Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Allies of World War II. 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

→

Philippines

Southeast Asia played a major role in the conlict but is not represented in the Allies portion of the template at the bottom of the page. So could anyone add the Philippines, which, at the time, is the only other country there that is either independent or partially independent other than Thailand. I mean if India is included...23prootie 05:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The template is a separate page and you should raise the matter there. By the way, I have just removed the Philippines from the list of declarations as it was a commonwealth of the United States at the time and although it had limited self-government, it did not have an independent foreign or defense policy until 1946. In other words, it was more independent than India at the time, but was not capable of declaring war on Japan in its own right. See the Commonwealth of the Philippines article. Grant65 | Talk 05:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth government of the Philippines at that time was less of a commonwealth of the United States and more of a republic.--23prootie 06:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, at that time the Philippines qualifies for Sovereignty#Territorial_sovereignty.--23prootie 06:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to the Montevideo Convention

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

which the Philippines already had at the time including the last one. See Pacific war council and the Declaration by United Nations.--23prootie 07:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The British Governmnet of India was also a member of both of those. India was not independent either. Grant | Talk 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Commonwealth of the Philippines says: "The commonwealth would have its own constitution and be self-governing, though foreign policy would be the responsibility of the United States, and certain legislation required the approval of the American president." That made The Philippines in 1935-46 unable to declare war in its own right.

It seems to have been was roughly equivalent to Australia, Canada or the other British Dominions before 1931, when Britain controlled their foreign policy. Grant | Talk 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If the Philippines' status is equivalent to that of Australia, Canada or the other British Dominions before 1931, then the Philippines should be added to the article since most of those dominions are imentioned in Allies of World War I. -- 23prootie 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But there is no list of declarations of war in that article; the Allies are simply a list of countries. And -- apart from the fact that it wasn't an independent country in 1941 -- I can't find evidence of a declaration of war by the Philippines in 1941. It seems that the country was automatically at war when the U.S. was. Grant | Talk 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland & India

The article claims that Newfoundland was an independent member of the British Commonwealth. This is surely incorrect - at the time of the declaration of war (1939), Newfoundland was a not British colony. Conversely, even though the British Indian Empire was governed from London, there was a separate Indian declaration of war (all other British colonies were deemed to have declared war upon the UKs declaration) and therefore India should be included. Not being an expert, is there anyone who can clarify this ? Thanks--Ordew 15:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are right about Newfoundland and I have just removed it from the list of declarations. There was a separate "declaration" by the British Government of India, but it was not like Canada declaring war. It would be incorrect to assume that, for example, during the gap between the British and Indian declarations, the Indian authorities would not have acted to impound hypothetical German merchant shipping in Indian ports. I mean the Indian military was effectively part of the British military. Grant65 | Talk 17:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey I think the dates when India and the Philippines joined the war should remain because while both states did not have full sovereignity at the time, they do now and they would have had that earlier if it weren't for the war. Besides, they both have enough foreign policy to join the United Nations.23prootie 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If we included every country that fought in 1939-45 and is now independent, the list would be a lot longer. Anyway, colonies are recognized at participants in World War II. I have to disagree that an independent India would have declared war on Germany, and I doubt that it would have declared war on Japan, unless it was invaded. The inclusion of colonies in the Declaration by United Nations was a propaganda exercise on the part of the colonial powers. It did not reflect any genuine independence. Grant65 | Talk 09:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well anyway, I re-added the Philippines since it was meant to be independent long before World War 2 according to the Philippine Independence Act so its status can be compared to a Dominion or a de facto independent state.23prootie 20:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See Commonwealth of the Philippines (1935-46): "However foreign affairs, currency, and defense, would remain under the purview of the United States, represented by a resident High Commissioner." I'm reverting on that basis. Grant65 | Talk 00:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Union of South Africa? Why are they included? Australia didn't have full independence until 1986, South Africa only got it in 1961 while Canada, in 1982. See also Dominion#Foreign_relations. 23prootie 14:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also from High Commissioner to the Philippines: "Under the Commonwealth, executive power was held by an elected Filipino President. The role of the High Commissioner was largely ceremonial." Anyway the Philippines already have a constitution in 1935. 23prootie 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

A President and constitution does not necessarily mean independence. The title "President" was used in some British colonies. Several British colonies gained self-government under their own constitutions in the 1850s. A constitution makes a state, it doesn't necessarily make an independent state. The Philippines did not control its own foreign affairs or defense in 1941-45. The U.S. even had the right to absorb all of the Philippine forces into the U.S. military, which it did in December 1941. Britain had no such control over Dominion armed forces (indeed it didn't even have that power in World War One).

Newfoundland and Rhodesia had limited "self-governing colony" status during World War II.As for foreign policy, see the Statute of Westminster (1931). All of the existing Dominions had the ability to decline to take part in WW2. The Dominions had already show a willingness to disobey Britain in foreign policy, even before the Statute. And those that had ratified the Statute needed to make separate declarations of war in 1939, in order for them to be formally at war. Australia underlined this point in 1942 by backdating ratification to September 1939. South Africa, which had strong historical ties to Germany, almost stayed neutral. The Republic of Ireland, which was technically a Dominion at the time, remained neutral. Grant65 | Talk 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

While the Philippine Commonwealth was not independent at the time, the historical treatment of Filipinos were separate frm the Americans, that's why they should be mentioned, Also what about Bahawalpur which is part of British India.23prootie 06:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Also why is *

Czechoslovakia (Government-in-Exile) mentined. it does not have a territory.--23prootie 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the better solution is have exceptions since the term independent excludes only a handful of states.--23prootie 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

