Talk:World War II/Infobox

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

References

Footnotes

ar:قالب:معلومات الحرب العالمية الثانية pl:Szablon:II wojna światowa si:සැකිල්ල:තොරතුරුකොටුවදෙවනලෝකයුද්ධය simple:Template:WW2InfoBox

Edit wars

Why do people keep reverting my edits? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 06:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Countries in box

There is absolutely no reason to have the USSR and US listed first except for personal biases. The war was well under way before the two even joined. The list should reflect this. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Following your logic, the first country should be Poland or China.

In actuality, we had had a long dispute on that account. Please, read the archives of this and WWII talk pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand there was formerly a long dispute. But putting the USSR first is the least logical. If anything they should be listed either from first involvement (as you've mentioned, Poland, China), or listed Alphabetically. These would be the only non-biased way to list them. UrbanNerd (talk) 12:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Paul, saying that "we" once had a long dispute is not, by itself, a complete response. As per Wikipedia:TALKEDABOUTIT, consensus changes. Was this discussion recent? Was it conclusive? Were there outstanding issues? Rather than simply vaguely pointing to two sets of lengthy archives, could you possibly link to the actual discussions you think are relevant? I am inclined to think that UrbanNerd has raised a valid issue. Maybe the current arrangement is better, but saying "there was formerly a long dispute" is really unconvincing. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Consensus can change if new arguments, facts and sources have been presented. I saw no fresh arguments so far, therefore, by merely saying "I disagree" you can hardly change consensus. A complete responce in that situation is: please, read old discussion, familiarise yourself with old arguments, and, if you have fresh arguments (desirably, supported by reliable sources) feel free to present them. Maybe, fresh facts and arguments can lead to new consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, that's not true at all. New arguments is the usual reason consensus changes, but it is not a prerequisite, especially if that consensus wasn't particularly recent. UrbanNerd has said far more than "I disagree" - he's offered an explanation why chronological order is better than the current one. In fact, we have no idea what, if any, past consensus exists because you have not answered the above questions about it and still haven't pointed to any past discussions that you think are relevant to this particular issue. I found one discussion in April 2010 that seemed to peter out. For there to be consensus, you need to do more that stomp your feet and insist that it exists -- vaguely pointing to lengthy archives at more than one location and saying "familiarise yourself with old arguments" does not suffice. I would also note how WP:CON discourages "terse explanations such as 'against consensus' (and similar phrases)" and encourages fuller explanations (such as pointing to the relevant discussions). I don't necessarily agree with UrbanNerd, but he has arguably raised a valid point, and I'm not sure that it is fair to effectively say to him "go away and look it up". I would invite you to explain why you disagree with UrbanNerd and explain why it's contrary to an existing consensus. Telling him to go away without any meaningful explanation, and only come back if he has "fresh arguments", is not appropriate. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

And, BTW, unless the contrary consensus was recent, and reopening it is arguably thus disruptive or vexatious, UrbanNerd is perfectly entitled to propose his edits to the template. There is nothing that says editors cannot collectively reconsider past decisions. Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, editors can reconsider past decisions collectively. Yes, UrbanNerd is entitled to propose such changes. Yes, one may argue that newcomers can expect polite and respectful treatment, but old participants deserve similar respect also. If UrbanNerd does not bother to familiarise themselves with old arguments they have reproduced almost verbatim, why should I bother to address the issue that has been already addressed?

However, as an act of good faith I can answer his question. The problem is that the "Course of the war" section is not balanced, and it creates a false impression about relative scale and strategic importance of the events. Just compare the scale of the Second Battle of Kharkov with that of Guadalcanal Campaign, or the Battle of Iwo Jima with Operation Saturn (not mentioned it the article at all), etc. If your proposal (chronological order of belligerents) will be accepted, China should go first, followed by Poland, AND the whole article should be modified to reflect the fact that major WWII battles took place in the Eastern front. If you agree on that, let's discuss it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

You cannot expect newer participants to have regard to old discussions when you obstinately refuse to link to the ones that you feel are relevant. It wasn't obvious to me, in reviewing the archives, that there was any clear past consensus rejecting UrbanNerd's arguments; maybe I missed it, but who would know. The fact that UrbanNerd has raised "old arguments" almost verbatim, as you suggest, to me simply shows that he is not alone in his thinking and the issue he has raised is a valid point worthy of discussion. We have no evidence of consensus where his point-of-view was ever conclusively dismissed.

Frankly, I do not feel too strongly either way on the substance of this issue, and I have spent more time on this issue that I ever wanted. I simply wanted to take issue with your response to UrbanNerd's proposal, which I believe was inappropriately dismissive. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In actuality, if you look at the top of this page you will see the link to the FAQ, where this particular question, along with some others, have been discussed (with links). WWII is a very complex subject, and I do expect newer participants to read as much as possible (at least FAQ) before attempting to initiate new discussion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Unbelievable. You couldn't have pointed this out to UrbanNerd at the beginning, when he first raised the issue, instead of pointing him unhelpfully to voluminous archives? Most articles do not have FAQs. Instead, it took me badgering you, and asking you over and over for the links (which you inexplicably ignored). Why would you not extend this simple, basic and expected courtesy. The only explanation for your behavious is that you were more intested in forestalling any discussion than in discussing the issue in good faith. That, and the fact that the past discussions are not nearly as conclusive as you led everyone to believe at the top of this discussion.

And, by the way comments like "WWII is a very complex subject, and I do expect newer participants to read as much as possible" are simply condescending - it is arrogant to assume you know more about the topic than anyone else. This notion that participants should undertake lengthy research before you deign to discuss an issue with them is ludicrous, and runs contrary to Wikipedia practice. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Your tone is redundantly aggressive. Try to assume good faith. For example, what if I simply forgot that the FAQ was here, not in the WWII talk page? In actuality, initially thought FAQ was in the WWII talk page, I looked at that page, didn't find FAQ there and came to a conclusion that someone removed it. Only after that I looked at this page, and, immediately informed you.

Re "it is arrogant to assume you know more about the topic than anyone else" Yes, I know more than majority of those newcomers who are too lazy to read the header of the talk page, and do not bother to provide any source that support their assertions. And I don't think this my statement is arrogant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is unbelievable. Your excuse about the FAQ makes no sense, given how many times you were asked for links to the discussion. And your continued insistence on assuming you are smarter and harder working than everyone else here is just baffling.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

What is really unbelievable is your aggressive tone and assumption of bad faith. You are writing about some my excuses, however, I didn't apologize: I just explained what happened.

Re your "your continued insistence on assuming you are smarter and harder working than everyone else", it is a blatant misinterpretation of my words: there are many users here whom I genuinely respect. I also assume good faith of every newcomer who approaches the dispute seriously. However, I don't have to, and I will not show any respect to those newcomers who start their activity on this talk page with unsubstantiated categorical statements, and who do not bother to read at least a little bit even when they are explicitly advised to do so.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point here. It's irrelevant whether it's been discussed before. Can you please tell me one valid point on why the USSR and US are listed first ? Just one valid point ? There is absolutely NO reasoning whatsoever bedsides personal biases/allegiances to list these two countries first. It needs to be changed. UrbanNerd (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The USSR and USA were by far the dominant members of the Allies, so it's sensible to put them first (the USSR did most of the fighting in Europe, and the US most of the fighting in the Pacific and much of the fighting in Europe, as well as bankrolling/supplying the Allied effort to a remarkable degree). There are other sensible approaches (alphabetical order being my preferred alternative given the difficulty of determining in what order countries entered the war, and the limited extent to which this mattered for most of them), but this is workable. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

And by the US being "by far the dominant members of the Allies" you mean "didn't enter the war until 2-4 years after it started" (depending on when you belive the actual start date was) ? I'm not sure how you can suggest the US was by far the dominant members of the Allies, when we didn't even enter the war until 1941 and had 416,800 military deaths compared to China's 3-4 million military deaths, Yugoslavia's 446,000 military deaths, or even Frances 567,600 total deaths, Romania's 800,000 total deaths, Polands 5.6 million deaths, India's 1.5-2.5 million deaths, etc. I think alphabetical or entry date is the only non-biased way to list them. UrbanNerd (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when is the number of deaths a measure of influence? Do you really not think that the US was one of the dominant military forces of the war? Pinning down the date the US entered the war is pretty difficult - the US Navy was in an undeclared shooting war with the German Navy from mid-1941, and the US Government strongly supported the Allied cause from 1940, and Lend-Lease aid began in March 1941. Similarly, ordering by the date the country entered the war leads to some odd situations; for instance, New Zealand entered the war on 3 September 1939, but Canada entered the war on 10 September - given the geographical location of the two countries, its fair to say that Canada's slightly belated declaration was more meaningful than New Zealand's rapid entry into the war. Nick-D (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Since when can we determine the measure of influence ? Yes the US was one of the dominant military forces of the war, but not more than China, Britain, Canada, France, or the Dutch. What about Poland that fought major Battles and lost over 16% of it's entire population ? I think maybe some people's opinion of the US involvement is a bit biased from American history books and Hollywood. Maybe date of involvement is not the correct way to list, but alphabetical shows no bias whatsoever. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

If we use the losses sustained by some belligerent as a measure of military contribution, then the USSR and China (in that order) should be first. However, what is more important is the damage inflicted on the opponents, i.e. the losses inflicted on the Axis powers. In that sense, the US and the USSR were much more important belligerents then all other participants taken together. I would say even more: a real WWII started only after the USSR and the US joined the war. China was by and large defeated by 1941, and poses no military treat for Japan (even in 1944 they could do whatever they wanted in continental China), France was quickly defeated in 1940, and became de facto Hitler's satellite. Contributions of Canada was proportional to the size of its population. And so on, and so forth.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you are way out of line stating that the US and the USSR were much more important belligerents then all other participants taken together. That is absolutely original research and completely false. UrbanNerd (talk) 05:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The USSR alone destroyed 50% of the Axis manpower. The US alone destroyed Japanese naval power. These facts are quite obvious for everyone who studied WWII history not based on Churchill's "Second World War", but based on good scholarships.

For sources, see, e.g. Bellamy's "Absolute War".--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Re " I'm not sure how you can suggest the US was by far the dominant members of the Allies, when we didn't even enter the war until 1941 and had 416,800 military deaths compared to China's 3-4 million military deaths, Yugoslavia's 446,000 military deaths, or even Frances 567,600 total deaths, Romania's 800,000 total deaths, Polands 5.6 million deaths, India's 1.5-2.5 million deaths, etc." You forgot:

1. The USSR 27 million deaths. According to this criterion, it should be first. Even if we consider only combat deaths (8 million) it should be first too.
2. Romania was the Axis member, so I simply do not understand your point.
3. Polish 5.6 million included ca 4 million civilian Jews, which hardly had any relation to hostilities.

Please, don't play with numbers of deaths. --Paul Siebert (talk) 06:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you're becoming increasingly arrogant. I suggest you quit the "tough talk" as you're not impressing anyone whatsoever. And again you seem to be having trouble comprehending the simple question. Secondly the US may have destroyed the Japanese naval power 2-3 years into the war, does that make us more important belligerents then all other participants taken together. Absolutely not. Your way of thinking is absurd ! Thirdly, this is all completely off topic as no has suggested listing the countries in way of number of deaths. Again, alphabetically is the only non-biased form of listing. UrbanNerd (talk) 06:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That would have the result of the Allied side leading with Australia, followed by Belgium and Brazil and the Axis side leading with Bulgaria followed by Germany. That would look pretty odd. I don't see how the current ordering is problematic, much less 'biased' (a rather strong term) - it's pretty indisputable that the USSR, USA and UK made the main contribution to the Allied war effort and Germany and Japan dominated the Axis war effort, with Italy a fairly distant third. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

No it's very disputable is the point you're not getting. Especially in the case of the US. UrbanNerd (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Re "Firstly, you're becoming increasingly arrogant," Physician, heal thyself.

Re secondly, I never said that the US were more important belligerent then all other allies taken together. I am more inclined to believe that there were three major Allies (Britain, the US and the USSR), whose contribution dwarfed military contributions of all other Allies taken together.

Re thirdly, it is not off topic, because you yourself resorted to this type argument, and did that in a totally inappropriate way. You cannot compare the US with Romania simply because the latter was an Axis power. You cannot compare the US and Poland simply because major Polish losses were the Holocaust victims, which has no relation to military contribution of this power.

In addition to that, personal attacks are an indication of the lack of arguments from your side. Try to stay cool, please.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bahahah. Personal attacks ? Who/when was anyone personally attacked ? You know, false accusations are an indication of the lack of arguments from your side. Try to stay cool, please. When you use the terms "I am more inclined to believe" it all but admits to original research. I brought up the death counts earlier as a side fact to prove the original research spewed out here that of the US/USSR were more important belligerents then all other participants taken together. Absolutely ludicrous. But when people have no argument they often choose to dwell on little irrelevancies to take focus of the fact they have no solid argument. It's quite sad actually. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no logic here: you are trying refute my alleged original research based on your own speculation...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me explain it again. Chronological or alphabetical listing is acceptable or even desirable when we have many co-belligerents whose contribution and importance are comparable, so it is impossible to select one or two major participants. In connection to that, let's analyse the list of the Allies. I would select three major factors that may serve as an indicators of importance: 1. Military contribution in terms of the amount of losses inflicted on the enemy, and of strategic implications of hostilities a certain belligerent was involved in; 2. Economic contribution in terms of war materials produced and shipped to support hostilities; 3. Political influence. Let's analyse each member of the Big Three in that context.

