Talk:Allies of World War II

Include the The Crown Colony of the Island of Malta and its Dependencies as part of the Other Allied Combatant States

I ask an editor to add (British) Malta with the Flag of British Malta/Crown Colony of Malta in the section of Other Allied combatant states

Graphical Guidance for Change I.

as part of the Allied combatant states. Malta was the most heavily bombed place in WWII, and was a valuable stronghold of the Allies because it was only a stepping stone to the rest of Europe and was literally under Italy's shoe.

The Germans also sent Messerschmitts and U-Boats to massacre our country, though Italy is the one who attacked the most. I ask for Malta to be included under 4.1.2 Occupied states of Britain

Graphical Guidance for Change II.

This request should be acknowledged as this remembers the Men from different families who left their wives and children alone to fight alongside the English/Americans and the Allies. Mtonna257 (talk) 09:38, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Malta was not invaded or occupied during the Second World War. It was already a British protectorate since 1841. The Banner talk 09:46, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Big Three / Big Four in the infobox

I changed the order of the Big Four in the infobox to chronological order of joining the Allies. Otherwise, the order is subjective. Comments welcome. Whizz40 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a better reasoning than just a personal opinion to change the long standing order of those four? The Banner talk 20:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Any other order is subject and open to endless debate. Chronological order is informative for the reader (alphabetical is not) since the Allies grew in number over time and few joined at the outset. Any material differences in relative roles and contributions among the Big Four is better described in the lead and body of the article than conveyed subtly through order of the four in the infobox. Whizz40 (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any sources? The Banner talk 21:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

See for example Britannica's article on Allied powers:

"In World War II the chief Allied powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on December 8, 1941), and China."

-- Whizz40 (talk) 22:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That quote does not backup your claim. The Banner talk 23:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Quoting from the source:

"Encyclopaedia Britannica's editors oversee subject areas in which they have extensive knowledge, whether from years of experience gained by working on that content or via study for an advanced degree...."

They have explicitly used chronological order to introduce and summarize the main allies of World War II. That is was we are doing in the infobox.

Here is another source, Encyclopedia of World War II - Volume 1, not quite the same chronology, but a similar result:

"France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China—the Allies."

We could add in the lead and the body of the article "the United States, the strongest economically and the least threatened by the Axis powers, played a central role in liaising among the Allies and especially among the Big Four".[1] (note:US govt source)

-- Whizz40 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

That still does not cover your change. And in fact, I am bothered by other unsourced edits from your hand. The Banner talk 22:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please would you provide some sources to substantiate your opposition? As regards other edits, happy to discuss and improve any you would like to bring up. Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

You make the claim, so you have to prove it. The Banner talk 10:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. Any alternative to be used in the article would need sources provided as well. Whizz40 (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Frankly, I am not sure why so much attention is paid to a purely US-centric concept of the "Big Four". The "Four policemen" idea was advocated by Roosevelt, but it was not supported neither by Churchill nor Stalin. The alleged "Big Four" never meet together, in contrast to the Big Three (which met three times. The Big Four never signed any declaration similar to Tehran, Yalta or Potsdam. The involvement of ROC into any theatres but East Asia was negligible, and they never played a decisive role in China itself (Japanese troops surrendered in China undefeated, the surrender was due to the general surrender of IJA as a result of military defeat in Pacific and Manchuria). Therefore, it would be much more correct to replace US-centric "Big Four" with commonly accepted "Big Three". Note, when you cite EF, it mentions China along with France, but if France is excluded, I see no reason to include China, because their roles were comparable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert I think your points are consistent with sources and would summarise as follows (sources provided below):

1. Wikipedia should be consistent with reliable secondary and tertiary sources;
2. sources attribute the decisive strategic decisions and outcomes to the "Big Three" rather than the "Big Four";
3. however, sources do not support calling out the US above the USSR, we should be consistent with this on Wikipedia;
4. given the above, chronological order is an impartial way to present the Big Three Allies [in this article, which is about the development and composition of the allied nations, and the order does not have to be consistent with the order of the Main Allied leaders in the Infobox of the World War II article].

Quoting from The Western Allies and Soviet Potential in World War II by Martin Khan (2017), pages 1-2: [2]

• Most American and British government observers predicted, when Germany attacked the USSR, that the Red Army shortly would suffer a decisive defeat. If the war had developed in accordance with these pessimistic predictions the British, and - in the long run - the US strategic situation would have been worsened very seriously. There would have been no credible enemy, in terms of military strength, opposing Germany on the European continent, and the overall Japanese strategic situation in the Far East would have improved. The final outcome, however, was different. Since the Red Army defeated the bulk of Germany's military might, the United States and Great Britain were able to fight the war with more flexibility and without sustaining the huge losses suffered by the Soviet and German Armed Forces. The major Soviet effort against Germany limited the Anglo-American need to commit large ground forces, as the British was forced to do in World War I. Averell Harriman, an adviser and personal friend to President Roosevelt, believed that the president had it in his mind "that if the great armies of Russia could stand up to the Germans, this might well make it possible for us to limit our participation largely to naval and air power".

Quoting from How the War Was Won by Phillips Payson O'Brien (2015), pages 6-7:[3]

• Paul Kennedy ... ranges widely over the global war, but it is obvious what he considers to be crucial. He describes the Eastern Front war between Germany and the USSR as "clearly the campaign of all the major struggles of the 1939-45 war."
• The best overall military history of World War II published recently is Williamson Murray and Allan Millett's A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War, released in 2000. Though Murray and Millett see regular improvements in the fighting qualities of all the Allies in the war, it is particularly the USSR that develops the fighting power needed to destroy Nazi Germany.
• Andrew Roberts ... when writing a book devoted to British and American grand strategy, he feels it necessary to mention the supremacy of the Eastern Front. Roberts echoes one of the most important groups of American foreign policy scholars of the past fifty years, the "Revisionists", on the origins of the Cold War. This group partly base their arguments on the understanding that the USSR contributed far more to the destruction of Germany than did the USA and UK.

-- Whizz40 (talk) 10:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

See also discussion at Talk:World War II#The Big Three. Whizz40 (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whizz40, Pls stop re-ranging the country lists every few days. I don't understand the logic of placing countries such as Canada, Australia, Mexico, Brazil, etc. ahead on nations such as France, Poland, Greece or Yugoslavia. Finally, why did you list France twice as 3rd Rep. and then as Free France, you can do that for just about every country, Poland, Netherlands, Belgium, etc. The long-standing infobox list was and is fine. I could understand a minor change here or there, but re-ranging everything, and using arbitrary logic is not the way to go here. --E-960 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960 I agree all of your changes are good improvements except the change in order of the Big Three, which is not supported by consensus in the discussion above based on the sources provided. The title of a book is for marketing purposes. The contents of the source are what is relevant and the sources above provide a survey of the literature that do not support calling out the US above the USSR; we should be consistent with this. Consensus above is to use chronological order for the Big Three in the Infobox for this article. Chronological order makes sense for this article because it's about the development and composition of the Allies. Whizz40 (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Restored Big Four in the infobox per discussion at Talk:World War II#Sources on China. Whizz40 (talk) 12:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Whizz40, I restored the original longstanding infobox country list of Big 4 (this way for at least 2 years now). Pls stop re-arranging the countries every few day, it seems like you do not have a sold rationale in place and are causing disruption. --E-960 (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

The article started in a neutral fashion (9 July 2005[4]). When you added the infobox on 8 November 2014, you put the Soviet Union first.[5]. You switched to the US first on 13 February 2015[6] but then were reverted on 20 February 2015,[7], which you reverted,[8] after which you were reverted again with an edit summary mentioning "consensus in article ww2 which put USSR in front of US"[9], which was reverted[10], to be reverted back to the USSR again[11], which was reverted[12]. By 29 November 2015, back to USSR first.[13]). And thus it has continued ever since. If the promotion of the US in the Infobox has never been stable, then the last stable version is the USSR first (as with the World War II article) and we are discussing here using chronological order instead based on the sources provided above. Whizz40 (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Could you please stop your POV-pushing? This is leading to nothing (or to page protection). The Banner talk 22:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Banner, accusation of POV-pushing without evidences is a personal attack. This article is under ARBEE so that behaviour may lead to sanctions. If you guys will not switch to a more polite discussion, I am going to put a DS warning template on talk pages of each of you. Second, I still see no convincing arguments in favor of the Four Policemen over the Big Three. Britannica lists five countries, not four. Chinese role in a global WWII was neglidgible. Therefore, if China is included, why France is not?

