Talk:World War II

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2025

Main Allied leaders : - Joseph Staline - Franklin D. Roosevelt - Winston Churchill - Chiang Kai-shek - Charles de Gaulle

Please, add Charles de Gaulle to the « Main Allied leaders » at the beginning of the page, it’s a historical fact. That’s why France got a permanent seat at the Security Council of UNO.

Please, add Charles de Gaulle to the « Main Allied leaders » at the beginning of the page, it’s a historical fact.That’s why France got a permanent seat at the Security Council of UNO. 2A02:1210:7691:1300:89B1:88DA:EA3D:AA7E (talk) 01:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

While he was certainly an Allied leader (listed here), he was the head of the French government-in-exile and played a much smaller role compared to Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Chiang. JasonMacker (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Previous discussions on the talk page have found there is a consensus against including de Gaulle. Day Creature (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

If Chiang is there so should De Gaulle be. Both or neither 109.138.247.207 (talk) 08:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Chiang was ruler of a country that had not been conquered or surrendered, De Gaulle was not, as France had surrendered. Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, it’s time we stop pretending. People still throw around this idea — politely, vaguely — that the 1940 armistice marked the end of France’s role in World War II. That France bowed out, stopped fighting, and that its place among the victorious powers was more of a diplomatic courtesy than a deserved position. That is false. Historically false. Legally indefensible. And politically dishonest.

First, let’s be clear: the 1940 armistice has no legal value today. It was rendered null the moment it ceased to reflect the actual sovereignty of France.

Let’s look at who signed it. The Vichy regime — not a legal continuation of France, but a government born in defeat and panic, set up under German pressure. The July 10 vote giving full powers to Marshal Pétain? It was rushed, held under duress, with missing parliamentarians, no real debate, and zero constitutional guarantees. That’s not a legitimate constitutional transition — it’s an institutional collapse. And this isn’t just a matter of opinion. The ordinance of August 9, 1944, issued by the Provisional Government of the French Republic, retroactively nullified all legislative acts of the Vichy regime. That’s an official legal act: Vichy was never recognized as legitimate under French law. Every decree, every law, every signature under Pétain’s rule — wiped out. France didn’t just “move past” Vichy. It erased it. This legal move wasn’t invented out of nowhere. It followed the consistent Gaullist legal argument from June 1940 onward: Vichy could not represent France, because France had not surrendered as a sovereign state. The Republic had been illegally suspended, not legally replaced. The real continuity of French law and sovereignty lived on — not in Vichy, but in Free France.

De Gaulle made it absolutely clear: the French state cannot be represented by a government installed under enemy influence. That’s why the authority of Free France — and later the Provisional Government — was the only legitimate one. Not out of sentiment. Not out of politics. Out of legal continuity. So from a purely legal standpoint — no rhetoric, no romanticism — the 1940 armistice had no lasting authority. It was signed by a regime that had no right to sign on behalf of France. That makes it void.

Now let’s talk facts. Because law means nothing if it isn’t backed by reality.

France did not stop fighting in 1940. It simply fought elsewhere, under different colors. From 1940 onward, Free French forces took part in operations across Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. They were in Libya, in Syria, in Italy, in the Vosges, in Alsace. The 1st French Army landed in Provence and fought its way into Germany. It wasn't symbolic — it was real. On the ground. With guns and blood. And let’s be very clear: France (Jean de Lattre de Tassigny) signed the German surrender in May 1945. Not as a bystander. As one of the four powers occupying Germany. And who signed the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri in September 1945? A French representative (Leclerc). Not a decoration. A co-signer of history. These aren’t favors you hand out to a defeated state. You sign a surrender only if you were at war. And you sign it only if you won. That is not the legacy of an armistice. That is the legacy of a continued war effort — a war effort carried by Free France and, later, the reconstituted French Republic. And the Allies knew it. Free France gradually gained recognition — first reluctantly, then openly — as the legitimate government of France. The Provisional Government, established in 1944, wasn’t created from scratch. It was the result of years of resistance and reconstruction, a state that fought to exist and then helped win the war. By 1945, France was occupying German territory, a founding member of the United Nations, and a permanent seat holder on the Security Council. You don’t give that seat to a country that bowed out in 1940. So anyone claiming that the 1940 armistice defines France’s place in WWII is choosing to ignore everything that followed. They're ignoring the Resistance, ignoring Free France, ignoring the soldiers, the diplomats, the territories reclaimed, and the flags raised in victory.

