Talk:World War II/Infobox/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

China / Japan, entry date

A single editor is repeatedly reverting multiple editors and barely skirting WP:3RR. My opinion is that the Japanese-Chinese war was a separate conflict absorbed into WWII in 1939, not that 1937 is the entry date of Japan and China into WWII. Can other editors give their opinions please. (Hohum ^@) 21:03, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

To me (and quite likely to the Chinese and Japanese), claiming that the war was absorbed into WWII in 1939 sounds absurd, their all-out war lastet from 1937 to 1945. Besides, the entry dates for all the other countries are correct, why should ROC and Japan's not be? It's not really relevant for this discussion, but is it really right that the pictures and the casualties tell you that the war lastet 1937-45 and the date given i 1939-45? Yonaka (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The majority of sources give the start date of WWII as 1939, so how does a seperate conflict enter WWII two years before it started? Additionally, most sources give an entry date for Japan into WWII as 1941. (Hohum ^@) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

"Croatia"

We should be careful not to abbreviate the entry of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH) into simply "Croatia". During WWII, there were two overlapping Croatian states, the Independent State of Croatia (abbrev. "NDH"), and the Federal State of Croatia (abbrev. "FS Croatia"). FS Croatia was a part of the Yugoslav federation but was nonetheless a fully sovereign, recognized, Allied country. Simplifying Independent State of Croatia into "Croatia" would be like listing Vichy France as "France". Possibly even worse, since "Vichy France" is an informal name for the actual legitimate French state, legal successor to the Third Republic (even though the French would contest that out of national pride :), while "Independent State of Croatia" was the official name of an entirely illegitimate Nazi puppet state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

FS Croatia was not part of the Allies. It "declared" by a communist council on May 9, 1944, and became an actual entity on November 29, 1945. Also seems kind of strange to be listing the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, when the Kingdom of Yugoslavia signed the formal Declaration by United Nations, and the kingdom existed until the King was deposed on 29 November 1945. Lt.Specht (talk) 05:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

??? Quite simply: not so. Perhaps not surprisingly, WWII Yugoslav history is highly complex and rather obscure.

Firstly, I did not list the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia redirect. In November 1943 the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia and the AVNOJ were recognized by the Allied powers at the Tehran Conference, in effect the powerless King Peter II and his government in London were forced (by Churchill) to recognize the AVNOJ and (among other things) the prefix "Democratic Federal" instead of "Kingdom" (the name "Democratic Federal Yugoslavia", was obviously carefully chosen in order to leave the issue of "republic or kingdom" open). It was decided in Tehran that the two Yugoslav governments would be forced to merge into one as soon as possible, as the Allies wanted the strong AVNOJ resistance to tie down Axis divisions and perhaps to aid Churchill's fanciful Balkans invasion, but I digress. As decided upon, the king's government and the AVNOJ came to an agreement in the Treaty of Vis. At that point even the King, who's family ruled the country as an effective dictatorship since 1929, recognized the federal organization of the state. The Federal State of Croatia was in existence since 1943 in the large non-occupied swathes of Yugoslav Croatian territory held by the resistance.

Also, while I do not take offense at this point, I will nevertheless ask you to please refrain from dismissing whole nations and states as "irrelevant" or as "existing only on paper". The statement is quite nonsensical [1]. Try to compare that with a statement that the Freistaat Preußen "existed only on paper". Both are inaccurate to the point of comedy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All of these sources say that the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia was formed in 1945, days before the war ended, with one source saying that the creation was sanctioned and put into effect by the Yugoslav parliament in November 1945. The last source seems to summarize everything quite well, After the Tito-Tito-Šubašić agreement, the united Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, headed by Marshal Tito, was set up on 7 March 1945. The dual representation of Yugoslavia abroad was thus ended, and the Allies de jure recognized the Provisional Government of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia. - [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Lt.Specht (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Tehran conference, no political decisions were made there. The Allies only recognized the partisans which were in Yugoslavia. Fourth, almost at the same time that AVNOJ was holding its second session, the Big Three were meeting in Tehran. Among the questions considered was the Yugoslav situation. The Tehran conference made no political recommendations in respect to Yugoslavia, but in their Military Decisions of December 1, 1943, they expressed agreement that "the Partisans of Yugoslavia should be supported by supplies and equipment to the greatest possible extent, and also by commando operations." [8] Lt.Specht (talk) 00:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sources but confirm what I've been saying. :) You're viewing them in the light of the misunderstanding we're trying to clear up. Note:

After the Tito-Tito-Šubašić agreement, the united Provisional Government of the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, headed by Marshal Tito, was set up on 7 March 1945.

This does not mean that the DF Yugoslavia was formed in March 1945, but that the two governments representing the Democratic Federal Yugoslavia were at last united at that time.

The dual representation of Yugoslavia abroad was thus ended, and the Allies de jure recognized the Provisional Government of Democratic Federal Yugoslavia.

This is basically what I've been saying. By agreement (forced by Churchill), as of 1944 Yugoslavia was Democratic Federal Yugoslavia, headed by two governments which were instructed to come to an agreement as soon as possible and merge, which they did in 1944 and 1945 respectively.

In the end it does not really matter, the Federal State of Croatia did in fact exist simultaneously with the Independent State of Croatia (NDH). Disambiguation is very much necessary, additionally perhaps because the succession of Croatian states disregards the NDH (Banovina of Croatia (1939-1943) -> Federal State of Croatia (1943-1945) -> Socialist Republic of Croatia (1945-1992)). WWII "Croatia" is the Federal State of Croatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Monetary cost of the war

Does anyone know where the figures in the infobox on how much money the war cost came from and what exactly they refer to? At present the figures are uncited and the way they're written ('Unadjusted U.S. Cost' and 'Present Day U.S. Cost') suggest that this is the cost of the war to the United States only (the figures also looks too low to refer to other countries, especially given the massive post-war reconstruction costs in Europe and much of Asia) Nick-D (talk) 23:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Poland

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

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

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

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

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

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

Free France

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Protected

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

Good call. This contentious WW2 discussion [9] was just archived and can be continued here, and could be a potential cause of warring. FWIW we had a 4-3 simple majority, plus undecideds, of editors wanting the Vichy France flag including in the Axis-aligned section here. I'd be in favour of adding a subdivision to the Axis side, to emphasise the difference between Vichy and e.g. Italy. Seems contradictory for Iraq to be there as it is, while Vichy France is not. I'd add Iraq to a subsection with Vichy France. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

World War II/Infobox/Archive 5
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) United Kingdom China (at war 1937-45) France (1939-40, 1944-45) Free France (1940-44) Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) and others	Axis and Axis-aligned Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Finland (1941-44) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) Vichy France (1940-1944) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

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

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

World War II/Infobox/Archive 5
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) United Kingdom China (at war 1937-45) France (1939-40, 1944-45) Free France (1940-44) Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) and others	Axis Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Co-belligerents and puppet states Finland (1941-44) Vichy France (1940-1944) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. With reference to 4. above, India, one of the most populous countries in the world, was under UK control, and the UK used significant numbers of Indian troops. However, the Axis used Indian troops too. If we include "Free France" in the box, why don't we include India on the same side, or on the opposite side, Indian National Army (and perhaps Indische Legion)? Is it because they were militarily insignificant? How do we judge this break-point then?
6. Again, if we include "Free France", why not include the Russian Liberation Army, Georgian Legion (1941–1945), or indeed the Ostlegionen itself (not to be confused with Vlasovs Russian army). By the end of 1943 the Ostlegionen comprised a formidable fighting force (by late 1943 they contained 427,000 volunteers, which was a force equivalent to 30 German divisions[10]. Many were utilized in the west, e.g. Yugoslavia). Their numbers were by far more than many of the Allies could muster, certainly more than the Free French.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 16:18, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

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

World War II/Infobox/Archive 5
Location {{{place}}}
Belligerents
Allies Soviet Union (1941-45) United States (1941-45) British Empire China (at war 1937-45) France Poland Canada Australia New Zealand South Africa Yugoslavia (1941-45) Belgium (1940-45) Netherlands (1940-45) Greece (1940-45) Norway (1940-45) Brazil (1942–45) and others	Axis Germany Japan (at war 1937-45) Italy (1940-43) Romania (1941-44) Hungary (1940-45) Bulgaria (1941-44) Axis-aligned Finland (1941-44) Vichy France (1940-1944) Thailand (1941-45) Iraq (1941) and others
Commanders and leaders
Allied leaders Joseph Stalin Franklin D. Roosevelt Winston Churchill and others	Axis leaders Adolf Hitler Hirohito Benito Mussolini and others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I totally agree with Jean-Jacques Georges.

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

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

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

As I suspected. This is a matter of the "sacred French tricolour" being "dishonoured" on Wikipedia. Vichy France is essentially an Axis client state who's military fought against Allied troops both in Syria, and Oran, and during Torch. Moreover its far larger and economically significant than any other Axis-supported state. The fact that it did not formally enter the Axis is irrelevant. We can not exclude it.

As for puppets - either decide to include puppets (in which case quite a few should be introduced), or do not. These tiny puppet states like Croatia and Slovakia and Montenegro and Serbia are so insignificant in comparison to Vichy, that I frankly am still amazed the same persons are advocating the removal of teh latter and the inclusion of the former. The mere pro-Axis orientation of Vichy, even had it not engaged in warfare (which it did), is immensely more significant than the combined military contribution of those ridiculous little puppet statelets. Upside-downy, topsy-turvy... :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

director, would you mind explaining the aggressive tone ?

