 6 battles it killed or captured thousands of Free French, French Resistence, Americans and British etc etc, and the alignment of its regime, prompt me to include it on the Axis side. As a recognition of differentiation that can be made between it and the Axis, I'm proposing a subdivision as below. This could also accommodate other non-Axis powers such as Finland. Another possible addition, for those who want even more accuracy, a [note] can be added to explain e.g. that Finland also fought against the Nazis, and that in one campaign Vichy France fought against Japan. The whole idea is to improve accuracy in the infobox. Thus:

World War II/Infobox
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) United Kingdom China (at war 1937-45) France (1939-40, 1944-45) Free France (1940-44) Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) and others	Axis and Axis-aligned Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Finland (1941-44) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) Vichy France (1940-1944) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's separate the Axis states (Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) from co-belligerents (Finland) and puppet states. Since inflation of the Allied list has lead to some empty space on the Axis side, we can include the most important co-belligerents and puppet regimes there, however, we need to clearly separate them, for instance, like this:

World War II/Infobox
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) United Kingdom China (at war 1937-45) France (1939-40, 1944-45) Free France (1940-44) Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) and others	Axis Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Co-belligerents and puppet states Finland (1941-44) Vichy France (1940-1944) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd support this move of Finland, Thailand and Iraq down to the lower section. The sub-heading there may be problematic, as some editors see Vichy as neither 'co-belligerent' nor 'puppet', but 'collaborator'. For that reason we ought to not alter the generic phrase 'Axis aligned' already in use, and move that down with the country flags. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A country's flag in the infobox implies that that country was a participant of the conflict. That may take place if this country was a co-belligerent of some of major participants, or it was its puppet state. By contrast, if it was not a co-belligerent (so there were no belli between this country and the Allies), and was not a puppet state (so it conducted independent foreign policy), then what do we have? The country that conducted independent foreign policy and that was not at war with any of the conflict's participant. However, that is a definition of a neutral country. In other words, the term "Axis aligned" that means neither "co-belligerence" nor "puppetry" is nonsence. I can imagine no other manifestations of "Axis alliance" that do not fit these two cases (in other words, no country can be listed among the participants if it was neither a co-belligerent nor a puppet state).

Of course, the possibility exists that some country was neither a co-belligerent not a puppet state, but it collaborated with, e.g. Nazi Germany. However, since the infobox's title is "Belligerents", non-belligerent collaborators cannot be included here. For instance, the US extensively collaborated with the UK before 1941, however, they are listed in the infobox only after that date--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Some observations:
1. Whatever we call Vichy France, it should include "belligerent", since they succeeded in killing maybe 500 Americans when defending themselves against the Allied invasion of North Africa.
2. I strongly suggest we include Iran as a belligerent. When the Allies invaded the neutral state of Iran they killed roughly 200 civilians and 800 Iranian troops.
3. Less clear are the cases of the German invasion of neutral Denmark and the Allied invasion of neutral Iceland, but if in the future we include Denmark on one side, we might have to include Iceland on the other.
4. What about the Allied colonies? Were they under under Allied occupation? Were they co-belligerents with the Allies? Were they both? When Japan during the war kicked the Dutch out of Indonesia they trained an Indonesian army that after the war over several years successfully resisted the Dutch invasion and attempt to reoccupy the country.

World map of colonization at the end of Second World War in 1945.