The armistice isn’t a defining moment. It’s a false pause. Free France broke it — not with words, but with bullets. (I'll let you judge based on the quote at the end.)

I have been studying French participation during the Second World War for 13 years. I myself had an ancestor who joined the African army in 1942 and who participated in the campaign in Italy, Provence and Germany. Anglo-Saxon sources are propaganda to erase the role of France during the Second World War in reaction to Gaullist policy during the war and after the war, for example on the subject of NATO or Europe. Therefore, Wikipedia must be used to erase this historical manipulation and tell the incontestable truth that France played a major role during the Second World War but that Anglo-Saxon propaganda wants to erase it. It feels like 1984 with all these manipulations. Sorry if I was vehement but I hate propaganda that is so strong that it is considered an incontestable truth. What I stated is not an opinion, it is an uncontested and incontestable truth.

Multiple sources :

Ordinance of August 9 1944 — “Ordonnance relative au rétablissement de la légalité républicaine sur le territoire continental.” Journal Officiel de la République Française.

Charles de Gaulle, The Appeal of 18 June 1940, BBC, London.

Charles de Gaulle, War Memoirs, Vol. 1: The Call to Honour (1940–1942).

Jean-Pierre Azéma, From Munich to Liberation, Seuil, 1992.

Jean-Louis Crémieux-Brilhac, Free France, Gallimard, 1996.

Eisenhower's memoirs — Crusade in Europe (mentions French forces’ essential role).

Diplomatic records: France’s signature on the surrender of Germany (Reims and Berlin, May 1945) and the surrender of Japan (USS Missouri, September 2, 1945).

United Nations Charter, 1945 — France listed as founding member and permanent Security Council member.

Forgive me if this was long, but I think I have provided a sufficiently detailed argument to definitively assert that Free France rendered the 1940 armistice null and void. Therefore, this argument cannot be used in the debate.

And forgive me if I wrote it wrong, English is not my mother tongue, which is why I had a lot of difficulty writing this text, which took me about 40 minutes.

And I would like to finish on a quote from Adolf Hitler:

"You hear, gentlemen, what Koch is saying. It is indeed further proof of the thesis I have always maintained, namely that the French are, [after us,]* the best soldiers in all of Europe. France will always be in a position, even with its current birth rate, to field a hundred divisions. We will absolutely have to, after this war, form a coalition capable of militarily containing a country capable of accomplishing military feats that astonish the world, as at Bir Hakeim."

• Nazi Propaganda, The French Army is the Best.

source of quote Utygiolyrc (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