There are now about 200 independent states in the world. Most of them were not independent in WW2. Many of these still contributed to the Allies in some way. We have to draw the line somewhere. The Participants in World War II article is the place for non-independent countries. I'm not sure what you mean about the Czechoslovakian government-in-exile; it was recognised internationally and lots of governments-in-exile did not control their territory. Bahawalpur seems to have been the only part of the Indian subontinent which was independent of Britain and declared war ins own right; the article Bahawalpur District says "In 1936 Bahawalpur stopped paying tribute and openly declared independence." If someone has different information I would be interested to see it. While I agree that the "treatment of Filipinos were separate from the Americans", that is part of being a colonial country as much as an independent one. Grant | Talk 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think the article should still include countires that have the capacity to join the allies voluntarily, whether independent or not.-- 23prootie 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That is what the article is about. The capacity to join the allies voluntarily is independence. The Philippines became a member of the Allies when the US did. Grant | Talk 08:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Newfoundland ceased to be a British Colony in 1907 and became a Dominion in the British Empire. Although self government was revoked in 1934, Dominion status was never legally repealed until 1949 when Newfoundland joined Canada. Tolivero (talk) 10:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Big Two and a Half

Is there a wiki article that explicitly mentions British diplomat Alexander Cadogan deeming the "Big Three" to really be the "Big Two and a Half"? Darth Sidious 23:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't heard of the term. Grant65 | Talk 07:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

With a commonwealth that spans 1/4 of the globe... I would think Britian would be one of the "top" players too.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Greek History

It seems more accurate to place Greek's entrance into the Allied Forces around early 1941, not 1940. During the initial invasion, the Greeks held their own independantly. The Greeks were initially mistrustful of Churchill's intentions of putting Allied Forces back on European soil. Not the sort of attitude one would expect from an ally. See J. Lee Ready's "Forgotten Allies" Vol. I, pg 46-47. If anyone can find a better date, let me know. Frankencow 00:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

San Marino

Wasn't San Marino neutral in WW II?--Staberinde 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

San Marino declared war on Germany and Japan after Italy declared for the Allies Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Other small countries

Liechtenstein and the Vatican were neutral in WW II. Does anyone know the status of Andorra, Monaco, and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta during this war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

See Participants in World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.69.66.172 (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal From "Original Allies

--I propose the removal of this from the "original Allies" section: "Poland never officially surrendered to the Third Reich and the Polish government in exile after 1939 continued the Polish contribution to World War II on several fronts with hundreds of thousands of members in the Polish Army in France and UK, as well as the Home Army in occupied Poland. The Soviet Union however, did not recognize the government and in 1943 organized the Polish People's Army under Rokossovsky, around which eventually it constructed the post-war successor state the People's Republic of Poland in 1952." Why go into so detailed about Poland here? This can be explained more properly in a specific article about Poland during the war effort. Here it just seemed tacked on. At the same time, I could give a whole history about Free France, and state how France was split into two governments, the de facto Vichy government which formed the armistice with Germany, and the de jure Free French government which was the continuation of the French Third Republic, in which case it is TECHNICALLY correct to state that "France" did not formally surrender, but that the split de facto "French State", as in "Vichy France", did. My point is not to add that, my point is to show that this quotation on Poland's continuing efforts following 1939 should be listed elsewhere for organization purposes. I received a message from someone complaining of this edit when I removed it from the article, so I'm explaining here WHY I think it should be removed. -Johan

On the contrary, France did surrender, on June 22, 1940, and the French Third Republic was succeeded by the Vichy State. The Free French organisation in London was really the basis of the Provisional Government of the French Republic installed by the Allies in 1944. Anyway, I think it would make more sense to explain the situation with France and other countries more fully, rather than slashing the passage about Poland. Grant | Talk 12:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

That depends on who you're speaking to. Charles de Gaulle fully considered the Free French government as the continuation of the French Third Republic, and was his main points of discussion in such places as the Brazzaville Manifesto of 27 October 1940. This principle is precisely how he conducted himself during the Liberation of Paris; when the FFI leaders asked him to solemnly declare the reinstatement of the Republic, he refused, replying that the Republic had never ceased to exist (Is Paris Burning? - Larry Collins/Dominique Lapierre). As such, Free France was considered in the post-war world and in every French government since as the "real" de jure France, the continuation of the Third Republic. The idea that it was merely the "pre-Provisional Government" is an American notion, as during the time period, the United States recognized Vichy as the new French government (until 1943 with the foundation of the French Committee of National Liberation). (The United Kingdom only unofficially held contacts with Vichy, and considered Free France the official government of "French people continuing the war effort", but never quite muddled itself as much in these political affairs.) But in post-war France it was essentially established that Vichy France was an illegal government of traitors and Free France was the continuation of the Third Republic, and that's the way it's been seen since (in technical matters; the modern French educational system mainly teaches Vichy history, as Free France largely concerns the empire, most of which is no longer intact).

The designation of Free France as a continuation of the Third Republic is fairly legally established as well, considering de Gaulle was the last member of the Third Republic government to be safe from imprisonment (when in disagreement) by the Petainist coup d'etat. I should note that, if I remember correctly, Prime Minister Reynaud, who resigned because he wanted to continue the war effort from North Africa, did not officially resign (legally; rather, he merely fled and was later imprisoned); as such, Petain's coup d'etat was in fact TECHNICALLY unconstitutional (I state technically because one must keep in mind this was not at all so clear in the time period), and as such de Gaulle was TECHNICALLY correct when repeatedly stating he was the real French government. (De jure as opposed to de facto.)