5. With reference to 4. above, India, one of the most populous countries in the world, was under UK control, and the UK used significant numbers of Indian troops. However, the Axis used Indian troops too. If we include "Free France" in the box, why don't we include India on the same side, or on the opposite side, Indian National Army (and perhaps Indische Legion)? Is it because they were militarily insignificant? How do we judge this break-point then?
6. Again, if we include "Free France", why not include the Russian Liberation Army, Georgian Legion (1941–1945), or indeed the Ostlegionen itself (not to be confused with Vlasovs Russian army). By the end of 1943 the Ostlegionen comprised a formidable fighting force (by late 1943 they contained 427,000 volunteers, which was a force equivalent to 30 German divisions[2]. Many were utilized in the west, e.g. Yugoslavia). Their numbers were by far more than many of the Allies could muster, certainly more than the Free French.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Stor stark7. The final test of WP:CONSENSUS will be to now go ahead and add Vichy France to the Axis and Axis-aligned list. As to your important point about British colonies, it may be a solution to change "United Kingdom" to "British Empire". That would include Indian troops (who didn't just defend British India but also fought against the Nazis in Europe) but not Canada and Australia, etc, who had a degree of autonomy from the British Empire that India did not. Free France should indeed be cut in favour of a single French flag. I haven't yet seen enough evidence about Iran to support inclusion. Brazil contributed around 25,000 troops in Italy, and significantly contributed to the Battle of the Atlantic from 1942, and should be added. Iceland, like San Marino, Denmark and Luxembourg, may be too small to emphasise here. Am soon going to try to get us some visibility on WP:CONSENSUS (NB its not the same as unanimity) by editing the infobox to the following:

World War II/Infobox
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) British Empire China (at war 1937-45) France Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) Brazil (1942–45) and others	Axis Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Axis-aligned Finland (1941-44) Vichy France (1940-1944) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you did that it would probably quickly be reverted - opinion seems to be split over whether to reduce or expand the number of countries listed in the infobox, and arbitrarily changing the infobox while this discussion is continuing wouldn't really be helpful (disclaimer: I support reducing the number of countries listed). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Nick-D and thanks for your honest disclosure. I should share mine, which is that I agree the size of this infobox is at is maximum; indeed the removal of the Free France entry and the addition of Brazil would keep the number of entries on the left precisely the same as it already is. Talk page discussion has shown that on balance there appears to be a simple majority tendency among editors to somehow add Vichy France to the empty space on the right hand side. I recall you said you were also likely to support the addition of Vichy France, but didn't make a final statement on that. Maybe you could chime in here. Nobody's really pushing for a bigger infobox per se, it seems. Thanks again, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

PS we're inaccurately indicating the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was in the war from 1941. The country was only founded in 1943. From 1941, it was the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which has a different flag, and it appears there was a King as head of state, and a royalist prime minister, right up until 1945. Personally I've no preference which flag we use, the communist or royalist, but we ought to add a [note] to indicate that during the period there was a change in title and flag the Yugoslav state. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Further to that, it appears the Flag of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was only adopted in 1945 (i.e. two years after the SFRY was recognised by the Allies as the Yugoslav state). If that's the case, we should be using the Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, which is what the SFRY used to 1945. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are going to have the British Empire on the template, may I suggest including a footnote at the bottom of the template explaining the countries it represents, or a footnote saying it represents the countries that were not independant from the UK? The UK, India, Newfoundland, etc. --PlasmaTwa2 09:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You have my support for that idea in principle. But how are we going to keep it concise? There may be over 20 territories to mention, from Jamaica to Hong Kong. Options may be to move the footnote entry to the bottom of the article to provide us more space; or else we simply provide a blue link in the footnote which takes readers to a list of British Empire territories. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Same as the normal list of nations; list a few of the major ones and then put and others.. at the end. However, I think having the British Empire page as a link is a problem because Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa are all included on that page. --PlasmaTwa2 20:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Show us. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Something like this. --PlasmaTwa2 22:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think there is a genuine case for highlighting India. But why is Newfoundland emphasised over Nigeria, Jamaica, Malaysia, Burma, Singapore, Hong Kong, Fiji etc? Can we prove that the Newfie war effort was more notable than any of those territories? -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