	Text generated by a large language model (LLM) or similar tool has been collapsed per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. LLM-generated arguments should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Legal Argument in Favor of the Exclusive Legitimacy of Free France and the Invalidity of the 1940 Armistice ---- I. Constitutional Illegality of the Vichy Regime The Vichy regime cannot be considered a legitimate government under the constitutional law of France in effect in 1940. The constitutional law of July 10, 1940, which granted full powers to Marshal Pétain, was marred by significant procedural irregularities. It was adopted under duress, in the absence of many parliamentarians who were either abroad or otherwise prevented from voting. Moreover, it violated both the spirit and the letter of the constitutional laws of 1875, which did not authorize the suspension of the Republic or the transfer of sovereign power. This rupture of republican legality invalidates all subsequent decisions made by the Vichy government, including the signing of the June 22, 1940 armistice. As such, the Vichy regime cannot be said to have represented the French Republic in any legal or constitutional sense on the international stage. ---- II. Breach of France’s International Commitments in 1940 In May 1940, France signed a joint declaration with the United Kingdom pledging not to make a separate peace with Germany. By concluding a unilateral armistice with Nazi Germany, the Vichy government violated this international commitment, effectively breaking France’s diplomatic continuity. In international law, a government that flagrantly breaches the state’s treaties and commitments loses part of its recognition as a legitimate legal subject. In contrast, Free France, from July 1940 onward, upheld France’s international obligations—particularly to the Allies. This commitment to legal and diplomatic continuity supports the conclusion that Free France preserved the legal personality of the French state, despite being in exile. ---- III. Progressive and Effective International Recognition of Free France Although initial recognition of Free France was limited (notably by the United Kingdom in 1940), it gradually expanded. From 1942 onwards, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other Allied powers recognized first the French National Committee, and later the Provisional Government of the French Republic (GPRF), as France’s legitimate authority. This recognition is more than a political gesture. Under international law, recognition of a government confirms its capacity to represent the state in legal matters, enter into treaties, and act on behalf of its people. From this standpoint, only the GPRF had the legal capacity to sign binding international acts on France’s behalf. ---- IV. The 1940 Armistice: Legally Null and Void in the Postwar Order The 1940 armistice signed at Rethondes was not a peace treaty but a military cessation of hostilities. It was never ratified by Parliament or concluded by a government with full international standing. Furthermore, Germany’s own breach of the agreement—through its occupation of the southern zone in November 1942—rendered the armistice null and void de facto. From a legal standpoint, the armistice lost all binding force. The authority that signed it lacked constitutional legitimacy, and the agreement was never formalized as an enduring legal instrument. Meanwhile, Free France, by continuing hostilities and maintaining international obligations, preserved the state’s legal identity and sovereignty. Thus, France never legally surrendered in 1940. ---- V. The Only Valid Acts: Berlin and Tokyo, 1945 On May 8, 1945, Germany’s surrender was signed in Berlin by the four Allied powers, including France, represented by General de Lattre de Tassigny. This signature was made on behalf of the Provisional Government of the French Republic, which had replaced Vichy after the Liberation and had been internationally recognized as France’s legal authority. Similarly, on September 2, 1945, at the Japanese surrender aboard the USS Missouri, General Leclerc signed the act on behalf of France. These two acts are the only legally binding instruments of surrender involving France, as they were concluded by a government that had regained full sovereignty, recognition, and legal legitimacy. ---- Conclusion From the perspective of both constitutional and international law, the only government that maintained the legal continuity of the French state during World War II was Free France, later formalized as the Provisional Government of the Republic. The Vichy regime, born of an unconstitutional seizure of power and in breach of international commitments, cannot be considered to have held legitimate authority. The 1940 armistice is thus legally null. The only valid international acts signed by France during the war were the 1945 instruments of surrender in Berlin and Tokyo—acts that affirmed France’s sovereignty and legal standing, not as a defeated state, but as a victorious power represented by its only lawful government: that of Free France. Why have you never studied French participation during the Second World War or you are deliberately lying In both cases you are not legitimate to speak about France during the Second World War Utygiolyrc (talk) 00:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC) Why General de Gaulle's Free France Should Be Among the Top Five Allied Powers of World War II: It is historically justified to recognize Free France, led by General Charles de Gaulle, as one of the five principal Allied powers during World War II. This is supported by military, diplomatic, and strategic contributions that were far from minor. 1. A major military force by 1945 By the time of Germany’s surrender on May 8, 1945, France had the fifth largest army in the world, with approximately 1.8 million soldiers. In terms of actual contribution to the Allied victory, France ranked as the fourth most involved Allied army, ahead of China. This reveals the significant, yet often overlooked, role of the French military in the final defeat of Nazi Germany. 2. Diplomatic recognition at the highest level France was not a secondary player on the diplomatic stage. General de Gaulle took part in major Allied conferences, including the Casablanca Conference in 1943, alongside Churchill and Roosevelt. Furthermore, France was granted a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council , alongside the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China—solidifying its status as a global power. 3. Active participation on multiple fronts French forces, whether Free French Forces (FFL) or the reconstituted French army after 1943, fought across virtually every major theater of the war: In the Atlantic, with the Free French Navy; In Africa, notably during the North African campaign; In Western Europe, with the 1st French Army under General de Lattre de Tassigny; In Eastern Europe, through volunteer fighters and the Resistance; In Asia and the Pacific, with French units operating in french Polynésia and New Caledonia. In Middle East, with Syria–Lebanon campaign 4. A key role in the Provence landings Often overshadowed by the D-Day landings in Normandy, the Allied landings in Provence (August 1944) were a major military operation, led in large part by French forces. This landing enabled a rapid liberation of southern France and the opening of a critical second front against the German army. 5. Eisenhower called the French army “indispensable” General Dwight D. Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe, explicitly stated that the French army was "indispensable" during the 1944 campaign in Western Europe. Such a strong endorsement highlights how essential French forces were to the overall success of the Allied effort. 6. Bir Hakeim: The Heroic Stand That Gave Free France Its Military Legitimacy Among the most glorious and strategically significant episodes in the history of Free France during World War II stands the Battle of Bir Hakeim, fought between May 26 and June 11, 1942, in the deserts of Libya. This battle marked the first major engagement where the Free French Forces, under the command of General Marie-Pierre Kœnig, stood alone against the German and Italian Axis armies—most notably Rommel’s formidable Afrika Korps—and emerged with both tactical credibility and symbolic triumph. At the isolated desert stronghold of Bir Hakeim, roughly 3,700 Free French troops, including soldiers from the Foreign Legion, colonial troops from Africa, and volunteers from across the French Empire, held out for 16 consecutive days against more than 30,000 Axis troops, backed by hundreds of tanks, artillery pieces, and air support. Vastly outnumbered, outgunned, and facing the brutal heat and isolation of the desert, the Free French resisted wave after wave of assaults, artillery barrages, and air bombardments with exceptional discipline and courage. Strategically, Bir Hakeim proved decisive in the broader North African campaign. By tying down Rommel’s forces for over two weeks, the French delayed the Axis advance toward Tobruk and ultimately Cairo, buying invaluable time for the British Eighth Army to regroup and fortify positions at El Alamein. This delay was a key factor in preventing an early Axis breakthrough into Egypt and the Middle East. British commander General Claude Auchinleck later acknowledged that the stand at Bir Hakeim significantly contributed to the eventual victory at the First Battle of El Alamein—a major turning point in the war. However, the importance of Bir Hakeim extends beyond its tactical implications. Symbolically, it was a moment of resurrection for France—a nation humiliated by the 1940 armistice, now rising through the valor of its sons and daughters under the Free French banner. In standing firm against the Axis while many doubted the relevance or capacity of Free France, the defenders of Bir Hakeim validated Charles de Gaulle’s claim that France had not surrendered—that a true France continued to fight. The moral impact was immediate and profound. The battle electrified Allied public opinion and reshaped perceptions of the Free French Forces. Winston Churchill praised the defense of Bir Hakeim in the House of Commons, declaring that the French had "covered themselves with glory." It also inspired many French citizens at home and in the colonies to join the Resistance or the Free French movement. From that point forward, Free France was no longer viewed as a symbolic remnant of a fallen nation, but as a fighting force worthy of respect, sacrifice, and strategic alliance. Moreover, Bir Hakeim became a foundational myth for post-war France. It demonstrated that national honor had been preserved not through words but through sacrifice in blood and fire, far from Paris but in the name of its liberation. The battle’s legacy continues to resonate in French military history as a prime example of tenacity, cohesion among diverse forces, and the will to restore France’s dignity through action. Conclusion: Given its military strength, global diplomatic recognition, and widespread contributions across multiple theaters of war, France should be recognized as one of the five principal Allied powers of World War II. To exclude it is to neglect a crucial part of the Allied victory and the post-war world order that followed. Utygiolyrc (talk) 00:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

