This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
...so you're saying Poland continued to fight after its defeat in 1939? A few points:
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)
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" 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)
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)
Albania (1941-44)
Independent State of Croatia
Nedić regimea (1941-44)
Montenegroa (1941-44)
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 20:25, 4 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)
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)
World War II/Infobox/Archive 5 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis and Axis-aligned
Vichy France (1940-1944) | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
World War II/Infobox/Archive 5 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis Co-belligerents and puppet states | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
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.
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis Axis-aligned | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 10:49, 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. -- Plasma Twa 2 09:10, 14 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Unfortunately, I cannot agree that that was an improvement.
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)
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)
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:
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)
1) Is Vichy France a WWII belligerent?
2) Is Vichy France a significant WWII combatant, i.e. is it worthy of inclusion?
3) How do we represent its unique status as a combatant with regard to the two great military alliances?
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:08, 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)
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)
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)
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
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)
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)
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.
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)
...so you're saying Poland continued to fight after its defeat in 1939? A few points:
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)
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" 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)
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)
Albania (1941-44)
Independent State of Croatia
Nedić regimea (1941-44)
Montenegroa (1941-44)
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 20:25, 4 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)
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)
World War II/Infobox/Archive 5 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis and Axis-aligned
Vichy France (1940-1944) | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 08:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
World War II/Infobox/Archive 5 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis Co-belligerents and puppet states | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
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.
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|
| |||
Belligerents | |||
Allies |
Axis Axis-aligned | ||
Commanders and leaders | |||
Allied leaders |
Axis leaders |
Thanks, - Chumchum7 ( talk) 10:49, 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. -- Plasma Twa 2 09:10, 14 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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
Unfortunately, I cannot agree that that was an improvement.
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)
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)
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:
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)
1) Is Vichy France a WWII belligerent?
2) Is Vichy France a significant WWII combatant, i.e. is it worthy of inclusion?
3) How do we represent its unique status as a combatant with regard to the two great military alliances?
-- DIREKTOR ( TALK) 11:08, 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)
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)
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)
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)