My point is that the idea that Free France was not the direct heir to the French Third Republic (or continuation of it) is primarily an American influence, and that usually Free France is in fact considered the continuation of the Republic and the legal French government. As such, while for all practical purposes France under the French State DID surrender, the surrender itself technically did not happen because the de jure France, that is, Free France, did not surrender. It's all a matter of technicalities versus practicalities.

My personal opinion was that this should be left to the Free France topic, and correspondingly the discourse in the "Original Allies" section should be left to the Polish Contribution in WWII topic for organizational purposes. Perhaps leave links stating to see "Free France" and "Polish Contribution in WWII" for more information on the fates of the two Allied nations? Or, indeed, one COULD elaborate more on this subject and add the full description (such as that which I stated previously) on France to coincide with the Polish paragraph. I just don't know if that would be efficient.

--Johan (14 February 2007)

I think we could have a few, economical pars on the French situation, which is why I created sub-section for it. Grant | Talk 07:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's better now that there's a portion denoting the history of France during the war I suppose, but there's one thing I disagree with: the French Third Republic did not surrender. The French Third Republic was overthrown by the Vichy French State following the Petainist coup d'etat. As I said above, de Gaulle considered himself the continuation of the French Republic, and indeed so did Prime Minister Paul Reynaud (who refused to take part in the French surrender and left the government, but not officially; he was afterward imprisoned by Petain), who gave de Gaulle money before de Gaulle's June 17th flight to London, and who in his 1955 memoirs wrote: "All he did was comply with my instructions as a legitimate minister of the only constitutional French government. Of course I couldn’t guess he would be that successful while we were going head-on to a Coup d’Etat..." As such, I'm going to modify the sentence in the Wiki subsection to stating the "fall of the Third Republic" rather than its surrender.

--Johan (25 February 2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.74.92 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

France as major ally

Petercorless, I accept that France was major ally in 1944-45, but I would like a reference realting to that period, not from 1946. Grant | Talk 04:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Potsdam is 1945. It led to the creation of the Council of Foreign Ministers and the United Nations Security Council. The UN was formed in October 1945, and the UNSC met in early 1946. These are significant matters to the resolution of the war. --Petercorless 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Will you stop getting rid of mentions of the UN Security Council? --Petercorless 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not formed during WW2. Please stop adding it. Grant | Talk 04:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Next we will talking about the Berlin Airlift or some other anachronism. Grant | Talk 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The United Nations was the name of the Allies during the war. That power structure was formalized between October 1945 and the UN Security Council's first meeting in January 1946. This is a direct result of the war. --Petercorless 04:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

"Result of" ____" means not part of "____". Grant | Talk 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, I do not appreciate you deleting the reference as "silliness." You might think it is silly, but you are mischaracterizing a valid direct result of World War II. You are also on the verge of violating WP:3RR. I'll stop for now, but I truly want you to reconsider your excisions based on your POV. --Petercorless 07:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The removed text in question is as follows, which I will quote so that others may judge its validity: This also resulted in these five nations being given permanent seats on the newly-formed United Nations Security Council which met for the first time on January 17, 1946 in the immediate aftermath of war.^[1] --Petercorless 07:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The silliness was not in reference to your edits but to edits emanating from an IP address.

I think it's fine to mention the US Security Council further down the page, but I don't believe that it belongs in the intro. Grant | Talk 08:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

There's no other section below where it would be easily inserted. Are you suggesting we create a section specially for the creation of the United Nations as a result of the alliances of World War II? While I would not be adverse to that, it seems like an even more significant change than to mention this as a single-line at the end of the lead paragraph. It also logically flows with the rest of the text. --Petercorless 08:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't really be such a big adjustment; we already have a section on the Declaration by United Nations; we probably should have more on the UN anyway, so that section could simply be be renamed "United Nations" and expanded. Grant | Talk 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. If you read it over, you will note that the Charter, which authorized the Security Council, was authored and signed during the war. It still bothers me how there was an insistence it was a post-War organization. While they did not meet formally as the UNSC until after the cessation of hostilities, all of this was produced during the war, and they met as the de facto leadership such as at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference where the formation of the UNSC was decided. --Petercorless 10:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Poland as a major ally