Finally, this discussion should be seen in a context of a similar discussion on the WWII talk page. The behaviour of E-960 is considered very questionable by several users, and I totally agree with them. I think E-960 should stop.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I agree with Paul Siebert's edit summary I see no reason to have the order that is different from the order the leaders are listed in the WWII article. At least, the arguments presented on its talk page should be addressed before the attempt to change this order.[14] Whizz40 (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no mention on this page that the article is under ARBEE. So I am not impressed by your threats. The Banner talk 10:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

All articles that discuss USSR are under ARBEE, and what I am writing is not a threat but a reminder that we should make more emphasis on facts, not on the opponent's behaviour. If you believe someone is POV-pushing, report them at AE (but warn before that). If you don't want to report, there is no need in throwing such accusations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960, if Whizz40's summary of the history of the change of the Allies order is correct, then it seems it is you who are edit warring. Please, self-revert this, otherwise some actions may follow.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Again threats to get it your way? The Banner talk 14:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, if some arguments have been presented in support of a change, then a previous consensus does not exist anymore. You should either address new concerns or accept new changes. A simple reference to the version that existed for 2 years is not an argument in that case. If new arguments in a support of a previous order will not be presented, I am going to restore Whizz40's version.

Meanwhile, we have a situation when the mother article (WWII) lists Allied leaders in that order: Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, whereas this article lists the Allies in that order: UIS, USSR, UK. That inconsistency implies that Stalin as the Allied leader was relatively more important than the USSR as the Allied state, despite the fact that actual situation was quite opposite. Should we understand that as a hidden attempt to glorify Stalin?

In addition, no arguments in support of showing a link to "Four policemen" (which is a US-centric and post-WWII concept) were presented. I am going to remove in.

Furthermore, I find it illogical that other Allies are separated in the infobox by occupied countries. These two groups must be swapped.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul - I tell in advance I don't care about the order, once I proposed alphabetical in the RFC, but I find this such a little issue, despite such a big fuss about in several articles, stealing so much time -, a new consensus has to be built still if new arguments arise. On your last sentence, I don't find it illogical, since govt-exiles and/our disabled countries are not comparable with combatant, sovereign states, however, I would suggest to change the title to simply to "Allied governments-in-exile", since it even refers to pre-war happenings, which should not be conflated.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC))

The Declaration of St James's Palace put combatant Dominions before govts in exile. The following sources support the Big Three rather than Big Four:[15][16] I also think forming a stable consensus is the most important outcome. Whizz40 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Their was a stable consensus before this circus. The Banner talk 22:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

If our arguments are not new, and they have already been addressed during the previous consensus building process, then your argument is valid. To demonstrate that, please, point at the fragment of the previous discussion where these arguments were put forward. Otherwise, we cannot speak about any consensus anymore, and our arguments should be addressed before a new consensus will be established.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It is no surprise that you too do not recognize the earlier consensus nor my arguments. I keep my earlier criticism standing. And I do not recognize your perceived consensus. The Banner talk 13:51, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Chronological order is the natural thing here. UK and France were the original major allied powers. USA and the Soviet union were obviously important with their vast resources, but the UK was clearly key from beginning to end. — Erik Jr. 23:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, no. The alliance between France and Britain was de facto the WWI Entente Cordiale (-Russia). It ceased to exist when France surrendered. Neither the USSR nor the US joined the Anglo-French alliance, they created a new alliance de novo (and Free French joined it later).

One significant problem here is not the order of listing, but grouping of the Allies. For some unclear reason, a US-centric and post-war concept of "Four Policemen" was introduced into the infobox, and the four states are separated from other combatants, including such important states as France and Poland. In reality, there were three main Allies (Britain, USSR, and US), and China, France, Poland, and few other made a comparable contribution (although most of them suffered smaller losses than China). So far, the only argument that I see here is that that version is a "consensus version", although there is no consensus here anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Declaration by United Nations did recognize the Big Four by putting them first. Whizz40 (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

In any case, during 12 critical months from june 1940 to june 1941 UK was the only major power that opposed Hitler, and UK was de facto allied with several governments in exile prior to the entry of Soviet Union. There is for instance no doubt that Norway was de facto or tacitly allied with UK (and France) from april 9, 1940. The Norwegian government formally signed a military treaty with UK in May 1941. It is completely uncontroversial to list UK as the key or "original" allied power. — Erik Jr. 14:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We have to come up with a consensus based on a worldwide view of World War II. One argument for chronological order is that it is both objective and informative for readers. Churchill was "the most important of the Allied leaders during the first half of World War II"[17] However, there are comparably valid arguments for putting the US or USSR first which have been discussed at Talk:World War II#Discussion. At the start of 2015, after the Infobox was added, it was USSR first, then an edit war led to US first overturning the asserted consensus at the time, then there was an edit war for UK first, which went back to USSR first, then, per E-960 it has been US first for the last couple of years. Whizz40 (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• I definitely think we should stay with Big 4 and not change over to Big 3, because the WWII article lists the Big 4 and it makes sense since China was the main Asian allied power. Also, the US should be first for many of the reasons and references listed on the Talk:World War II. The current long-standing list has been the most stable version for quite some time, so I think it should remain in place. Also, I do not agree with user Whizz40's approach (proposed edits) on how the remaining countries should be listed, there are several issues with that as well, you are listing countries like Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico over nations such as Poland, Netherlands, Yugoslavia, Greece. --E-960 (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Big Three / Four label and weight

I see in the discussion above that the order of nations is being discussed, but I have a huge problem with the label "Big Four" which is a little-used and minor revisionist label. The major label, the one used by the great majority of sources, is "Big Three". China may have been the fourth largest, but was not considered so large that Three became Four in the majority of sources. If we count sources, Big Three wins by WP:WEIGHT. Binksternet (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support the change made to present the Big Three in chronological order then Other Allied combatant states with China at the top. Based on the weight of sources and discussion above. Whizz40 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, that is the change that I myself proposed. The question is even not in the number of sources: as I already explained, "Big Four" is (i) US-centric POV (opposed by Britain and USSR), and (ii) mostly a post-WWII concept (the Big Four played no global role in WWII, and they never met together, and never issued any joint declarations: there were either a broader list of signatories, or the signatories were the Big Three). I also propose not to separate the Big Three from other Allies (in contrast to what we have in the current version). The best solution would be this (but other Allies should be moved up, and occupied states should go down.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Yes to chronological order. Yes to "big three". A search in Google Scholar indicates that "Big "three" is the predominant term. --— Erik Jr. 18:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reluctantly 'yes but in the order of the last stable version] before this circus began. The Banner talk 19:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
• Consensus is not an up or down vote, and it seems we are using criteria for change that runs contrary to some of the arguments used on the WWII talk page. So, for the WWII article chronological order was not accepted for various reasons, but here it will be used? We can put the countries in chronological order if that approach gets accepted on the WWII article, then we can use it here, as for now, I think keeping the long-standing versions is optimal to prevent endless debates. --E-960 (talk) 13:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments & discussion

Erik den yngre Taking into account that SSJW has never been officially declared, China was not at war with Japan until Dec 1941. Similarly, Soviet-Japanese border wars didn't lead to a war declaration, but their scale was significant. Therefore, if we do not focus at Europe and Nazi too much, we must accept that China, and then USSR (in that order) were the two states who were de facto at war with future Axis before Poland, Britain, and France joined that war. I am just demonstrating how convoluted a seemingly simple solution to put everybody in a chronological order could be.

