Talk:World War II/Archive Combatants 2

message: As far as I understand the alies and axis listed (big three for each) are arranged in chronological order. In my humble opinion that creates a problem with Japan - it was at war with China from 1937, potentially making it the first one on the list of axis. I propose to re-arrange those nations in the order of their input into allied (and axis) war effort. In which case the order would be: Allies:USSR, USA, UK Axis:Germany, Japan, Italy. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The second sino-japanese war is not world war 2, even if fighting there continued into it.  By your logic, should Italy also be included ahead of Germany because of the second italo-abyssinian war? --NEMT 15:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should rate the allies and axis on their importance as opposed to the time they joined their respective alliances - utilizing similar logic to the one employed in restricting the list to important players only. With respect, Ko Soi IX 19:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rating importance is bound to cause arguments because it is entirely subjective. Basing it on date-of-entry is at least objective. As HJ notes, if we use the date-of-agreement as the basis, they would not be listed first. --Habap 21:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, but by going by that yard stick both the USSR and the USA who joined the hostilities (on the side of the Allies) literally years after the United Kingdom, Australia, New-Zealand and Canada. Not only that but putting the USSR /first/ in the list of Allies is surely wrong since they were actually Axis treaty members until the German invasion of the USSR, fighting /against/ the allies. Demerphq 11:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Think the list is based on contribution rather than chronological order. Re: Soviets, see comment below from Parsecboy. This is pretty accurate. Wallie 23:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Go alphabetical.  Problem solved.  And the U.S. bashers will be happy. Haber 17:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: To Habap: You're right, it is a bad idea. To demerphq: however, 7 out of 8 Germans and their european allies killed were killed by USSR. With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of allies - particulary the order of

message: One thing I found interesting was the lack of discussion of the nations that declared themselves neutral at the beginng of hostilities. I think this is a serious omission, the political mood of neutrality and non-interference world wide were certainly signifigant to the history of the time. In particular the declaration of neutrality by American President Franklin Roosevelt on USA on Sept 5 1939 was of particular importance. At the very least the American Neutrality Act prohibited the sending of supplies to countries at war, which given the scale of the US economy and its relation to the British Empire would have had a signifigant impact on such things as the British and German strategic decisions.  The United States neutrality in the early stages of the war also gives perspective to the importance of the commonwealth nations such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Afrika joining the war.
Demerphq 11:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to the English. They always say how they stood alone against the Germans. Just heard Blair say this on TV. Obviously didn't need the Commonwealth... Wallie 23:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Battle of Britain and all... --NEMT 01:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the info box in that very article, you'll see other nations, including the Commonwealth, Poland, USA, etc. that contributed forces to the Battle of Britain. Parsecboy 01:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sarcasm --NEMT 03:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Nations (especially the US) 

message: Did you know at least one member of both the Axis and Allied powers of WW2 before reading this article?
Yes.  I knew just about all notable participants in WW2 and their roles, and did for quite some time before ever having stumbled upon Wikipedia. --NEMT 00:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: wikipedia editors tend to be more knowledgeable I assume, so what's the point of this poll? Have you seen "jaywalking" on Leno? BlueShirts 01:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can both agree most (if not all) wikipedia editors also come to wikipedia for research and recreational learning reasons, though.  Even if many are educated and already knowledgeable, they should still provide a somewhat accurate sample of wiki readers - and many are just "average people," since anyone can edit wikipedia.  Also, since we all know the average person apparently doesn't know the UK was an allied power (see above) this should be a pretty one sided poll - right? --NEMT 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Background poll

message: I think the box looks a lot tidier without the countries/leaders. Following comments here, I rewrote Allies of World War II to include the major Allies in the introduction. 
I don't know what it is with my Commonwealth cousins in Canada; some of them also keep changing Allies of World War I, to list Canada separately there, even though the Dominions didn't even have independence in foreign policy until 1931. I guess it has something to do with living next door to he only superpower :-) Grant | Talk 03:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT "UK/Great Britain" REPRESENTS ALL THE DOMINIONS THAT PLAYED A PART...IF CANADA SHOULD BE LISTED THEN WHY SHOULDN'T AUSTRAILIA?? ANYWAYS CANADA WILL NEVER BE UP THERE. I MYSELF AM A PROUD CANADIAN BUT I ACCEPT THAT WE ARE NOT PUT ON THERE. ANYONE WHO ISN'T STUPID KNOWS THAT CANADA WAS IN WW2. SO IT BEING PUT UP THERE REALLY MEANS NOTHING. THE STATES ARE UP THERE BECAUSE OF THERE MILITARY PRESENCE. MUCH LIKE WW1 WHERE THE USA ONLY JOINED BECAUSE SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THEM, AND THEY JOINED LATE.  BUT THE USA HAD/HAS A HUGE MILITARY SO THERFORE IS GOING TO BE ADDED TO THE LIST.
MY MAIN POINT IS THAT CANADA WAS PART OF THE "UK" and the "UK" IS ON THERE. 205.251.204.250 22:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New look for battlebox