First, the term Newfie is slander, so don't use it. Second, there really is no reason I chose Newfoundland over any other country. I couldn't put them all on and I decided for an English Wikipedia it would just make sense to put an English-speaking nation on. Newfoundland was involved in the Atlantic campaign and had several land lease agreements with the US. --PlasmaTwa2 16:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I certainly wasn't aware the word is slanderous and I apologize if offence was taken. In any case, I have not objected to Newfoundland being third on the list, I'm just asking why. As far as I'm aware English Language Wikipedia is not meant to show favouritism toward English-speaking nations. There may be excellent reasons for Newfoundland being prioritized, but I'm not convinced the English Language is one of them. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem being is that none of those other countries really deserve to be on the template, either. Outside of India, none of those countries played a significant role, unless you want to count Hong Kong getting taken over by the Japanese. It is Newfoundland's role in the Atlantic that makes me think they should be included over the other countries, but if there is a better reason for another country to be on the template, I'm all for it. --PlasmaTwa2 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Pointing out notability in Battle of the Atlantic (1939–1945) may indeed satisfy editors who argue the case for other territories; though we must add British West Africa (which fielded 200,000 troops including two divisions which campaigned in Burma; and Malaya for Royal Malay Regiment. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I'm thinking we should change the blurb in order to seperate the UK from its subordinated. Maybe: Includes the United Kingdom and its territories without independance: India, British West Africa, Malaysia, Newfoundland, and others. --PlasmaTwa2 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I support your proposal. Malaysia goes to Malaya, per British Malaya. -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Plasma, what would you say to trimming it down to: "Includes United Kingdom and dependencies: India, British West Africa, British Malaya, Newfoundland, and others" ? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That is actually a much better wording. Changed. --PlasmaTwa2 23:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Flag of the "Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia", 1945-92

Flag of the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", 1943-45, and of the Yugoslav Partisan resistance army, 1941-43

@Chumchum, Re:Yugoslav flag. After the quick collapse of the Yugoslav army in April 1941, the war was continued by the Partisans, who eventually grew to a military force of some 700,000-800,000 men. The "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" was replaced by the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" after the Tehran Conference (1943) and the Treaty of Vis (1944). I won't go into the complex details, Yugoslav history during this period is an incredible mess and it would take me an hour of writing to go into it all, it was almost as if two Yugoslavias existed simultaneously for a period. Suffices to say that the red star flag, in addition to being the flag of the Allied Yugoslav faction from 1941 on, was also instituted in law before the end of WWII. Please do not confuse this flag (instituted in 1945), with this flag instituted in 1943 and in unofficial use by Allied Yugoslav forces since 1941. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for querying this. I read before the edit that even though the new Yugoslav state changed in 1943, the flag didn't until 1945, at WP: Flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, specifically the line "The flags of the Kingdom were in official use from 1922 until the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was occupied by Axis powers in 1941. After that, the flag was used by the officially recognized government in exile, diplomatic representatives, and the Allies until 1945." For an example of the use of the flag in wartime, take a look at this 1942 UN poster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Original_United_Nations.jpg Indeed am aware, and in awe, of the instrumental contribution the Partisans made to the war effort in the Balkans and that they used the red star as a military ensign; but it appears the Yugoslav state only adopted it for diplomatic purposes from 1945.. Perhaps we could get hold of a source on this? -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah but you make a fatal mistake, you were caught in the act - of actually trying to find useful and accurate info on Wikipedia's Balkans articles. Perfectly understandable, but please, don't let it happen again xD.

*Sigh* I'll go into the details then. The Yugoslav state during WWII. What is the Yugoslav state during WWII? Is it the government-in-exile, ten people in a rented room in London? Or is it the territory governed by the Yugoslav resistance and its deliberative body (AVNOJ) and government (NKOJ), which unlike the former, actually did constitute a WWII combatant commanding a relatively substantial military force? The situation in WWII Yugoslavia can be divided, with respect to the Yugoslav state(s), into 3 distinct periods:

• 1) Start of the War (17 April 1941) - Tehran Conference/Second Session of the AVNOJ (29 November 1943). During this period the Yugoslav state was still known as the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia", its flag a plain pan-Slavic tricolour (2:3). The Yugoslav resistance, entirely unaffiliated with the government-in-exile, unofficially used the red star flag, and formed its deliberative body the (AVNOJ) and its government (the NKOJ).
• 2) Tehran Conference/Second Session of the AVNOJ (29 November 1943) - Belgrade Agreement (2 November 1944). Up to now it was simple, an occupied Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Now the Allies recognize the AVNOJ alongside the government-in-exile, maintaining that the two should be merged as soon as possible. Churchill, still trying to land in the Balkans, needs the Partisans on his side and does not really give a hoot about the government-in-exile. Simultaneously, the AVNOJ has its (locally quite famous) Second Session. There they establish the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia". The name of this state is a trick in itself: the Partisans want a federal republic, as opposed to the unitarianist kingdom of the Interbellum, and so they name the state the "Federal", but they do not wish to antagonize the Allies so they leave the question of "Republic vs. Kingdom" open. Churchill forces the government-in-exile in London to accept the "rechristening" into the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" and to recognize the AVNOJ.
  Note: we now have two legitimate, recognized governments, negotiating to merge - and the state's name is "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" (the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" is now no more, even on paper). During its Second Session, the AVNOJ also established the flag used by the Partisans as the flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. In spite of this, the royalist government-in-exile still uses the Kingdom flag, as do the Western Allies in their posters and such.
• 3) Belgrade Agreement (2 November 1944) - VE Day. The governments merge after the liberation of Belgrade. The Partisan commander, Tito, is now the Prime Minister of the joint coalition government (up to now the Prime Minister of the Partisan government). There is no more dual representation in embassies. Still, however, the new red star flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia remains out of use by the Western Allies, even though it had been legally instituted since 1943.

So in short, even though the new red star flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was instituted by the recognized AVNOJ in 1943, and even though the AVNOJ was recognized by the government-in-exile, the royalist government-in-exile simply did not use it (the matter was never discussed). The Western Allies, also, for no apparent reason otehr than neglect, did not pay much heed to the new flag either (hence the posters) - it was, however, quite legal. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Too much info? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, its great info thank you. But citations haven't helped make it a clear-cut case, and my hunch is this one will be decided by WP:CONS if we can't find a reliable source which discusses the flags. In the absence of verifiability, I tend to share your feeling that de facto use of the flag is more relevant than de jure situation, but so far I remain open-minded even about this. As a curiosity, the WP Russian version template uses the royalist flag instead of the communists one. Either way, its not a big deal. It would be good to gather a few more editors' views on this. Thanks again -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's just the point: the red star flag was also the de jure flag since 1943. It was instituted by the recognized Yugoslav deliberative body, the AVNOJ. As for its de facto use, it was used by the Yugoslav military and one of its two legal governments. It was not used by the government-in-exile and the Western Allies (probably due to simple neglect). After all, we're talking about an insignificant obscure decision of an obscure little resistance parliament about a minor flag detail in an obscure little, temporarily non-occupied town of an obscure backwater European country - while on the other hand the plain tricolour was used to represent Yugoslavia for 25 years now. Tito, ever the diplomat, never pressed the matter (whether he actually cared or no). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Between 1941 and late 1943 the recognised allied forces in Yugoslavia, pardon, Kingdom of Yugoslavia, were the Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland of Gen. Draža Mihailović, wich were the main royalist resistance movement. They were the officially recognised allied forces and worked along other allied forces (American, British, French...). The Partisans were the other resistance force supported by the leftists living in the Kingdom, and internationally by USSR. So, it would be more correct to have the Royal Yugoslav flag since the King was in London, giving orders to his troops commanded by Mihailovic. Both, the monarchists and the communists were resistance, but the monarchists were the official ones, for most time. This user, direktor, has some real hard time understanding this (despite all evidence), and he purpously mislead the participants of this discussion from the beggining by purposly ignoring the monarchic forces. Please beware because this user edits tendentiously all related areticles in same way (allways favouring communist Partisans, Tito and when possible, Croatian role in it, and does his best to ignore or "nazify" the monarchic role and Serbian role in both, monarchic and Partisan forces). FkpCascais (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

User:FkpCascais feels it is his duty to stalk my contribs and oppose me, without regard as to whether we are actually in agreement or not. :)