The Banner Do you have any rational arguments (besides your old argument that a "stable version" is sacred)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Start reading the history of this page. The Banner talk 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The Banner, I am not sure that is a good approach. I presented my arguments and facts, and I did my best to be brief and focused (to save your time). In a response, you propose me to read the whole talk page history, without even attempting to give any clue. Imo, that is a sign of disrespect. I am not a novice, and I am heavily involved in the work on the WWII article (this article is a spinoff article of the latter). On the WWII's talk page, I am patiently explaining to every newcomer that their arguments had been already raised and addressed in the past, and I am expecting to be treated with the same respect here. In addition, as I already explained, this article and WWII are not independent, they should be consistent with each other, and the arguments presented at the WWII talk page are equally relevant to this article. Therefore, it would be similarly helpful if you familiarized yourself with a recent discussion (last 6 moths) at the WWII talk page.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about Allies of World War II, not another article. So the arguments have to be brought up here to explain and justify why the breaking of the standing was valid. And no, I am not a novice. The Banner talk 23:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, All facts and significant points of view on a given subject should be treated in one article except in the case of a spinoff sub-article. Spinoff articles are allowed only if they meet some criteria. Therefore, all what was said on that subject in the WWII article (including the talk page) has a direct relevance to this article, because it is the WWII's spinoff article. If you disagree with that, you view directly contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, pls stop threatening me with "action", that's nothing more then intimidation. You fail to take into account the fact that Wikipedia rules give long-standing material precedent over new edits, as in Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, so once reverted user Whizz40 should not be restoring the text while the discussion failed to reach a consensus, so I'm not sure how you assume that restoring the original long-standing text is the disruptive behavior in this case. --E-960 (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite an opposite: Editors who revert a change proposed by an edit should generally avoid terse explanations (such as "against consensus") which provide little guidance to the proposing editor (or, if you do use such terse explanations, it is helpful to also include a link to the discussion where the consensus was formed). Therefore, your argumentation style directly contradicts to our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960, I reverted you as the change to Big Three in chronological order has been discussed for some time now and does have the support of several editors on Talk and with their own edits to the article. It is not correct to say I made the recent change. Whizz40 (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The key conferences and agreements regarding the war involved UK, USSR and USA. China and de Gaulle had minor roles in these decisions. "The Big 3" is the most common label in reliable sources. WW2 began at 4 in the morning, September 1, 1939, without the US involved while UK formally involved on Sept 3rd. While Stalin kind of switched side in 1941. With UK involved Australia, NZ, Canada and British India followed. Smaller European countries (even Iceland) were defacto allied with UK from 1940, and formally from may-june 1941 (prior to Barbarossa for some countries). Timeline is crucial. At least until June 22, 1941, the global alliance opposing Hitler clearly had London at its centre. — Erik Jr. 13:20, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• If you are going to use chronology for the list, then at least use it for all the countries, not just for the some. Also, there is no point in sub-dividing the other allies, for example Poland was a combatant state in 1939 then it had a government in exile, so what's the point of sub-dividing such nations into a category of governments in exile. --E-960 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

• Support, agree this is a good simplification and improvement. Whizz40 (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Now, I would suggest the same approach for the WWII article, list the leaders in chronological order and only keep the Big 3. --E-960 (talk) 13:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I disgaree, as I said govt. in exiles should not be conflated with combatant states, even technically/factually incorrect at some instances. Chronology may applied all subsections in the infobox, but those grouping should not be conflated. Regarding those cases what you said, duration of status may decide which grouping would fit better, i.e., however regarding this I think it's quite accurate.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC))

Comment - the First Inter-Allied Meeting took place after the continental European governments were in exile. Before that, there was the Franco-Polish alliance, Anglo-Polish alliance and Anglo-French War Council. This leads to: 1) the governments in exile were the principal members of the Allies, rather than the governments before exile. France is a case in point: although the French Third Republic was allied with Poland and Britain from the outset of the War, once the wider group of allies formed at the First-Inter Allied meeting, it was De Gaulle, as leader of the Free French, who joined the allies[18] and eventually formed a post-war government. 2) There is a distinction between them and other combatant states. For example, the Dominions were listed first in the Declaration of St James's Palace and being in exile limited the ability of the governments/countries to participate in most of the War. Denmark fought the Nazis at the outset but is not usually included in the Allies because after it was occupied the govt broke relations with the Allied powers.(Axis_powers#Denmark) From this point of view, the list of Allies ought to include Free France rather than the French Third Republic, and similarly, it was the other governments in exile that were members of the Allies. Given this, two distinct sections may make sense in the Infobox after all Whizz40 (talk) 11:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what I say, the issue is complex, each entries should be discussed and chose the best solution.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC))

I adjusted the title for the exile-government allies from "Allied governments-in-exile" to "Allies with governments-in-exile" to remove supposed grouping of "pure exiles" like Czechoslovakia with other countries... Otherwise I think the overall infobox is good as it currently is[19].
I personally think China should be included as part of the "Big Four" when considering the role of Chiang Kai-Shek as a Supreme Allied Commander and China's dominant role in the continental Asian war (which is why Chiang was chosen to be a "Supreme Allied Commander" of such an area). That role was only divided up to a few men for the large overall Allied war-zones across the world, and China held one of these like the other "Big's", putting China a step "above" France/Yugoslavia/Poland etc in my opinion. Guess its a matter of discussion (as seen above...) considering their more limited role globally/diplomatically speaking. But putting them as the first listed "other combatant" is okay too, I guess. --Havsjö (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Havsjö, I am sorry to see others continue edit warring instead to build consensus here, so I will revert to yesterdays version, but we can revert further. Everyone should follow our rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

As I already explained, there are some problems with that approach: first, do we focus at war declaration on Germany, only, or the order should reflect a start of hostilities against any of the Axis "Big Three"? Second, do we speac about de jure or de facto war? That is important, because China joined the war de jure only after Pearl Harbor. Before that, there were no state of war between her and Japan, and no de facto war with the European Axis. However, keeping in mind that a major part of SSJW hostilities occurred in 1937-41, such an approach would be too formal.

If we choose the start of de facto hostilities as a criterion of chronological order, then what should be do with Khalkhin Gol? That war was also undeclared, but the scale of hostilities was greater than that of the whole "Phony war" (when France was de jure at war with Germany, but de facto was not).

All those questions must be clarified before we make a decision about using a chronological order.