I would greatly appreciate it if some of the fine editors here could educate me as to why France is considered a major ally and Poland is not. Also, this may be something of a semantics debate but I think Poland and France were not "Allies" in the same sense as Nepal and Honduras were "Allies." I'm not sure how to highlight this fact other than expanding the introduction or including some kind of troop strength reference. JRWalko 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Plasma_Twa_2 deleted the part about "though Poland's commitment was, in fact, larger." because it did not have a citation (there was a tag, added, I believe, by me). We could delete 80% of the article following the same rule. Does anybody know of any sources that would allow comparison of the involvement of France and Poland?--Jirka6 (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so according to the reference 5 [1], "Poland provided the fourth largest Allied army" (assuming after USSR, U.S. and Britain, but more than France). Obviously, there could be a better reference than a newspaper (although a good one) and an Oxford lecturer with a Polish name. I am adding back the note about Polish involvement with this reference. If somebody finds a better reference for or against this, please, update the text. --Jirka6 (talk) 04:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone reverted your edit anyway and I strongly disagree to put it there as you suggest. To my knowledge India and China (counted as Allies) still provided more troops then Poland. For sure Poland was the 3rd biggest European Ally (after USSR and GB). It's clear that France didn't provide as much troops as Poland. All you have to do is add up the numbers in corresponding article about the two countries. I don't care whether it's major enough or not. The thing is, that the number is given and it's the readers choice to decide whether it is major or not. I also re-edited the section on Poland to neatly wrap up the few noteworthy points between the invasion of 1939 and the Battle of Berlin in 1945. I hope you like it. Feedback welcome.
Llewelyn MT (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, poland had less soldiers than france (900,000 on all front in 1945 against 1,500,000 for france, including sailors and others...), I think poland was only the fourth western ally. They contributed a bit more than france for the resistance and much more for the intelligence services (really impressives) but less for the ground forces and the navy. For the air force i don't know, because poland had many pilots but all of them were in the RAF while france had an independent (officially) air force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.45.54.108 (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the statement that Poland contributed more than France to the Allied effort is only true proportionately, as simply adding all the numbers of French troops post-Operation Torch outnumbers the Polish contribution. Besides the fact that Poland did not provide the "fourth largest contribution" as is so often claimed (that would be China), numerically it did not surpass France either following the re-alignment of French North Africa. "It's clear that France didn't provide as much troops as Poland. All you have to do is add up the numbers in corresponding article about the two countries." The discrepancy is probably caused by the fact that people here include the Armia Krajowa in the numbers while neglecting to include the Forces Françaises de l'Intérieur in the French numbers. Although the difference between the contribution of the two countries is not that significant, and Poland did indeed contribute more given its resources (France had an empire), France was technically the larger contributor. The final numbers in 1945 place the amount of French Army troops (the former Resistance having largely been integrated in the army) at 1,250,000, while the total Polish numbers, including the various resistance groups, were at about 900,000 (this is including the resistance and not just the Polish Army forces in the west and east). Even adding the numbers for 1944 or 1943 (in which case the French Resistance would be included in the total) would show France having a larger contribution. (None of these numbers include the French Army of Indochina, which fought the Japanese following the coup of 9 March 1945.) Therefore, the statement that "France, before its defeat in 1940 and after Operation Torch was considered as a major ally, though Poland's commitment was, in fact, larger" is false in the 1939-1940 and 1942-1945 time periods and I recommend its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.182.212 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Title

Does anyone else find the title, "Allies of World War II," slightly jarring? These were Allies in the War, not Allies of the War. Might we consider modifying the title to "Allies in World War II"? logologist|Talk 21:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although Axis powers of World War II says of, so maybe if this article were called Allied powers of World War II...? Xaxafrad 02:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the title. Originally there was one aricle, Allies, about WW1, WW2 and other uses of the term. That was then split.

I don't like "Allies in World War II" because to me it implies an organisation that existed before and/or after the war. And "the Allies of World War II" is a common term whereas "the Axis of World War II" is not. Axis is an adjective in this case, i.e it is always "Axis _______". Grant | Talk 02:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility: "Allies (World War II)." No preposition, less potential ambiguity. Same with "Allies (World War I)."

There was only one "Axis" — in World War II — so that article could be, simply, "Axis powers." Nihil novi 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Badgerpatrol's edit and my reversion

Just to explain why I reverted and to offer a basis for discussion.

1) I'm not sure what the first sentence is supposed to say. The details about when, where and how the war started can be found in the World war II article. Sating that the war started in Poland doesn't seem to be related to the purpouse of this section, that is to list the major participants.

2) Seems to be an attempt to minimalise the French and Soviet contributions. To a degree this was already present (France's double major power status in 1939/40 and again from 1944 onwards). In any case this didn't add anything useful to the article (maybe it would fit in the body, but not in the intro).

--Caranorn 12:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for opening up this dialogue. My intent was to immediately illustrate what I feel to be the key point- that the nature of shifting alliances during a conflict like World War II is very, very complex. It was not intended as POV edit to downplay French and Soviet contributions. I don't agree that the purpose of the section is to document who was and who wasn't a "major" ally- how are you defining major? To me, the purpose is to introduce the concept of the formal Alliance, the etymology of the term, what its composition was (including a mention of the mix between large and small countries, the contrast between the European theatre Alliance and that in the Pacific, etc.), who was in it, how it operated, what the consequences were. The statement "France, before its defeat in 1940 and after its liberation in 1944, was also considered a major Ally" in particular needs a citation. Much of the content currently reads like it was written by FDR's mum or something- why is he mentioned twice? I do have to disagree on one point- I see it as very important to state clearly that the Alliance was not stable and that indeed some erstwhile Axis powers actually joined the Alliance as the war progressed, just as some erstwhile Allies joined the Axis, and just as some neutrals changed their minds and joined one or the other. Badgerpatrol 13:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. On the Allied side, only the (majority of the) Commonwealth and China were in from the beginning all the way to the end. Everyone else (who was not conquered) had significant moments of neutrality, co-belligerence or outright partnership with the Axis. Oberiko 01:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Poland, which — though overrun — never surrendered, was also in from first to last. See "Polish contribution to World War II." Nihil novi 05:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

USSR

There is a real problem on this article in the way that the Soviet Union is handled. The USSR was an ally of Germany in September 1939 and invaded Poland, this making it on Axis side not the Allied side. I'm not enough of an expert to be able to know whether the USSR was a technically a member of the Axis or a co-belligerant or an ally, but I'd say that the a new separate paragraph is warranted. For example, did Britain or anybody else declare war on the USSR after it invaded Poland? I've added "formerly a member of the Axis" to the USSR in the main listing in the meantime, since that is the phrase used elsewhere in the list. This is sometimes regarded as an embarrassing episode in the history of the USSR but it shouldn't be downplayed, it was central to the evolution of the War. Macguba 12:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It could not technically be a member of the Axis as one of the principles of that alliance was to oppose communism. In 1939 and to much lesser degrees 1940/41 the Soviet Union cooperated with Germany (for indeed very complex reasons), including the invasion/occupation of Eastern Poland but with minimal cooperation (mostly to avoid a premature conflict between Germany and the SU). The Soviet Union also made more or less reasonable (to avoid confusion, some were reasonable, many were not) demands on Finland and Romania, the later being met, the first leading to the Winter War. Additionally the Baltic States were annexed. None of this really constitutes an alliance with Germany, though again there clearly was cooperation. I truly dislike such additions as they massively oversimplify the actual events.