Fkp, you paradoxically attack my integrity in a most repulsive and slanderous manner, while posting information in complete agreement with the brief description I posted above. The only thing you essentially did is add more details to the description of the 1941-1943 period. The only reason I did not mention the Chetniks (the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland") was because they are entirely irrelevant to this discussion. They represent the government-in-exile, and I have clearly stated that the government-in-exile was the only legal representative body for Yugoslavia in the 1941-43 period. The fact that the government-in-exile also had a militia force in Yugoslavia supporting it is quite obviously not of significance to the issue of legality. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

As I stated above, the flag of Yugoslavia up until November 29 1943 was indeed the plain 2:3 Kingdom of Yugoslavia tricolour. The only legal government during the first period was the government-in-exile, and its troops were the Chetniks (or the "Yugoslav Army in the Fatherland"). The above post by User:FkpCascais refers to the "1st Period" in my notes above. There is no question that, up until the Tehran Conference and the Second Session of the AVNOJ (which occurred simultaneously), the legal Yugoslav flag was the plain tricolour, while the red star flag was only the flag of the Partisan resistance up to that point.

(At this point I will avoid going into the issue of the widespread collaboration and ineffective resistance that characterized the government-in-exile's Chetniks, which in turn forced even the staunch conservative Churchill to support a communist movement, in order to finally gain an effective military force in occupied South-East Europe.)

This changes in late November/December of 1943. The Tehran Conference entail the end of the "Kingdom of Yugoslavia" (or its succession), instituting the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" and fully recognizing the Partisans' AVNOJ as the Yugoslav deliberative body. (Side note: King Peter II was not deposed however, the "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia" remained a rather paradoxical state without formalized monarchical institutions, but with a king in London.)

The AVNOJ passed several laws during its second session, and formally added the red star to the Yugoslav flag. This was the legal flag of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia 1943 on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Axis aligned" or "co-belligerents or puppet states"?

I see that the term "Axis aligned" has been added despite my comments have been left non-addressed. As I already wrote, the section "Belligerents" should not include "Axis aligned" countries that were neither co-belligerents nor puppet states (otherwise they cannot be considered belligerents, and, therefore cannot be in the infobox). In addition, "Axis aligned" is inaccurate and vague: "aligned" implies some alliance, and I am not aware of any alliance signed between, e.g. Finland or Iraq and the Axis.
In connection to that, if some users believe that, e.g. Vichy France was neither a co-belligerent nor a puppet state (and just a non-belligerent Axis collaborator or a non-belligerent Nazi aligned state), it should be excluded from the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