• As I suspected. This is a matter of the "sacred French tricolour" being "dishonoured" on Wikipedia.

--Frania W. (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Consensus will decide. We ought to bring more people into the discussion.

2. I'd support a change to the flag for Vichy France to the one with the Fasces, as used at Russian, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedia etc.

3. We could always add a note to the flag, stating that Vichy France was unofficially at war while it killed around 6000 Allied troops and cooperated with Nazi wartime policy.

4. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Germany and Poland didn't bother declaring war on each other in 1939. Afaik Poland is included because of combat, per WP:DUCK, not because of declaration. I'm not certain Germany declared war on every other country it attacked either - did it?

5. Obviously it all boils down to principles for inclusion: whether the threshold is (i) verifiable notable combat, or (ii) verifiable formal declarations of war. Obviously I support combat, per WP:DUCK, as the threshold for inclusion. We can always request comment from MILHIST if we keep going round in circles here. Besides, a Wikipedia Military History convention may be just what is needed throughout the subject area. Thanks all, -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe Vichy France should be included on the template as their troops fought against the Allies in Africa and in Operation Torch. I believe it is somewhat revisionist to include France on the Allied side (with no dates next to it) and not include the French state as it existed between 1940-44, because that suggests that France was never defeated. It was. --PlasmaTwa2 20:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, JJG, just a For-Your-Information: You may not have been aware that there was in fact considerable discussion about the Vichy entry going in, which consensus settled on several weeks ago, with a slight reorganization and rewording of the infobox. You appear not to have participated in that discussion, as far as I can see, so you may not have been aware of it. You may have discussed the Vichy entry in a discussion prior to that one. So when you undid DIREKTOR's revert of your addition, with the edit summary "There already has been a discussion about this", you unwittingly made a confusing edit summary on your revert. Please take a look through the edit history and see for yourself. Because there seems to have been this small misunderstanding, I'm inviting you to put the Vichy entry back again for now, while we work toward a new consensus. I'm sure DIREKTOR will value the gesture, as I also will. It might even cause him to offer you a Rakija. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#.22Belligerents.22.2C_defined -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'd accept no glass of Rakia from Direktor (why, he might have poured some poison in it), nor would I offer him a glass of Bordeaux. More seriously, it appears that it is the adding of Vichy that was non-consensual in the first place, at least opposed to most historical assessments of the military situation : so I see no urgent need to put it back, and then drag the discussion forever. The presence in the military infobox implies that it was a major and active belligerent, which it never was. It was an important partner as far as political and economic collaboration were concerned, but never a military one. As for the presence of France in the infobox without dates, it has quite the same problem as Poland. The French wikipedia has tried to solve the problem by adding notes specifying the exact situations of France and Poland : from this date to this date, the country was in such situation, from this date to this date, it was represented by such authority on allied side from this date to this date, etc. As for the present discussion, IMHO it has already taken place here. I have no access at my personal library right now, but will take a look this week-end at what Robert Paxton says in his book. As for the author mentioned by Chumchum7, I'd have to see what he actually says : no one denies that there were Allied/Vichy clashes, but no historian has ever, to my knowledge, called Vichy an actual full-fledged Axis military belligerent in the conflict. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

"Non consensual" ? We may have some different views on history, which is entirely natural, but please let's not jump to conclusions. Do you appreciate that in November, I actually put work into building consensus on this, in an open discussion starting here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II/Archive_43#Please_vote:_Motion_to_add_flag_of_Vichy_France_1940-44_to_Axis-aligned_list , There was about 4 weeks discussion, at which your input would have been valued. It led to Vichy France being included, which has enjoyed silent consensus since 20 December. That is something like 6 weeks of Vichy France being on the page. That was a 10 weeks process that ended with you recently removing it twice with relatively little discussion. What, to be truthful, is non consensual? Please also note the discussion about this at MILHIST now, linked above. Perhaps you could let me know what in your view would be consensus - if some editors disagree with you removing Vichy, and some editors disagree with me adding Vichy? Perhaps if we can agree what consensus is, it might help us work towards a solution. Merci, -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, 6 weeks is a short time : we have articles who contain ignominious POV crap for over a year before anyone vaguely informed and/or neutral on the subject notices. You may note my total and complete opposition to the inclusion of Vichy as a belligerent (which is the meaning of the infobox). As you noticed by the discussion here, it is far from consensual among users (were I the only one sharing this opinion, I may have some doubts, but that is not the case). Axis-aligned (which the Vichy regime was, politically and economically speaking) is another matter. As for consensus among wikipedia users, it may have some importance, but IMHO it is perfectly secondary if we take into account the work of serious historians and authors. Once again, if Vichy had been a real belligerent and actively taken part in Axis offensives, I'd have no qualms about including it. That was not the case, and arguing that I'm trying to preserve the French flag from dishonour, or something like that, is too ridiculous for words. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Something like three times, you've volunteered the information that being French isn't why you are removing the Vichy French entry from the list. You've no need to protest so much, because I haven't raised the subject of your motivation even once. We don't need to discuss it. I'd prefer to focus on Wikipedia principles; and on that note, perhaps you could detail your understanding of the phrase 'Axis-aligned' and let's see if we concur on that. Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I mentioned this a third time because of the ludicrous statement above. Axis-aligned, if such a thing can be properly defined, means supporting the Axis openly in some deliberate way while not having signed its main treaty (i.e., the tripartite pact). The infobox concerns the main and/or significant belligerents : placing Vichy there would be disingenuous and imply a misunderstanding of its situation and nature. Vichy purported to be neutral during the whole war. Its final defeat, and all the military engagements in its four years history, stemmed from the fact that such a neutrality was infeasible, and was furthermore contradicted by its domestic collaboration with Germany (and, to a lesser extent, with Japan in Indochina. Moreover, Vichy's neutrality actually sealed its doom, its armed forces in Africa joined the Allies after Torch). As I said before, no serious historian of my knowledge has described Vichy as a full-fledged and major belligerent : all the books I have read point to the contrary. This being considered, consensus among wikipedia users is secondary. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 11:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we have the same understanding of the term 'Axis-Aligned'. I never removed it from the infobox. We can always have 'Vichy France (1940-42, unofficially)' in the box, with a Fasces Tricolore, to differentiate them from the Frenchmen who defeated them. I (and an outside comment at MILHIST) take a WP:DUCK view that engaging in combat to a notable degree is our threshold for inclusion. If it turned out that neither Germany nor Holland ever formally declared war on each other, the duck test would still say they were fighting a war and should be included. Would you remove Holland from the list, if it didn't declare war on Germany? I agree with you that "Vichy purported to be neutral" and purported is exactly the point. I don't think we should be showing readers the propaganda line of governments (whether they are fascist, democratic or anything else); we should be showing readers the reality of warfighting on the ground. I would take the same view of America's wars. What the Pentagon purported doesn't matter - evidence of US involvement is what matters and should be noted one way or another. The duck test identifying engagement in combat is a principle that should be universally applied, whether we're talking about Vichy France, America, Ruritania or anyone else. -Chumchum7 (talk) 12:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Strength of the army of one of the "axis-aligned belligerents", namely Vichy's army - please note the number of bicycles per regiment, a valuable force had Vichy decided to participate in the Battle of Stalingrad on the side of its cousins germains:

• "Selon les décisions de la commission de Wiesbaden[11], les unités stationnées en France métropolitaine n'ont pas le droit de conserver des chars, des armes antichars et antiaériennes. Pour l'artillerie, les canons d'un calibre supérieurs à 75 mm sont interdits. Les 24 régiments d'infanterie métropolitaine doivent se contenter d'armes individuelles, de 132 mitrailleuses et de 136 mortiers... Chaque régiment est autorisé à conserver cinq voitures de liaison, 6 motocyclettes et 140 bicyclettes. Les réserves de munitions sont limités à 1 000 coups par pièce. Le nombre d'automitrailleuses est limité à 64. Ce sont des engins théoriquement équipés d'un canon de 37,5 mm et d'une mitrailleuse, mais sans tourelle mobile[45]."

Also, reading of this article on fr:wiki[12] & on en:wiki[13]might enlighten some as to the leaning of French military/navy and the like toward an "axis-aligned belligerence" - unless some want to turn the scuttling of the French fleet in Toulon on 27 November 1942 as a proof of unwavering allegiance of the French toward their victors.