1. Britain played a key role during 1939-40, although the period of Phony War can hardly be considered as a serious military contribution. Africa was a theatre of secondary importance, and, after Torch the leadership in Western Europe was taken by the US. Therefore, Britain should be placed third.

The US played zero role before 1942. However, the most decisive battle (Battle of Britain and Battle of Moscow) were won by the Allies (Britain and the USSR, accordingly), which broke key Hitler's plans and saved the Allies from imminent defeat. The US played key role in Pacific and bore major brunt of the war with Japan, and played a leading role in Western Europe in 1943-45. However, taking into account that Pacific was not the most important theatre of war, and that Western Europe was not the key theatre that lead to military defeat of the European Axis, the USA should be placed second.

The USSR bore the major brunt of the war against the European Axis: Germany, Italy, Hungary and Romania, and destroyed ca 75% of its military forces. It maintained neutral relation with Japan during almost the whole period of WWII, however, that was a common decision of the three Allied leaders, who agreed that Soviet role in Europe is too important to distract its forces to Far East. However, the USSR kept considerable (up to 1 million) troops in Far East, which forced Japan to keep her best Kwantung Army in Manchuria, and prevented its usage in mainland China, Burma, etc. Moreover, although the USSR attached Japan only during last days of the war, it was this attack that affected Japanese decision to surrender (many authors agree that Soviet invasion had at least the same effect as atomic bombing had). Based on that, the USSR should be #1.

2. Britain provided some limited military help to the USSR during 1941-42, however, it was more a recipient of economic help from the US (it obtained much more lend-lease help then the USSR did). In addition, British economy worked to support British efforts in the theatres that had secondary importance. Conclusion: number 3, according to this criterion.

The USA was an indisputable economic superpower, which was responsible for 60% of world industrial output. They provided everything they needed to support their own war efforts, and provided Britain and the USSR (in that order) with massive economic aid. Number 1.

The USSR, despite common stereotypes, produced a lion share of materiel it needed for the EF hostilities where titanic battles had been waged. Yes, it was a recipient of massive economic aid from the US, however, that was more a replacement of pre-war import. Number 2.

3. Britain and the US were the political leaders of the democratic world, and, whereas Britain was gradually loosing leadership, the US were gradually moving to leader positions. On average, we can assume they shared 1st place. However, they had almost no influence on the USSR, who was a leader of non-democratic world, controlled the largest Allied army, and had a leading voice regarding politic in Eastern and Central Europe. Therefore, let's assume 1.5 for the US and UK and for the USSR.

As a result, we have:

• Britain (3+3+1.5)/3=2.5
• USA (2+1+1.5)/3=1.5
• USSR (1+2+1.5)/3=1.5

Therefore, I see no problem with current order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Bahahah, no offence but I think you've been watching the history channel a bit too much. Also your logic is very skewed and bordering absurd. We may need to get an Admin/panel involved as you're clearly biased on the subject. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

History channel? What it is? And what are you watching?

Speaking seriously, I watch no TV at all (I simply don't have it). I prefer to read historical journals, such as American Historical Reviews, Journal of Military History, etc., and importantly, I can support almost every my above statement with top quality reliable sources. I am not doing that here simply to save my and your time.

Re admins, you should have to know that admins do not participate in content disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That may be what's leading to your error in judgement. I have found that almost all American historical reviews to be very biased. Also, admins and peers do participate in content dispute. It is exactly what Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is for. UrbanNerd (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to sum up this argument...

My arguments:

1. Goes against Wikipedias neutral point of view policies
2. Goes against Wikipedias impartial tone policies
3. Goes against Wikipedias not a textbook policies
4. Goes against Wikipedias original research policies
5. Goes against Wikipedias verifiability policies
6. Goes against Wikipedias not opinion policies

Your arguments:

1. I just don't like it

As you can see I have more than effectively displayed why this list is bias. Now we may have to get others involved in a dispute resolution. But please note that personal opinions and that fact that it may "look weird" are not valid arguments. UrbanNerd (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The discussion over the order of belligerents has been ongoing for quite some time judging by the archives. My impression is that if one looks at the totality of the participants in this discussion over time, a significant number have issue with the current scheme while just a handful of regular editors prefer the status quo. Therefore some kind of formal despite resolution process such as an RFC would be useful to gauge true consensus. --Nug (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Not a democracy. Do you have fresh arguments?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't be obnoxious. You know very well he was not suggested a straw poll, and as discussed above "fresh arguments" is not a precondition to changing consensus. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, accusations of someone in being obnoxious is hardly a demonstration of anything but one's own inability to behave.

Secondly, our policy says: "Editors may revisit matters discussed in the past, especially if there are new arguments or circumstances that were not considered before." Therefore, my request for fresh arguments and sources is quite legitimate and is in full accordance with our policy. By the way, the policy also says: "On the other hand, if there is recent consensus on a subject, it can be disruptive to bring it up again." In my opinion, that has a direct relation to the users who raises the same issue again and again and reproduce old arguments almost verbatim.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Given your behaviour, discussed in length above, I wouldn't be lecturing people how to behave. Fresh arguments, as you well now, are a good reason for revisting matters, but not a precondition (and nothing you quoted above suggests they are), so stop trying to use it as an excuse to dismiss people's opinions. Second, this discussion is hardly disruptive, since the past discussions (that you were so reluctant to link to) were hardly conclusive. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's try the one where Stalin entered WWII only after invading Eastern Europe in partnership with Hitler before the relationship went sour. For that reason alone the USSR does not belong at the top of "Allies." That is a grossly POV view aggrandizing the USSR's role in WWII and reinforcing the meme they only got involved after Hitler invaded--not prematurely sending telegrams of congratulation to Berlin on the fall of Warsaw. We've already gone through radio signals to assist the invading Luftwaffe. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:47, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, all these arguments have been addressed earlier. The USSR didn't enter the war by invading Poland (I would say, if we assume that it did, we have to assume it had already been at war against another future Axis state, Japan). I can agree that premature telegram, or authorising the radio station in Minsk to repeat the word "Minsk" more frequently than usually can be considered as co-belligerence, however, recognition of Anschluss of Austria, or refusal to take any actions during invasion of Czechoslovakia is even greater sins. You forget Soviet shipments of oil to Germany who fought Britain; I agree that was incorrect, as incorrect as American shipment of oil to Japan that was fighting against China.

If you have fresh arguments, please, provide them, otherwise, please, do not spam the talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

@Paul, why so defensive? I wasn't making any argument, just commenting that there are a significant number of editors have an issue with the current order. An RFC would be a good way to gauge true consensus of the wider community than the opinions of a couple of regulars. Your main argument for the current order is the number of casualties, but I don't think casualty numbers is necessarily a good primary measure since we would have to rank China ahead of USA and Britain, and no one seriously argues that the USA and Britain made a lesser contribution than China. --Nug (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You totally misinterpreted my argument: I never said casualties sustained by some belligerent is a good measure (otherwise the first two belligerents would be the USSR and China); moreover, I myself excluded casualties from my analysis. From that, I conclude that you simply haven't read my posts carefully.

Since I saw no fresh arguments so far, what you propose is just WP:VOTE.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

How do reliable sources order the combatants in similar editorial circumstances? i.e. Encylopedia entries for WWII, books on the entire war when summarising? (Hohum ^@) 21:41, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I think, different national encyclopaediae do that quite differently. Thus, Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"The principal belligerents were the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan—and the Allies—France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China."

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to World War II states that "The principal ones [Allied countries] were China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA and the USSR" (page 22) - this appears to be alphabetic ordering of the main powers. Its entry on the Axis states that they originally comprised Germany and Italy until Japan signed up, and "Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary were the other principal Axis powers" (page 76) - which appears to use chronological ordering. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Having the principle allies/axis members ordered alphabetically and the remaining ordered chronologically would be acceptably neutral and go a long way to ending this perenial issue that keeps being raised time and again. --Nug (talk) 19:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a great suggestion, Nug. China should go first. But how do we determine which of the other Allies were principal members? Poland was the first allied nation to fight, but the Oxford Companion mentions the "principal Allies" as "China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA and the USSR." I'm pretty sure that the Poles contributed more to the war effort than the French did. Also, should we use USSR or Soviet Union. If it's the former, it comes after the United States. And if it's the latter, it comes before the United States. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, if you have another reliable source with an alternate ordering scheme, cite it. --Nug (talk) 11:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Zloyvolsheb, I see many problems with this proposal. Firstly, if we list belligerents alphabetically, the first one should be Australia, Brazil, and China will be after that. Secondly, if we decide to list just major Allies, the question will arise, who those major Allies were. Some sources speak about the Grand Alliance (the Big Three), others about the Four Policemen, others include France into the Big Four (France, Britain, the US and the USSR) and add China as a juniour partner; in contrast, American sources tend to exaggerate the role of China. Some authors argue that Polish contribution was greater then that of France (and I personally tend to agree with that, at least, Poland will get my vote if we will discuss this issue more seriously). I listed just some of existing viewpoints, and I am absolutely sure that each of those arguments (and many others) will be put forward if we will follow the approach proposed by you.

You also forget one more thing: the "Course of war" section provides a rather inadequate description of the course of the events. Whereas all major, and some minor steps of Axis and Allied advances in the Pacific, West Europe and Africa have been adequately covered, there are significant lacunae in the description of the events in the Eastern front. Many battles whose scale dwarfed Guadalcanal or El Alamein battles have been totally ignored. Taking into account that a half of all Axis troops were destroyed in the Eastern front, and most Allied losses were sustained there, it is simply incorrect. In my opinion, the events where majority of WWII soldiers fought and died deserve much more detailed description. Current order of belligerent partially compensates for this disbalance: a reader can see from the infobox that the WWII was fought mainly between Nazi Germany and the USSR. However, if we decide change the order, we need to seriously think about modification of the article itself, and that should be done before the order will be changed.

By the way, the questions about the order of the belligerents, which are being asked again and again, can be a result of the article disbalance: newcomers simply do not see from the article's text why the USSR should be on the top of the Allied list...--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I found obsession of some users with the order of belligerent funny, especially in a situation when the issue of the order of commanders seems to be totally ignored. I personally don't think Stalin deserves a top position: he was a poor strategist, he made several almost fatal blunders, his political decisions were highly questionable, and his rule cost many million additional and avoidable deaths of Soviet citizens. I suggest to move it to the bottom, and I believe noone will mind. In contrast, I believe Churchill's personal role was greater then the relative contribution of Britain, and his first position can partially compensate for Britain's third position in the list.--Paul Siebert (talk)

@Paul Siebert. I think it's likely the other way around - I think most complainants look at the infobox without even reading the article and then say that its not ordered the way they want it. (Hohum ^@) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I'm not surprised that you would find a problem with anything that challenges the primacy of the USSR in WW2, however you are objecting to something that was never proposed. It was not suggested that all belligerents be listed alphabetically or that only the main belligerents be listed, but that the main participants be listed alphabetically and the remaining be listed chronologically. My personal preference is for a chronological order as proposed by User:Moonraker here. The standard arguments against a chronological order appears to be:

1. China would have to go first, but the conflict between Japan and China in 1937 is considered a regional war not part of WW2 which most sources state started in 1939.

2. "Combatants, as a rule, are listed by the military contribution". This may be valid in the case when all combatants entered the conflict at around the same time. However there is a significant time differences with Britain entering the war in 1939 and the USSR/USA joining two years later. Additionally which ally made the greater contribution is not all that clear from the sources, the USSR with its scope of operations restricted to land in Eastern Europe or the USA with its global participation in the Pacific, African and European theatres on both land and sea, in addition to bankrolling and production of the lions share of of the allies' materiel; or even whether Britain's lone stand against Hitler between 39-41 made a greater contribution to the eventual defeat of Germany given the USA was likely not to enter the war if Britain was defeated early.

So I think in this case this proposal is fair, given that it is reflected in at least one significant RS cited by Nick-D --Nug (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised you assume my bad faith.

Your counter-arguments do not sound convincing

Re 1. Yes, in some national historiographyies SSJW is not considered as a part of the WWII. However, the date of 1st September 1939 is not universally considered as a start of the global conflict either. It can be considered as a start of WWII only retrospectively. Therefore, by excluding China, we would become too Eurocentric.

Re 2. I am not sure ordering by military contribution is a valid approach only in the case when all combatants entered the conflict at around the same time. That would be too formal approach. Thus, France entered the war in Sept 1939, however, it participated in no hostilities until May 1940, and then ceased to be a major belligerent until 1944. Britain had not been involved in serious (by late WWII standards) hostilities until May 1940, then it also was involved in air campaign and in some regional battles only, until the start of the African campaign. In other words, with exception of the Battle of France, intensities of the hostilities during the pre-Barbarossa period of WWII cannot be compared with post-Barbarossa events (both in Europe and Pacific), so this your argument also does not work.