You may not have realized this but the term "Axis aligned" has been on the template for weeks, I didn't add it to the template. Please self-revert your good faith change to the phrase and try to build consensus for it here. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not an argument. Do you have any concrete arguments against fixing this inaccuracy?--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's be precise. I have not added the phrase "Axis aligned" - it was added by some other editor, quite a while ago, after which it enjoyed silent consensus; I then moved it to the subsection. You then cut it, and replaced it with the phrase "Co-belligerents and puppet states", which is your addition. That's the truth. My opinion, for what is worth, is that "Axis aligned" was a concise general phrase that was suitably abstract to work as a subheading, without being inaccurate. Alignment doesn't only imply alliance - there are many synonyms for the word, and I expect whichever editor added it a while ago may have chosen it for that reason. It was also efficient, and didn't knock the Allied lines on the template out of shape which is what we have now. It's really your preference against mine, and no big deal - certainly not one I'm going to have an argument about. In any case, this is a collegial process and WP:CONS will have the final word. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, alignment doesn't only imply alliance - there are many synonyms for the word, and that is the reason why I replaced "Axis aligned" with "Co-belligerents and puppet states". Please, remember, that infobox lists only belligerents, so in actuality "Axis aligned" in that context means "Axis aligned belligerents", or co-belligerents. However, the infobox cannot and should not include political Axis allies, or Axis collaborators who were not WWII belligerents. However, someone can miss this consideration, and try to add Axis aligned non-belligerents to this box. Replacement of too generic "Axis aligned" with "Co-belligerents and puppet states" will prevent that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please take note that, unlike other "puppet states" like Slovakia and Croatia, Vichy France was never a cobelligerent. It was an Axis supporter, but never actually took part in any offensives, nor declared war to the Allies. Vichy France's only direct belligerence against the Allies was fighting in self-defense during Operation Torch. Take note also that, after Torch, Hitler dismantled all the remaining troops on French soil, so Vichy did not even have an army after 1942 (which also proves that it was never a real co-belligerent, since Hitler's trust in the French was nil). Vichy's Milice did give a hand to German troops against the French resistance, but this organization was hardly a major belligerent, nor did it mean that Vichy had declared war against the Allies. Even during Operation Overlord, Pétain insisted that his government was neutral, not that it was in any position to influence the outcome. So listing Vichy France as a belligerent is IMHO disingenuous : if we are to include some puppet states as co-belligerent, Slovakia and Croatia are much better, since they actually invaded the Soviet Union (make not mistake about my intentions : Vichy was a reprehensible puppet government. What I want to stress is that its military importance must not be exaggerated by a presence in the infobox). This subject had already been discussed, if I recall. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That was my feeling also. Generally speaking, it would be good if, to avoid a possibility of original research, we all agreed to include some party in the infobox only when reliable sources are available that confirm that this concrete state was officially at war (or when equally convincing evidences are presented).--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I could support Croatia and Slovakia being on the list, as they were not less involved with the Axis than Vichy France. But I support their inclusion along with Vichy France - not to the exclusion of Vichy France. Plenty of belligerents in WW2 did not make formal declarations of war, and that is not our threshold for inclusion. Inclusion is more about obtaining WP:CONSENSUS, and a while back there was significant support for Vichy France flag being added. Vichy killing hundreds of Allied troops in Operation Torch was enough reason for inclusion. But that is not in fact the end of it: several thousand Free French, British, American and other troops were killed on the battlefield by Vichy French troops aligned with the Nazis. Consider the Syria-Lebanon Campaign (in which over 4000 Australians, Free French, Indians, Brits and Czechoslovakians were killed by Vichy troops backed by brief German air support), plus Battle of Dakar, Battle of Madagascar, Attack on Mers-el-Kebir (in which 1300 Frenchmen were killed in a British rush attack), and others. Vichy troops also cost many Allied lives simply by not fighting the Axis. But most importantly for Wikipedia, there is serious secondary sourcing on this, such as Colin Smith's England's Last War Against France: Fighting Vichy 1940-42 - the blurb for which states the conflict with Vichy "went on for over two years and cost several thousand lives... while Britain was at war with Germany, Italy and ultimately Japan, it also fought land, sea and air battles with the considerable forces at the disposal of Petain's Vichy French." For what's its worth, my recommendation is the Vichy France flag goes back, perhaps with the Fasces - and in that case I will support inclusion of Slovakia and Croatia alongside Vichy France, but not on their own. -Chumchum7 (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Slovakia actively and officially participated in the Axis invasion of the USSR, therefore it was officially at war with at least one of the major Allies. It must be in the infobox. As regards to Croatia, the only fact I know that at least one Croatian unit participated in the Battle of Stalingrad under Croatian command.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