By the way, obviously no Allied power declared war on the SU over the Winter War. Though there were obviously some considerations to that effect. The most notable outside contribution to the Winter War would be volunteers from Sweden and Norway sent to Finland (or assembling to be sent). (Just noticed I misread that, no DOW over the Soviet invasion/occupation of Eastern Poland).--Caranorn 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has removed the "formerly a member of the Axis" from the USSR,which is slightly surprising since the point is under debate. What phrase would be most appropriate? To leave it blank is misleading. Macguba 17:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the phrase "co-belligerent" is sufficient and factual. Oberiko 17:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Co-belligerent it is then. Macguba 13:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget they INVADED POLAND AND FINLAND, AND SLAUGHTERED INNOCENT PEOPLE.

The Soviet Union was never a member of the Axis and was never allied with Germany. They signed a non-aggression pact and agreed to carve up Poland, after Stalin was unable to forge a unified front against Germany with the Western Allies. Facing a choice between fighting Germany alone, without even Polish co-operation, letting Hitler take ALL of Poland, and partitioning for SOME of Poland, they chose the latter. Yes, the USSR attempted to re-conquer some of the territories taken from Imperial Russia by the Kaiser, a nasty and condemnable bit of business, but it had nothing to do with being allied with Hitler. I mean, Britain made an almost identical pact with Germany, a non-aggression pact and a partition of Czechoslovakia , and it would be preposterous to call that an "alliance". The claim that USSR and Germany were allies is popular with American pop-historians and European right-wingers, but it's completely and obviously false.

Eleland 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To me, it does not seem like you could be more wrong, or stupid for that matter. It's not that it wasn't able to get a pact with the western allies, it's that the western allies weren't able to get a pact with Stalin. Britain did not do the same thing as Russia did because THEY DECLARED WAR on Germany 2 days after the German invasion of Poland, not 2 years like Russia. And if they did take the latter so that Germany would not have all of Poland, then why did they export hundreds of thousands of Poles to Russia for slave labour, so that they all died in the GULAGS, and even after they declared war on Germany, the Poles were still treated like dogs? And you have no idea what you are talking about, The Kaiser did not take Finland or the Baltic States from the USSR. After WWI, the

provisional Russian government allowed republics to leave the USSR if they desired so, although they later incorporated the Baltic States under force. It is absoloutely absurd to suggest that the Russians were good before 1941. --LtWinters 22:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call me stupid. And please don't accuse me of suggesting the Soviet Union was great (I think you meant the Soviet Union, and not the Russian people in general). Obviously they committed major atrocities. The question was whether the USSR was aligned with the Axis, not whether they were nice guys. The area of eastern Poland that was annexed by the USSR did correspond with areas that had been lost by Imperial Russia in WWI and then the Russo-Polish war. Finland and the Baltics left with mutual consent, but I wasn't talking about Finland and the Baltics, I was talking about Eastern Poland. Eleland 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to think of it is that the USSR essentially represented a third side which made alliances with whomever was convenient. Early on, the USSR was considered by the Allies to be in the Axis camp if not officially, then by action; during the Winter War, there was consideration by France and the UK to send troops to Finland to aid against Soviet aggression (though they also planned on leaving troops stationed in Norway to hinder German access to Swedish iron). It was only after being attacked by Germany that the USSR joined the Allies, and even then it was out of necessity, basically an enemy-of-my-enemy thing. As soon as the German's (and Japanese) were defeated, they went right back to being their own again, hence the Cold War.

So, no, I don't think putting them as co-belligerent is to much. In the grander scale of mid-20th century history, they were basically just a co-belligerent of the Allies as well. Oberiko 23:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to note that LtWinters seems to ignore the pre WWII alliance talks involving France, Poland and the Soviet Union. Poland indeed left the Soviets few options when it denied them access to their territory in case of war with Germany. It's only after these decisions (and the partitioning of Czechoslovakia) that the Soviet Union started looking for other alternatives. None of those of course were aimed at an alliance with Germany, at best to gain time until the inevitable conflict with Germany would finally occur. And the mention of American Pop historians (you must mean the sports coaches) is a good one, luckily the rare breed of actual historians has managed to survive, though their teaching unfortunately doesn't reach the masses.--Caranorn 13:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you can't blame Poland, the Red Army never pulls out of anywhere when told to, so Poland didn't want to let them in and when the Russians went bad they wouldn't leave when told. I mean, the armistance for Japan was agreed on August 14, right? Soviet solgiers kept fighting until August 22 in Manchuria and September 3 on Salhakin Island. And let's not deal with this crap they were protecting themselves- did we ally ourselves with Japan when we were still industrializing for the war? Of course not, we stood our ground and didn't say ok we'll be your friends and help you do whatever you want (we did give them raw materials and that was stupid, but its aside from the principle of the matter). And still, no one seems to be able to find a reason to combat this- if the Soviets were good, then WHY DID THEY EXPORT POLISH PEOPLE FOR SLAVE LABOR. Somebody answer this.--LtWinters 15:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Who except you is talking about good or bad? And please stop the yelling. Concerning the Japan issue, formal military surrender seems to have been on September 2 1945, even then not all Japanese forces seem to have followed those orders (or were concerned by the orders). Lastly I recall the Soviet forces always offered surrender, there doesn't seem to have been an Armistice in Manchuria, but I'm far from an expert on events in the Pacific and Asia.--Caranorn 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, I think the way we have it right now is fine, I was trying to remind everyone that they weren't in our group of "best friends" before 1941. --LtWinters 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's quite obvious you're not an expert, an armistance is an armistance, its like saying the Germans could have fought the allies after Nov 11 1918 because Versailles wasn't signed. The Japanese were falling back the whole time. They were trying to stop the fighting.--64.205.199.7 15:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You people may want to read some "grown up" books. The USSR absorbed Byelorussia and the West Ukraine (territories lost by Imperial Russia only a decade earlier) and not Poland.