Re lion share of materiel, I already explained that the major recipient of lend-lease aid was Britain, not the USSR, which produced a lion share of materiel it needed. Why you are not reading my posts?

Re the number of theatres, not only the number is matters, but their strategic significance. A complete loss of control over Pacific region, or even of India would not result in the Allied defeat, but the defeat in the Eastern front would be a catastrophe. In turn, only a destruction of Wehrmacht in the East made D-day possible.

Re Britain, you reproduced my earlier arguments. I agree that Britain made important contribution in 1940, but this contribution can be compared with the importance of the Battle of Moscow: in both cases prerequisites for the Allied victory had been laid, however, prerequisites for victory is not a victory. Moreover, whereas, after defeating German offencive at Moscow, the USSR continued to fight major battles that eventually destroyed Wehrmacht, Britain was involved in secondary theatres of war, and returned in Europe only in 1944 (Italian campaign was not the major theatre of war). In addition, to speak about "Britain's lone stand against Hitler between 39-41" is incorrect, because its "lone stand" in 1939-early 1940 consisted in doing nothing (Phony War). Moreover, the phrase "lone stand" is simply dishonest, because contributions of three other nations, Poles, French and Yugoslavs appear to be totally ignored (the Belgians, the Dutch and the Norwegians may feel offended too). I would say, in 1939-41 Britain was in the best position among the European nations, and it suffered much less damage (and inflicted the damage mostly on German air forces and navy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

No one is suggesting your defence of the legacy of the USSR is done in nothing other than the highest degree of good faith. What is history other than a study of events retrospectively, so your argument that September 1939 "can be considered as a start of WWII only retrospectively" seems somewhat unconvincing, as is your claim that the date "is not universally considered as a start of the global conflict either", when major mainstream sources such as Britannica and the Oxford companion support that date. Certainly the view that WW2 started in China in 1937 is a minority, if not fringe, viewport. Using a minority viewpoint to find fault with a proposal to list belligerents seems somewhat disingenuous.

Van Tuyll's book Feeding the bear: American aid to the Soviet Union, 1941-1945 goes into some detail regarding the significant contribution to winning the war through US military aid to the USSR. The significance of 363,000 trucks the US supplied to the Soviet war effort is well known, without which the USSR would have been forced to rely upon horse and cart for transport and thus make mobile battles such as Kursk impossible to mount logistically. The USA supplied 60% of the aluminium, 46% of the copper and 35% of the tin needed by USSR in addition to the tens of thousands of finished aircraft supplied under Lend-Lease In fact 40% of tanks in service on the Caucasian Front were provided under Lend-Lease. While generally combatants are ordered by military contribution, given the perennial issue of the order raised time and again, it is simply not tenable to continue that in this specific case. In fact I don't recall you ever providing a single RS that places the USSR first in any published list of Allies, but rather you seem to be synthesising your own arguments for the placement of the USSR. Does such a source exist? If not then we must rely upon what has been published such as in the Oxford Companion to World War II. --Nug (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

One more accusation: who are you to discuss my motifs? Why did you decide I am "defending the legacy of the USSR"? Yes, I know the history of the Eastern front, and I know by whom was Germany defeated. And I object against Atlantic bias in representation of WWII history. That has nothing to do with defence of some legacy. In future, please, refrain from unsolicited interpretation of my motifs.

Re lend-lease, again, Britain was a recipient of lion's share of American aid. Regarding the rest, Roger Munting (Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Jul., 1984), pp. 495-510) summarised it as follows

"Whatever the value of western aid, the Soviet war effort was measured in human life and suffering incomparable with material aid from outside." (I believe, that is in full accordance with the standards of our humanistic century).

He continues:

"Further, the Soviet economy became much more of a war economy than other combatant nations. Nonetheless, it seems that the contribution made by deliveries from the USA and, to a lesser extent, Britain and Canada, played an important part at crucial times and in crucial areas. First, and above all, was a vital margin of food supplies, second was the provision of specialist or deficit products such as aluminium and copper, specialized tools, high quality steels. In this respect lend-lease supplies overcame bottlenecks. However, it must be stressed that the major impact came after the Soviet counterattack and the beginning of German retreat. Such aid directly and indirectly helped defeat the German forces, and was in such a way a substitute for a second front, but it did little to defend the USSR from the initial onslaught." (I especially advise to note the underlined statement: the aid from the West came when the tide of war had already been turned).

Regarding trucks, you may be surprised to learn that Wehrmacht during its most successful years relied mostly on horses, which had no negative impact on French of Russian blitzkrieg campaigns. In addition, Kursk was not a mobile battle, and the role of trucks was not significant there.

Re placement of the USSR, the sources you are talking about do not discuss relative military contribution, they simply outline major Allies (different sources do that differently), and then place them in an arbitrary order. Therefore, change the order does not constitute original research. We have reliable sources that say that Eastern front was a decisive, arguably, the most decisive theatre, and we have an opinion of the leading EF expert who says that the USSR was able to defeat Germany even without the Second front (by the way, all sources agree that Western front was the second one). The data of military losses sustained by both sides also have not been contested by anyone. Therefore, your notion about some alleged original research is totally unsubstantiated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is at risk of getting rather off topic. There appears to be a loose consensus for listing the major Allied powers (per the definition in the Oxford Companion) in alphabetic order, and then listing the less-significant Allied powers; I'd suggest that this second listing also be in alphabetic order for a) the sake of consistency and b) to avoid arguments over when the country actually entered the war (which isn't always clear; Brazil was hosting Allied forces well before it formally declared war on Germany, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support that suggestion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd oppose. It is no easier to determine alphabetical order than it is to determine the order at which countries entered the war. A debate on the relative importance of belligerents, which will never end, nonetheless seems more productive than debating whether it should be Soviet Union or USSR, Britain or UK in the infobox. Srnec (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I would support this if it is clearly noted (perhaps via a footnote) that the list is alphabetically ordered. Determining the alphabetical order is almost trivial compared with determining the relative importance of belligerents. There may well be some style guide that can inform us, but in any case we have a published source that gives an alphabetical listing. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I already said, there is no agreement among various authors who the principal Allies were (the Big Three, the Four Policemen, France, Britain, the US, the USSR plus China as a junior partner, etc), therefore, I anticipate a new round of disputes, so that hardly would be a solution. Moreover, if we choose the alphabetical list, then it should be universal. Double alphabetical would be misleading. In summary, I found this proposal confusing and uninformative.

However, I came to a conclusion that the current infobox needs in improvement: it causes frequent, although poorly substantiated objections, and create (a false) impression among some readers that the article has a pro-Soviet bias. In connection to that, I propose to return to an old idea that was put forward several years ago.

Firstly, since during different phases of the WWII different belligerents played key roles, the infobox should be split onto three periods: pre 1939 (inofficial) conflict, Sept 1939 - June 1941, and June 1941 August 1945. Accordingly, primary belligerents should be:

• pre 1939: China - Japan;
• Sept 1939 - June 1941: Poland, France, Britain, China - Germany, Italy, Japan (in that order);
• June 1941 August 1945: The USSR, the US, Britain - Germany, Italy, Japan (in that order).

I insist on inclusion of pre-1939 events because full scale hostilities started in Far East before 1939, and significant minority of sources consider the WWII start date to be 1937, not 1939. I don't think China should be included into the main Allies list after 1941, because the situation in China after 1941 hardly had major impact on the course of WWII.

Secondly, I propose to think about exclusion of other participants, because we have "and others" anyway, so the dispute on who should be included explicitly, and who should not may potentially be endless. For example, I do not understand why Czechoslovakia has been included in the main list: did the Czech emigrant government have any effective control over substantial amount of troops through the whole period of war (the infobox implies Czechoslovakia was a belligerent during the whole WWII), and where they were fighting? I also have a doubt Brazilian contribution makes possible to include Brazil. I don't think puppet states should be included either.

I think this new infobox would be much more informative, less confusing, close to what majority sources say, and unbiased. Moreover, such an infobox per se would be a concise description of the course of WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If this proposal will be supported I propose to think about serious modification of the article: the space devoted to pre-1941 events is un-proportionally big; taking into account that two major WWII belligerents entered the war only in 1941, and that the scale and military implications of post-1941 hostilities dwarfed pre-1941 events, the article in it present form hardly gives a balanced picture.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding Paul? You were adamantly opposed to splitting the list of belligerents into phases at the time it was proposed, and now when there is a rough consensus forming that an alphabetical order (as found in the Oxford companion) may be the best way to end this seemingly interminable dispute over who contributed the most, you pull this one out of the bag. In all honesty I really can't take your 11th hour proposal seriously. --Nug (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In contrast to you, I happen to change my opinion in response to reasonable arguments. I also have a tendency to think about the arguments from others, and to critically analyse my own old arguments. When I come to a conclusion that my old viewpoint should be reconsidered, I do that. That is a difference between good faith editors and all others. Regarding "rough consensus", it seems to be too rough so far, especially in light of fresh Srnec's arguments.

Re "In all honesty I really can't take ..." You are free to take my proposals as you want.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd say Paul's proposal is the best, what with all the problems with ordering them alphaetically (which ones to include? which names to use? etc.) Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 20:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Nug. There is a rough consensus with his proposal. This infobox is about WW2, not incidents leading up to WW2. Paul seems to be doing anything to stall this process and disrupt moving forward on any solution that strays from his own opinion. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Nugs proposal seems most reasonable. Also to be honest it would hardly be reasonable to drop USSR as a main belligerent from the Sep 39 - Jun 41 period - it does seem like intellectual dishonesty to leave it out, after all it was a major power which was involved in several wars of aggression during that period while being at least nominally aligned with the Germany via the secret protocols of Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The USSR was not a belligerent at all during 1939-41 except short periods of belligerence with future Axis country Japan, future Ally Poland and future Axis co-belligerent Finland. Therefore, it would be intellectual dishonesty to list it. Re secret protocol, I, as well as many authors, see no indication of any alliance there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I really can't understand what you are saying. First you agree that it USSR was involved in several conflicts at the time then retract it because you personally consider that the duration of these conflicts was insufficient - apparently when compared against some arbitrary limit you personally came up with. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can explain. Firstly, those conflicts were short, and it is totally incorrect to say the USSR was a belligerent during the whole period from 1 Sept 1939 - 22 June 1941. Secondly, if we agree to add it, the next question will be "to which column"? By no meant Finland was an Ally, and to add it to the left column would be original research. However, it would be similarly incorrect to add Finland to the right column, because Finland was not a German co-belligerent during the Winter war. Accordingly, the fact the USSR was at war war against Finland does not allow us to place the former neither to the right nor to the left column. Regarding two other conflicts, Khalkhin Gol and invasion of Poland, in both cases no war was declared. However, if we include one, we need to include another one too. That would mean the USSR will be present in both columns simultaneously during the same period of time.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Length of the conflict is largely irrelevant, or rather it has to be, otherwise the same claim you use to not mark the countries in question to the box would also validate removing pretty much all the countries from it. After all only very few were belligerent during the whole period from 1939 to 1945. Second issue only underlines the complexity of the WW II and that it can not really be described with 'black-and-white' cut. However given the limitations we need to work within it is understandable reason for it. - Wanderer602 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't find your answers convincing. We need to take into account both duration and intensity of real warfare the belligerents were involved in. Thus, whereas Britain was a belligerent from 1939 to 1945, it is necessary to keep in mind that there were virtually no hostilities between Britain and the Axis until May 1940. Furthermore, after 1941 and till 1944 Britain was involved only in the theatres that had secondary importance. As a result, British 1939-45 hardly weighs more then American 1942-45.

Re your second argument, that is not a responce at all. Do you propose anything concrete?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are still arbitrarily assigning countries to groups according to what you personally perceive as important - in case it wasn't clear such a method appears to be biased. Also you already changed your definition from duration to also intensity of the conflicts but this brings us back for example to the Winter War which even though short in duration was intense so according to your revised criteria it then should be included. I'm not saying that i would know better method only that what you have been saying appears to be flawed when observed critically. As to what i meant with second argument was that your second argument - unlike the first one - actually had merit when using the clear cut black and white approach to WW II. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing arbitrary in my assignment: the fact that three countries, America, Britain and Soviet Russia, were the major Allies. If you disagree, please, provide your arguments.

Regarding Winter War, you still ignore the main issue: if we include the USSR in the infobox due to its participation in the Winter War, then Finland should be included too. In that situation, please explain in which columns these two states should be placed? The USSR can be added to the Axis column only if we decide that the Axis combined all "bad guys": according to other criteria the USSR was not the Axis co-belligerent in the Winter war. Indeed, neither Germany nor any other Axis country was at war with Finland, moreover, Germany supported Finland at least morally. However, if we decide to place the USSR in the right column, then Finland should be placed into the left one, which would be a piece of pure original research: I am not aware of any sources that describe Finland as an Allied country during 1939-40.