With regard to the WWII infobox, mixing two different questions (leader's role and involvement of states) is counter-productive. In addition, it should be discussed in a context of the WWII talk page discussion. Some consensus was established on the WWII talk page, and proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

de jure or de facto ...seriously? You can always throw around exceptions to the rule or technicalities, to undermine just about anything. These are just legal terms (you could then argue that Hitler never declared war on Poland, so was Poland in war with Germany), I find that whole approach rather questionable, so think of it that way, when was each of those nations forced into war (as in aggression being waged against it or joined the fight to support other countries). --E-960 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, then if we consider WWII as a global conflict, and agree that China was at war with Japan (a future Axis member) since 1937, then China should go first in a global chronological list of all Allies. However, for consistency, the same approach should be applied to the USSR (Khalkhin Gol), which took place before Poland, Britain, and France joined WWII. The argument that no Axis existed by that time is not working, because the Axis did not exist formally by 1 Sept, 1939 either. The only formal agreement between future Axis member that was active by that date was Anticomintern Pact, which was directed primarily against the USSR, not other future Allies.

I am just demonstrating how many problems arises if we try to apply the chronological approach consistently.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

the Ethiopian-Italian was in 1935 so that's before 1937. --E-960 (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Ethiopian-Italian war, as well as Spanish Civil war (a proxy war between the USSR and Germany) are generally considered as pre-war events. In contrast, a significant minority considers SSJW as a part of WWII (even the WWII collage includes a pre-1939 picture).--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

WW2 began on September 1, 1939, and the UK and France got involved 2 days later. These are the key dates. — Erik Jr. 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, your comments on the WWII and WWII Allies page have consistency been nothing more then minority views, technicalities and exceptions to the rule. This is not helpful and it makes the article a confused mess — is this your aim? I don't know, but you throwing around technicalities and not providing a clear picture lead to this. Erik Jr. most commonly accepted date is 1 Sept, 1939. --E-960 (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

No, these are not just technicalities. There was a very long discussion about the date of WWII's start. In general, the date of 1st Sept,, 1939 is just one out of three dates (other two are the start of SSJW and Pearl Harbor). Yes, it is the most commonly accepted date, but other two dates represent significant minority views, and the WWII article implicitly reflects the fact that the WWII's start is considered by many Asian states to be 1937. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, all these comments are minority views or just opinions, which are repeatedly being pushed on Wikipedia. Just like in the past, Nick-D's objection to include the term "Genocide" in the WWII article (strange someone would even question this), or the constant pushes to have Stalin listed first in the infobox (without actually providing any reference sources which state that Stalin was the leading figure among the allied leaders). What is the end result of this, well watering down of facts, including that Nazi Germany and Japan were the main aggressors who initiated the war of annihilation and that the Soviet Union was only a convenient short term ally to the democratic West (it did not lead the alliance, and in fact first sided with Nazi Germany). In other words, such editors mentioned are pushing a POV on this article which does not correlate with what most English language sources state, like with the 1 Sept, 1939 date (you don't provide majority view sources, just opinions or synthesis to back up an arguments). --E-960 (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Government in exile, France, etc

I still think this version is illogical and misleading. An impression that a reader may draw from that infobox is that the major driving force in the war belonged to the Bid Three, governments in exile, and other states played auxiliary roles. All of that is incorrect in two major aspects.

First, many combatants are described as governments in exile incorrectly. Thus, Poland's war efforts can only partially be attributed to the "London Poles": first, in 1939 and 1944-45, Poland was a full scale combatant (in 1939 and 1945 in Poland proper), and "London Poles" had no relation to that. The same can be said about France: in 1940, there was a full scale campaign that involved several million troops, and the Third republic was by no means a "government in exile". In addition, Free French were based on French territories (including colonies in Africa), so they could be only conditionally considered a "government in exile". Yes, France lost its capital, but China lost her capital too, which didn't make it a government in exile. In general, calling some combatant a "government in exile" is usually not precise. That may work for such countries as Czechoslovakia, which was occupied without any hostilities, but in majority cases a full or partial occupation was preceded by some armed resistance (and, in many cases, there was also some armed participation in joint Allied war efforts by the end of war). In connection to that, it would be misleading and insulting to describe a state that was occupied during just some part of WWII a "government in exile"

Second, a contribution of true governments in exile into Allied war efforts was minimal, whereas the role of such countries as Poland, Yugoslavia, France, China, Canada, Australia etc was much more significant. It would be fundamentally incorrect to separate these combatants from the Big Three (and the fact that it was formerly "Four Policemen" change nothing in that aspect).

In connection to that, this version is much more factually correct, whereas the current one is deeply misleading. I couldn't see any satisfactory rationale that would support the current version, because any reasonable reader expect to see France, China, Poland, Canada immediately below the Big Three, but not Ethyopia etc.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

After I've made this post, I noticed that change. I fully support it, and I propose everybody to refrain from reverting it without discussion, because the previous version is not a consensus version anymore.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Having a sub-category for governments in exile is ridiculous, since almost all of those countries were combatants at one point, with the exception of Czechoslovakia. Also, Havsjö does't even bother to join the discussion, just keeps re-adding the questionable section, even in the face of presented facts which show that these states were not just governments in exile, that's nothing more then a stonewalling tactic. --E-960 (talk) 09:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Its not a section for "governments in exile", but for "allies which had a government in exile", so its not implying they were only exile-governments. But that section could be merged with the "other allied combatant states" with "Greek exile government" just becoming "Greece", I agree --Havsjö (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

• Poland fought a war with Germany — what you are implying by your version of the list is that all those countries were just annexed by Germany like Czechoslovakia and then just had governments in exile. What kind of non-sense is that? Just stop with the POV! --E-960 (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

E-960,

you should stop edit warring, and your approach is as well erroneus, since you are presenting some entities as states, although some were not states, just govt-in-exiles. Havsjö joined the discussion, which has been conducted above. Please stop saying like Czechoslovakia was annexed by Germany, because it was not, just the Sudetes. So some separation has to be done, and if you check one of my trials ([20]) would solve the problem about Poland, but this Havsjö rejected for now. And I tell the last time, discussion and consensus should be built here, anyone should stop abusing that part, until we don't decide a new consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