-G

I've returned this to "co-belligerent" in the article. Somebody had changed it to "formerly neutral pursuing friendly relations with the Axis", which is simply false. Macguba 08:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how it is false. A non-aggression pact plus an agreement to partition territory does not an alliance make; Britain did exactly the same thing in 1938, and it would be preposterous to call Britain and Germany allies. The Soviets may have technically been "co-belligerent" for a few days in 1939, when they invaded Poland from the East largely unopposed, but there was very little fighting by that time anyway. Indeed, even the line which I inserted about "friendly relations" is something of a sop to historical myth-makers. Eleland 13:00, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It is false because the USSR invaded Poland in formally agreed cooperation with Germany. The invasion was followed by continuous military occupation of Poland until the German attack. If that's not a co-belligerent I'm not sure what is, and by definintion you cannot be neutral if you invade somebody. I'm not claiming that the USSR was part of the Axis, or even a full scale ally, but a non-aggression pact plus an agreement to partion territory plus an armed invasion plus occupation does not a neutral make. I don't get your point about "largely unopposed", the success or failure of the opposition is irrelvant, it's the fact of an attack that matters. If the USSR had been neutral in September 1939 it would not have invaded Poland: if it had been on the side of the Allies it would have declared war on Germany as Britain, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nepal and South Africa did. As mentioned when this first came up some months ago I am not wedded to any particular word or description as long as the one we have is factually accurate.

Soviet troops only entered Poland (several weeks after the Axis) when the Polish military formally abandoned Poland for surrounding regions, Britian, etc. Does it still count as an "invasion" by the USSR?

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The stop line between Soviet & German forces in Poland had been partially worked out in advance, as in "how far in advance?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANNRC (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

American colonies and territories

Can someone tell me why the Americian colonies and territories (Guam, American Samoa) etc are listed separately, when the major British colonies (Newfoundland, Rhodesia etc) are not? Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

Lebanon is listed as joining the Allies on 27 January 1944 and on 27 February 1945. Which is correct? Rhyddfrydol 24 September 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.128.238 (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

Was Yugoslavia really an Ally? They were invaded by Hitler shortly after a British supported coup d'etat (two days after signing the Tripartite Pact), but, as far as I can tell, there was no military support or agreements with the U.K.. I think Yugoslavia is much more similar to Iran or Iraq, countries invaded by one side, but not necessarily members of the other. Oberiko 00:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Yugoslavia didn't have a regular army after its invasion like france or even poland...But still, the yugoslavian resistance was impressive and acted as a strong paramilitary organization (recognized by the allies) that did really good job, even if the german army wasn't so present in yugoslavia. The yugoslavian resistance even liberated the country alone, allthough it was mainly because the situation of the german army was deteriorating in other fronts. They only receives limited help from the soviet union. But in 1945, they were 800,000 and launch a real offensive in the balkans an eve nreach Italy and austria. clems78

Denmark?

In what sense did Denmark join the allies? john k 18:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I too am sceptical about including Denmark. There was no government-in-exile and Denmark, admittedly under German occupation, joined the Anti-Comintern Pact and even more or less sanctioned Frikorps Danmark. If no justification can be provided then I suggest the country is removed from the list. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

although i cant prove myself, im pretty sure they were at war with japan once liberated. i suggest putting them as an ally after d-day —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.60.57 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, Denmark didn't declare war against Japan following its liberation from Hitlerite occupation. The last time Denmark officially considered itself to be at a state of war was during the Second Schleswig War (1864). 83.89.16.138 (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Top of the page

At the top of the page there's all that weird text, I'd fix it but I don't know how. --69.255.226.122 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia

Why is Czechoslovakia listed as entering the war on December 16, 1941? Is there a source for this? It seems to be counter-intuitive, given that Czech units in exile fought in France, in the RAF during the Battle of Britain and later. Leithp 14:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at History of Czechoslovakia#World War II, that date only appears to have significance because that's when USA recognised the Czech government in exile. Given that it had been recognised by the UK and the Soviet Union, I am going to change it to the earlier date. Leithp 10:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, see, I would argue that it should be an even earlier date. I would put the date at the time Czechoslovak troops actually became pledged to ally through treaty. Hence 2 October 1939 — the date of the Osusky treaty that allowed the reformation of the Czechoslovak army in France — is the beginning of the military alliance between Czechoslovakia and the Allies. The fact that neither France nor Britain had recognized the Czechoslovak National Liberation Committee as a government at the time is quite beside the point. The same authority that negotiated that treaty for the Czechoslovaks eventually did get recognized as a government, so there's a continuity there that shouldn't be ignored. The absolute latest you can really put the thing is December 1939, by which time both France and Britain had extended a form of diplomatic recognition to the CNLC, albeit still not as a government. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 21:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The earlier date sounds reasonable and a bit more sensible than the date I had chosen. Leithp 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently, this article lists 1940, while the WWII template lists 1941. Both should have the same year, whether it is either of them or Dec 1939 or Oct 1939 as suggested by User:CzechOut. --Jirka6 (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oslo Group