So now we're including puppets again? I swear this place is just going in circles.. :) Probably Wikipedia's no.1 unstable template. I know he's a "man of action", but can I please ask JJG to achieve consensus before he contributes to keeping this Wikipedia's "ever-changing infobox". Should we now include puppet states simply if they're "co-belligerents"? 'Cause Spain was a co-belligerent in the invasion of the USSR, more so than Slovakia I think, and there are other puppets which engaged Allied forces (off the top of my head Kingdom of Montenegro? Serbia 1941-1944?). And what about the myriad Allied puppets such as the Philippines? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have the same opinion as Paul Siebert. Also, if by Consensus, we mean "not one person disagreeing", then we never have consensus on wikipedia : anyway, it appears to me that it is the listing of Vichy France as an active co-belligerent which is non-consensual. I'd have no qualms about putting Vichy as a belligerent, if the "French State" had officially been at war against the Allies, which was not the case. Vichy had a hostile attitude towards Britain, and was - quite officially under the Laval government - an Axis supporter, but unlike Slovakia and Croatia it never participated in any offensives (Slovakia and Croatia are the most likely candidates to be included in the infobox, if the infobox is going to include puppet states. That's why I included them.). Vichy troops fought in self-defense against Allied (including Free French) armies in Gabon, Syria-Lebanon, Madagascar, and Operation Torch. Yet, it never declared war on the Allies : even while the Allies were invading and bombing France in 1944, Pétain insisted that France remained "neutral". I repeat myself, but the fact that Hitler had Vichy's army dismantled on French soil after ex-Vichy troops merged with the Free French forces in North Africa speaks for itself. Vichy was an economic and material supporter of the Axis, but never a full-fledged military participant. The most valid argument for the inclusion of Vichy as an active belligerent would be the Milice's action against the French resistance, and that was considered police work at the time. IMHO, the criterias for the inclusion of a country as a belligerent in the WWII infobox should be its active participation in military campaigns, and the existence of a declaration of war. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Consensus entails neither unanimity nor a simple majority vote. It is more complicated than that and personally I find its always helpful having another look at that guidance note I linked above. Our opinions are subordinate to what verifiable sources state. What are we going to do about Smith? Lack of offensive engagement is no excuse: defensive war is every bit as real as offensive war, and often more effective. Also, one needs to be careful about this word 'official' which is often a representation of a state propaganda line rather than reality. Many countries 'officially' eschew torture, but only a dupe would take their word for it. Chamberberlain 'officially' had peace, on a piece of paper, officially countersigned by Adolf Hitler. By the same token it would be absurd for Wikipedia to make out that wars are undertaken by completing the appropriate documentation in a correct manner, rubber-stamped and in triplicate to be registered by some international warfighting association. My view is that the Australians, Free French and Indians who got their intestines shot out by Vichy troops in Syria, are more credible evidence of a war being fought than any administrative technicality. But to cap it all, Colin Smith says so. I'm inclined to restore the flag together with a Smith citation, as an improvement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree on that and, once again, that's not because I am French myself : the inclusion of Vichy in the infobox would imply that it was an active co-belligerent (i.e., taking part in offensives, or actively fighting alongside Axis troops) which was never the case. There were, of course, military engagements of Vichy against Allied troops, but that was in self-defence against Allied invasions (not that the Allies were wrong to invade, of course). This would be disingenuous. If any other source than Colin Smith says that Vichy was a member of the Axis (i.e., signing the Tripartite Pact) or that it actively fought alongside the Axis in any other thing that self-defence, I would agree on its inclusion. However, I have never seen any reputable source making such a statement. IMHO, if we are to include "Puppet states", Slovakia and Croatia would be the only one to qualify for inclusion in the infobox, since they invaded the USSR (and hence were definitely active participants). Vichy would only at best deserve inclusion as a co-participant in an infobox related to the mediterranean and african theaters, not in the global WWII theater. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

That's just the point - Vichy did fight Allied forces in Torch as you've already mentioned. What, are we just supposed to say "ah but that was just once" and pretend they didn't? Vichy did not sign into the Axis, but is that a criteria for including belligerents or isn't it? We have states there that never officially signed into the Axis.