@Havsjö - Could you define your motive behind this [21] particular edit of yours? What was the exact reason you focused on this specific country after your edits were reverted? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella: I changed the order other than the one you linked to in the edit immediately previous to what you linked[22]. That previous edit was done since China (arguably the "Big Fourth") and France (whose position as a "Main" Allied power made them a permanent member of the UN Security Council, along with China) were very low in the order of the countries. I also restored the removed info regarding Free France's precarious position and removed Denmark, as they were not an Allied power. After those adjustments were made I saw that Poland, who fought "normally" for 1 month before becoming an exile-government (no ill-meaning intended with this statement), was listed above countries like India, Canada etc which fielded several millions men throughout the entire war period. I therefore adjusted Poland's position to group it more together with similar countries like Yugoslavia, Netherlands, Greece etc. --Havsjö (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I can add that I hold no bias against Poland, as claimed by E960, who incorrectly asserts that because Poland was listed among "Allied powers with exile-governments" in the previously used listing-style (on account of the country participating in WW2 as an exile-government in 71 out of the wars 72 total months), it somehow implies they were not participants in the war at all. --Havsjö (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I'll tell you my honest opinion after reading your response. I strongly believe that you should discuss your preferred changes further with Paul S. and E-960. Also, I think you might find this article helpful [23] I'm relating to this part of your comment in particular - quote --> "Poland, who fought "normally" for 1 month before becoming an exile-government (no ill-meaning intended with this statement), was listed above countries like India, Canada etc which fielded several millions men throughout the war entire period." I'll adjust your edits to the version I believe is favored by editors here, okay? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I know Poland contributed to the Allied war effort, this is why they are comparatively high in the listing. But they are more suitably listed among the other countries who also fought a "conventional" war before continuing to fight as an exile government. To this explanation you linked the article "Polish contribution to World War II" as a response/"counter-argument", I guess this is meant to imply that Netherlands/Yugoslavia/Greece did not particularly contribute to the war effort since their position was "okay'ed" and separated from Poland. I guess they should not be associated with Poland's superior efforts? Well I would say that those countries also contributed to the war, but that they, along with similarly situated Poland, should not be given arbitrarily undue focus placed above the top power's who had army groups with millions of men throughout the war or became main UN members --Havsjö (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@Havsjö ---> Please re-read my comment and notify me if you are still standing behind your response, okay? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I legitimately dont get your point. The appropriateness of the change to the current style of listing was already questionable considering the above discussion regarding ordering (above this section). Ignoring that, I dont see anything controversial or wrong (unless a nonexistent anti-Polish bias is inferred) for my given reasoning of grouping Poland with similar European powers (and still as the "highest" of these) in this imposed new style of listing, with main belligerents (as declared by UN etc) and contributors of entire army-groups/campaigns being somewhat "prioritized" in their positioning vis-a-vis the previously very prominent position awarded to Poland by its self-professed "fans" --Havsjö (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Havsjö, think about my proposal/diff which is presented above Gizzy's question to you (it's not fortunate the discussion soon splits into three), that would solve all problems, namely which entity when trasitioned, then there would be no debate.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC))

• The current infobox is bad. I have no idea why we are distinguishing Allied combatants with governments-in-exile or why they are listed above "other Allied combatant states". The whole setup is ridiculous. Why is Czechoslovakia above China? Why is Luxembourg above Yugoslavia? Why do we see Free France rather than just France? Kiengir's proposal is better, but I still think we should ditch the "exile" baloney. The chief contribution of Yugoslavia was not from its gov't-in-exile. Nor was Ethiopia's. Even after the fight ended in Belgium and the Netherlands proper, they fought from their unoccupied colonies. And Norway's main contribution was made before its gov't went into exile. I agree with Paul Siebert's comment at the top. Srnec (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Practically what you call as current is akin with the status quo one (and it's definetly better unlike some trials in the intermediary edits which were worse), just the govt-in-ex list was moved upwards and other allied combatant states downwards, because E-960 suggested that earlier. Havsjö thought my proposal would be undue, however, he tried to improve the section with good faith, with notes. Still I think my proposal would fix the transitions to govt-in-exiles, and as a second phase we may discuss the order of listings (in this I won't even intervene as by the main leaders, for me it's irrelevant, I just care about factual and professional semantic categorization of the respective entities).(KIENGIR (talk) 02:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC))

Thanks KIENGIR. Paul Siebert Could you please take a closer look at it when you get a chance? (see Srnec comment above) Havsjö Please hold on making additional changes, for now, okay? Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see much need to specify which Allies got gov-in-exile. The case for Czech and Ethiopia is that they were already in exile by the time the war started, but so what? My preference is for [24] but merge Czech and Ethiopia with the rest. I'd also support adding time periods to all Allies, currently those are given only for the Big Three and the ones that switched sides. Why not for the rest? And finally, yes, the current version with Free France but not France is misleading. France was a major ally, then it became... difficult. This can be explained in a note, as can be the situations of other stranger cases (Czech, Ethiopia, China... oh, and Korea - which currently gets an unreferenced(!) section and no infobox entry... that's a mess). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your first preference with merging the rest would be even worse, since you would identify an entity as a state, which was not a state. If my understanding is correct, your second preference with time periods are that trial I introduced, in which transitions are highlighted regarding the status change. Free France has a note, mainly the current listing opts to highlight the exact status' duration at first. Still I consider my proposal would be the best.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

I agree that all "other" Allies could be grouped together regardless of gov-in-exile status or not. Dates for everyone I think would be a clusterf*ck, it makes sense for the former-axis, since they obviosuly were against the allies until those specific times. The dates for the Big 3 could have some arguments for/against it, but its can be usefull to show since 2 of the "bigs" didnt join until some time in. But for everyone is just too much and would introduce tons of endless arguments regarding what dates should be used for each case when it comes to formal declaration of war / de-facto participation / formal joining the allies etc etc etc.
"Free France" instead of "France" (obviously with the note explaining "France"'s situation) I personally think is better since "Free France" (and its subsequent re-name in 1944) represented the French contribution to the Allies from 1940-1945, compared to "France" only in the first months... (and against, the note ensures "France" is not ignored!). Lastly, Korea had no recognition and was not considered a member of the allies --Havsjö (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Havsjö, I understood you from the beginning, you choose that entity that duration has been longer, similarly to Poland in the given timeline. However, any plans you express in your first sentence may be only safely conducted if the section title is accurate. There are some entities which were not states, just govt-in-exile, there are which were both, etc. I won't agree a sloppy/lame/erroneus solution, the grouping should be accurate and not every entity may be in the same level, so even if you would consider clusterdates as an overkill, if it would only satisfy demands, then it should be done. However, if not, the current version is acceptable, as it is avoiding to say that all of them would be states, so the list may contain either states or just govts-in-ex's, or even entitities that were both.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, Infobox should be simple. Poland and France were the primary participants. The fact that Poland was in fact Second Polish Republic replaced by the Polish government in exile (as well as the Soviet puppet faction in the later years) is not as important. Same for France. France is France, and the split into Vichy and Free factions later is not that important to explain in the lead. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus,

maybe you to noticed my concern is the accurate semantical grouping, and how this is grouping is called. If this is solved, double listing is marginal. I reiterate, the current version is acceptable, but if there would be a demand to change, that has also to be conform with these principles.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, First, I am not sure what is your preferred version (the proposals are not clearly explained in the op section of this discussion, maybe someone should create a subsection clearly explaining this and a vote/RfC?). Anyway, I would support simplifying everything to Allied combatants. 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents' is also a confusing heading as it doesn't make it clear those countries became 'Allied combatants' eventually. Either they should be merged with the rest (with a note) or the heading needs to be 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents [which switched sides/which later became Allied combatants]' or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, a situation with Third French Republic is similar: like Polish Second Republic, she was a principal belligerent during some period of WWII, and its relation to Free France was not direct (and I don't understand why the flag of France is not present in the infobox, for the scale of hostilities Free France was involved in is hardly comparable with that of the Third republic).

In general, I don't see why the existence of a government in exile is really important factor. In my opinion, it would be much better to group all Allies together, and supplement the Allies with a govt-in-exile with a footnote. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the in exile govts played major military roles-- esp France, Netherlands, Norway. They still had their navy and merchant fleets that were large and important in terms of delivering US arms. Rjensen (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not claim their role was more or less significant, my point is that having a government in exile is not a criterion that requires separation into some specific category: I don't see any advantages in that approach, but I see that that may lead to significant problems.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, any revision I set since (including) 23:50, 14 January 2021. A vote/RFC is unnecessary since we did not present clear alternatives, just proposals, and before such procedure, they have to be comfirmed that they are semantically correct and accurate. The title of Former Axis powers or co-belligerents may be changed but and complete merging seems unreasonable, btw. in case if you'd wish to have just Allied combatants as a title, then some entries has to be visibly amended as govt-exiles.