In the opening sentance of the section on the Oslo Group, it says "The Oslo Group was an organisation of officially neu as governments in exile". What exactly is this supposed to mean? Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 18:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The sentences were partially deleted by vandalism. They have now been restored. Leithp 07:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick summary of Wikipedia's Allies of World War II page

Allies – In WW2, they were the US, UK, USSR, Poland, France, China, Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Norway, Greece, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt, Brazil and others —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.69.28 (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Italy is missing

End of the war with Germany: The U.S. ended its state of war with Germany on October 19, 1951 at 5:45 p.m. The U.S. state of war with Germany had been maintained for legal reasons,^[2]^[3] but in mid 1951 the Western Allies; the U.S., UK, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the cobelligerent Italy moved to end the state of war with Germany.War's End Time Magazine Monday, Jul. 16, 1951 The state of war between Germany and the Soviet Union was ended in early 1955.^[4]

The article Axis Powers list Finland, since it was co-belligerent. for the sake of symmetry, shouldn't Italy be listed here (and as an Allie in the WW-II template) since Italy was an Allied co-belligerent? From the time magazine article footnote "Italy declared war on Germany 35 days after surrendering to the Allies, became not an ally but a "cobelligerent."--Stor stark7 ^Speak 02:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

USSR bis

No need to explain after all, see discussion above. Still, 1) USSR and Germany were never allies, 2) USSR did not attack together and cooperation between both armies was minimal, 3) even co-belligerent would be over simplifying, 4) non aggression pact would be the only factual option as anything more would lead to a full section of added material to explain the situation. It would not belong in the intro in any case and is already included at the Soviet entry to WWII.--Caranorn (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The Big Three

Near the head of this article is a paragraph stating 'Within the ranks of the Allied powers, the British Empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United States of America were known as "The Big Three".' Alongside this is a photo captioned 'The "Big Three": Joseph Stalin, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill'. I suspect that both uses of the phrase "Big Three" hold but feel that this fact should be made clear in the text. Also the placement of the definite article - inside or outside the quote mark - may or may not be important. --User:Brenont (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Denmark and Finland

Denmark is listed as an ally from 9 April 1940, and as the Denmark? section above says, they didn't declare war, and the king and government remained in Denmark. Meanwhile, Finland is listed as a participant on the Allied side from 1944 at the bottom of the page, but isn't listed as an ally at the top of the page. I would suggest that Denmark be treated as an occupied country, similar to Iran as regards the Axis, and someone needs to provide a source for any subsequent declaration of war against Japan. As for Finland, their armed forces stopped fighting the USSR and did fight Germany, so were de facto members of the alliance. I'm still not sure they should be included as Allies, but then they are listed in the bottom section and it seems odd they're included in one and not the other. Stevebritgimp (talk) 21:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, for much the same reasons you list. Denmark does not belong on the list. -- Nidator ^{T / C} 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

a problem

the situation "though poland commitment was larger" shall be removed: frenc army had 1,300,000 soldiers in 1945 (412,000 in germany and 40,000 in the alps) while poland only had 900,000. And poland had 2 millions men serving in military units including the resistance for the entire war, France had 5 millions. So what's the point about this ? clem78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.205.182.238 (talk) 14:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Independence and the United Nations

I think it is debatable whether or not Australia, Belarus, Canada, India, Newfoundland, New Zealand, the Philippines, Russia (as the Soviet Union), South Africa, and Ukraine are independent at that time but it is moot since all (except Newfoundland) are founding members of the United Nations and therefore are genuinely accepted members of the Allies with equal standing with countries France, Argentina, Mexico and the US. Also colonies that are represented by the Comintern should be included.23prootiecute (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it's at all debatable whether those countries were independent: the self-governing dominions such as Australia and Canada were totally independent of the UK and the sub-elements of the USSR were not at all independent of the central government in Moscow. Nick-D (talk) 03:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

UN membership should be considered, besides the Philippine Commonwealth government-in-exile was foreign on U.S. soil.--23prootiecute (talk) 03:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why this for example??!

Byelorussian SSR Russian SFSR Ukrainian SSR other Socialist Soviet Republics

I don't want to revert you but I'm afraid you are wrong 23prootie. Sorry.--Jacurek (talk) 08:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've reported this editor for edit-warring at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:23prootie reported by User:Nick-D (Result: ) Nick-D (talk) 09:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

United Nations flag image

The image File:Flag of the United Nations (1945-1947).svg which is currently on the article was almost completely unknown to the general public during the great majority of the time that the fighting was going on. The "United Nations Honour Flag" (Four Freedoms flag) would have been better known during the war... AnonMoos (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sovereign

International law reports By Elihu Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, London School of Economics and Political Science. Dept. of International Studies page 36. Cambridge University Press. 1989.--23prootie (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, o.k. ?--Jacurek (talk) 13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

India and the Philippines

Regardless of their political status, both India and the Philippines were allowed to participate in the Declaration by United Nations [2] and treated a "allied countries" with separate and equal status from the United Kingdom and the United States, therefore, in the historical perspective, they should be listed as separate allies, since their sovereignty or lack there of did not prevent them from such participation. A further clarification for the Philippines is in the Pacific War talk page.--23prootie (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE AGAIN ??? This is nonsense!! Stop this.