--Frania W. (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the Netherlands, regardless of a German declaration of war, they were militarily invaded, and their remaining forces and subsequent government-in-exile were officially members of the Allies. Hence, the comparizon with Vichy France is IMHO not valid. As Frania W points out, the Vichy government's armed forces were severely limited in mainland France by the armistice with Germany and, after the colonial forces joined the Allies following Operation torch, they were suppressed entirely. Further proof that Vichy France - while a reprehensible collaborationist regime, and one with much more autonomy than Quisling's Norway - was never a real military ally of Germany. Actually, the Legion of French volunteers was, in part, created because of this, by ultra-collaborationists who were frustrated that Vichy would not enter a full-fledged military partnership with Germany. If we take into account Germany's european allies, they were all countries who, at some point, actively invaded other countries (the USSR, Greece, Yugoslavia, etc.), something the "French State" never did, nor intended to do. Creating an image of Vichy France as a belligerent actively involved in the whole conflict would be not only factually wrong, but also original research, regardless of whatever consensus may exist among three or four wikipedia contributors. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "Axis-aligned, if such a thing can be properly defined..." Please, note that it this context ("Belligerent" section of the infobox) this means not just Axis-aligned states, but Axis-aligned belligerents, i.e. those countries that were at war with the Axis opponents. With regard to Vichy France, I see no principal difference between it and Iran: both of them were invaded by the Allies (in the case of Vichy France, its colonies were invaded), and both of them just resisted to the invasion: they did not participate in offensives against the Allies. In both cases no war was declared by the Allies on these two states, and this is an indication that the Allies did not considered Iran and Vichy France as WWII belligerents. In any event, per WP:BURDEN, any edit that has been challenged (and the addition of Vichy has been challenged) must be attributed to a reliable source, and that source must directly support the material in question. I expect the proponents of addition of Vichy France to present such a source (and to provide an explanation of why Iran has not been included in the infobox).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

In my view the title of the Colin Smith source does just that - he describes the hostilities as a 'war' in the title of his book. I don't have access to the book itself and have not read it - and one of us should get hold of it. But there are open-source reviews, such as this [14] by Max Hastings. These sources, or the way they refer to the conflict as a war, might not be acceptable to JJG, Frania and Paul, but I would expect Plasma and Direktor to concur with me that it pretty much ticks the box for inclusion. I've sought WP:DR progress by getting outside comment at MILHIST, where commentators have said (i) engaging in conflict is the threshold for inclusion and (ii) notes shouldn't be necessary (by that token we ought to remove the British Empire note about India etc, but I'd be reluctant to do that). We all need to consider those comments at MILHIST. If that still doesn't help moving past our entrenched views then we still have the option of further WP:DR steps, such as moderation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Opening sentence of 11th § of 6 August 2009 Sunday Times article by Max Hastings:

• "Vichy did not become a formal belligerent."

--Frania W. (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We all agree Vichy was not a formal belligerent. We also appear to agree that Vichy killed around 6000 Allied troops, including Allied French troops, in combat during WW2. The disagreement seems to be about whether engaging in combat or formal declarations of war are the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia infoboxes. So far the outside comment at MILHIST supports combat rather than declaration. I'm willing to participate in further WP:DR steps. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On that note, and for what it's worth, Wikipedia's first paragraph at Belligerent reads: A belligerent is an individual, group, country or other entity which acts in a hostile manner, such as engaging in combat. Belligerent comes from Latin, literally meaning "to wage war". Unlike the colloquial use of belligerent to mean aggressive, its formal use does not necessarily imply that the belligerent country is an aggressor. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We're going to need MILHIST's comments on this one. There is no consensus for either side so far. Regarding the note, I think it is useful and should be kept so we don't have to have the same debates over and over.--PlasmaTwa2 00:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the resolution of this must be fair, open and involve due process. Just to make sure we're all on the same page, I'm now pasting what I linked above - my query and the response comment we do already have from MILHIST:

At the moment we're focusing on whether or not Vichy France should be on the WW2 list, as it never formally declared war though it cooperated with Nazi Germany and killed around 6000 Allied troops at Operation Exporter etc where it features on belligerent lists. About five hours ago I surmised: "Obviously it all boils down to principles for inclusion: whether the threshold is (i) verifiable notable combat, or (ii) verifiable formal declarations of war. Obviously I support combat, per WP:DUCK, as the threshold for inclusion. We can always request comment from MILHIST if we keep going round in circles here. Besides, a Wikipedia Military History convention may be just what is needed throughout the subject area." Thanks -Chumchum7 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree with the duck test calling for engaged in combat. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting outside comment like this is a recommended stage of WP:DR process. Let's note this is a universal Wikipedia editing principle at stake, and that the comment comes from User:The Bushranger who is a 'Veteran Editor IV' - which doesn't imply superiority, just that his position might be indicative of universal editing principles. -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Disproving the WP:DUCK theory "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.":

• http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/480863main_moon_atmosphere.jpg

May look like a croissant de lune but, in reality, the object is a globe.

--Frania W. (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The infobox on this page shows Vichy as an "Axis-aligned belligerent" from 1940 to 1944: does the year of 1944 mean that, as an Axis-aligned belligerent, Vichy France sent troops to fight in Normandy after D-Day and all the way through northern France, siding with the naz during the liberation of Alsace & Lorraine, and the Battle of the Bulge? If not, then that 1944 date is extremely misleading.

--Frania W. (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Because of the MILHIST outside comment, I'm going to support Direktor's restoration of the Vichy France entry. I'd further support a changeover to the Fasces Tricolore, and inclusion of Croatia and Slovakia. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(Just a note, as was the case previously the Independent State of Croatia shall be included under its full name to disambig with the simultaneous Allied Federal State of Croatia.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

How about ISC for short? -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem with an abbreviation but the native "NDH" abbrv. is a lot more common (in English sources as well). "ISC" is very rare. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at the code behind this: NDH (1941–45)
It defaults to 'Croatia' rather than 'NDH'. I've no idea how to change that, have you? -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

There. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy France should not be included at all, period. Direktor may start all the edit wars he wants (especially with this kind of nauseating comments), but his opinion is of no concern to me. No serious historian of my knowledge considers Vichy France as an active and major belligerent of WWII. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm sorry you feel you must use such language JJG ("crap", "period"? :)). You will nontheless not succeed in pushing people around by aggressively imposing your edits. You were being bold, you were reverted, and then at that point you started an edit-war to push your disputed edits (WP:BRD). Its interesting to note how you try to name me as "starting edit wars" when all I did was restore the status quo version from before any disputed changes were introduced :). In all objectivity, I am at this point quite certain that listing a French state with the French flag on the "Nazi column" is indeed a personal matter for a number of participants here.

Vichy France was an Axis client state who engaged Allied forces on numerous occasions (Syria, Oran, Torch). The fact that it was the defending combatant, or that it did not formally enter the Axis, is hardly significant at all. The French State was, without a shadow of a doubt, the largest and most valuable of states in the Axis sphere of influence. Excluding it, while including nonsense statelets such as Slovakia is quite absurd indeed. (The difference between Iran and Vichy is of course that Vichy was firmly within Germany's sphere of influence.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Crap, indeed. Vichy is important as far as political collaboration is considered. It is not if we take military matters in consideration. At no time did it engage the Allies : the Allies engaged it. I have no further time for this or for you. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, DIRECTOR, but I am not sure you are right in this case. Vichy France itself was invaded by Germany in few days after Torch, and it even tried to resist (although only at the level of declarations, and by scuttling the fleet in Toulon). It was therefore the occupied state, and cannot be considered as an independent belligerent. Re Slovakia, it openly declared a war on the USSR and sent its troops to the Eastern Front. That was the contrast with, e.g. Spain, which sent one division to the Eastern Front, but did not declare a war, and all volunteers took a personal oath to Hitler and were both de jure and de facto the Wehrmacht soldiers. Re Iran, your argument in actuality supports my point: Iran was more independent than Vichy France was, however, it did resist to the Anglo-Soviet invasion, and did sympathise to Hitler. I also am not sure about Croatia, because I found virtually no sources to confirm that it really declared a war on the Allies. Its participation in the hostilities was minimal (probably, mostly antipartisan warfare in Yugoslavia itself).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure either about Croatia openly declaring war on all Allies, but they were indeed actively involved in the USSR's invasion. That their impact was negligible is another matter, though. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, even the Independent State of Croatia may very well have resisted if a foreign army started shooting at them. A puppet may fight back completely irrespective of the depth of its involvement. I might say an army of brain-dead chimps (whether they were puppet chimps or healthy free and happy chimps :)) would try to fight if someone came with tanks and started attacking them (thus releasing an immense amount of comedy potential).

Further, while I do acknowledge the overwhelming primary role of the Eastern Front, I disagree that Axis involvement can be measured on the basis of involvement therein (what shall we say of Bulgaria then?).

Lets review the facts:

• 1) We all agree that Vichy (unlike Iran) was an Axis client state (if necessary abundant sources can be presented to that effect). That acknowledged, I should point out that what JJG wisely chooses to term "political significance" to the Axis, should rightly be called economic significance. Vichy was immensely more useful economically (and far larger) than any other Axis client. If the bare fact that it was an Axis client does not cut it, the economic significance alone of this subordinate state to the German war effort should warrant its inclusion.
• 2) However JJG ignores all the above (with clever wordplay) and contests the inclusion of Vichy on the basis of his own judgement that the military contributions of the the Axis client state are "unimportant". What can one say to that? Please present actual professional sources that assess the military involvement of Vichy France in WWII as "irrelevant" (or anything to that effect) and I will naturally concede the point. Up until that point, I will be content to consider them as "important" as any other. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Until actual and serious professional sources that assess that Vichy was indeed a major Axis military partner and belligerent are presented, I will consider this discussion closed and ignore all further rants by Direktor. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] I'm sure you feel confident enough to "assume control" here and proclaim discussions "over" when you see fit, now that you've won your edit war and pushed your changes into the article. :) While others may beg to differ, I certainly applaud your withdrawal from this taklkpage. Toodeloo (à tout à l'heure)

Vichy was a military partner, that alone warrants its inclusion. Teh burden of evidence is on the user who wishes to show it was an "unimportant" military partner. It is not required that anyone shows that it was a "major" military partner. (Nor do I think any source would satisfy JJG's completely arbitrary "demands". The user is here on an nationalist agenda.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re Croatia and EF. I mention the EF only because I have no information about Croatian involvement somewhere else. If you have any information about that, please, share with us.

Re economic role. The USA were immensely economically important for Japan before 1941 (one of the important reasons for Pearl Harbour). Does in make the US the Japan co-belligerent during the first phase of SSJW?