Before you answer this my question, we can hardly move further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion was about the separate time periods you presented earlier, not about the major Allied countries which indeed are the ones you described. I merely noted that the concept you presented for selecting countries for the columns does appear to be biased. Clear cut division into columns throughout the defined time periods does not appear to do justice as to how the WW II unfolded before the 1941 - issue which does become apparent only if the box is split into separate time periods. As a direct answer, I do not know since at least in my opinion the situation before 1941 was a great deal fuzzier than what a two-way split allows us to show.

To be precise Germany was one of the more hostile nations during the Winter War by trying to force Finns to accept diplomatic solution early on and later by interning shipments headed for Finland though like you said there was no war between Finland and Germany. It was only closer to the end of the Winter War when moods started to change. - Wanderer602 (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I still cannot understand what bias do you see there.

Regarding splitting onto separate time periods, I already agreed that that was not the best idea.

Regarding your description of the situation before 1941, I totally agree.

Re German role during the Winter war, I think you know that better then I do. However, in any event, Finland was not an Ally during that period of war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well what i meant with bias is that given the less clear cut nature of the situation before 1941 what ever solution is used for the box it is very likely to be perceived as biased from some direction. Your solution gives ground to some and i have no doubt that other solutions would do the same just as well, thing is such claims regarding bias wouldn't be completely without merit either. It would just seem to me to be a 'safer bet' to stick with overall classification instead of using separate time periods. And yes, Finland was not an Ally at any period of war. - Wanderer602 (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, could you please develop and post (here or in your user space) a mock-up of how your suggestion for the infobox would look? Your suggestion has considerable merit, but I'm concerned that it may lead to an unmanageable large infobox. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert's proposal is a drastic soloution to a trivial issue. Despite the heat of this discussion, the order of the belligerents is a minor controversy. Every serious sorce agrees that the three main Allies were the UK, the US, and the USSR; and that the three main Axis Powers were Germany, Italy, and Japan. As long as these three are at the top of their respective sides, the order is not very important. No reader will assume that the Soviet war effort was much bigger than the American or British one just because the Soviet Union is listed first. Readers aren't that stupid.

I find Paul's proposal problematic for the following reasons:

1. It is misleading. It implies that Poland and France was only at war from 1939-41, and China only from 1937-41, which isn't true. Even if we ignore this assumption, it also states directly that Poland was a major ally from 1939-41 and not from 1941-45, which isn't true either. Poland's armed forces made as much of a contribution in the late stages of the war as they did early on, except during the very first months of the European war, when Poland's contribution obviously was at its largest.
2. It is more subjective than the current format. This whole controversy began because someone thought that listing the major Allies roughly in terms of importance wasn't neutral. Paul's proposal claims to include only major combatants, and to list when each country was a major combatant, something that is bound to generate much more controversy. For example, lots of people might ask why Canada and Australia aren't included when France and Poland are.
3. It is repetitive. Infoboxes are supposed to be consise. No military conflict infobox should list the same countries twice or thrice.
4. It contains less information than the current format. One shouldn't always go with the solution that includes the most information - selection is an important part of writing an encyclopedia, or of writing at all - but the current format is both informative and sober without being cluttered. (Compare and contrast with the commanders list in Eastern Front (World War II) for a cluttered infobox.) It lists the countries that actively fought World War II, on both sides, roughly ordered by importance, and what years they fought - the latter in a less confusing way than in Paul's proposal. That's neither more nor less than an infobox - the purpose of which is to give readers a basic overview of the subject, not to introduce them to heated historiographic debates - should do.

Having followed this debate on and off for several years, I've grown to strongly support the status quo. It has proved to be the alternative that's most informative, most stable, and most satisfactory to a majority of editors. I do however think it would be most fair to list the top 3 Allies chronologically, since there's no consensus on their relative strengths, and since they treated each others as equals throughout the war. 96T (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Your criticism is justified. I agree that the three major Allies should be listed first. I would even suggest to put them in bold (as well as three Axis powers). With regard to the chronological order, it can be done only after the disbalance in the article, which currently gives rather Britano-centric description of the course of war, will be fixed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

96T is right in say that Paul's solution is a drastic step, since Paul states that if his proposal is adopted then "serious modification of the article" will be needed to de-emphasise pre-1941 events to "balance the picture"[1]. But the fact that the article has "Good Article" status means that is is deemed to be sufficiently balanced so major modification is unnecessary. And all for what, to preserve the leading position of the USSR in the infobox? 96T states "No reader will assume that the Soviet war effort was much bigger than the American or British one just because the Soviet Union is listed first. Readers aren't that stupid", well given that the order has been re-visited countless times over the years I'm not so confident on that score. But 96T is right in saying that the core Allies treated each other as equals throughout the war, and generally when discussing a list of equal peers alphabetical ordering is used. This alphabetical ordering is reflected in sources such as the Oxford Companion. --Nug (talk) 18:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your "And all for what, to preserve the leading position of the USSR in the infobox?", I may argue in responce to your persistent effort to switch to the alphabetical order: "And all for what, to remove the USSR from the leading position in the infobox?" If your philippicae have another reason, please, explain it.

Regarding the alphabetic order, if we will order just three major participants, and then will list others, I don't see how that will help to resolve the issue of order. Each countries have several names, and I am not sure "Britain, US, USSR" is better then "Soviet Union, United Kingdom, United States". However, the proposal to dilute the three major participant by adding various minor participants and order all of them alphabetically is totally unacceptable: that works well only for the cases when each participant made approximately equal contribution, and does not work in this case. The idea to list everyone chronologically is also flawed, because some nations (USSR, US) entered the war late, but made decisive contribution, whereas some others (France, Belgium) joined earlier, but were virtually inactive during the major part of the war.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So a country's importance in the war is rated by population ? If a country of 10 million sent 20% of it's population to war, it is somehow less worthy than a country of 200 million that sent 3% of it's population to war ? Also who are we to decide which battles were most important ? Everything about your proposal leads to original research. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Does UrbanNerd believe that nobody has ever discussed "which battles were most important" in print? Does he believe that anybody is arguing for listing countries by population? Frankly, listing them by population would be about the least arbitrary method I can think of. Srnec (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You clearly didn't understand my post whatsoever. I wasn't suggesting that in the least bit. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

UrbanNerd, we discuss not nations' sufferings or per capita efforts, but the actual fruits of their efforts. You have probably noticed that I didn't build my arguments on the fact that Britain sustained ca 0.5 million losses, whereas the USSR or China lost more then 20 million peoples. What I am talking about is that 80% of European Axis troops fought in the Eastern Front, and, taking into account that the Axis lost ca 5 million troops in the EF (out of 8 million total, including China and Pacific), they were hardly playing golf there. In addition, since it was the Eastern front that lead to capture of Berlin and destruction of lion's share of Wehrmacht juggernaut, that fact must be clearly and unequivocally reflected in the infobox.

Re original research, I can accept the accusations of that type only from the users who cite good quality secondary sources, not from you. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Your entire idea is original research. I know what your doing here. You're trying to draw out this discussion into a very long-winded debate, regurgitating the same points over and over, avoiding any facts brought up by other editors, until the other editors finally run out of patience and abandon the discussion. The only way to list them would be non-biased way pointed out before, plain and simple. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Did I understand you correct that you propose to dilute few major participants, who bore the lion's share of WWII's brunt, with wast number of minor and nominal Allies, and call it "a non-biased way"? Regarding "original research", during this discussion I cited several reliable sources. In contrast, you cited nothing. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, you can't even comprehend my comments. I'm not saying you didn't provide reliable sources to you biased views, I'm saying the act of personally deciphering each battle and armed forces and personally coming to a conclusion to whom was "more important" is original research. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, below is an opinion of David Glantz:

On the role of the Eastern Front:

"On the 50th anniversary of the Normandy invasion of 1944, a U.S. news magazine featured a cover photo of General Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was labeled as the man who defeated Hitler. If any one man deserved that label, it was not Eisenhower but Zhukov, Vasilevsky, or possibly Stalin himself. More generally, the Red Army and the Soviet citizenry of many nationalities bore the lion’s share of the struggle against Germany from 1941 to 1945. Only China, which suffered almost continuous Japanese attack from 1931 onward, matched the level of Soviet suffering and effort. In military terms, moreover, the Chinese participation in the war was almost insignificant in comparison with the Soviet war, which constantly engaged absorbed more than half of all German forces.

In October and November 1942, the British celebrated victory over the Germans at El Alamein, defeating four German divisions and a somewhat larger Italian force, and inflicting 60,000 axis losses. The same month, at Stalingrad, the Soviets defeated and encircled German Sixth Army, damaged Fourth Panzer Army, and smashed Rumanian Third and Fourth Armies, eradicating over 50 divisions and over 300,000 men from the Axis order of battle. By May 1943 the Allies pursued Rommel’s Afrika Corps across northern Africa and into Tunisia, where after heavy fighting, the German and Italian force of 250,000 surrendered. Meanwhile, in the East, another German army (the Second) was severely mauled, and Italian Eighth and Hungarian Second Armies were utterly destroyed, exceeding Axis losses in Tunisia.

While over 3.5 million German and Soviet troops struggled at Kursk and 8.5 million later fought on a 1,500-mile front from the Leningrad region to the Black Sea coast, in July 1943 Allied forces invaded Sicily, and drove 60,000 Germans from the island. In August the Allies landed on the Italian peninsula. By October, when 2.5 million men of the Wehrmacht faced 6.6 million Soviets, the frontlines had stabilized in Italy south of Rome as the Germans deployed a much smaller, although significant, number of troops to halt the Allied advance.

By 1 October 1943, 2,565,000 men (63%) of the Wehrmacht's 4,090,000-man force struggled in the East, together with the bulk of the 300,000 Waffen SS troops. On 1 June 1944, 239 (62%) of the German Army's 386 division equivalents fought in the East. With operations in Italy at a stalemate, until June 1944, in fact, the Wehrmacht still considered the west as a semi-reserve. In August 1944, after the opening of the second front, while 2.1 million Germans fought in the East, 1 million opposed Allied operations in France."

On the role of the Second front:

"During the war and since war’s end, the Soviets have bitterly complained since the war about the absence of a real “second front” before June 1944, and that issue remains a source of suspicion even in post Cold War Russia. Yet, Allied reasons for deferring a second front until 1944 were valid, and Allied contributions to victories were significant. As the American debacle at the Kasserine Pass in December 1942 and Canadian performance at Dieppe in 1943 indicated, Allied armies were not ready to operate in France in 1943, even had a sufficient number of landing craft been available for the invasion, which they were not. Even in 1944 Allied success at Normandy was a close thing and depended, in part, on major German misperceptions and mistakes. Once in France, after the breakout from the Normandy bridgehead in August, the 2 million Allied troops in France inflicted grievous losses on the 1 million defending Germans, 100,000 at Falaise, and a total of 400,000 by December 1944. In the subsequent battle of the Bulge (16 December 1944-31 January 1945), the Germans lost another 120,000 men. These losses in the West, combined with the over 1.2 million lost in the East during the same period, broke the back of the Wehrmacht and set the context for the final destruction of Germany in 1945. In addition to its ground combat contribution, the Allies conducted a major strategic bombing campaign against Germany (which the Soviets could not mount) and in 1944 drew against themselves the bulk of German operational and tactical airpower. The strategic bombing campaign did significant damage to German industrial targets, struck hard at the well-being and morale of the German civil population, and sucked into its vortex and destroyed a large part of the German fighter force, which had earlier been used effectively in a ground role in the East. Although airpower did not prove to be a warwinning weapon, and German industrial mobilization and weapons production peaked in late 1944, the air campaign seriously hindered the German war effort.:"

On the role of Lend-Lease:

"Without Lend-Lease food, clothing, and raw materials (especially metals), the Soviet economy would have been even more heavily burdened by the war effort. Perhaps most directly, without Lend-Lease trucks, rail engines, and railroad cars, every Soviet offensive would have stalled at an earlier stage, outrunning its logistical tail in a matter of days. In turn, this would have allowed the German commanders to escape at least some encirclements, while forcing the Red Army to prepare and conduct many more deliberate penetration attacks in order to advance the same distance. Left to their own devices, Stalin and his commanders might have taken 12 to 18 months longer to finish off the Wehrmacht; the ultimate result would probably have been the same, except that Soviet soldiers could have waded at France’s Atlantic beaches ."

--I strongly recommend you to refrain from further accusations in original research, because that is just an additional indication of your own ignorance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Earlier you insist on including China otherwise "we would become too Eurocentric", now you argue the centrality of the Eastern European theatre. This infobox isn't about Eastern_Front_(World_War_II), but a world war. Sure Glantz offers a "what-if" opinion about the impact of Western no aid, that that is just pure speculation of one author and should be treated as such. Nowhere in those quoted text does Glantz say who was the lead contributor in context of a world-wide conflict on land, sea and air, but you are using Glantz to argue precisely that while overlooking the significance the allied contribution to the air campaign that "seriously hindered the German war effort" and naval campaign that allowed the USSR to be supplied with vital supplies. But narrowly focusing on the land campaign in one theatre in assessing contribution is creating an impression the article has a pro-Soviet bias, which you agreed above needs correcting. --Nug (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I argued that it would be too Eurocentric to ignore the fact that China and Japan waged full scale, although undeclared, war before 1939. However, since I've already agreed with 96T's criticism, I do not understand why do you return to this issue again. Regarding the pro-Soviet bias, it is a perceived pro-Soviet bias, and I don't see how the situation can be resolved in terms of re-arrangement of the combatants.