This is your opinion, with impressive arguments. However in Wikipedia information is added basing of cited references to reliable sources. Got some? --Altenmann >talk 05:34, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

It isn't up to we editors to detail our personal views on a matter. You will need to cite reliable sources indicating that Free France was one of the major allies. This issue has already been discussed many times and the consensus is that the majority of reliable sources do not to classify Free France as such. However, the contribution of Free France is discussed in the article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2025

Lata44 (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Grammar correction

Please Specify the changes Destinyokhiria (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TylerBurden (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

The bombing of Pearl Harbor 2600:387:F:A36:0:0:0:6 (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Already in the article, try reading it. Slatersteven (talk) 09:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Word Use: Capitulation

Explain the purpose of capitulation in reference to nazi surrender? That enemy was defeated, they did not follow along with peace. 66.213.112.34 (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Please see German Instrument of Surrender Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Multiple Names

It would be great if the lead mentions that World War 2 has multiple names applying to either part of it or in-whole. This should include the "Great Patriotic War" for example which even has it's own article already, but going unmentioned here despite this being the main article. 2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E5DE:440B:5DAC:753 (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the Russian term "Great Patriotic War" only refers to the Nazi war against the Soviet Union, not WWII as a whole. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

It is already included as an alt name at Eastern Front (World War II). Mellk (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

The post you read explicitly says "either part of it or in-whole". It does not say that that term was in-whole. It is an example of an other name with common-enough usage to justify mentioning in the lead paragraph as happens in other articles (see either the article on the Second Gulf War or the Second Indochina War).