Re "Please present sources that describe the military involvement of Vichy France in WWII as "irrelevant"". Per WP:BURDEN I expect the opposite, namely, the evidence that Vichy was a belligerent.

Re "even the Independent State of Croatia would have resisted if a foreign army started shooting at them. " I would say, by writing that you support my point (or I misunderstood something).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Jean-Jacques Georges. I wouldn't say your last point is helpful. I will appreciate if you withdraw it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and the US was of immense ecomomic assistance to the UK before 1941 and yet we only list it as a combatant from 1941 (that was the argument I expected you to use, Japan is something of a stretch :)). The difference of course is that the US was not conquered by the Allies (with half of its territory under Allied military control) and forced into a client state relationship, much like Persia with the Axis. The essential difference in both cases, is of course, that Vichy was an Axis client.

As I said above. You're forgetting we know Vichy was a belligerent (easily sourced), that alone warrants its inclusion. Not only that but the fact that it was an Axis client should also warrant its inclusion on its own. Per WP:BURDEN it falls to you to show that it is "unimportant" as a belligerent. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "easily sourced". Then do it. However, please, keep in mind that that the statement about belligerence should clear, unequivocal and explicit. (Frankly speaking, I myself always believed Vichy France was a co-belligerent, however, after reading more I realised I was wrong).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re " the US was of immense ecomomic assistance to the UK before 1941 and yet we only list it as a combatant from 1941" Correct. That demonstrates my point.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Come now, shall we dissect words? A "co-belligerent" is a type of "belligerent". On the whole it was a "co-belligerent", but when viewing e.g. Torch separately it was a "belligerent", it makes no difference, we're both familiar with its military role. Am I to present sources here that Vichy France fought in Syria and Torch?

Yes it does demonstrate your point (I expected you to use that argument), it also demonstrates the flaw in it. I presented that argument against myself to demonstrate the difference: that the US was not conquered by the Allies (with half of its territory under Allied military control) and forced into a client state relationship. Vichy was an Axis client. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "A "co-belligerent" is a type of "belligerent"". Correct. I would say, all belligerents in the right part of this infobox should be subdivided onto the Axis members (which were both politically and military allies of Germany), and co-belligerents (that waged their own wars on the German/Japanese side). Finland was a typical example of co-belligerent.
Re sources, I don't think we need the sources, because the fact that some hostilities took place is well known. However, what is also known is the facts that (i) Vichy France itself was invaded by Germany, and even attempted to resist, and (ii) no war was declared on Vichy France by the Allies (even post factum). In this situation, the conclusion that Vichy France was an Axis co-belligerent is not obvious, so we need some reliable source that unequivocally stated that the Vichy France itself (and not only some of its colonies the central government could not effectively control) was a belligerent in this war. Everything else would be a synthesis.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Instead of arguing, how about checking reliable sources to see what they call Vichy? I have to strongly disagree that we make up our own minds, because that is synthesis. (Hohum ^@) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

While in principle I agree, of course, that may not be a practical solution in this case. This is a template, its up to us to decide what goes in and what does not. All the facts about Vichy's involvement are well known and essentially undisputed. This is not a factual dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR. By placing some flag in the "belligerent" section we make a statement that the state X was a belligerent in the war Y on the side Z. Therefore, this statement, as well as any other potentially challengeable statement, must be attributed to a reliable source that explicitly states the same. @ Hohum. Since I do not propose to add anything, I am not obliged to provide any sources. The burden of proof rests with the opposite party.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, Templates are part of article space, information in them needs to conform to wiki policies as much as anything else. @Paul Siebert, while agree that the burden is with the people who make changes, it's also helpful for the status quo to be reinforced with proper referencing. (Hohum ^@) 16:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The burden is not with the people who make changes, but with those who add/restore some material. In addition to that, how technically do you propose to support with the reference the absence of the Vichy flag from the infobox?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

That's correct - material in infoboxes which is challenged needs to be supported by citations, and a discussion of the sources would be a more sensible way of resolving this dispute than the current to-and-fro based on personal opinions. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Paul, I was unclear. If sources specifically describe Vichy in context as something other than a co-belligerent, that would add weight, but it isn't required to remove the association - lack of positive support is enough. (Hohum ^@) 19:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Agreed.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Vichy and others

Obviously Vichy France does belong somewhere in the box and the "co-belligerents and puppet states" is where it belongs. As to the question whether the tricolor should be included, that's a legitimate concerns and presently I have no opinion on it. Is there an alternate symbol that could be used to represent Vichy?

Along the same lines, Quisling's Norway should also be in the "puppet states" section (but not with the Norse flag). Volunteer Marek  20:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Your "obviously" is somewhat non-polite, taking into account that several editors expressed the opinion that this step was not obvious to them. It is worth noting that these editors, by contrast to you, put forward some concrete arguments...--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

VM, there's a Fasces Tricolore used at e.g. Russian, Spanish and Japanese Wikipedia. I'd support the use of that. I'm not sure why the opponents of inclusion have ignored the outside comment at MILHIST, which is a stage in the WP:DR process. The comment stated a belligerent is an entity that engages in combat. This echoes WP:Belligerent as well as various dictionary definitions of the word. If that's still not acceptable to opponents, perhaps fresh WP:DR initiatives could be undertaken. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The editor whose outside comment you referred to did not address the major points of the opponents of the Vichy flag in the infobox, namely

1. The fact that none of the Allied states, including those who were directly involved in the combat with the Vichy troops, declared a war on Vichy;
2. The fact that Vichy France had been occupied by Germany almost at the same moment when Vichy troops were attacked by the Allies;
3. The fact that Vichy even tried to resist to the German invasion, and even scuttled a very significant naval forced in Toulon;
4. The fact that since in Nov 8, 1942 Vichy was effectively under military occupation of its alleged co-belligerent;
5. The fact that Vichy troops fought against the Axis member, Japan and pro-Axis (pro-Japanese) Thailand.

The argument about Norway just demonstrates a weakness of the argumentation of placement of Vichy into the infobox: Norway was under military occupation, and cannot be considered as an independent state even formally. It neither declared a war on anybody nor sent any troops (except WaffenSS volunteers).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting list of demands. :) I must however point out that the mere fact that Vichy was a World War II belligerent (or co-belligerent if you will), warrants its inclusion in the World War II infobox. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How are the points Paul made "demands"? Please be civil. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

They're obviously not "demands", it was a joke jeez! (hence the smiley :) People, lighten up! its not even an article its just a damn template. Why's everyone so jumpy? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Nick, for interference, however, I see no incivility here. That is just a normal dispute, and I don't think we should pay attention to the concrete wording as far as we commit no sins against a common sense.

Going back to the topic, if we consider Vichy a belligerent, we must concede that, since it fought against both the Allies and the Axis, and in all cases just resisted to invasions, it fought on its own side. Therefore, it should be either in both sides of the infobox simultaneously, or a separate section should be allocated for it. Both variants would be misleading in this summary style article. --Paul Siebert (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am going to state my my "demands" right here & right now, and they are that whenever a French person enters this debate, he or she not be attacked by direktor, as happens every time Jean-Paul Georges or myself step in. Example: immediately following my initial comment[15] on this page, on 1 February, came direktor's

As I suspected. This is a matter of the "sacred French tricolour" being "dishonoured" on Wikipedia. - (jeez !, are we to take it as a joke???) -,

setting the tone for further disparaging remarks, one of his favorite ones being the accusation of being "nationalistic" or "carrying a nationalistic agenda". Such encounters have happened within the past six months at several France-related articles: Légion d'honneur, Arc de Triomphe, Battle of France... with direktor going as far as filing complaints against those of us who dare stand up to his intimidating tactics. And I would not be surprised if within a few days this would not happen - fortunately, I do not think it will because of the presence of Paul Siebert in this discussion.

Of course, when one of the "nationalistic Frenchies" uses the word "crap" (although I consider myself to be a lady, in this instance I would have used its French equivalent of "merde"), here comes offended direktor with an innocent :"I'm sorry you feel you must use such language" Quelle hypocrisie !

This is not meant as a rant: I am simply asking that direktor refrain from his over-used scenario of attacking the French contributors to this discussion the minute they open their mouth.

Now that I have spoken my piece, I am going back to my scales...

--Frania W. (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say your criticism is justified. I do not see any considerable deviation from civility during this dispute.

I am glad to hear that you consider yourself to be a lady, because the presence of ladies usually ennobles a purely mean men's team. Therefore, I expect your participation to make the dispute calmer and friendlier... :-).--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Siebert, quoting you: the presence of ladies usually ennobles a purely mean's team. (did you mean "a purely men's team"?) In the past, my participation coupled with that of direktor has been a chaotic "disaster at sea" type of affair - hence my above comment. But, as I wrote, your presence gives me hope that this discussion can be conducted courteously & be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

This being said, I will not stand any more for any disparaging remarks aimed at the French contributors to France-related articles.

Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 02:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I meant "men". Thanks for pointing at that :-). With regard to "disparaging remarks", let me remind you that almost every WWII participant, including the Big Three members, deserved them. With regard to France, frankly speaking, as compared to other Allies, its role in WWII (by contrast to the French glorious past) can be probably described by the Dante's words: "che visser sanza ’nfamia e sanza lodo". I personally believe that Poland more deserved to be listed as the forth major Ally. Therefore, unfortunately, my efforts to remove Vichy from the infobox are aimed not to protect French reputation, but to protect common sense.

Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Siebert, my use of the words "disparaging remarks" was in regards to remarks made by some contributors of this discussion to French contributors of the discussion - a carry-over from previous discussions on other pages. Hopefully, that is a thing of the past. Cordialement,

--Frania W. (talk) 03:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the heading of the section where Vichy and Q-Norway as well, is to be included is labeled "Co-belligerents and puppet states". Vichy may or may not have been a co-belligerent. I think it was and so do a few others, but let's put that aside. It can however be called a "puppet state" as can Q-Norway. Btw, I wrote the "obviously" above because it really did seem "obvious" to me, and still does. That's it. These "concrete arguments" don't appear to be doing much good. Volunteer Marek  16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or put it another way. We have a infobox which lists important states of world war 2. Was Vichy France an important state in world war 2? It was more important than Slovakia, Croatia, Iraq and Thailand, and probably more important than Belgium, and a couple of the others. This means that an infobox on world war 2 which has all those countries but is somehow missing Vichy France (and Q-Norway) is a strange infobox indeed. It belongs SOMEWHERE in there. The section entitled "Allies" is obviously not appropriate. The section entitled "Axis" is probably not appropriate. The section "co-belligerents and puppet states", all semantics aside, is the most appropriate section. Volunteer Marek  16:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The section has a name "Belligerents", not "The most important WWII states". Were the US important before Dec 7, 1941? Without any doubts, their importance was immense. However, they are listed as a belligerent only since a moment when they started to be involved in the bellum, i.e., when the war started between one of the Axis member and the US.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Even if included as a "belligerent", Axis-aligned Vichy cannot be considered one after 27 November 1942, a "puppet state" with no army is only that: a "puppet state".

--Frania W. (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The subsection is titled "co-belligerents and puppet states" which clarifies and qualifies the overall heading of "belligerents". No categorization is going to be perfect and there will always be cases that don't fit into a well defined taxonomy. At that point it still makes the most sense to put it in the closest category which is what this is. Volunteer Marek  18:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Every subsection of the "Belligerents" section is supposed to list only belligerents, not non-belligerent puppet states. Re closest category, do you propose to put it simultaneously to the left and the right boxes?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can think of co-belligerents and puppet states to put on the LHS then sure. Volunteer Marek  22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The "heated" discussion we are having so far proves one point, that we cannot have a subsection with the heading Co-belligerents and puppet states - some are one or the other or both. Apples, oranges & pineapples are all fruits, but not to be put in the same category.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

By saying "apples, oranges & pineapples are all fruits" you have already put them in the same category.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Same category in the sense that they are fruits, yes, which could be compared to "Axis-aligned", but not necessarily "Axis-aligned belligerents" or "Axis-aligned puppet states", they could be one & not the other. That was my point.

An infobox is supposed to give exact information, not be a "fourre-tout" with no sense, leaving first-time reader with a question. The date 1944 beside Vichy included in such category gives the immediate impression that Vichy was an "Axis-aligned belligerent" until 1944, which it was not.

--Frania W. (talk) 18:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Aagreed. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's confusing to have an overall "Belligerents" category and then a sub category for "belligerents and puppet states" and that this mostly lies at the root of the problem. It definitely irks both the historian and the taxonomist. However, I think - I might be wrong on this - that this is due to the built in structure of the military conflict infobox so unless someone makes one especially for WWII from scratch (which may not be a bad idea) we've got to work within these limitations. And the way it is now (though the Vichy dates should probably be changed) an intelligent reader can certainly figure out what is going on. Volunteer Marek  22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Marek, we cannot count on "intelligent readers": as often pointed to me in other discussions, some young (and not so young) readers do not know anything on the subject before they check Wikipedia; consequently, when they click on a wiki article & check the infobox, there should not be any grey area. As proposed now, the category assigned to Vichy is misleading.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It's probably true that we shouldn't overrate the intelligence of our average reader, though who knows. Anyway, the category right now is only partly misleading since it does say "...and puppet states" under a more general sup-category of "Belligerents". Personally I think though that to exclude Vichy France from a WWII infobox altogether would be even more misleading. I was serious about someone making a special infobox template just for WWII (though I can't do it myself). Volunteer Marek  23:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Marek, in order not to mislead the average reader on one thing, we cannot choose to mislead him/her on another. After 27 November 1942, Vichy was not a belligerent (and, please remember that when it was, it was because it had been attacked, i.e. it fought "invaders" but did not go after them outside of its territory), thus something has to be done with the template. Period.

--Frania W. (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I see absolutely no problem with this subdivision: the Allies' opponents were organised in a single political and military alliance, named "The Axis"; the members of this alliance are well known and the list is strictly defined. In addition to that, some states waged their own wars on the Axis side: they were at war with at least of of the Allies, and were not the members of the Axis (although they could sign some separate treaties with some Axis members). By contrast, the states that didn't join the Axis officially, the states that never declared a war on the Allies (during the period of time when they were the Allies), the states that collaborated or cooperated with Germany or Japan, or other Axis' members, but waged no war against the Allies, and the states that were not an independent political force (Q-Norway) should not be included to avoid confusion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have to support somewhat Paul Siebert here, Vichy France doesn't seem to be influential or strong enough supporter of Nazi Germany to be included in that category. Perhaps some other can be made(or even "Others" category where unique situations can be described).Also I would certainly include Slovakia-it invaded Poland in 1939 and thus is highly relevant to Axis as first Axis state besides Nazi Germany to take part in military operations during WW2.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 00:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Look fellas, Vichy France was not a separate third party to WWII, but there is a way to show that it was not (or was less) affiliated with the Axis - we use the horizontal bar to separate it from the Nazis etc., e.g. the Invasion of Poland article where Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are separated in this way. Can someone hold that Vichy France was less affiliated with Nazi Germany than the Soviet Union (in 1939)? :P I really can't think of a better way. In all objectivity it is simply nonsense to remove this significant WWII country from the WWII infobox altogether.

I also propose that we make use of the "note=" parameter to make mark co-belligerents and puppet states, rather than the horizontal bar, since it is usually used to show a disassociation between combatants (when the facts of the matter are completely opposite). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Restoring to the section heading a general 'and Axis-aligned' might help. -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I feel the small notes are a quite elegant solution, and the area below the horizontal bar can easily be expanded to include other anti-Allied combatants not strictly associated with the Axis. I'm thinking we should move Iraq down there, and perhaps Finland as well? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes you've done a great job. Thanks very much. I suggest you leave everything as it is, just add 'and Axis aligned' at the top, as it was once before, just in case of issues that e.g. Finland wasn't a certified Axis member. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

That's why I'd suggest we move it below the bar? Iraq I think shares a similar position. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot agree that that was an improvement.

1. The previous version clearly subdivided the opponents of the Allies onto two well defined categories: the Axis and the Axis co-belligerents, and the ground for such a categorisation was very clear and logical. The primary opponent of the Allies was The Axis, a full scale military alliance, and the present version obscures this fact. This is the first flaw of the proposed changes.
2. In addition to the Axis members, some countries (Finland is the best example) waged a separate war concurrently with some Axis members. Although they fought the same enemy (the Allies), they never joined the Axis, and this fact must be reflected in the list. Whereas the previous version clearly distinguished between these two categories, the present version doesn't do that, so it is the second flaw of the proposed infobox.
3. In addition to that, some states fought against both the Axis and the Allies who tried to invade their territories, and they did that without declaration of a war, thereby remaining officially neutral. Vichy France, which fought both against British invasion in Africa and Thai and Japanese invasions in Indochina, is an example. For some reason, the present version lists it among the Axis members, which is simply untrue.
   In summary, I have to revert the recent changes as obscuring and misleading. Taking into account that the WWII is among the most popular WP articles, we cannot afford this version to stay while the discussion continues. Please, don't take it personally, and try to address especially the #3.
   Cheers, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
   PS. Please, note, that the list is not exhaustive, the link to all Axis co-belligerents and collaborators is provided in the infobox. Therefore, the reader can find the information about all controversial cases in one click.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PPS. I am trying to find any evidences of more formal alliance of Vichy France with the Axis. I found the unsourced mention of signing of the Anti-Comintern pact by Vichy in 1941, however, according to this [16], Vichy was not among the signatories of the amended pact in 1941. Any information about that would be appreciated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, I have gone one step further than you and reverted the template back to the version after my last edit, which was the last one before this debate about Vichy France started. This isn't meant to be an endorsement of Vichy France's inclusion on the template, but rather I believe we should have the template as it was originally when the discussion started as JJG's edits to remove Vichy France were not based upon consensus, and because we do not yet have consensus for either side I do not believe we should edit the section in question until we do. Regardless of Vichy France's status during WWII, it was on the template before this debate started and should only be removed upon reaching consensus here. Anything else could be considered edit warring and could lead to the template being locked until we figure this out. --PlasmaTwa2 19:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Vichy was added comparatively recently (on Dec 13 [17]), so it is hardly a stable version.

Secondly, the references to consensus do not work here, because consensus cannot supersede the policy requirements, namely, that all materials that are likely to be challenged must be attributed to some reliable source that explicitly supports this statement; in addition, let me re-iterate that the burden of proof is on those who add/restore the materials (i.e. on you), not on those who removes it (i.e. on me).

Thirdly, I've asked concrete questions that have not been addressed yet. In particular, I would like to hear the proposals how to reflect the fact that Vichy troops fought both against Allied (Africa) and the Axis' (Indochina) invasions.

Fourthly, as I already wrote, I am ready to support inclusion of Vichy if some evidence of its more or less formal alliance with the Axis or of belligerence against Britain will be provided (see my previous post).