What makes the USSR so special? After 1944 the Partisans were bona fide Yugoslav Allied troops. They were engaged by the Kingdom of Montenegro and Nedić's Serbia. The meagre forces sent to the Eastern Front by the NDH or Slovakia (which quickly got annihilated, btw) are hardly more significant than the long-term, large-scale involvement in the fighting of the Yugoslav Front. Frankly I do not at all agree with the idea that fighting on the Eastern Front somehow makes you valuable for inclusion by default. These were meagre, badly-equipped troops, their participation in Russia is hardly significant at all. Also, as I said we would have to include Spain if that were the criteria. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Only Spain never got officially involved in WWII. Finland, Thailand (and possibly Iraq, although its participation was brief) can be mentioned as Axis-aligned because their participation was regionally significant, and because they were actively involved as sovereign states. I do not think that the inclusion of Slovakia and Croatia is indispensable in the infobox, even though they were active participants (though not very significant from a military point of view) : the only reason for their inclusion is that the infobox mentions puppet states. IMHO, if World War II's main infobox has to include (and I'm not sure it does) the state/governments broadly defined as "puppet states", they are the only Axis puppet states who deserve inclusion for their active participation. Certainly not Vichy, which only deserves mention in the infoboxes of the local conflicts it was actually involved in (Battle of Dakar, etc) : including it as a belligerent in the main infobox would be disingenuous, for it would give the impression that it was a real military ally of the Axis, which it was not. And I am not saying this out of misplaced french chauvinism : they certainly deserve to be mentioned in any article about collaboration in Europe. My personal opinion, anyway, is that the infobox was better before, with only the mention Axis and Axis-aligned. The inclusion, or not, of Croatia and Slovakia, is another matter : they were theoretically sovereign states (whether or not they qualified as puppets like Quisling's Norway is a matter of debate; I think they did, personally) who were actively involved in the war. They might not have been very significant for the outcome, but neither did Greece or Belgium. I tend to think that they should be included, but that may be debated. If we keep the Axis-aligned and puppets title, they certainly should, however : if we mention puppet states, then we have to include some, and they qualify more than Vichy. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sadly we're starting to repeat ourselves already. But we've got to work toward a solution somehow. My position remains that Vichy France should stay on the list, for the rationale above. The Vichy French made the choice to surrender to the Nazis and make peace with them; they made the choice not to surrender to the Allies, and also made the choice to kill thousands of them, actually many more in Operation Exporter than in Operation Torch. Like DIREKTOR, I'm not willing to "pretend they didn't". There's a major credible source on the subject, stating they did. It was in fact a magnificent Frenchman who said, precisely because of his wartime experience, "You are what you do" - not what some declaration officially says you do. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Although the fact that Vichy troops participated in hostilities against the Allies to defend themselves in undeniable, the same is true for, e.g. Iran. In any event, to include some state into the infobox we need some clear threshold, and the most natural threshold is the quote from the reliable source that states that some particular state was officially a party in the war. All other considerations and arguments are just our original research.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, as I said before, I preferred the previous title, "Axis and Axis-aligned". If by "Axis", we mean what officially constituted what was called the Axis, i.e., the Tripartite Pact, then Slovakia and Croatia were not only Axis-aligned, they were members of the Axis, period. The Anti-Comintern Pact might be taken into account (Finland actually signed it) but if we only take the Tripartite Pact into account, then Finland and Thailand would only qualify as "Axis-aligned" (their contribution has IMHO to be mentioned in the infobox, since it was regionally significant). Iraq is another matter, since it was also regionally significant, and in alliance with Germany. I think including it is interesting, although its participation was short. As for "puppet states", what we mean by this should be defined : if by this we mean governments and/or states which owed their existence to the Axis, then Slovakia and Croatia qualify (as well as, say, Manchukuo). If we mean governments and/or states which had absolutely no autonomy, no troops under their command, etc, then we are reduced to things like the Quisling government in Norway, while Slovakia, Croatia, and even Nedic's Serbia did have troops. For all these reasons, as I said, I preferred the previous title. As for Vichy France, I have repeated myself several times : they were involved militarily in the war several time (in self-defense), the history of this government is very significant, but it was never officially a party in the war. the Vichy regime merely sanctioned the existence of the non-official Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism (not that it was in position not to do so) but it never declared war on the Allies, nor did the Allies declare war on it. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree with Jean-Jacques Georges.

A question: where are Vichy's troops to be found after Operation Torch? after 27 November 1942, when the army ceased to exist on order of the "naz-in-chief"?

And since faute de combattants, dissolved armies do not fight, if the French tricolor representing Vichy is to be included in the infobox, then the dates have to be changed from the incorrect 1940-1944 to 1940-1942.

--Frania W. (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)