Jump to content

Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16

"Combatant states"

Why are we describing states as "combatant states" that never actually fought in the war? For example, as far as I am aware Paraguayan forces never actually took part in combat against the Axis. Was Saudi Arabia really a "state combatant", when, as far as can be seen from the sources, Saudi Arabian forces never engaged in combat? Is there a reliable source that describes them all as such?

It would be better simply to define them as members of the Allies. FOARP (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Someone recently added a large number of states to the info box. The entire article is a poorly sourced mess but most people are only interested in the info box. If it were up to me I would list only The British Empire, France, the Soviet Union, the USA and China in the info box (as the major allies) because the info box is only supposed to record key information. A table of other allies should be in the article with proper sourcing and explanations because complicated information should be in the article not the info box. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The issue here (I suspect) is the section labeled (in the body) "Combatant states", which may need renaming. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It's an issue both in the body-text and the infobox. FOARP (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I think finding a good name for the section might be a bit of a challenge. As far as I can see, we have fighting states, non-fighting states that supported the Allies and declared war, non-fighting states that supported the Allies and non-fighting states that declared war to gain access to the United Nations. Roughly, at least. The Banner talk 12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd look at what reliable sources use to describe them. "Big Three" is a well-known descriptor for the three largest allied powers, but for the rest of them it looks like descriptors that were invented by editors themselves. FOARP (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Problems with the map

We've discussed this over on the Axis page, and it's also true here: the map is quite problematic. Vichy France is included on it but its status is not clear. The Baltic states are included despite, again, their role in WW2 not being somewhat disputable (they were invaded and annexed by the USSR under the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty in 1940 - not clear to me how you define that on a scale from "Allies" to "Axis" when they weren't independent states when Operation Barbarossa started!). The zone of India invaded by the Japanese is included as a "state" of sorts, again, something that is pretty disputable. Yugoslavia is, in contrast to France, shown as a single state without any borders being shown within it.

I honestly don't think this is something that can be fixed in a single map in the infobox. It is far too complicated, and requires taking decisions on controversial issues in a way that fails NPOV. If a map is necessary, it might make sense to show the allied membership and territorial extent at a particular point in time. However, a photograph demonstrating Allied membership (e.g., the "United for Victory" poster) might work better (EDIT: I've now boldly made this edit, if you object please WP:BRD).

I have to say, this page also seems to suffer from a "Paradox game outlook", where countries are assembled under different headings under what strategy-game-rules would make them, rather than what reliable sources actually say about them. For example, Iraq is listed under "Co-belligerents (former Axis powers)", but no source describes it as having ever been an Axis power per se - the Rashid government fought against the UK briefly but no formal alliance was ever concluded. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand while Pearl Harbor is a treshold here; seems the only purpose is to color SU with dark green and USA with light green. It gives the false impression, because SU was an ally of Nazi Germany, while USA supported allies since 1939. Marcelus (talk) 10:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
It's arbitrarily selected and reflects a certain POV (essentially that WW2 started in earnest with Pearl Harbour). Another reason to deprecate the map. FOARP (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The issue may just be too complex for a map. Slatersteven (talk) 10:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Given to agree. This is highlighted particularly by the use of different-coloured diamond/circle symbols on some countries to convey information about them that 100% aren't going to be visible on even the largest monitor screen - just too complex a topic to try to communicate graphically, and too much information just for the infobox. FOARP (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Maps

File:WWII Allies and Axis territory (red blue).png already exists, but the meaning of the various colors is unclear to me. Then there's a whole series that vary over time, starting with File:Ww2 allied axis 1939 sep.PNG. -- Beland (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the first map makes much sense. Iraq is shown as an Axis country despite being an Allied country for most of the war, Hainan island is also shown as Axis territory, but it was part of China and never governed by anyone but the Chinese and Japanese occupation authorities. The series maps are better but they need to show the USSR as the same colour as the other Allies. November 1942 might be taken as a "maximum extent of the Axis" map, but it does not illustrate the Allies so much - the later ones seem to have disputed accuracy. I'm not sure any of these work for an infobox FOARP (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to simply map the countries that are already listed in the infobox, with four different colors or patterns to show the different four different categories. -- Beland (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think those categories are necessarily supported by sources either. FOARP (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
OK, sounds like we need to nail down those lists, then. -- Beland (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

How do reliable sources describe the Allies when listing them?

I'm going to have a look at how reliable sources describe the membership of the Allies so we can get a feeling as to how we should be describe them here.