Fifthly, as a compromise I propose to remove Vichy and add a notion to the French flag in the left that France was a belligerent until the surrender of the French Third Republic and since the moment when the de Gaulle's government had been recognised by the Allied forces as the legitimate provisional government of France (Sept 1944).

Sixthly, noone edit wars here so far. You probably noticed that that was my first edit since Dec 16. As regards to JJG and DIREKTOR, I also see no sign of edit warring, just of a minor quarrel on the talk page. Both of them are quite polite and reasonable, although sometimes they are somewhat emotional. In connection to that I consider your warning about edit warring as premature.

Finally, I remove your last addition of questionable material as unsourced, and I will not oppose to its re-addition if unequivocal evidences in support of this edits will be provided during the subsequent discussion.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

PS. I also removed Croatia, because I failed to find the sources that confirmed that it declared a war on the Allies. If this source will be provided, I will not object against re-addition of this flag into the infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Siebert's preceding post, especially the second point.

Instead of Co-belligerent, would "Axis aligned" (I see this has been proposed/used before) or similar be a better subsection in the infobox? Using a more inclusive term may help. Alternatively, is it possible to have a third "Others" column as well as Allies and Axis? (Hohum ^@) 22:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be incorrect, because, e.g. Finland was not Axis aligned (which implies a some form of an alliance). It just fought against its enemy, the USSR concurrently with Germany, i.e. it was a classical non-aligned co-belligerent. "Co-belligerents and puppet states" seems to be quite correct, because it reflects the fact that all non-Axis countries that fought on the Axis side were either co-belligerents or the puppet states of Japan, Germany or Italy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really - JJG said Axis-aligned, if such a thing can be properly defined, means supporting the Axis openly in some deliberate way while not having signed its main treaty (i.e., the tripartite pact) and I support his definition. -Chumchum7 (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading the above arguments I can see the issue with "Axis-aligned", with the example of Finland demonstrating that not all states were politically aligned with German, but had their own agenda. Yet on the other hand "Co-belligerents and puppet states" doesn't seem quite a good fit either. Given that Vichy France is predominantly referred as a collaborationist state, how about "Co-belligerents, puppet and collaborating states"? --Martin (talk) 09:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Given Finland hosted German troops on its territory and participated in the German-led offensive Operation Barbarossa, surely one can talk about military-diplomatic alignment? The value of "Axis-aligned" is that its a suitably general phrase that covers "Co-belligerents, puppet and collaborating states" in a concise manner. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It perhaps should be kept in mind that Finland was fighting a war against Soviet Union. Not against Allies as a whole. Same went even for the Finnish Waffen-SS volunteers who were permitted to be deployed only against Soviet Union. Even the UK (or parts of British Empire) declaration of war ended up being one sided and empty gesture. Rest of the Allies didn't declare war against Finland. - Wanderer602 (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The more I study the template & look at the title "WW2", the more it is obvious to me that Vichy has no place there. The article WW2 relates to battles, hence to belligerents, i.e. allies/enemies in a fighting war. With no army, Vichy could not fight any war on the side of naz after 27 November 1942, at which time the whole of France was occupied - such a friendly gesture! The place of Vichy is in the political category of "collaboration", yes, but has no place in any category with heading "belligerents".

--Frania W. 13:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Guys, I cannot say the last edits [18] were in accordance with the WP policy and normal rules of politeness. I provided concrete arguments against these changes (which were supported by others), and my arguments were based on WP policy. In a response, I got just general considerations and handvawing - and all recent changes have been restored. You have not addressed the arguments I put forward in my last post (I would say, you simply ignored them), therefore I simply do not understand what is the ground for your recent edits. Please, re-read my posts, and try to address concrete arguments I put forward.
@ Martin. What you propose is completely incorrect: you propose to change the subsection's title to allow Vichy to be here, whereas the question is if Vichy can be listed in the infobox at all, and if it can, then why it should be placed on the Axis side only. However, even if we accept the proposed title ("Axis aligned"), that does not resolve the dispute over Vichy's belligerency, because the "Axis aligned" section of the "Belligerents" infobox means "Axis aligned belligerents".
Re DIRECTOR's line, I am not that would be clear for the ordinary reader.
In summary, I expect you to self-revert, because no decisive evidences or arguments in a support of these new changes have been provided, and the discussion has not ended yet. Let me also point out that the recent changes [19] are a direct violation of the BRD procedure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This from Paul Siebert is exactly the point I have been trying to make: "However, even if we accept the proposed title ("Axis aligned"), that does not resolve the dispute over Vichy's belligerency, because the "Axis aligned" section of the "Belligerents" infobox means "Axis aligned belligerents"."

--Frania W. (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, to recap, what is your proposal on how to deal with this? (Hohum ^@) 19:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh for heaven's sake.. if her troops fought in WWII it was a (co-)belligerent. Axis-alignment might be disputed, but we've got real battles and campaigns that would not have even been fought without Vichy troops as a combatant (e.g. Syria-Lebanon Campaign, Category:Military battles of Vichy France). I seriously cannot conceive this state can be excluded on the grounds that it was "not a WWII belligerent". All the while, the same folks do support the inclusion of statelets who's military (and economic) contribution to WWII was incomparably minuscule. This discussion is an example of over-complication of a simple matter, with a slight pinch of national bias...

As far as alignment to the Axis is concerned, I already suggested we simply separate it with a horizontal bar. If the disassociation between combatants such as the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany can be represented thusly in an infobox (e.g. Invasion of Poland), then it certainly suffices for the disassociation between the Axis and an arguable Axis client state. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:46, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR brings up an irrefutable example of why Vichy France should be included: Syria-Lebanon Campaign and Category:Military battles of Vichy France. I am beginning to think that "Axis aligned" is the most suitable here, particularly if there is a horizontal line to divide the entries as appropriate. --Martin (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Would Herr direktor mind explaining his slight pinch of national bias... ? Because if you are trying to imply that the French contributors to this discussion feel some type of national allegiance to the Vichy régime, you are way off base. If I could show you how branches of my family tree were blown off the tree during the Vichy régime, you might, out of courtesy, stop your ranting every time you see a comment signed by me.

--Frania W. (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Taking into account the DIREKTOR's Yugoslavian origin, the salutation "Herr" looks somewhat ambiguous. I would appreciate if you replace it with something else, e.g. "господин".--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Gospodin" would suffice Frania, we exclusively use the Latin alphabet in Croatia (though I am hoping to replace it with "doktor" in a few months ^_^). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

As he marches through Wikipedia with a German name all in capital letters, "Herr" came naturally.

However, if "Herr" is not suitable, instead of the too polite "господин", I'd much rather use "товарищ".

And when he earns the title of "doktor", ""товарищ директор" can rest assured that he will never count me among his patients.

--Frania W. (talk) 22:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now who's jumping to conclusions? "Direktor" is Serbo-Croatian as well, Frania. The outside world consists of more than Nazis/Germans threatening to march into France (for the fourth time).

We don't use Cyrillic alphabet, but "comrade"? You folks really ought to make up your mind, first I'm a Nazi now a communist. Next it'll be Al-Quaeda, Bugs was right...

Wow.. I guess I'll quit school then? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that we know on which side of the cyrillic alphabet you stand, please be kind enough to tell me how you spell "товарищ" (mit lateinischen Alphabets) in Serbo-Croatian. Who knows when it might come in handy?

By the way, you left your deleted broken heart here[20]. You should put it back in before someone calls you "heartless".

Now, if you could refrain from using words & expressions such as "nationalistic", "nationalistic agenda", "French crowd", "sacred French tricolour", "slight pinch of national bias" & other sweet little nothings aimed with a sneer at your French colleagues on Wikipedia, maybe we could go back to more constructive arguing.

--Frania W. (talk) 01:53, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I think I'll be the "mature" one here and walk away. I would appreciate it if you gave up trying to pick a fight, Frania. Seeing insults everywhere is no excuse for trolling. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Consequently, you refrain from insulting & there will be no trolling. Over & Out.

--Frania W. (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Dear DIREKTOR, firstly, let me point your attention at the fact that the info box has an and others link, which implies that not all WWII participants are listed there. In connection to that, exclusion of Vichy is not equivalent to the statement that it was not a belligerent; that simply may mean that it was not so important belligerent to be included, or that the case is too complicated.

Secondly, I agree that Croatia hardly deserves to be included, because the only mention of its participation in WWII (except its anti-partisan warfare in the Yugoslavia proper) was the participation of one battalion (or regiment) in the battle of Stalingrad. I even tried to remove it, but that removal was reverted by the proponent of Vichy in the infobox. Therefore, your statement that "the same folks do support the inclusion of statelets who's military (and economic) contribution to WWII was incomparably minuscule" is, at least partially, incorrect.

Thirdly, you correctly referred to the Syria-Lebanon Campaign as an evidence of the Vichy belligerence. I would also add the Battle of Dakar to that. However, please, explain me how such episodes as Invasion of French Indochina, Franco-Thai War, or Second French Indochina Campaign fit the scheme of Vichy co-belligerence with the Axis? It seems to me that Vichy almost simultaneously was defending itself from invasions of both the Allies (in Africa) and the Axis (in Indochina). How do you propose to reflect this fact? I would like to have an answer, because this argument is being persistently ignored.