Regarding EF, Glantz wrote not about the EF only, but about the importance of EF in the Allied victory. In actuality, most American and British authors present western view of the WWII history, and simply ignore the question of relative importance of various theatres. This tradition was started by Churchill, who explained in his "Second World War" that he wrote about the events he was most familiar with, and that the description of the EF requires a separate and detailed studies. Other authors, following Churchill, preferred to focus on what they knew better. The situation was exacerbated by the limited amount of data about the Eastern Front, which were not available for Western authors during the Cold war. Now, when these data became available, such authors as Glantz, Bellami, et al. started to write about the EF, and, since no alternative viewpoints on this account exist, I don't understand your complaints.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As you say, most American and British authors present western view of the WWII history, i.e. the majority. However you may be giving undue weight to the minority view of Glantz even though he does not explicitly place the USSR at the lead. But Vladimir Shlapentokh writes in America: Sovereign Defender Or Cowboy Nation? (2005)

"With the start of WWII, however, the Western powers including the Soviet Union have recognized the U.S. as a leading partner in the anti-Hitler coalition."

One of the major outcomes of WW2 listed on the infobox was the creation of the United Nation, an American initiative. So on the basis of this we should in fact place the USA at the lead. --Nug (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Western view is not necessarily majority views. Again, look at the typical example of Western writings: Churchill's "Second World War". Does he write Britain or the US played the major role? No. He honestly describes what he knows, and he leaves description of the events in the theatres where Britain didn't participate for other authors. In other words, if majority of sources pay attention to one theatre, it was not necessarily the most important. Glantz expresses the point of view which has not been contested. Therefore, it is a mainstream viewpoint, and should be treated accordingly.

Re Shlapentokh, I think he meant political influence, and in that sense he was probably right: major decision, including the decision to insist on unconditional surrender, or no separate peace, belonged to Roosevelt. However, we are speaking about military contribution. In addition, he probably meant some other WWII, because neither the USA nor the USSR were the members of anti-Hitler coalition in 1939...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

I really don't think that the accusations of bad faith, lack of knowledge, etc, etc, above are very helpful. It might be a good idea if everyone took a day or two out of this discussion (myself included of course). Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although I don't see why calm and polite discussions (such as the discussion between me and Wanderer) cannot continue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

New proposal

How about we simply include the Soviet Union and its satellites, puppets, etc., in a third column in the infobox, to reflect their side-switching and their policy of sweet-talking some of the countries in the Axis while fighting others? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 02:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean under "sweet-talking some of the countries in the Axis while fighting others"?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not workable as it would imply that the the USSR was at war with the western Allies, which was never the case. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Umm... what about during the Winter War, when the USSR openly sided with Nazi Germany and the Finns were receiving much military aid from the Allies? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Didn't understand you. Do you mean Germany was at war with Finland, or that Finland was an Ally?--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

@Nick-D. You tell: "it would imply that the the USSR was at war with the western Allies, which was never the case" But what are the facts? WW II officially started from the attack of Germany on Poland on 1 September 1939. In response, on 3 September, France and Britain, declared war on Germany. Soviet Union also attacked Poland, on September 17, based on their secret preliminary agreement with Germany. Which side it was? My very best wishes (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Some sources say it was on its own side. At least, neither Britain not France declared war on the USSR, formally, because their guarantees to Poland stipulated no such obligation, and informally because they didn't want to force the USSR to become a real German ally.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Some sources say it was on its own side." That's why the USSR should be in its own column. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 21:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Let assume we placed the USSR in a third column. I asked an advise about the three column infobox on Milhist, and the people expressed an opinion that such a column is needed when all three parties fought against each other. In other words, by placing the USSR in the third column we would imply that it was at war against both Britain/France and Germany, which would be an absolute nonsense (it was not at war with none of them before 22nd of June 1941). Moreover, if we put it into the third column due to the Winter war (the only full scale military conflict the USSR was involved in), the question emerges: which column Finland has to be put in? To the Allied column? No, it was not an Ally. To the Axis column? Ask Finns about that, and you will learn many interesting thing about you. Therefore, the only acceptable solution would be to create a fourth column for Finland. I think poor school students will be grateful for such a simple and clear infobox...

Speaking seriously, we already have a footnote that explains about pre 22/06/1941 activity of the USSR. That is quite sufficient in my opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

How about linking to (if it exists) or making a new article (if it doesn't) which would handle specifically the belligerent status of the countries during the World War II, and then including only a link to that article in question to the infobox instead of long list of countries? The apparent problem is that the war was not clear cut issue and there were in fact (over the duration of the WW II) more than two sides to the war, even more so when individual countries within set allegiances are taken into account. Infobox - as i perceive the matter - is insufficient tool for dealing or explaining such issues in a detail required. - Wanderer602 (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The infobox already has links to Allies of World War II and Axis powers articles that discuss exactly those issues, so your proposal (if I understand it correct) seems to have been already implemented.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Partially implemented to be precise. Point was to leave there nothing but a link to a separate article handling the matter if that is required. - Wanderer602 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an infobox. To say that the WWII was fought between the Allies and the Axis would be just a duplication of what the lede says. I think the major Allies and the Axis members should be listed explicitly, otherwise the very idea of the infobox would appear to be partially discredited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You are missing the point, i was not referring to 'allied' vs 'axis' but take the whole of the belligerents section and replace it with a single link. The continuous arguments over the contents of the infobox, most of which are for both sides nothing but emotional appeals, already discredits the use of infobox for that information. Also there are matters which are too complex to summarize in a single short statement for the infobox. - Wanderer602 (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think my arguments are "nothing but emotional appeals", so I cannot agree with your "both sides". (Upon meditation, I came to a conclusion that other users also relied more on facts and logic then on emotions, so I have to disagree with your characterisation of the dispute.) Regarding the rest of your post, I think this dispute is is manly about the USSR (sorry for disclosing this Secret de Polichinelle). Some users argue that, since the USSR was a bad guy it cannot be at the top of the Allied list (because the Allies are believed to be good guys), other users argue that, since the USSR bore the major brunt of the war against Nazi Germany + satellites (i.e. the Axis core) it should be first. Other issues are of the secondary importance (at least they do not cause any hot disputes). May be, instead to proposing compromises that resolve the issue merely by making it more vague (or by moving it to another article) we should name the main point of disagreement clearly?

By writing that I by no means want to offend you. I appreciate your good faith efforts to come to some consensus. However, the solution proposed by you is a palliative.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to disagree but neither side has been able to present arguments or facts convincing enough to settle the matter which has dragged on quite a while. And from the comments it appears to be next to impossible to do so. Naming the point of disagreement likely changes nothing presuming it would keep the order of the list intact. And way I perceive it the method you suggested is exactly the palliative you referred to. Since World War II was not a clear cut issue (before 1941) the list of belligerents is a complex matter likely requiring a complex solution (ie. in depth) and the infobox is not the place for those. I do not believe using other article to be 'ideal' method but it would allow different views on the issue to be properly presented. - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some matter is hard to settle is not an argument. Incidentally, this issue is not unique for this infobox. See this and this recent edits, especially the last edit summary ("Britain provided more men than France and fought on more fronts"). As you can see, editors working on other articles also tend to arrange belligerents according to formal parameters, such as army size and number of fronts, and this approach may cause the same problems. Thus, I could argue that, although Britain fielded more troops then France, the difference was negligible (8.8 vs 8.7 million). Moreover, according to the proposed criteria, Russia has to be first (it fielded much greater army (12 million) and fought in trans-Caucasus front (in addition to the Eastern front). However, all those considerations are not the reason of removal of the explicit belligerent list from the WWI infobox.

Re your "different views", what are you talking about? We already have a footnote that explains a complex situation with the USSR during the pre-1941 period. It is even too detailed, because I see no reason to mention the Baltic states there (their annexation was not a war). Similarly, if we do not discuss Vienna awards, which transferred a part of Romanian territory to Hungary, why do we mention annexation of the disputed region of Bessarabia by the USSR? It was not a war.

In any event, in my opinion, the footnote put all dots on "i", so I simply do not understand what else do we need. Btw, I see no other way to mention the Winter war in the infobox, because Finland was neither the Ally nor the Axis in 1940.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Siebert you're the only one that wants the Soviet Union listed first. Every other editor knows better. It's been changed countless times and you revert each time. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles and fully understand the text. You do not own this article. If every other editor agrees that the Soviet Union should not be listed first you must oblige and quit this comical babbling. You're mockery of this talk page debate is a complete waste of time. You provide regurgitations of the same info over and over and try to find minute details of their arguments to dwell on to avoid the real subject at hand. As I expected, with your long winded trivial arguments you have literally bored editors away from this discussion. I think you either need to concede that no one wants the Soviet Union listed first but you, or a vote needs to be setup immediately. This has gone on way too long and editors have long since grown tired of your antics. UrbanNerd (talk) 01:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am glad I identified the issue correctly, you simply don't want the USSR to be first.

Thank you for giving me a link to WP:OWN. I hope you yourself have read and understood it. In connection to that, could you please explain me what of the following applies to me? Concretely,

• Am I "disputing minor edits concerning layout", and am I claiming "the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article"?
• Am I reverting justified article changes by different editors? (Obviously, undiscussed changes and the changes wrongly marked as minor ones are hardly justified).
• Am I "commenting on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions"?
• Am I putting my name into the infobox?

I strongly believe I did nothing from the above list. Instead, I proposing arguments, and I am expecting to get polite answers. By the way, your behaviour is illogical: when I initially advised you to read talk page archive you found that impolite and requested for detailed explanations. When those explanations have been provided, you accused me of repeating trivial arguments... However, trivial does not mean wrong. If you have some counter-arguments against my trivial arguments, feel free to present them, otherwise stop that.

By the way, I followed your advice and read WP:OWN. Could you please do me a favour in responce? Please, read this, and behave accordingly. It is our policy, and you must obey it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

PS Regarding your "a vote needs to be setup immediately", Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. We act via consensus, not vote.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

British Empire

I understand that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were officially independent nations, but since at the time they were still part of the British Empire, how about removing them from the list, or including them under it, like this:

• British Empire

 * Canada
 * Australia
 * New Zealand
 * South Africa

Superman-Clark Kent (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, because this was after the Statute of Westminster 1931, and each dominion had its own, totally independent foreign policy. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. British Empire included quite different entities (India, etc.)--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That is still not quite correct. Please see the following discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, regarding the official collective terms for combatants/military forces from the UK, British Empire/Commonwealth since 1707.

The following points from that discussion are relevant here:

(1) the name United Kingdom has been correct since 1801;

(2) the Balfour Declaration of 1926 resulted in

(a.) the UK and the British Empire becoming, collectively, the British Commonwealth,

(b.) the in-principle "equality" of the Dominions with the UK, and;

(3) following the Statute of Westminster 1931 there was a difference in status between

(a.) on one hand the UK and Dominions and

(b.) on the other hand the Indian Empire, Crown Colonies etc (which were not independent);

Therefore the UK declaration of war in 1939 automatically covered the non-independent members of the Commonwealth (regardless of any formal declarations by the Government of India etc), but not the Dominions (whereas the UK declaration of war had covered the entire British Empire in 1914).

Consequently, as the entire entity was the "British Commonwealth" in 1926–49, the Dominions are listed separately in the Infobox, and the UK declaration covered the non-independent Commonwealth countries, I have changed "British Empire" to "United Kingdom". Grant | Talk 04:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

That is essentially what I meant. You just described that in more details.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent odd edits.

I am puzzled with the recent edits. Initially Bennuff made this "minor" edit, which is by no means minor, then UrbanNerd reverted me twice [2] [3] with identical false and offensive edit summaries. I don't find such behaviour productive.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted this edit made by UrbanNerd. In connection to that, I have to say the following.

