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

[Nb1] on Soviet Union

I don't think the NB1 on Soviet Union in the info box is necessary because if they want to find more details about USSR involvement, they can read the article. The NB on Soviet Union really messes up the infobox formatting and makes it kinda messy to look at. Just a suggestion.

Yes, I removed it again. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed changes to the countries in the box

Folks, clearly the debate about which countries to include will go on, however I propose that we start somewhere. In this case, France and the UK. The current box has France as an with the Allies for the duration, which to someone who doesn't know any better, implies France as a country fought WWII from 1939-45 on team Allies. That's just not true, so I added a section under the Allies side called "Governments in exile" anticipating possible other additions. Under the Axis Client and puppet states I put Vichy France.

Also I grouped the British Commonwealth countries together because they came as part of the British package. I think the major powers ought to be listed by when they started fighting, which does put France ahead of the US/USSR; but unlike the latter, the French were willing to take on Hitler so their hearts were in the right place. I fully don't expect that to carry any weight, however since this is a proposal I figured I'd throw that in there and see how it looked. Anynobody(?) 04:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

World War II
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Major powers ranked by starting date China (1937–45) United Kingdom (1939–45) Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa France (1939–40) Soviet Union (1941–45) United States (1941–45) Poland (1939) Yugoslavia (1941–45) Greece (1940–45) Norway (1940) Netherlands (1940) Belgium (1940) Czechoslovakia Brazil (1942–45) Mexico (1942–45) ...and others Governments in exile Free France (1940-45) Client and puppet states Philippines (1941–45) Mongolia (1941–45) ...and others	Axis Japan (1937–45) Germany (1939–45) Italy (1940–43) Hungary (1940–45) Romania (1941–44) Bulgaria (1941–44) Co-belligerents Finland (1941–44) Thailand (1942–45) Iraq (1941) Client and puppet states Manchukuo (1937–45) Vichy France (1940–45) Italian Social Republic (1943–45) Croatia (1941–45) Slovakia ...and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders

Re: "...but unlike the latter, the French were willing to take on Hitler so their hearts were in the right place." Let's separate willingness from real actions. Whereas France was probably willing to take on Hitler in Sept 1939, they didn't do that, and preferred to betray Poland, and then had been waiting for Hitler's attack. After that, France surrendered rather quickly, and her participation was minor until the very last months of the war, so their hearts were in the right place, but their troops were not, and that was much more important. In contrast, whereas the USSR collaborated (mostly economically) with Germany in 1939-40, it took a major brunt of was against the European Axis during the most crucial years of the WWII, namely, during 1941-43, when other Allies had not been involved in any of major theatres of war in Europe (Mediterranean and Italy cannot be considered as major theatres of war). Therefore, I find your argumentation totally unconvincing.
The idea to create a separate section for governments in exile sounds reasonable.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:37, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, your division onto major and minor belligerents is also subjective. Thus, some authors argue that polish military contribution was greater than that of France...--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Listing Canada, Australia, NZ, and S.Africa under the UK is an insult to those countries. Any vet from Canada would have told you they were fighting for Canada, not the UK, queen, or commonwealth. Even if they were, listing them under the UK is ridiculous to say the least. They are their own countries, with their own armies. UrbanNerd (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Vichy France collaborated heavily with Germany, but it was in no way a German puppet. Petain was appointed before the armistice and the transformation into a totalitarian regime was a solely French controlled process without German interference. Due the German threat at their border Vichy France was certainly forced to give heavy concessions to Germany (like in Syria), but apart from that it was a fully souvereign state with a large colonial empire and internationally recognized as "the" France, even by the Allies (at least until 1942, when Vichy officials like Darlan switched sides). Therefore putting it on the Axis side as a puppet state among states like the RSI or Manchuko is to far fetched. Just wanted to note that, other issues with this proposal have been raised already too before and after my post. StoneProphet (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose A total non-starter. As for France or Poland in exile, then we'll have to add Latvia in exile as an ally, as in its only act of war, the Latvian Legation signed over the Latvian merchant fleet to the Allied cause, in which it served admirably. I suggest we revisit needing to show the USSR and Germany on the same side before Barbarossa. That the USSR wasn't an Axis signatory is red herring. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 23:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Signing merchant fleet is hardly an act of war (if it were an act of war, the US had to be considered as a belligerent since 1940, when they provided Britain with their destroyers). I doubt if it was an act of war at all. I also would like to know whom concretely the Allies considered as a head of the Latvian "government in exile" (I am not aware of any act of recognition of any Latvian government by major Allied powers). Please, stop your soapboxing: many Latvians were among the most active Holocaust perpetrators, they fought bravely against the major Allied power (the USSR), and it would be a nonsense to claim they were the Allies.