Paul, in case I don't see a footnote sufficient at all instances. Moreover some users would start to debate the ordering...so it's better to propose here an exact layout of a solution, and here to assess and evaluate and improve it, and when it is finally acceptable to all of us, then launch it.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC))

We already are debating the order, concretely, the question if AWGEs should go before OA or after them. And all of that does not answer my major question: is the fact that AWGE had (during some period of time in 1939-19450 a govt in exile really so important that it warrants creation of a separate subcategory? And why AWGE should go before OA? And why the French Third Republic, which was not an AWGE, but was a major combatant in 1940, is not mentioned at all?--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

- (i) AWGE - OA order for me is irrelevant, may decide others

- (ii) yes, otherwise you have to ignore listing some entities as states, and in a way it indicates the weight, compared to other entities which are not occupied and with full control/full power may be sovereign combatants

- (iii) = (i)

- (iv) = as we discussed, there has been a principle/discussion the duration decided whether the combatant was identified as govt-i-e or not (if both applicable). Double listing would solve, otherwise choose by any principle and footnote amend the other (btw. this is as well not so much relevant to me, but I tend to agree the duration principle, if double listing is voided).(KIENGIR (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I am still not convinced there is a meaningful distinction between powers that were occupied and had in-exile governments and others. Who else besides you supports such a split? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus,

I would expect from you exact arguments of your reasons, besides the disctintion has always been, and kept even most of the trials made in past weeks by other editors. The problem is not even this was the main issue, but was a by-product of the Big Four/Big three listing debate, the importance-ordering-listing debate, which are nominally different issues. Additively, the same arisen meanwhile like Brazil or Mexico should be by any means grouped with the other groups (shall they be govt-i-ex or sovereign powers, etc.). As well, meanwhile the sloppy edit-warring like intermediary edits, grouping titles have been updated sometimes without care, and the semantics turned upside down, despite the intention or just because the editor did not had an expert knowledge in the field. As you see, I offered more alternatives which does not necessarily exclude what you would support, but for that (ii) has to strictly kept, next to an accurate title in case of a possible amalgamated group which would exclude any semantic error. I hope you see any new solution should be exactly presented and outlined here for review as I pinpointed, since even nominally unrelated issues may effect each other in the infobox.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I stand by my view that one group (outside Big Three) is best, and importance can be shown through years of activity (so countries that joined the Allies in the last phase and contributed next to no effort like Brazil or Mexico would be visible in that way). If there is a concern of 'too much small text', perhaps we could group the allies by age range sections. Like, by year. By year grouping would also make it possible (although I am not saying, desirable) to include related entities like France and Free France. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Do I correctly understand that AWGE vs OE division is actually a division onto the Allies whose territory was fully occupied vs the Allies whose territory was not occupied or occupied only partially? If yes, why is that so important? --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, I think you are correct. An answer was given above that the countries which were not occupied contributed more to the war effort, but I think that's an unproven claim. Poland which was occupied contributed much more to the war effort than Brazil which wasn't. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

- Piotrus, that means you would merge as well the Former Axis powers or co-belligerents (it would be really strange...)? Btw., now you even listed a few other possible criterias, that's why a visible trial should be maintained the talk for review, since one bunch of proposals will attract likely identical number of ones...

- Paul, no, some entities of the AWGE list fell outside the timeline was even non-existent that time.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC))

KIENGIR, I didnt mean to imply that 'Former Axis powers or co-belligerents' should be merged with others, those can have their own subsection, although there is still the issue of USSR which was both a powerful ally from 1941 onward but a co-belligerent of the Axis (against Poland) in 1939. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Former Axis powers or co-belligerents: why is USSR not here?

We list currently Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland. But why not USSR? Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact and Soviet invasion of Poland, anyone? It was a brief period, but in September-October 1939 Soviet acted as a German ally against Poland, as much as later this was airbrushed over by various parties. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Good point.. - GizzyCatBella🍁 14:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is also presented in the Axis Powers article.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC))

A note-tag on the Soviet Union in the "Big 3" section mentioning its previous cooperation with Germany against Poland is probably clearer/smoother than to double-list it in / move it to the "former Axis" section --Havsjö (talk) 08:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Havsjö, Almost nobody will read the note. Double listing is not ideal either, I concur. Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"Almost nobody will read the note" What do you base this statement on? A goldfish attention span? --Havsjö (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also see no serious reason for double listing, especially taking into account that no country is listed twice in this infobox. All countries listed as ex-Axis or co-belligerents are correctly listed in this subcategory because their contribution to the Axis war efforts was much greater than their role as the Allies (except probably for Iraq). In the Soviet Union case, its role during the Invasion of Poland was negligible as compared to its subsequent contribution into the Allied war efforts, so the footnote is quite sufficient.

Moreover, I find the Soviet Union section totally unsatisfactory: it makes a huge stress on the period of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement, whereas all previous (Soviet-Nazi tensions, anti-Comintern pack as a seed for future Axis formation, Spanish civil war, Soviet opposition to Munich and occupation of Czechoslovakia) and subsequent (Soviet role during 1941-45) events are almost totally ignored. I am going to rewrite that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, "In the Soviet Union case, its role during the Invasion of Poland was negligible as compared to its subsequent contribution into the Allied war efforts". That's speculation. If the USSR did not invade Poland, maybe Poland would have held out until the promised French-British relief effort and the war would have ended in 1940 without becoming global. By that logic it was the USSR invasion which led to the escalation of this local war into a global one. Who knows? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Paul, a short-term arrangement, a non-aggression pact, is not significant. The USSR is not the same as Italy, Romania, Bulgaria and Finland.--Astral Leap (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Neither Britannica nor United States Holocaust Memorial Museum lists the Soviet Union as an Axis power, ally, or co-belligerent. Both make the opposite point, that the Axis was opposed to the Soviet Union, communism, and the Comintern from 1936.--Astral Leap (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

These are tertiary sources. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources. And as pointed out elsewhere, numerous historians, political scientists and Holocaust scholars refer to the Soviet Union in the 1939-1941 period as "allies" or "co-belligerents" (mostly as "allies", the "co-belligerents" shows up less often but that term has always been a sort of Wikipedia-specific "compromise"). Volunteer Marek 18:20, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

All of that are speculations. Had Soviet invasion been a really serious factor that affected Allied decision to refrain from any military actions against Germany, that would be widely and repeatedly cited in all Western books about WWII. However, even Churchill does not say so. In contrast, he, as well as many contemporary observers who didn't know about a secret protocol, saw the Soviet move to Curson line quite natural in that situation. I agree that the modern nationalist Polish discourse blames USSR and Nazi Germany in WWII outbreak in approximately the same proportion, but all of that has virtually no support from the Western scholarly community.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "speculations". Sources say "allies" when referring to Nazi Germany and Soviet Union in the period 1939-1941. There's nothing speculative here. Volunteer Marek 00:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

That was more a response to Piotrus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:34, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a liberty to restore a status quo ante bellum editorial. We all are experienced editors, let's talk first. As I already explained, the viewpoint on the role of the USSR in WWII that is currently very popular in Poland and some other Central European countries seems overrepresentid on Wikipedia pages. I found it non-neutral, and I propose to think about restoring a balance.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks but you actually restored a version from an editor with very few edits [25] who made a highly POV edit that kicked off this round of this perennial dispute. If we're gonna go back to "status quo ante bellum" then that is obviously not the version we want. Volunteer Marek 00:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VM and Piotrus, with due respect, your approach and your edit summaries are far from perfect. If you believe some account is suspicious, request for CU, othehrwise, please, treat them in the same way as all other good faith users.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Whether that account is suspicious or not is of secondary importance. The thing is, if you're going to claim to be restoring a version "status quo" then you need to restore the actual status quo version and not one right after a recent edit which introduced info you like. Volunteer Marek 01:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VP, please be logical. As far as i understand, the current conflict is about the footnote about the USSR. A previous discussion (Big three vs Four Policemen, and the order) had been resolved successfully, and there is no need to conflate the previously resolved issue with the new conflict.