What can seen here is that 1) they lead this list with the "Big Three", 2) they don't really distinguish between governments-in-exile and others when listing, and 3) they don't distinguish between countries that deployed forces and those that didn't. The "Big Four" and "Big Five" are not mentioned here at all.
Again the "Big Three" is highlighted and China discussed only as a "nominal" additional major power. No complete listing of the countries is attempted here.
This does highlight the "Big Four", but does not distinguish between occupied and unoccupied states. Having gone through the list I'm also sceptical about the overall standard of accuracy here: did Panama really declare war on 7 December 1941? Was San Marino really an Allied state? This seems to be one of the less reliable sources.
This is unfortunately too long to excerpt in its totality so I've taken selected quotes. This chapter does not attempt to list all the states Allied states, indeed it does not even treat the Allies as a single group of countries but instead discussed two different groupings. It does emphasise the primacy of the "Big Three" (these are described as being the leaders of the "Grand Alliance") whilst also discussing the "Big Four". However, since it essentially does not accept the framework of their being a single Allied alliance, it seems a potentially fringe source. FOARP (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The Oxford Handook of World War II entry for "Allied Powers" states:
"Allied powers,
those countries which actively opposed the Axis powers. The principal ones were China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA, and the USSR. From January 1942 all countries, including the governments-in-exile of those countries occupied by the Germans, which became a party to the United Nations Declaration were also regarded as Allied powers. See also Grand Alliance."
So this source is an authority for dividing the Allies into:
1) the principal allied powers: "China, France, the UK and its empire, the USA, and the USSR"
2) the Grand Alliance (a subset of 1.)
3) all countries which became a party to the United Nations Declaration (with a possible subset of occupied powers with governments-in-exile). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I’m not sure which Oxford Handbook you’re looking at (I can’t open your link), it isn’t the 2023 version which isn’t structured as an Encyclopaedia and doesn’t have entries per se. At any rate, we can see the other sources above tend to put the “Big Three” front-and-centre. FOARP (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I am looking at the The Oxford Companion to World War II (2014, online edition) Edited by: I. C. B. Dear  and M. R. D. Foot.
I any event I would be happy if the Info Box just listed the Big Three with a link to the full table in the article. The full table should list all the Allies that signed up to the United Nations declaration in order of their signing. the info box is definitely not the place for a full list of the allied powers. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Given to agreeing on this. One other source is The Oxford History of World War II, 2023, Richard Overy (ed.), which has a chapter about the Allies (Chapter 6 - The Allies from Defeat to Victory, p. 157-189). This describes the Allies as follows:
Again, the "Big Three" highlighted, no attempt at a full listing, no focus on China. FOARP (talk) 08:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I would also specify that "Britain" rather than "The United Kingdom" was one of the "Big Three." Just about every source refers to "Britain" (or "Great Britain") rather than "The United Kingdom" for the obvious reason that it was the British Empire and its self-governing Dominions that provided most of the manpower and resources for Britain's war effort. I would therefore, in the info box, have a note under "Britain" which states: "Includes the British Empire and its Dominions." I would then list India and the Dominions alphabetically (or in order of signature) in the Table in the article (not the Info Box). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
As Britain is an island, at least it should be Great Britain. For the rest: do you have sources to back up your claim? The Banner talk 11:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure which claim you mean. The importance of the Empire? Plenty of sources for that. Such as this one. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The issue we've got here is there is no brief, specific terminology for what you're looking for. If you say "British Empire" this doesn't clearly include the dominions (which were already equal in status to the UK after the 1926 Balfour Declaration). If you say "British Commonwealth" then it's not clear that this includes the colonies. If you say "Great Britain" then, whilst this is used informally to refer to the UK, it is not the correct term since it exclude Northern Ireland. If you say "Britain" then there is the same issue.
The sources are saying "Britain" for the British Empire and Commonwealth for the same reason they say "Russia" for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and "America"/"United States" for the United States of America - it is informal and briefer. FOARP (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The term is the British Empire and Commonwealth or simply the British Commonwealth, given that by 1939 the Commonwealth was an equal partnership between the British Empire (including India and the colonies), the Dominions and Canada (Canada being by 1939 a fully independent nation within the Commonwealth). Just to be clear, I would put Britain in the info box with a note stating: "includes the British Empire and the Commonwealth"). As you correctly state, Britain is mostly used in the sources as shorthand for all the lands under the British Crown. Those born in the dominions and colonies were British subjects and many joined the British armed forces rather than the armed forces of the dominions. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)