2A02:1210:1C27:2900:E5DE:440B:5DAC:753 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

I do not see why we would include other names here that refer to only specific theaters and not the global 1939–1945 war. Mellk (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

"Great Patriotic War", as well as only referring to one front for a limited time, is also largely unused outside the former USSR. DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2025

In the article's impact section, a section on the war's cultural impact (art, architecture, film, music, fashion) should be included (looking at the impact on culture during the war and after). There is a section on technology's role and impact so it seems necessary that art/culture be included as well. As short example of what might be included (just scratching the surface here):

World War II had a profound and far-reaching impact on global culture, reshaping art, architecture, music, fashion, and film. The devastation of historic cities through bombing raids particularly led to extraordinary cultural loss, although precisely planned bombing missions were sometimes employed to specifically protect cultural sites. Damaged and destroyed cultural sites across the world were painstakingly rebuilt in the postwar period as acts of communal and spiritual renewal.

The war sparked both destruction and artistic resistance. Under the Third Reich, culture was co-opted to promote ideology, with modern art labeled as "degenerate." In contrast, artists and photographers captured the human cost of conflict and survival. Artists like Mauricio Lasansky and Max Beckmann created works condemning Nazi atrocities, while Holocaust survivors used drawing as testimony. Postwar recovery also saw major restitution efforts, with looted artwork slowly returned to their rightful heirs, a process that continues today.

World War II reshaped popular culture, leading to new artistic movements, musical trends, and cinematic genres. Jazz emerged as both a tool of resistance and a symbol of modern American identity. Wartime fashion reflected material scarcity and later blossomed into the revival of couture, exemplified by Dior’s “New Look.” Hollywood and European cinema responded to war’s emotional toll through realism and moral complexity, birthing new film movements. PlottingBishop57 (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

This is an interesting topic but the academic literature on the cultural impact of the war is vast and we would need much better sources than Vogue Magazine and articles in online newspapers. We would also need to avoid an undue focus on western cultures. If you are interested, you should consider first developing an article on the cultural impact of WWII based on recent high-quality academic sources. This is consistent with wikipedia guidelines: "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:06, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I would prefer someone with more experience tackle this. As you say, it's a very important topic and it deserves someone with greater skills than mine to do justice to it. My sample article was merely a rough sketch of what such an addition might look like. Sources were just what I grabbed on hand. PlottingBishop57 (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

It does not appear that there is a single Wikipedia article on the cultural impact but rather many short articles that address the various parts of culture. Some examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_and_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_in_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_plunder

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_in_popular_culture

I think this again shows the importance of having a cultural subsection within the impact section. PlottingBishop57 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

FYI there is Category:Cultural history of World War II. --Altenmann >talk 16:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. TylerBurden (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

B-Class reassessment request: Charles Thau

Hello, I’d like to request a reassessment of the article Charles Thau, currently rated as C-class.

The article has undergone substantial expansion and improvement, including:

• Reliable, secondary sourcing from international and U.S. publications (e.g., *Freie Presse*, *Der Spiegel*, *The Forward*, *Military History Now*, *Milwaukee Journal*).
• A well-organized structure with clear sectioning (Early life, Partisan activity, Red Army service, Postwar, Recognition).
• Use of historical photographs with proper attribution.
• Compliance with WP:NPOV and WP:V, with personal connection declared.

I believe the article now satisfies the six B-class criteria: 1. **Well-written** 2. **Verifiable** 3. **Broad in coverage** 4. **Neutral** 5. **Stable** 6. **Illustrated**

Any feedback from reviewers is welcome. Thank you! Milwaukee911 (talk) 15:36, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sweden during WW2

Sweden is listed as a neutral country, but Sweden did not maintain its policy of neutrality, since neutrality has a legal definition (Hague 1907) and Sweden did not meet this definition. Adamascus (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source and a suggested change supported by it? DuncanHill (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)