With regard to a suspicious account, that was a primary argument in your edit summary: if this issue is of secondary importance, why do you cite it as a reason?

Finally, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence is a personal attack, and your (and this) edit summary can be considered as such accusations. I think, being very experienced users you are expected to refrain from that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, If there problem is with the footnote only, why did you revert my changes to the text of the Soviet section? Particularly as half of that edit was acting on what you said "I find the Soviet Union section totally unsatisfactory: it makes a huge stress on the period of Nazi-Soviet rapprochement...". My edit was significantly inspired by your comments above (and hence I removed what I saw as an off topic digression). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

My bad, I haven't noticed them. Anyway, I would prefer we all to refrain from editing until our discussion came to some logical end.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, WP:DUCK is obvious here. I don't know whose sock it is but we can all tell one when we see it. Let's not empower shady players like that, eh? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Piotrus, accusation of sockpuppetry is a serious accusation, and it should be made in a different place.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Since some people are trying to promote historical revisionism through sophistry we might as well include Poland as an Axis member. Further supporting evidence for my argument can be found here.--Catlemur (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Catlemur, Please, no straw man arguments. A simple difference is whether someone actually invaded and waged war (military operations) against another party or not. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed to double listing or other toying with USSR in the infobox Piotrus, Poland issued an ultimatum to Czechoslovakia, invaded, clashed with the defenders and then annexed a part of its territory at the same time as Nazi Germany did. This according to your own definition makes Poland an Axis co-belligerent. You are ignoring the Soviet contribution to the Second Sino-Japanese War and Spanish Civil War, the signing of the Anti-Comintern Pact and the assistance the Soviets gave to countless political refugees from Axis countries. Since there is no way you could be ignorant of those facts, that means that you purposefully advancing a Polish nationalist agenda through historical revisionism.--Catlemur (talk) 10:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Catlemur.

1) Please strike your personal attack above and false accusations about other editors.

2) Please refrain from speaking for others and saying what their "definition" is.

3) Refrain from talking about editors, focus on content.

If you don't stop this kind of behavior I am not going to hesitate to report you because it's exactly this kind of WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude that makes this area so toxic to edit in. Volunteer Marek 15:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: The very same person I supposedly personaly attacked, accused someone of being a sockpuppet with 0 proof to back it up, which is imho far worse than what I said. Piotrus said: "A simple difference is whether someone actually invaded and waged war." So I provided an example of Poland being an Axis co-belligerent based on his definition of what a co-belligerent is. Since you are so focused on content why don't you rebuke my argument instead of trying to intimidate me?--Catlemur (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

If you think that this person did something wrong then report them. Don't try to use it as an excuse for your own behavior. Seriously, strike that personal attack. Volunteer Marek 15:40, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you going to address the points I made about Polish co-belligerence in Czechoslovakia? Further proof can be found in the secret talks Poland and Nazi Germany held about Lithuania and their respective 1938 Polish ultimatum to Lithuania and 1939 German ultimatum to Lithuania.--Catlemur (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, as soon as you strike your personal attack. What's the point of engaging in discussion with someone who resorts to personal insults? Unlikely to be productive and probably a waste of time. Volunteer Marek 16:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

You have essentially lost the argument and indirectly proved my point. You are cool with people making baseless sock puppet allegations because they have the same POV as you but if someone that disagrees with you does something you don't like you refuse to even engage with them. You are not in a position to dictate who can or cannot participate in this discussion.--Catlemur (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

• Opposed to double listing or other toying with USSR in the infobox - An infobox is supposed to streamline information. As best broadly understood in the context of the entire war, categorizing the USSR as one of the big three suffices. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: If you want to say Soviet Union as axis of ww2 or co-belligerent of Axis that time, then pls give a persuasion about Battles of Khalkhin Gol which was concurrent battle with Battle of Poland and Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina which was conflicts between Kingdom of Romania and Soviet Union. Also remember that Soviet Union supported Republic of China when Second Sino-Japanese War occured. From 1939 to 1941, USSR didn't have consistent policy toward Axis power, so neither axis power or co-belligerent fits with situation and status of Soviet Union -- Wendylove (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

웬디러비, You make a good point about the complex Soviet position in that period. But the simple fact that it co-invaded Poland makes it a co-belligerent of Axis in that time, which is not exclusive to it also being a co-belligerent of the Allies through its actions in China. I am frankly not sure where their actions in the Balkans could even be located in this spectrum. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I think it is a good moment to play my lovely game: "naive Wikipedian". The rules are simple: we assume each of us knows nothing about the subject, and using a neutral search phrase(s) we are trying to find as many as possible sources in google scholar and/or jstor that tell about the USSR in 1939. Then we will compare quality of our sources, discuss neutrality in our keywords choice, and compare what each of those sources say. One additional condition: refrain from editing the article until the game ended. Who wants to play with me?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

• My turn: Using this search phrase Soviet Union Nazi germany 1939 pact, I got a list that contains sources, which I, by and large, already know, and which shaped my understanding of the 1939 history. I think this set of keywords is pretty neutral, and I believe any user with no previous knowledge of this subject would obtain the same set of sources. That means if we are not going to push some specific POV, this set of sources is nearly ideal.

In connection to that, I am asking if anybody can point at any problem with my search procedure? Maybe, you can propose a differenty set of keywords?--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, First Google Scholar hit for "USSR in 1939": To storm the Arctic: Soviet polar exploration and public visions of nature in the USSR, 1932-1939. How is this relevant to the issue here? Your proposed search term is too narrow and not really relevant here (instead, it is about 1939 in the Soviet Union). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Click at the link I already provided: the first hit is this, the second is this, the third is this, and the fourth is that. All of them are relevant.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Relevant for what? Outside [26] this mentioning the word "alliance" ("On the other hand, Hitler regarded the "alliance" with the USSR to be limited .."). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:24, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, I probably need to elaborate more on that. If you want to find sources confirming that USSR was a German ally, you will probably find a significant number of them. If you want to find sources saying that USSR was not a German ally, your search will also be successful. Our goal is different: to show how that issue is described in scholarly literature. To do that, the best way is to pretend we know nothing about that (i.e. to imagine we are totally ignorant), and to do a naive search to answer the following question:

I've just learned that some states called USSR and Nazi Germany existed in 1939. How their relationships were developing in 1930s?