1. The edit summary "use talk to push your views" is grossly offensive. I do not pushing my views, I am just restoring a stable version of the infobox.
2. The edit summary is misleading: I just restored the existing version, so UrbanNerd, not me is supposed to start a discussion of proposed changes.
3. By re-adding reverted changes UrbanNerd violated a commonly accepted BRD rule. It is good time for him to stop his reverts and initiate a talk page discussion about the position of Britain in the list. UrbanNerd, what argument do you have to support the edits made by you? I can name only one: Britain was formally at war with the Axis from 1939 till the end of the WWII. I find this argument insufficient.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Commanders order of listing

Not to be making unexplained edits, I just wanted to point out that commanders/leaders should be listed the same way countries are. If the Soviet Union is on top (which is the right decision, in my opinion), Stalin should be on top too. As entering a boundless debate about Stalin's role in the Allied victory shouldn't be advocated, there is no problem for me keeping Churchill on top. This is merely a proposal. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 18:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Countries on the box 2

I know that, there is already a section for this, but it was too long (and this makes the page cleener).I think the countries should be listed by how long they were in the war. For example US is second in the list, but it started the war much more later than (for example)Germany. I also think that countries shouldn't be listed by when they joined the war, because for example Poland was conquered by Germany and didn't play major role afterwards. With Kind Regards Ransewiki (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure this criterion is totally objective. For example, in British case can Phoney War be considered a war? Is one day of the Desert Campaign hostilities equivalent to one day of Eastern front hostilities? Your approach is too formal, and it does not take into account historical realities. Yes, Britain was in the war from the very beginning till the very end, however, from Sept 1939 till May 1940 there were almost no actual hostilities, and from late 1940 till may 1944 Britain did not participate in any major theatre of war in Europe (I believe you do not consider Africa or Italy as a major theatre of war: the "Second front" had been opened only in 1944). Therefore, I cannot accept your arguments. Regarding Poland, some authors believe its contribution was greater than that of France...--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, for your answer (It cleared my vision of WWII). Could you still explain how can you classify war efforts of countries? Actually the work of women, who didn't fight the war with guns, but with their work for the country. In my opinion it should be counted as war effort too. Regards Ransewiki (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for intervening in your conversation, but I would just like to answer Ransewiki's question. War effort is very difficult to rate, a country can have millions of troops without using them, or being defeated even with that great number of men. But, in my opinion, I believe that the Soviet Union, the United States and the United Kingdom deserve the top spot (in that order) because, as you surely know, it was the Soviets who, for the first time, inflicted to the Wehrmacht a major defeat (at Stalingrad). Furthermore, it is widely known that the Americans never entered Berlin, and that Hitler was primarily defeated by the Red Army who routed the Germans all over Eastern Europe. But, the Empire of Japan and Italy were mainly defeated after the Americans' strike force arrival... As for the UK, their naval domination (widely known) helped the Allies to win the Battle of the Atlantic, but their military ground support was not greater than that of the Soviets and the Americans. And, concerning the women's war effort, I think that Stalin forced the entire Soviet population to join the war effort, at least in a much larger proportion compared to what the Americans did. I hope I could answer your information request. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ransewiki (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It's wonderful that the World War II article, and all the other articles covering the war are so perfect that there's nothing left to do but play around with the order of countries in the infobox! Given that the order has been discussed tons of times, it really shouldn't be changed without a consensus to do so. Nick-D (talk) 02:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox has been most argued thing for many years, you will never have version that can't be argued from some viewpoint. I liked most the version that had simply "Allies", and "Axis". Although I guess its hopeless to try to preserve something so simple against ongoing general trend of pushing more and more flags and names into conflict infoboxes.--Staberinde (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have the links to the Allies and the Axis in the box, so what you propose is simply to remove information because it causes disputes. That is hardly acceptable way: following your logic, even whole articles should be deleted from Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I didn't really seriously "propose" anything. I have no intention of getting into month long argument here to establish another "consensus" about belligerents which will last about half a year before everything will need to be argued again. Having simply "Allies" and "Axis" already was once "consensus" here in 2009, didn't last, they never do with this infobox. So yeah, it was just a comment.--Staberinde (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Understood.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Free French Forces?

Currently the infobox displays France (links to the main "France" article) as an allied nation. But wouldn't it be more accurate to include France under the Axis "puppet states" section using Vichy France (which I made for this purpose - It links instead to "Vichy France"), while including Free French Forces with the allies?

I don't think that Vichy France was a co-belligerent of Nazi Germany; it fought to defend its colonies, but didn't cooperate with the German military more generally. There's no question that the Free French formed part of the Allied forces. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Vichy may not have been a co-belligerent, but certainly it was a Nazi puppet/client state. I would put Free French Forces in the allies column where the normal France flag template currently is, and put Vichy France (which links to the Vichy article) under Axis "Client and puppet states," if that's agreeable. Rail88 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

We already have a footnote that elaborates on that. This footnote was added after a prolonged discussion where many arguments, including your argument, had been put forward (and addressed). --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's why I asked. Where can I find this discussion? Didn't see any mention of it above after a cursory glance. Rail88 (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

See, e.g. [4], [5] and [6].--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The French State (Vichy) I do believe should be included as an Axis nation. It was a puppet who supported Axis goals, and was opposed by - at the time - the leading nation of the Allied war effort. The fighting between the United Kingdom and the French State was not part of a separate war, but part of WW2.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No. Vichy only defended itself from the Allies, and neutral states have such a right. Self-defence does not affect neutral status.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, Poland should not be listed! It was a neutral state that was attacked, and defended itself.

If Vichy was neutral, they violated that right on numerous times. They aided the masters hand. They rounded up Jewish people, conducted retaliation bombing raids, they sent arms and ammunition to the Iraqi rebels fighting the British, and provided bases for Axis intervention in the Middle East (which was the cause of their Middle East holdings to be attacked). At the end of the day southern France was overrun, but the Vichy regime remained until 1944.

The French State was a client of the German Reich. They were seen as a threat to Allied interests and attacked.

Poland was not neutral. It was a member of what is considered as almost full scale anti-German alliance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

It was sarcasm, but when Poland was attacked she was neutral and had not done anything to provoke an attack upon her regardless of her alliance. Likewise one could point to the Soviet Union who was "neutral" up until 1941, regardless of their aggressive nature upon her neighbors (they even aided and co-operated with the Germans, and had a non-aggression pact signed with them). Does their right to defend themselves mean we should just sideline them?

Vichy France was a client state that aided German policy, attacked and was attacked by members of the Allies, and had her foreign policy, to a point, dictated to her. Gerhard Wienberg calls Vichy France both "semi-neutral" and at the same time a puppet of Germany. The Vichy military was engaged in various campaigns with allied forces, aided German military interests (provided bases, supplied anti-British rebels openly at war with the UK), and aided German policy (shipped the Belgium gold reserves into German hands, rounded up Jewish people). Vichy's relationship with Japan, according to Wienberg is not as simple as Vichy was attacked by an Axis member. He comments how German restrained the French State from defending their colony, and that the French were unwilling to fight Japan (but were willing to fight the British etc). He comments that the Japanese, with German support, was weakening the French position to bolster their influence in SE Asia and secure a better position to attack the British. He further notes that Japan toyed with the idea of taking Madagascar "with the consent of Vichy France, obtained if necessary with the aid of German pressure on Vichy, pressure which would not have been needed because Laval wanted to invite Japan to occupy the island"(p. 327). Likewise "both Germany and the Vichy French" invited Japan to occupy New Caledonia.(p.331).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding Charles De Gaulle

IS it okay if i add Charles De Gaulle to the list of allied leaders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kysterskartel (talk • contribs) 21:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. His influence and his role in global scale was not too significant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Well the the USSR's contribution was largely confined to Eastern Europe, so that is hardly global. Given the Free French were fourth-largest Allied army in Europe by the end of the war De Gaulle should be added. --Nug (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, that is ridiculous. Firstly, EF hostilities occurred in Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Europe; secondly, of course, they had an immense global impact: they lead to military defeat of the major Axis country (Germany) as well as of its satellites and co-belligerents (Slovakia, Romania, Hungary, Finland), which de facto was a victory of the Allies in the war as whole. Thirdly, you forgot the role the USSR played in the defeat of Japan.

However, what is more important, de Gaulle's role was even less significant then the role of France: he wasn't a leader during 1939-40 (when the focus of the WWII was in France), he started to play more or less important role only after 1944. However, since the role of France in those events was more then modest, I don't think a commander who was a leader of french just in 1943-45 deserves to be listed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Is you argument based upon anything other than your personal POV? According to Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight World War II Leaders by Gerhard L. Weinberg:

"The subjects of scrutiny are, in order, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Tojo Hideki on the Axis side, Chiang Kai-shek, Joseph Stalin, Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, and Franklin Roosevelt on the Allied side."[7]

Let's rely upon published sources please, not personal opinion. --Nug (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul: De Gaulle was in the second tier of Allied leaders and had little influence on the overall direction of the war (he wasn't even told about the Normandy landings until after they occurred, for instance, and didn't attend the major conferences which decided the Allies' grand strategy). Nug, you can't make a obviously false analogy about the USSR and then turn around and claim to be advocating some sort of well researched position. Nick-D (talk) 03:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever disagreed with Paul? A WP:RS that lists De Gaulle as significant enough to be listed with other leaders is insufficient compared with - your opinion that the level of De Gaulle's participation on D-day is some kind of definitive criteria? D-day occurred almost a year before the defeat of Germany, at which time the Free French forces had grown to 1.3 million. The British and US governments recognized the role of France during World War II in Europe and a French Zone of Occupation in Germany and Berlin was created. Yet the leader of one of the representatives present at the surrender of Germany is not to be listed, apparently. --Nug (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your ad hominem comment, it tells more about you than about a user to whom it has been addressed...

It is up to us, Wikipedians, to define the principles of formation of the commander's list: (i) we can include leaders based on their own merit, (ii) we can include the leaders of the most important belligerents, or (iii) we can include leaders of all countries explicitly listed in the infobox. Again, that is up to us to decide. Clearly, a current consensus is the option (i); Weinberg followed the option (ii); the option iii seems to have been rejected recently. If you believe the opition ii is better that the option i, present your arguments.

Meanwhile, Encyclopaedia Britannica says:

"Broadcasts from London, the action of the Free French Forces, and the contacts of resistance groups in France either with de Gaulle’s own organization or with those of the British secret services brought national recognition of his leadership; but full recognition by his allies came only after the liberation of Paris in August 1944."

In connection to that, can you explain me how can we seriously speak about listing among the most influential leaders a man who even had not been fully recognised by the Big Three before liberation of his own capital?--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

All these options seem somewhat WP:ORish. How about option (iv) reflect what the sources state. --Nug (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem not to understand the OR policy: RS are not needed to decide what should and what should not be in the article. Regarding "what rs say", different sources say different things, and we have no rs that explain us which rs should be taken into account and which should be ignored; moreover, no such rs can exist in principle.--Paul Siebert (talk) 07:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm somewhat surprised you cite EB, given your opposition to citing that publication[8] on RSN, but never mind. Contending someone "not been fully recognised by the Big Three before liberation of his own capital" isn't sufficiently influential for inclusion seems somewhat like synthesis. Given that the Allies did in fact recognise De Gaulle towards the end of the war to the extent that France ended up administering its own occupation zone, then that's sufficient. In the absence of any reliable source that explicitly states De Gaulle is, as NickD claims, "second tier", then how is that opinion anything other than original research? --Nug (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You misinterpret me in the same way you are misinterpreting sources: I don't think we can write WP based on EB, but I didn't write we should not use signed EB article as a source of information during talk page discussions.

Your rationale is as follows: (i) in his book about the leaders of major WWII belligerent states, Weinberg listed de Gaulle as a leader of France; (ii) the Allies allocated a separate occupation zone for France. From these two facts you draw a conclusion that de Gaulle personally was infuential and notable enough to be included into the infobox. Frankly speaking, I see absolutely no ground for this your synthetic conclusion. Thus, Weinberg's choice was obvious: if France is considered as one of the major Allies, her leader deserves a separate chapter in the book about WWII. Regarding occupation zones, the reason was obvious: the zone was allocated simply because France was able to control it (that was neither an award nor recognitions of French contribution in WWII, but a burden). Regarding French part of Berlin, that allowed the Allies to take 3/4 of its territory, instead of 2/3.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Where in Template:Infobox_military_conflict does it state leaders have to be "personally was influential", it only states that "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed" and Weinberg's listing makes De Gaulle prominent and notable. On what source do you contend he wasn't? You cannot have it both ways, saying on one hand France is considered as one of the major Allies, yet claim France's leader as "second tier". --Nug (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As I already wrote, France is considered as one of major Allies for several reasons, and the most important one is that in 1940 the focus of WWII was in France. De Gaulle was not a leader of France during that time. Therefore, it is quite possible that a country is listed among the major Allies, but its leader is not. However, if you believe de Gaulle personality had a significant impact on the WWII (under "significant" I mean an impact of the same scale as Churchill's, Stalin's or Roosevelt role, I don't think Kai-shek deserves a mention either, because it is purely American POV to overemphasise his role), please, provide your evidences.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd also prefer limiting this to the 'big three' (Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin), who are generally agreed to have been the key figures at the top of the Allied war effort. Chiang Kai-shek attended some of the major conferences, but didn't play much of a role in decision-making. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

To not include Chiang Kai-shek would violate neutrality and take a western viewpoint. While Chiang Kai-sheck may not have played a role in the overall grand allied strategy of the entire war, he was the paramount leader of virtually all allied aligned chinese forces which in total were larger than the British and American armies combined. His forces also took the second highest number of casualites out of all the allied powers (only the soviet union suffered higher casualties). Taking Chaing Kai-Sheck out of the infobox would slant the article to a western point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In regards to DeGaulle i am fairly ambivalent, but if he is included than Mannerheim should definately be included on the Axis side as he commanded a comparable number of forces and as the supreme commander of all finnish forces (not even being subordinate to the finnish government) the importance of his command was certaintly at least at the level of and probably more important than that of degaulle.XavierGreen (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