Dear Hohum, I proposed several ways out of an impasse. Firstly, the Axis powers article contains the (unsourced) mention that Vichy signed the Anti-Comintern pact in 1941. This is in contradiction with the Anti-Comintern Pactarticle, however, if the proponents on Vichy in the infobox provided the source confirming this fact, that would serve as a demonstration of Vichy's adherence to the Axis policy. This, as well as the source supporting the (currently unsourced) statement that after British attack of the French fleet in Algeria "France broke relations with the United Kingdom after the attack and considered declaring war" would be an argument in favour of inclusion of Vichy, however, it is premature to speak about that, because the proponents of Vichy in the infobox seem not to bother to find any sources.

Secondly, as I already proposed, we could simply remove Vichy and simultaneously add to the French flag in the left side a notion that France was a belligerent until the surrender of the French Third Republic (1940) and since the moment when the de Gaulle's government had been recognised by the Allied forces as the legitimate provisional government of France (Sept 1944): "France (1939-40; 1944-45)". This my proposal has also been ignored.

In summary, I am a little bit disappointed with the behaviour of some of the editors during this discussion. To persistently ignore concrete arguments from the opposite side is not a best way to reach a consensus. I understand that Chumchum7 may be busy in his real life, so he probably has had no possibility to read my previous post, however, I strongly suggest him to to self-revert as soon as he will come back.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Have we then resolved the issue of its being a WWII belligerent? Then let me proceed by adding that, not only is it a belligerent, but its a very significant belligerent - both in the military, economic, and territorial sense (we're talking about almost half of Africa here). Certainly more significant than very many countries already included in the infobox (Iraq, Thailand, Slovakia, etc.). All I'm saying is we cannot exclude it. Once we get that out of the way, we can finally start discussing how best to represent its (admittedly peculiar) position in WWII.

(I did not want to list all the battles and campaigns so I just added the category, it includes the Battle of Dakar. Lets get Vichy out of the way before move on to the puppet Croatia) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I have checked a few sources and it seems they do refer to Vichy France as "axis aligned". See for example this source[21]. --Martin (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense. They persistently tried (and failed) to be neutral during the whole conflict and merely resisted assault by the Allies. Vichy was important as far as collaboration was concerned, but non-existent as far as the military organization of the Axis went. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense indeed. You seem to think only aggressors are belligerents :). By your logic, China e.g. "merely resisted" assault by the Axis, so did in essence the Soviet union. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear DIREKTOR. Since you haven't addressed my argument, your question ("Have we then resolved the issue of its being a WWII belligerent? ") sounds somewhat odd. No, we haven't resolved it so far. In particular, we still have no unequivocal answers on the following questions:

1. Can Vichy be considered a belligerent? (no evidences of declarations of war so far);
2. Can it be considered a WWII belligerent? (no evidences of the declaration of war on the Allies);
3. Can it be considered as an Axis aligned belligerent, or co-belligerent? (Franco-Thai war, Franco-Japanese war, German invasion of Vichy);
4. Can it be considered as so important belligerent to be included in the infobox (not to be placed in the "and others" category)?

In addition, let me remind you that, per the guidelines a summary style article should be in accordance with its daughter articles, and "editors should first add any new material to the appropriate places in the detailed article, and if appropriate, summarize the material in the summary section." I checked the The Axis article, and I found that Vichy is listed there in a separate section as an Axis collaborator state (not a co-belligerent, not a puppet state, not as a puppet regime). Since collaboration not necessarily implies belligerence, and since Vichy is not listed among the belligerents, it cannot be in the infobox on the "Belligerent" section.
I anticipate the argument that Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Correct. However, Wikipedia has a guidelines that require it to be self-consistent. Therefore, any changes in the infobox are to be accompanied by similar changes in the "The Axis" article: either Vichy France is listed among belligerents, or puppet states/regimes (which fully depend on their patron), or it is not listed as a belligerent in this infobox.
I already started this process by adding the "citation needed" template after two facts that need a confirmation. If the sources will be provided that confirm these facts, we can seriously discuss the change of the "The Axis" article to include Vichy into the "co-belligerents" category. It this case the need of the modification of the WWII infobox will become obvious. However, until the "The Axis" article does not list Vichy among belligerents on the Axis side, its flag cannot be in the right section of the infobox.
Of course, I personally think that "France (1939-40; 1944-45)" in the left part of the infobox would resolve all problems with Vichy/Free French.
Re Martin's "aligned", the question is not in "alignment", but in belligerence. "Alignment" is frequently being used very arbitrarily, and it may imply various things, for example, it can be a non-military alignment.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
PS I restored the division on the Axis powers, co-belligerents and puppet states, because I got no explanation so far why do we need to replace more concrete and informative terminology with something deliberately vague: in addition to the fact that that is in agreement with what the The Axis article says, a reader can quickly learn from that that the opponents of the Allies were not united in some uniform block, and that, in addition to the Axis proper, there were just non-aligned co-belligerents and puppet states. The only objection against this change was that it would not make possible inclusion of Vichy. However, I doubt out goal in to include Vichy at any cost.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Paul, you may have acted pre-maturely. Giving people little more than one hour to answer your question before restoring your version isn't sufficient. In any case your questions are flawed in suggesting that to be considered a belligerent requires a formal declaration of war. That is too strict a definition. According to sources the Allies certainly considered Vichy France as being aligned, if loosey, with Germany, see Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, Congressional Authorization and the War on Terrorism, 118 Harv. L. Rev. 2047, 2109 (2005) pp2111-12:

"In World War II, Congress declared war and authorized force against Germany, Italy, Japan, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania.²⁸⁷ As the war progressed, the Allies determined that Vichy France-controlled North Africa was a key strategic target in their plans to retake Europe and defeat Germany.²⁸⁸ The Vichy France government had a loose alliance with Germany, was in various ways under German influence, and engaged in several battles with the United States's ally, Great Britain.²⁸⁹ Although France was not specifically included in the congressional war declaration or authorization, the United States and its allies attacked and defeated the military forces of Vichy France in French North Africa"

So given that there were significant combat operations between the Allies (and note that the Free French fought the Vichy French in these operations) and Vichy France, for example the Syria-Lebanon Campaign and the West Africa Campaign (World War II), Vichy France should definitely be included atleast as an axis aligned state, if not a formal co-belligerent or puppet state. --Martin (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

1) Is Vichy France a WWII belligerent?

• Clearly yes. A few straw men that continuously reappear during this discussion:
  • The fact that the issue of their Axis-alignment is somewhat muddled, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they did, most certainly, engage in numerous WWII conflicts and campaigns. The fact that they fought the Allies and the Axis at certain points as you point out, only means they were all the more a WWII belligerent. Vichy does not have to be an Axis combatant to be a combatant.
  • The fact that they did their best to stay uninvolved in the conflict, but failed, or that they were on the defensive at all times, again has no bearing on the fact that they did, most certainly, engage in numerous WWII conflicts and campaigns. "Belligerent" obviously does not mean "aggressor".

2) Is Vichy France a significant WWII combatant, i.e. is it worthy of inclusion?

• Clearly more significant than many countries already included in the infobox (Slovakia? Iraq?).

3) How do we represent its unique status as a combatant with regard to the two great military alliances?

• This is really the only question that is not quite straightforward indeed.

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Re 1. Although it failed to be uninvolved, the question remains, on which side it was involved, because it fought against both the Allies and the Axis; the second question is what was the period of time when it can be considered as an independent party, not an occupied territory. Since 1942, it was definitely under German military occupation;

Re 2. In my opinion, Iraq is too unimportant to be included; Slovakia was among the most involved puppet states, so it probably deserves inclusion;

Re 3. I already proposed to exclude both Vichy and Free French; I propose to list France only until 1940 and starting from 1944.

However, independent of that, there is one more important question: we need to modify the The Axis article before any changes are done in this infobox. Try to do that first, provide needed evidences of Vichy co-belligerency, and I will support addition of Vichy to this infobox. However, I will oppose to any actions in the opposite order.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I have been browsing through the sources at my disposal. In Hitler (one-volume edition), Ian Kershaw stresses, pages 580-583, that Hitler hoped to find a military ally in Pétain's government, but was very disappointed when all they offered was neutrality. In his Vichy France : old guard and new order (french edition, La France de Vichy 1940-1944, Seuil, 1973), Robert O. Paxton adresses the question of Vichy's neutrality. Pages 65-70, he stresses the following things : the Vichy's government's objectives were essentially defensive. With the exception of Syria, they did not allow Axis forces to inspect their colonial bases. After Mers-el-Kébir, Germany hoped that Vichy France might go all the way and actually join the fight against the UK but, although this idea had some support among a few people in Vichy (especially those who hoped that Germany would allow France to annex part of the British african colonies), Hitler's hopes in that sense were ultimately dashed. Pages 72-80, he writes that Laval tried to define a close alliance with Germany without actually entering the fight : what may have caused Vichy to declare war on the UK would have been to conquer her african colonies, but this idea (Laval's idea, mainly) went nowhere. With Laval's removal in december 1940, Germany considered that they had lost an ally (page 111). Pages 111-132, Paxton details the policies of the Darlan government : Darlan never considered entering the fight alongside Germany. What he aimed to obtain was that France would be a part of Germany's "New Europe", but as a neutral state. The Paris peace protocols of may 1941 allowed Germany to use french facilities in the african colonies. However, they were opposed by Maxime Weygand, who wished the French african colonies under his supervision to remain neutral and wanted to stuck to his - inane - strategy of "defence against anyone" (Jacques Cantier, L'Algérie sous le régime de Vichy, 2002, pages 135-140, 144-145, 153-156) and the protocols did not come into force. After Pearl Harbour, Darlan stressed that France should remain neutral (especially since the USA might have invaded the french colonies in Africa, which is what happened anyway). Hitler himself apparently did not want anymore the french to enter the fight on his side, although the idea was nursed by some people on both sides, like Otto Abetz and Jacques Benoist-Méchin (Paxton, page 129). The Legion of French Volunteers Against Bolshevism was created by french collaborationist movements, who were frustrated that Vichy would not join the fight. Pétain's relationship with the LVF was limited to sanction its existence and sending them a friendly message (basically, he wished them good luck). The closest thing Vichy ever did to militarily join the Axis was, on summer 1941, the creation of the Tricolor legion - an initiative by Benoist-Méchin - which aimed to merge with and to revamp the LVF and to become a de jure unit of the German army. However, the Germans ultimately refused to sanction its existence because they were afraid that a strong french military force might ultimately join the Allies, which shows that german trust in french military aid was nil. Darlan's downfall and Laval's return to power did make the policy of collaboration more straightforward, but never to the point of concluding a real military alliance.

