"
I inserted ""British Commonwealth"" into those sentences, about the North African campaign and the make-up of the Eighth Army! In fact, I have fought for quite a while to have ""British Commonwealth"" used in WW2 articles, when it is factually correct, rather than the technically incorrect ""British Empire"" or ""British and Commonwealth"". It's an ongoing battle. Use of ""British Commonwealth"" in infoboxes is justified in cases such as the British Pacific Fleet (active in 1945), Commonwealth Corps (invasion of Japan) and the 1st Commonwealth Division (in the Korean War), where units were specifically organised along those lines. However, in the Pacific between mid-1942 and early 1945, the UK representation was almost negligible (a couple of RAF squadrons and some army/naval special forces): the South West Pacific Area (command) under MacArthur, during 1942, was almost 100% Australian; New Zealand was the second string in Nimitz's command, the Pacific Ocean Areas (command) and; in the Aleutians campaign it was all US and Canadian forces. Use of British Commonwealth in such cases, or at the global level, conveys two false impressions: that the ""British"" were somehow involved at all times in all theatres and that the ""British Commonwealth"" was a primary military/political organisation, when the forces of a particular Dominion were very often alone in joint commands with the U.S. Therefore ""Allies"" and ""Allied"" make more sense and are more accurate than ""British Commonwealth"" or any of the anachronistic alternatives.  | Talk "