If de Gaulle had the same weight as Mannerheim, he definitely should not be included. Regarding Kai-shek, the amount of troops, of the casualties are hardly a sign of importance. I would say, large casualties were more a demonstration of his poor role as a leader, who failed to win any serious battle despite huge numerical superiority. If we compare China with the USSR, we will see that the key role of the USSR was not due to huge losses it sustained (I would say, it is an argument to put Stalin on the third position, which I did in the past), but huge losses it inflicted on the Axis: more then a half of the Axis losses were inflicted by the USSR. We cannot say the same about China, and I see no western bias in that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the huge losses inflicted on Germany is necessarily a indicator, I have read that a typical German soldier was less likely to surrender on the eastern front preferring fight it out to the end rather than be captured by the Soviets, where as on the western front a German soldier was more likely to surrender due to easier conditions in Western POW camps. --Nug (talk) 11:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Losses inflicted is so lovely metric. There are so many ways you can argue about it, totally infinite potential for arguing. Like take battle of Midway, mere 3000 dead for Japan. On other hand, if you count sunk fleet carriers and how many new such ships all Axis powers managed to get operational in 1942-1944 time frame, then impact is absolutely massive. How many infantry divisions equals 50,000 ton battleship? How many tanks for U-Boat? How many infantry troops for fighter aircraft pilot? What is the ratio between Italian and German soldiers? How about damage of strategic bombing? Not to mention that if big 3 are listed according to casualties inflicted, then it can be argued that logically same metric should also apply to other countries on both sides. Etc etc etc.--Staberinde (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

@Nug. Firstly, to surrender one has to have an opportunity to do that. However, there was no major theatre of war in the west since 1940 till 1944. Secondly, German soldiers correctly asserted that they were much less likely to be killed by the Americans (who saw no German atrocities, and whose relatives were not being subjected to brutal treatment by Germans), than by the Russians. Thus, I have read that whereas there were just few cases of execution hostages by the Germans in the West, such executions were widespread and routine in the East.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde makes a good point. Surely the point of an effective military contribution is to disable the enemies ability to fight. So capturing a soldier is just as effective as killing them. According to Overmans some 6.6 million POW where held by the Western Allies compared to a total of 4.1 million killed (Krivosheev) by the Soviets. Disabling a tank through destroying the supply of spare parts or fuel is just as effective as killing the tank driver. So relying upon combat deaths only presents a partial picture. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Staberinde didn't make so stupid point. This "idea" belongs to you. You, as usually, cite sources selectively, and ignore basic logics. You compare the amount of POWs taken by the Western Allies with the amount of KIA in the EF. However, you totally ignore the fact that, according to Krivosheev, the amout of POWs taken by the USSR in Europe was 4.3763 million, and 640,105 POWs were taken in Far East. However, all of that is of minor importance. Most POWs were taken during final days of the war, when Wehrmacht was just a pale shadow of its former self, and that was possible only due to four years long EF hostilities.

Re tanks, the German problem during the second half of the war was primarily the lack of personnel. That is why they made an emphasis of production of small amount of state-of-the-art equipment: they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks (solely due to EF)--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that "they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks, hence a stress on production of small amount of advanced tanks." is just ludicrous. Germany produced a total of around 20,000 tanks in the war. Even if Germany could match the US total production of 60,000 tanks, finding an additional 40,000 tank drivers would not have been a problem for a military that numbered in the millions. Krivosheev states 4,137,100 killed and 2,571,600 taken prisoner by the Soviets, that is comparable to the 6.6 million POWs in the West. If you look at the number of POWs held, the biggest jump occurred between the first and second quarters of 1945, with the POWs held by the Western Allies jumping 4.5 million while those held by the Soviets rising by only 1 million. That's 4.5 million soldiers the Soviets did not have to fight thanks to the contribution of Western Allies. --Nug (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? In 1945 the war was almost over, and all Germans were trying to surrender to the western Allies at all cost (remember the Battle of Halbe, where the only German purpose was to break to the west, even at cost of almost complete destruction). And, to take 6 million POWs in the battle one has to have those troop fighting against you. However, the amount of troops in the West was much smaller (ca 1 million), and it got no significant reinforcements (except for the Battle of the Bulge). Therefore, it is highly unlikely all these 6 million were the combat troops.

And, by the way, had Hitler really have additional 6 million troops, why he didn't send them to the combat during, for example, the Battle of the Bulge? Why he lost the war at all if he had so much combat troops? We all know that in the case of numerical parity the Germans usually won, especially against Western Allies. Why, having 6 million troops, did Hitler deploy just ca 1 million against the Western Allies, if his major strategic goal was to push them back, destroy (in a Dieppe manner) and focus on the East?

And, by the way, where the figure of 6.6 million came from? Glantz gives different numbers: 1.5 million were captured by Red Army in May, and 1 million (including those who fled to the west fron EF) were captured by the Western Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Rüdiger Overmans provides detailed information on the number of German prisoners held by the various countries at the end of the war. His figures, from an original German work, can be found all over the net: France 940,000, Great Britain 3,640,000, USA 3,100,000, Yugoslavia 190,000, Other States 170,000, USSR 3,060,000, Sum 11,100,000

In addition, the figure of 6 million German prisoners captured in the west is also well established via the SHAEF, G-1 Div PW & DEF report June 22 1945, which notes 6 million in the west (I do believe both include those captured upon final surrender).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

@Staberinde. Yes, I agree that destruction of whole Japanese carrier fleet was much more important than killing of just 3000 infantry men. However, you must agree that naval operations in Pacific had much less strategic implications then European theatre. Had Japan took control over Pacific, it would still be unable to harm continental US, which still were able to increase armament production, and sooner or later, destroy whole Japanese fleet. However, German victory in Europe would mean inevitable defeat of the Allies, and would have devastating effect in Pacific and Atlantic. Indeed, if Germany made a land contact with Japan, the latter would become much more technologically advanced; defeat of the USSR would mean that Japan's best million size Kwantung Army could be used elsewhere (in mainland China, in Burma, in India, etc); seizure of Baku would mean obtaining a vital source of diesel fuel for German submarines (a factor that significantly limited German war efforts in Atlantic); moving German military plants to Ural would make impossible continuation of Allied bombing campaign. The WWII was won primary in land battles, an that fact we cannot ignore.

However, again I would accept your arguments if the loss ratio in East and West would be, e.g. 2:1. However, Axis losses in EF dwarf the losses elsewhere so convincingly that your argument doesn't work.

Regarding "How many tanks for U-Boat?", about 100 tanks. However, as I already wrote in my responce to Nug, for Germany, the major limiting factor during the second part of WWII was lack of personnel (including tanks crew): they simply had no men to drive large amount of tanks, hence a stress on production of small amount of advanced tanks. What was the reason for the lack of personnel? Eastern Front.

Re "How about damage of strategic bombing?" Until late 1944 it was much less significant than the Allies expected. Only in late 1944, when they switched to bombing of synthetic fuel production and transportation facilities it became efficient.

Re "What is the ratio between Italian and German soldiers?" I am not sure I understand this question. However, taking into account that Italians (along with Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians, Slovakians, Finns, etc) fought in EF too, I don't think this question is relevant to the subject of our discussion.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh my, actual almost point by point answer was not really something I expected then I wrote my comment. I am not arguing that country A contributed more or less than country B, my point was that whole "casualties inflicted" metric itself is ridiculously complicated in current context. Lets say you manage (somehow) to establish consensus here that USSR contributed more then USA and UK. Then it immediately raises question how USA and UK themselves should be ordered? Then what about China, France, Poland, Yugoslavia and Canada, who contributed more and who less? Etc. And there are lots of complexities involved. Like strategic bombing isn't simply deaths and damage from bombs, its also air defenses required to counter it, those fighter pilots don't come quick or cheap (as Japanese found out). My comment about Italian and German soldiers reflected the point that German armoured division and Italian East African colonial infantry division are somewhat different in fighting potential per soldier, bringing yet another complexity on table.--Staberinde (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I think here we should maintain a balance between precision and clarity. The infobox should explain who the major participants were, and where the major battles were fought. The primary participants (the Big three vs Germany/Japan) bore the lion share of the WWII's brunt, and a reader should see that easily and clearly.

Taking into account that the scale of African campaign was relatively modest, the German/Italian difference can hardly affect anything significantly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps to avoid attaching weight to any particular country, list them via order they entered the war?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

We already discussed that before. By doing that, we would turn the infobox into a mess. The WWII was fought primarily between few major participants, and the infobox should make that crystal clear. --Paul Siebert (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How would it be a mess? At the moment there appears to be a discussion on how to list them without adding undue weight. The infobox as it is now with the dates after the UK, USSR, and USA (in that order) would keep the infobox cleared up, and display all the other points you are making. Likewise for Germany, Italy, and Japan.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, given that there are only three countries specifically mentioned in the infobox so chronological order would work. --Nug (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

When did Japan entered WWII? If we assume SSJW was a part of WWII Japan was at war since 1937. However, no war was between Japan and the Big Three members. That is just one example of why chronological order would be misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree. Yes Japan was at war, but that was a war that was occurring at the same time as the European War. While the Second World War was already global (via the various battlefields/oceans and participants), the European and Asian wars were not linked until Japan entered the war attacking the USA and the European colonial powers. I have yet to read a study of the war that has included the fighting between Japan and China, prior to Pearl Harbor, as being part of WW2. It was important to the long run of the war in Asia, the Chinese were supported by Western powers but before December 1941 it was not part of WW2.

If we are attempting to not attach weight to various partners in the war, yet keep the big three of each side in the infobox chronological would do so and not be misleading.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If we adopt your logic, SSJW and European War were two independent conflicts that merged after Japanese attack of Pearl Harbour. Therefore, in that sense both wars were regional, and if we assume that Japan joined the big WWII on 7 Decemper 1941, other states (Germany, Britain, the USSR) also joined WWII the same day. Taking into account that chronologically the US and Japan joined the WWII first, they should be listed first. Moreover, the USSR, which decided not to declare war on Japan to concentrate (as Churchill wrote) on the much more important European theatre (where it was the only major Allied belligerent), the USSR didn't join the big WWII until 9th August, 1945! However, all of that is pure nonsense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

PS. I don't think our goal is not to attach weight. I would say the opposite: the fact (which is not obvious for general public) that the Eastern Front almost dwarfed hostilities in other theatres of war taken together is not obvious from the WWII article, and the present order partially compensates for this disbalance. If we decide not to put weight, additional modifications of the article's body are necessary.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul, please don't engage in OR. It is universally accepted in mainstream literature that WW2 started with the German attack on Poland in 1939. Japan joined the Axis in 1940 via the Tripartite pact and attacked the USA in 1941. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a separate conflict that merged into WW2 with the Japanese attack on the USA and Germany's Tripartite pact obligations resulting in Germany also declaring war against the USA. Also your view "the Eastern Front almost dwarfed hostilities in other theatres of war" is POV, geographically and in terms of total population impacted the Pacific war was bigger. That is why chronological order is the most neutral. --Nug (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, please, no baseless allegations. The last cabal (you can easily find a link to that discussion on the WWII talk page) was devoted to this issue, and before throwing such accusations you should read old arguments first.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nug, I reverted your regrouping of the three Allies. The order is supposed to reflect relative military contribution.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Paul, I feel that Nug was not making a baseless allegation. You appear to be playing devil's advocate to every suggestion. It is noted that prior to China and Japan's entry into WW2, they were fighting a different war at the same time and you take up the position that by the same logic the USSR was not part of the war until 1945. That appears to be argumentative for sake of being so.

In regards to what order combatants are listed, that is not the way it is suppose to be. The guidelines state "Combatants should be listed in order of importance to the conflict, be it in terms of military contribution, political clout, or a recognized chain of command. If differing metrics can support alternative lists, then ordering is left to the editors of the particular article."

I do not believe anyone would disagree that the Soviets provided the main military force in the European War, their military is unmistakably the one that inflicted horrendous losses upon the Germans (although the Western Allies ensured the entire weight of the German armed forces could not be deployed against the Soviets). While Stalin may have played the Western Allies, he did provided little political power in the west. The Americans "took over" the war effort from the British during 1943 and financed the Western militaries. They also played one of the primary roles in the Pacific. With all that said, the British and Americans had a somewhat integrated chain of command, but the Soviets were never part of it (although there was some coordination in certain offensives).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am playing a devil advocate because I don't think proposed modifications are an improvement. Regarding "allegations", I meant accusations in OR.

Re guidelines, let's see.

1. "importance to the conflict" - I think noone here questions that the present order correctly reflect importance of the combatants;
2. "military contribution" - we already discussed relative contribution;
3. "political clout" - that also has been discussed extensively;
4. "recognized chain of command" - maybe, the only thing that could serve as a counter-argument against the present order.

Regarding Pacific, yes, Soviet contribution ti this theatre was more than modest. However, we should not forget that the contribution of the Western Allies into the European theatre was also rather modest from 1940 till 1944: by no means Italian campaign can be considered as a major treatre of war, comparable to the Western Front (not to mention Eastern Front). As Churchill said: "Russian declaration of war on Japan would be greatly to our advantage, provided, but only provided, that Russians are confident that will not impair their Western Front."