Regarding your "red herring", please, name an ally against whom the USSR waged a war in 1939-41.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. At first view for the reader, it seems like China and Japan were the most important belligerants of World War II. I'd rather leave the infobox as it is, which current state seems to satisfy the largest number of users here. I appreciate your effort, but I definitely do not believe in the idea of listing countries by their enter into the war. It should be done by contribution to the war effort, and it is rather clear that the Soviet Union, the US, and the United Kingdom are the most important members of the Allies. As for the Axis, Germany was certainly the most prominent nation, why having Japan first? This is merely an opinion. Regards, Bright Darkness (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per UrbanNerd, StoneProphet, Vecrumba, and Bright Darkness. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 01:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Canada, Australia, etc. were independent kingdoms post-1931. The proposer is obviously not aware of how Canada declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Thailand

Hi! I suggest to add Thailand as a co-belligerent with the Allies in their war with Vichy France in 1940 until their surrender to Japan in 1941. After that it should be indicated as puppet state of Japan.--Anixx1 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Fighting Vichy does not make one an ally. Thailand's internationally-recognised legal government declared war on the Allies in 1942, so I wouldn't call it a puppet state, although its decision was made under duress. 216.8.154.254 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was under Japanese occupation. The occupation was complete. The declaration of war by the Japanese-controlled government was not procedurally valid as it was not signed neither by the king, nor by the regent (which was mandatory). The regent refused to sign it and the king was not in Thailand. This was the reason why the Thai ambassador in the US regarded this declaration void and did not deliver it to the US government. The US did not consider Thailand in a state of war.--Anixx1 (talk) 04:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Plaek Phibunsongkhram was in power not the king. Many of the allied powers (for example South Africa, Australia, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand) declared war on Thailand. Plaek also purged all anti-Japanese ministers from his government and invaded Burma. Unlike the puppet states listed in the infobox, Thailand was a widely recognized independent state during world war two. The various puppet states were only recognized by a mere handful of nations. They were clearly co-belligerents in the same manner as the Finns were.XavierGreen (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Collapsible list

We've discussed collapsing the very long list of countries before but leaving the major ones; can we try (instead) collapsing all of them, as seen here? The infobox is currently far too long, if you'll oblige and look at it in the context of the main article. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Opposes - should not hide content or have multiple steps involved in deriving serviceable information. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Users with limited CSS/JavaScript support. Moxy (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Now now, that's not true at all: "consideration for users without CSS or JavaScript should extend mainly to making sure that their reading experience is possible; it is recognised that it will inevitably be inferior." Those without Javascript would simply see the list expanded by default. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Scrolling lists and collapsible content.Moxy (talk) 15:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose As per Moxy's comments and MANY other previous to this. UrbanNerd (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

China and Japan

Some idiot decided to remove the (1937-1945) tag on China and Japan. Do you know history? Do you know that TOTAL WAR between China and Japan started in 1937, so why do you delete it constantly? If you have 1941-45 tags for US, UK, Italy, Bulgaria, etc... there is absolute NO REASON to remove 1937-45 tag.

Firstly, no one here is an "idiot" besides yourself. Secondly it was reverted because this is infobox about WW2, not the fighting leading up to WW2. The war officially started in 1939, not 1937. By having no date it implies they were involved for the entire war. UrbanNerd (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)