Another interesting fact is that Jean Decoux, governor general of French indochina, considered asking Japanese military help to reconquer New Caledonia from the Free French : this was not sanctioned by Vichy (Philippe Franchini, L'Indochine en guerres, tome 1, 1988, pages 157-158).

As everybody knows, Vichy's army resisted allied invasions : this did not stem from any orders from Germany, or Axis solidarity, but essentially from Weygand's idiotic doctrine of "defence against anyone" (défense contre quiconque). After Operation torch, as is also well known, Vichy's armies in the colonies joined the Allies and merged with the Free French forces, and the french troops in mainland forces were disbanded by Germany.

It should also be noted that Vichy's troops in North Africa (whose number of troops and weapons were stricly limited by the armistice with Germany, hardly the way to treat one's military ally) had been camouflaging from the Germans stocks of weapons, which were quite useful after they joined the Allies(Cantier, pages 100-109). In Morocco, troops were disguised as policemen in order to hide from Germany the fact that they had not been disbanded (Bernard Lugan, Histoire du Maroc des origines à nos jours 1993, pages 361-363). To Weygand's defense, it must be added that he helped cover these actions, although claims by his supporters that he had been secretly and actively "preparing France's revenge against Germany" seem exagerated (Cantier, pages 100-109).

As for Laval, he did state publicly that he wished for Germany to win the war, but he never went further. Pétain insisted that France should remain neutral, and stick to an "entente" with Germany rather than an alliance of any kind. Hitler apparently had high hopes for Laval, and thought that he was "the only person who could guarantee France's interests in the New Europe", but he was stuck with Pétain. Pétain disliked the Allies, but only because they threatened French interests in his eyes. (Paxton, pages 302-305)

The creation of the French Militia provided German troops with auxiliary support against the resistance, but this was mainly police work and the Milice did not actually make much impact until early 1944. Even after the start of Operation overlord, Pétain and Laval insisted that France was "not in the war", however absurd this was.

While the term "puppet state" has been used - including by me - for defining Vichy France, I don't think it is that fair : Pétain's "French State" had much more autonomy than Quisling's Norway or Nedic's Serbia and only in the final six months or so did the government really fall under the influence or the ultra-collaborationists (Marcel Déat, Joseph Darnand, Philippe Henriot, and Laval who finally had gotten his way).

Vichy France's study is very interesting if the subject of collaboration during WWII is taken into account. However, its military value for the Axis was nil, and it never was considered a real ally on the field of operations - only a potential one, and not by everybody. Vichy's only military actions were in self-defense (or perceived self-defense). Its inclusion in the infobox of main belligerents would be highly misleading. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 12:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the third time: those are straw man arguments, and you can keep bashing them forever if you like.

• What has Vichy's alignment with the Axis, or their usefulness to them, got to do with the fact that it was a WWII combatant?
• What does it matter if Vichy France was always defending itself? Should we exclude them out of "pity", what? A conflict usually consists of two sides: an attacker and a defender. By your definition of "belligerent", I imagine literally half of all combatants in all wars would be excluded from the infoboxes on the basis of the fact that they were "only defending themselves". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

These are not straw man arguments, these are elements from scholarly and professional sources which I found by doing my homework. I certainly don't pity them or anything : the members of the successive Vichy governments definitely deserved censure. Simply, the fact is that, as far as military matters were concerned, Vichy was never allied with the Axis, either de jure or de facto. The only help it ever offered the Axis by resisting allied invasions was, at best, indirect. I consider this argument closed. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

What a ridiculous discussion... Then you clearly do not know what a straw man argument is, JJG. "Those are indeed elements from scholarly and professional sources which you found by doing your homework." Yes. Now tell me how do they show Vichy France did not fight in WWII? Or do they not? Because, JJG, we're discussing whether Vichy was a belligerent or not. NOT whether it was an Axis belligerent, NOT whether it attacked somebody or was on the defensive. Just whether it fought in WWII. Did it fight in WWII, JJG? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the discussion is about its main as an Axis-aligned belligerent deserving inclusion in the main box. Which it was not, as the sources above clearly show. Vichy never wanted to fight alongside the Axis, and soon Germany had lost interest in a possible military alliance with it. Vichy was a collateral belligerent, fighting only in self-defense, for brief periods of time. If we include them, we might include Iran (which was invaded by the UK and the USSR and did fight back a little) or Portugal (which did resist a little against the Japanese when East Timor was invaded). I'm tired of this discussion, and of your agitated and agressive attitude, which Frania W. Has aptly summarized. End of the matter as far as I'm concerned. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin, since I added no new material to the infobox, I did not act prematurely. I would say the opposite is true, namely, that the Vichy flag was added prematurely, and I already explained why. Let me point out that not only I didn't act prematurely, but I even proposed the procedure that might lead to uncontroversial addition of Vichy into the infobox (or might not, depending on what the source state): to modify the The Axis article to list Vichy among the Axis co-belligerents, and, if this modification will be successful, to change the infobox accordingly. Currently, Vichy is listed among the collaborators, not co-belligerents, and some statements of the Vichy section are controversial (e.g. signing of the Anti-Comintern pact by Vichy; a state of war between Vichy and the UK) whereas some others (e.g. the statement that "In September 1940, Vichy France allowed Japan to occupy French Indochina" although, in actuality, they resisted to the Japanese invasion) hardly be fit the Vichy-Axis collaboration scheme. Other facts, that also do not fit the collaboration scheme are simply not mentioned in the article. Thus, the Franco-Thai war, a military conflict between the Axis co-belligerent, Thailand, and the Vichy troops is not mentioned at all, as well as the fact that the Vichy metropolia had been invaded by Germany in 1942, attempted to resist, and even scuttled wery significant naval forces in Toulon. However, even in the present version, the article does not list Vichy among the Axis co-belligerents. I do not know if fixing all inaccuracies and checking the facts and providing missing sources will allow us to move Vichy to the co-belligerents section, however, I am absolutely convinced that that is the first step me must do before making any changes in the WWII infobox.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record: I do not care whether Vichy was "Axis" or not. Ok fellas? I also do not care whether it "fought only in self defence" (is this murder trial? :)). It fought in numerous WWII engagements and campaigns, therefore it is a WWII belligerent. Can we finally stop bashing those poor straw men? As a (significant) WWII belligerent it has to be included in the WWII infobox. How exactly is another issue. I CAN NOT believe people are still denying that Vichy France was a WWII combatant after we have whole articles and categories about its numerous WWII battles. This is just getting silly. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to ignore Direktor. I mentioned above that I had been doing my homework with the sources. I have the feeling that he hasn't any sort of homework on the subject (Vichy as a significant WWII belligerent ? Please !) and, quite frankly, I don't expect him to. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Filibustering, JJG? Now that's just rude. I would never ignore you :). In fact here I am, diligently answering one nonsense post of yours after another in repeated succession. Come to think of it, didn't you say you were leaving the discussion? I'd hate to see you get behind on your real-world homework on my account, so please - feel to ignore me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Jean-Jacques Georges. I don't think the proposal to ignore DIREKTOR is justified, and I suggect you to withdraw this your proposal. His arguments are quite serious, and I myself wonder why Vichy is considered neutral by majority sources. The problem is, however, that DIREKTOR's arguments, despite their validity, contradict to what majority sources say: neutral country cannot be listed among the belligerents. In addition, we need to think not about this template, but about Wikipedia as whole, which means that this template must be consistent with what other articles say. I have no idea so far on how to resolve this issue, however, I am sure that this issue must be resolved before we can speak about addition of Vichy flag to the infobox. Let's discuss how to do that. The best way is to go to the The Axis talk page first.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not withdraw a single word, nor will I pay any respect to Direktor's ludicrous arguments. It is my opinion that the aforementioned user does not have a clue about the subject. Vichy is considered neutral because, officially, it was, despite wishes of the contrary by various people in France and Germany. Sources say so, because that was the way it was. The complexity of Vichy's case was that it remained officially neutral, while collaborating on the political side, and providing police support, part of it by its own initiative and not under german duress, at least in the first two years (which makes this case of treason all the more severe). But its importance on the military side was nil.

End of the discussion on this particular topic. Neutral countries must be included in the military conflict infoboxes only if they were dragged into specific battles (i.e., Portugal in Timor) and therefore be included only in the infoboxes of those battles, and not of the conflict as a whole. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 07:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

JJG, you say, "its importance on the military side was nil." A humble question: have you read Operation Exporter? What do you make of it? It gives the impression of significant Vichy engagement in defensive combat. -Chumchum7 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)