The answer to this question will give us a maximally neutral way to describe Nazi-Soviet relations on the eve of WWII: thus, if majority of sources do not write about Nazi-Soviet alliance and use different words instead, that means the Nazi-Soviet alliance concept is not a part of a mainstream discourse (I do not claim that, because I haven't finished the analysis of sources).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Paul Siebert, Given your search term includes the term 'pact' I think you results will be very skewed. And without it, I don't know what relevance to WWII can we get from articles like the cited one about artic exploration. Futher, don't you think that alliance is a colloquial term, not particularly endorsed by scholars who looked into this more deeply, and co-belligerents makes more sense? Sometimes the most common term is not actually the best to focus on. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to propose your own keywords. I believe Nazi soviet relations 1939 is a superneutral set, but it gives roughly similar results. In general, my approach consists not in selecting a single set of keywords, but various sets. And that is just a starting point. After that, you check the sources those sources cite, and you continue searching until you start getting the same sources again and again. That demonstrates that your search procedure has converged. Just try it, it really works.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

further discussion (non relevant to the previous section)

The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact. The Polish government, who fled from Poland during the German invasion, tried to push the notion that the Soviet Union acted against the Allies, but the Allies and the international community would have none of it. Churchill himself welcomed the Soviet move, saying on 1 October 1939 that: "That the Russian armies should stand on this line was clearly necessary for the safety of Russia against the Nazi menace. At any rate, the line is there, and an Eastern Front has been created which Nazi Germany does not dare assail." https://books.google.com/books?id=MTPzJRV9hhgC&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22that+the+Russian+armies+should+stand+on+this+line+was+clearly+necessary+for+the+safety+of+Russia+against+the+Nazi+menace.+At+any+rate+the+line+is+there,+and+an+eastern+front+has+been+created+which+Nazi+Germany+does+not+dare+assail%22&source=bl&ots=1_IS8r1qqm&sig=ACfU3U1veJac8Y-xnRRBhYwfCR29kt1HnA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwinw_nsvbbuAhWCuaQKHUK9ADsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=%22that%20the%20Russian%20armies%20should%20stand%20on%20this%20line%20was%20clearly%20necessary%20for%20the%20safety%20of%20Russia%20against%20the%20Nazi%20menace.%20At%20any%20rate%20the%20line%20is%20there%2C%20and%20an%20eastern%20front%20has%20been%20created%20which%20Nazi%20Germany%20does%20not%20dare%20assail%22&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin Vaxx (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

How about you provide the entire quote as well as the text by the author that accompanies it?

Also, no one ever said that SU was part of the Axis Pact (though Stalin DID agree to join the Tripartite Pact, although at that point Hitler changed his mind). Volunteer Marek 08:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

VM, your description contradicts to what Roberts says about that. He writes that Molotov came to Berlin in response to Ribbentrop's invitation, and he and Hitler had serious disagreements about conditions of Soviet membership in the Axis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Erin Vaxx, Indeed. We are all in agreement that "The Soviet Union was never part of the Axis Pact". We should distinguish between the Tripartite Pact powers (Germany, Japan and Italy), states that adhered to the Tripartite Pact (Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia), and co-belligerent states (Finland, Iraq, Thailand, France in its Vichy incarnation, and the Soviet Union). Co-beligerence means attaching the same target as another country but without an official alliance. Is anyone here disputing the fact that both Germany and USSR invaded Poland in 1939? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

When the Soviet Union entered Poland, the Polish government and military were in a state of collapse. The forlorn hope of a last stand at the Romanian border was dashed by Romania caving in to German demands on September 14th.--Astral Leap (talk) 12:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

The status of Poland at the time and the ongoing fighting should not matter at all. In fact that part was not even discussed at the start of this chain of discussion. The USSR did invade Poland while acting in concert with the NG. The USSR did annex parts of Poland. How the USSR chose to rationalize its actions is irrelevant. How those events - and how that relates to the USSR's status when it did fight for the same goals as the NG - is to be represented is the issue here, not if it happened (as it did). - Wanderer602 (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I want to say that we should think about Soviet Union's position by "before 1941" and "after 1941". It seems that everyone agrees that since 1941, Soviet Union is Allies of WW2. But, before 1941, Soviet Union's situation was very complex. As I see, many of user who support that USSR was Axis or pro-Axis are talking about Invasion of Poland which occurred in September 1939. Of course USSR cooperated with Germany at that ti,e. But why don't you guys mention about Battle of Khalkhin Gol which occurred concurrently in September 1939? Why nobody mentions about Soviet Invasion of Romania in 1940 or Soviet Volunteer Group? I think those who insist that USSR was Axis just narrow their views to Invasion of Poland. If you see other concurrent conflicts which Soviet Union is connected with other Axis country, you cannot say Soviet Union was not a country to be Axis power or pro-Axis. -- Wendylove (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@웬디러비: We have reliable sources which say that Soviet Union was an ally or co-belligerent with Nazi Germany in 1939-1941. I guess the question is to what extent that is equivalent to saying that the Soviet Union was an ally or co-belligerent with Axis Powers. Obviously they were not allies with Japan. If I'm not mistaken this is actually why the phrase "co-belligerent" was chosen rather than the phrase "ally" (this is buried in the archives of related articles).

I think it's important that we acknowledge the complex situation of the Soviet Union here somehow. It does no service to our readers to just ignore it completely and pretend that the Soviet Union was always on the side of THE Allies. That's simply historically inaccurate. I am open to ideas of how to do this properly in a way that reflects sources. Volunteer Marek 16:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is why we can't say it in the infobox, its far to complex forc that.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Axis pact (tripartite pact) was not signed until September 1940. Pact of Steel (which did not involve Japan) was signed in May 1939. The main thing that did exist was the Anti-Comintern Pact (which with its secret protocol, that only affected Germany and Japan and not other signatories, was at best a defensive pact against the USSR) of 1936. So why would the Khalkin Gol influence anything? As to Romania... Romania signed tripartite pact in November 1940 - Soviet occupation (and annexation) took place in July 1940. So again, at the time Romania was not a member. - Wanderer602 (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The USSR had some agreements with the NAzis, they were not part of the Axis and apart from the invasion of Poland did not militarily cooperate with them. The bulk of sources I have seen do not list them as an Axis power, so neither should we.Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: The discussion is NOT about whether USSR should be listed as an Axis Power. No one is proposing that. Volunteer Marek 15:21, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nor were they a co-beligerant as they were not at war with Britain or France.Slatersteven (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Finland was never at war against the USA (or France) so per that logic it can not have been co-belligerent or an axis power either. You do understand that you can not have your cake and eat it too. - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can we (ALL) lay of the PA's and assumptions of bad faith? Frankly a few of you are one post way from ANI.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

ALL - including you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for page protection

Given the frequent edit warring over the last week, I've lodged a request for page protection at WP:RFPP. Stopping the edit warring might help with resolving the discussions above. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick, I am not sure we need a page protection in that situation: there is just a very small group of experienced users who (I hope) are quite prone to a dialogue. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be okay here Nick-D. - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

With respect, my experience is that a period of full protection is a good way of stopping the kind of back and forth editing which has been happening, and bringing the kind of discussions above to a resolution. The article history over the last couple of weeks is dominated by reversions of edits people have made without first gaining consensus in the discussions above. Nick-D (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nick-D - sure - GizzyCatBella🍁 01:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose to postpone protection to the next revert. I hope no reverts will follow until a new consensus is established.

Actually, my proposal to play a "naive Wikipedian" may be a good alternative to the article's protection (if others are ready do join me).--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Nick-D, I have no particular objection but what I see here is mostly good faithed BRD, and I think various reverts were on different topics. One thing that I think might help, however, is a semi protection, a recent edit by a likely sock is not helping. Can this be considered instead? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:22, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Based on the above I will decline the request at WP:RFPP. Sorry but I can't quickly see a need for semi-protection. Ping me if problems resume or request again. Johnuniq (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Johnuniq, Could you reconsider semi given Talk:Axis_powers#Temporary_extended_confirmed_protection? It's a closely related discussion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I saw the claim but I don't see recent edits by IPs and a half dozen accounts that I looked at would not be affected by semi-protection (if they're new, they are not new enough to be affected). Post a couple of recent diffs with a problem and I'll look. Same for Axis powers. Johnuniq (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)