In other words, it would be hardly correct to say that different metrics lead to too dramatic conclusions.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Playing Devil's Advocate is fine, but replying with preposterous comments and twisting peoples words (i.e. "If we adopt your logic", "by the same logic the USSR was not part of the war until 1945", "Self-defence does not affect neutral status" etc) is not helpful.

The guidelines note that the usual methods of ordering the combatants does not have to be followed if editors do not agree with them and other methods are proposed. Your reply avoided that, since such an argument as developed, a different method for ordering the combatants was suggested. Your only argument so far to a chronological order, is that some fringe theories (outside of the mainstream literature on the subject) suggest an earlier start to the war.

To play devil's advocate myself here. One could argue that the Soviets were only able to stay in the war and provide the main military contribution due to Anglo-American lend-lease that provided vital materials to keep the Soviets in the war. That due to the Anglo-American contribution the Soviets never had to face the full weight of the German armed forces (due to having garrison occupied countries, and having to keep large numbers of troops in Norway, France, the Balkans, Italy and North Africa due to Allied opposition and threats). Likewise, due to Western efforts the Italians were never able to deploy more troops east, and were knocked out of the war. Due to the Anglo-American airborne effort, the Soviets had to face fewer German aircraft as the war progressed.

One could note that due to the United Kingdom remaining in the war, the Americans were able to later enter (i.e. the unsinkable aircraft carrier of the UK, and a base to launch operations). One could note that due to Anglo-American effort, the western allies were supplied to keep fighting. Thus without them, large numbers of Polish and French troops could not be employed against the Germans. One could also note that the Soviets efforts in the Asian war with almost negligible until the final days, so that the US or China should be top (and a case could be made for being even more so due to fringe theories noting an earlier start date for the war).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

New additions to infobox

I made some new additions to the infobox. They were then reverted. Why? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You added commanders who even weren't the countries' leaders. Following your logic, we should add Zhukov, Eisenhower, Keitel, etc. We have no consensus for that. In addition, have you read a previous section?--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea; we should add those commanders as well. If we're including leaders, not commanders, why is that section entitled "Commanders"? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 03:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's not start adding generals to this infobox. It's already too large, and going down that path would end up with a larger infobox more full of relatively unimportant information than that which currently blights Eastern Front (World War II). Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Given that this is a list of political leaders as opposed to military commanders, why isn't Roosevelt listed first, given that major decisions including the decision to insist on unconditional surrender or no separate peace, belonged to Roosevelt. Vladimir Shlapentokh writes in America: Sovereign Defender Or Cowboy Nation? (2005)

"With the start of WWII, however, the Western powers including the Soviet Union have recognized the U.S. as a leading partner in the anti-Hitler coalition."

So a reliable source confirms that the US was the leading partner so I don't see why Stalin is listed first. --Nug (talk) 11:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"A leading partner" and "the lead partner" do not mean the same thing. 216.8.171.179 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed my typo, my argument remains unchanged. --Nug (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This argument is moot: the author says about the US, not about their leader. Secondly, the author definitely has some problems with history: the US were not recognised as a leader "with the start of WWII" for obvious reasons. (i) they remained neutral until 1942, and therefore could not lead any coalition, and could not be recognised as such; (ii) before June 1941 the USSR could not recognise any leader of anti-Hitler coalition simply because no such coalition existed.

In summary, your source does not support your edit. In my opinion, Churchill should be first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Stalin should come first. Every single one of the decisive battles in the European theater was in the Eastern Front, under Stalin's direct command. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 00:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Red Army's successes are associated with other names. These successes became possible because Stalin started to play lesser role in direct command.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Does it actually matter what order they appear in? Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does. Stalin's role was smaller than the role of the USSR, Churchill's role was greater than the role of Britain. Stalin did a mistake, that lead to outbreak of WWII, Churchill refused to sign peace with Hitler. Roosevelt was a leader of a neutral power until very last days of 1941, Churchill was among the most persistent opponents of Hitler since the very beginning of WWII, and he was a leader of Britain from the moment a real war (in the West) started until the very end. It would be incorrect to have Stalin or Roosevelt on the top.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

However given that Roosevelt basically bankrolled Britain's war effort Churchill followed Roosevelt's line. --Nug (talk) 19:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't see evidences that Churchill was so dependent from Roosevelt. At least, he was totally independent until 1942 (during the most crucial WWII years).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalin should be first, the Soviets entered Berlin and defeated Germany. And the entire Soviet Union was under Stalin's direct command. Churchill and Roosevelt did only have political roles, and were not field marshals as Stalin was. So I'm definitely for Stalin being on top. Another information, it is common for military conflicts infoboxes to list the leaders the same way countries are. If you want Roosevelt to be first, you should first find a consensus about the US topping the list of countries. So let's keep Stalin, in my opinion. Bright Darkness (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Again, whereas the USSR played the most important role in Axis defeat, Stalin's role was smaller. The USSR won not due to Stalin. Stalin made several mistakes that brought his country on brink of catastrophe. The USSR started to win when Stalin loosened control of the Red Army. Please, provide the sources that demonstrate Stalin's personal role, otherwise I'll have to revert you.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the most sensible way to order leaders is to list them in the same order as their countries are listed in the combatants field. That's the way it's done in almost every military conflict infobox.

That said, if we are to list the leaders by individual importance, I believe the importance of a leader can be seen as a product of two factors: (a) The relative importance of his country in the alliance, and (b) the relative power of the leader within his country. This would put Stalin first. The USSR was arguably the most important Ally, and unlike Roosevelt and Churchill, Stalin held almost unlimited power in his country. It's true that more credit should go to generals like Zhukov than to Stalin for the successes of the Red Army, but the generals still answered directly to Stalin and knew that their positions (and lives) depended on his goodwill. It's also true that many of Stalin's personal decisions had disastrous consequences, but that shouldn't matter when assessing his relative power. What matters is that he was the one who made the decisions, not their results. 96T (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with 96T. Bright Darkness (talk) 19:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree, the importance of a leader is measured by his influence upon other leaders, which can be seen in the outcome of conferences, whose agenda prevailed at the outcome of that conference. After all, it was an alliance and there was a high degree of co-ordination and joint aims. --Nug (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I reasonably think that the easiest way to keep a neutral point of view about all of this is to remain with the infobox's common use and list the leaders the same way countries are. That's the way it's done in every military conflict infobox. Why should the WWII article differ ? So, unless the countries' order of listing is changed meanwhile, leaders' should be listen this way : Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill. Tchang Kaï-Chek may be removed, or De Gaulle may be added, but it is merely a proposal and I don't insist on it to be applied. And as for conferences as Nug says, didn't Stalin convince the Allied leaders at Potsdam to let him establish marxist-leninist regimes in every Eastern European country the Red Army has liberated? Stalin definitely has a great influence on every Allied decision. Moreover, as I've said it before, Stalin was the only one to officially have full military commands on his armies, being the marshal of the Soviet Union (he would after the war be promoted to the rank of Generalissimus, which he refused). So, I do not see a single reason why Stalin shouldn't be listed first. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Shortened the infobox

Hi folks, in the interest of shortening this infobox without losing content, I've put all but the major countries in a collapsible list. See this edit. I'm not sure if we need the bullets, but those can always be removed. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Support.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. As stated before, Paul Siebert and his buddies aren't to decide who played what kind of role in the war. His extreme bias' is shameful and he should be blocked from editing this template due to his attitude of article ownership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UrbanNerd (talk • contribs)

That's a sensible change. Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose, China is no longer visalbe, and this creates a whole mess of NPOV issues besides. Reverting since there clearly is no consensus to do so.XavierGreen (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted back for the moment, considering that there are three people in support above (including me). We don't have to exhaustively list every country that participated, in the open, to satisfy NPOV. All of the countries are still listed, and that's all we need. However, we do need to take into consideration ease of reading, so we don't confuse and/or bore readers. I believe this does that. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not seeing the NPOV problems here - we can't possibly list every country, and I don't think anyone would suggest that the three outside the collapsible list weren't the main players ('big three' and all that). Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear from XavierGreen's post why hiding China (along with France, Poland, Canada, etc) creates NPOV issues.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I personally support the idea. The "big three" are widely known for being the main protagonists of WWII; so it shouldn't create a NPOV issue. This will also permit to shorten the infobox, thus making it reasonable (its previous length was way too exagerated). --Bright Darkness (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Chinese practically under independent command threw millions upon millions of troops at the Japanese who sent millions of troops to engage them. I still dont see why cutting down the infobox is such an important thing to do, but even if it is cut down the Chinese need to be included in whatever countries are visible. China and Japan were the only major powers to be engaged in combat when the war started (from one popular viewpoint) in 1937. To exclude them from vision takes a western point of view, and to say that the Chinese front was not an essential and major part of the war is a complete joke when one takes a look at the Pacific war in its entirety.XavierGreen (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

But to include them, and state participation started in 1937 would go against practically every book written on the war. Although I would not object to their inclusion along side the 'big three' (and if dates are included for all, the date stating they joined WW2 in 1941).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, It is universally accepted in mainstream literature that WW2 started with the German attack on Poland in 1939. Japan joined the Axis in 1940 via the Tripartite pact and attacked the USA in 1941. The Second Sino-Japanese War was a separate conflict that merged into WW2 with the Japanese attack on the USA and Germany's Tripartite pact obligations resulting in Germany also declaring war against the USA. I've updated the infobox to reflect this since Japan's entry data also contradicts with the WW2 begin date of 1 September 1939. --Nug (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE: China should be included alonside the Big 3. If China is not included, it would not be a "World War" since China/Japan is what makes it a "World War" - otherwise, you just have a bunch of Western/European nations going at each other. Also, China engaged in WW2 between 1937-1945, and it didn't become World War until 1941, but it should be mentioned that China was fighting Japan since 1937, not 1941.Phead128 (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. The WWI was essentially the war between European nations (Entente cordiale vs Central powers). In 1939, the situation was the same (- Russia +Italy), and by June 1941 (+Russia - France) it was still world war. Don't you forget, for example Battle of the River Plate?

By writing that, however, I disagree with the idea to put "1941" near Japan and China. This approach is too formal and too Eurocentric. Since significant controversy exists about the WWII start date (especially in Asian sources), it would be better simply remove the dates completely. In 1941 China and Japan joined the WWII only formally, there were large scale hostilities between them in 1937-40. If no agreement exist about the start date (and the article itself deserves a whole section to that issue) no dates are needed at all.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Significant controversy? I have yet to see a single source that places the start date earlier than 1939 and the German invasion of Poland (granted sources note that the Chinese and Japanese were fighting; just as they also note the Spanish Civil War, German expansion, and the Italian invasions of Ethiopia and Albania helped increase tensions in Europe ... none of them have suggested WW2 in Europe started anywhere form 1935 onwards). Mainstream WW2 literature places the start of the war in 1939, anything else is a fringe theory.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Can we just remove all of the dates? We have an article people can refer to, and if they don't want to read it all, there's still a table of contents that has dates in it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

@ EnigmaMcmxc. The current version of WWII article has a "Chronology" section that cites several sources discussing different start dates. Therefore, if you believe that is incorrect, you should modify that section first, and only after that can we discuss the infobox (which just summarises what the article says).

@ Ed. I think the dates are not needed for the combatants that joined the war in Sept 1939 and fought until the end of the war, i.e., Japan, Germany, Britain, China, Poland. Regarding France, we are actually speaking about at least three state entities: the Third Republic, which ceased to exist in 1940, Vichy France, and Free French, as a predecessor of the Fourth Republic. Therefore, I think the date (in a form of a footnote) is still needed here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Argumentative for the sake of it. Yes the chronological section has a number of sources that discuss that several historians believe different dates, they do not describe there being "significant controversy" over the start date. Both the article and the infobox reflect that the mainstream view is that the war started in September 1939 and highlight several fringe theories. No controversy is shown... so what is the point of bringing up said supposed controversy in your counterpoint?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read this first. I just assume that we should respect previous consensus if we have no fresh (sourced) arguments.

By following old mediation cabal decision, I just respect old consensus. You provided no arguments so far that can force me to re-consider my view. By saying that, I do not imply my viewpoint cannot change in future; I am just saying your arguments are not new.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad we agree, since you stated: "Correct. A small comment. My third source, among many others states it formally started on Sept. 1939. Therefore, my point is that formally should be reflected.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)" and "In conclusion, my proposals are: Sept 1, 1939 - Sept 2, 1945 in the info box, heavy editing of the "Chronology" section and moderate editing of the "War Breaks Out" section. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)"

RegardsEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course the simpler solution, since there is so much disagreement on who should be shown and how, would be to just have "Allies" on the right and "Axis" on the left.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. The proposed layout looks good and I don't disagree with which countries are shown, but I don't see the need for shortening the infobox. The significance of the three leading powers on each side is indicated by them being listed first, and unlike in many other wars fought by large coalitions (for example the Korean War and Iraq War), the smaller nations played more than just token roles. 96T (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OPPOSE as well: It's Western bia/Eurocentric bias to discredit China's participation in the war against Japan. Without millions of Chinese troops bogging Japan down, Japan would have created a second front in Siberia against USSR in cahoots with Germany and would have taken India away from Britain. The entire paradigm of WW2 would have changed without consideration of China's participation in the war against Japan.