Soviet Union: 22 June 1941 (previously at war with Poland, as a co-combatant of Nazi Germany)

Byelorussian SSR
Estonia (annexed in 1944)
Latvia (annexed in 1940)
Lithuania (annexed in 1940)
Ukrainian SSR

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacurek (talk • contribs) 08:58, 24 July 2009

Non-consensual deletions/changes

Edit summary fields are used to explain your edits, all your edits, in summary form. They are not to be used to attack any particular editor. And they are especially not used to hide additions/deletions for which a consensus has not yet been reached!
— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 02:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as an allie

I think it should be strongly noted in the opening paragraphs that the USSR were inittially allies with Nazi Germany. Beckenbauer1974 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Done--Jacurek (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, cannot agree. The non-aggression pact is not a military alliance. In addition, no country declared a war on the USSR in Sept 1939. In that sense, i fully agree with Caranorn's opinion (see above). I reverted your changes, and restored Tuva and Mongolia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

- - Molotov-Ribbentrov pact was not just "non-aggression pact", go to see wikipedia article!!!! "addition to stipulations of non-aggression, the treaty included a secret protocol dividing Northern and Eastern Europe into German and Soviet spheres of influence, anticipating potential "territorial and political rearrangements" of these countries.", "Germany and the Soviet Union entered an intricate trade pact on February 11, 1940 that was over four times larger than the one the two countries had signed in August of 1939.[183] The trade pact helped Germany to surmount a British blockade of Germany., "The Soviets also helped Germany to avoid British naval blockades by providing a submarine base, Basis Nord, in the northern Soviet Union near Murmansk.[179] This also provided a refueling and maintenance location, and a takeoff point for raids and attacks on shipping.[179] In addition, the Soviets provided Germany with access to the Northern Sea Route for both cargo ships and raiders (though only the raider Komet used the route before the German invasion), which forced Britain to protect sea lanes in both the Atlantic and the Pacific."
  - Fact is: Soviet Union was allied with Germany.

Paul, while I agree with your stance on the USSR, Mongolia and Tannu Tuva were recognised as independent only by the USSR and each other, i.e. virtually every other state saw them as part of the USSR and China respectively.

Mongolia was not generally recognised as independent until after the war. Tannu Tuva never even achieved that. Grant | Talk 00:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

By contrast to The Axis, this article has no separate sections for puppet states, or semi-independent states, therefore, Mongolia and Tuva should be mentioned, like British India, other Commonwealth's members (all of them were not fully independent countries), or some Central American republics.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Allies known as Axis powers?

I removed this line from the opening:

Today, some sources refer to the WWII "United Nations" as the "Allied Powers", as opposed to the Axis powers.

When have the Allied Powers ever been referred to as the "Axis Powers"? Never. I'm not sure how this sentence is supposed to read, but I know that the United Nations have never been referred to as "Axis Powers". Perhaps it was supposed to read:

Today, some sources refer to the WWII "United Nations" as the "Allied Powers", as opposed to the "United Nations".

Anyone have any ideas what this is supposed to mean? Supertheman ^(talk) 05:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That wording makes some sense to me, and I have seen the Allies referred to as the 'Allied powers' and the Axis as the 'Axis powers'. I suspect that the wording should be 'Some sources group these countries as being the 'Allied powers' or similar. Nick-D (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact is that the word Allied is in POV from my point of view, as it is skewed from the view of the winning side. Wouldn't Japan and Germany have been allied powers too? And the U.S.A and France Axis powers! Enlil Ninlil (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, no? Look, the term is commonly used and widely understood. john k (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Nepal

Some months ago, Nepal was removed from the list without explanation[3]. Why? Is there any reason not to readd it? 96T (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not revome Nepal from list, but as per my understanding Nepal did not involve in world war II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Empty cognizance (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Nepal was officially neutral throughout the war, and it did not declare war against any member of the Axis. Nepalese soldiers fought in the British Commonwealth ranks were foreign soldiers recruted by the British. Based on these reasons I decide to remove Nepal from the list. source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2786991.stm Vulturedroid (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Besides, all Allies(aside from former Axis who switched side) later became founding members of the UN, whilst Nepal was only accepted later. That further proves the point that Nepal was a neutral state during WW2.Vulturedroid (talk) 23:22, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Nepal during World War II — ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that article, actually talks about Nepalese units under British Command, rather than the Royal Nepalese Army elements. Vulturedroid (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Finland (2)

Finland never joined Allies, neither was the country a former Axis Power. Show me the proves conserning Finland's joinal to Allies. --Kurt Leyman 13:00, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You are correct in that Finland did not join the United Nations (founded 1942) until 1955. Neverthless, the Finnish state (unlike e.g. Denmark) fought the Germans from September 27, 1943 as a co-belligerent of the UN.[4] Finland may therefore be regarded as an ally of the UN. Grant65 | Talk 12:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Finald was indeed a pawn of the Axis powers. It was a staging ground for invasion of the USSR from the north. Troops, tanks, etc were stationed in Finland.

-G

The United Kingdom did declare war against Finland though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.173.239.59 (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Finland fought in WW2 first as a co-belligerent of the Axis and then as a co-belligerent of the Allies. Vulturedroid (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

List or article

As currently set up this is more of a list article than a regular article. I suggest that either it is constructed as a prose article, in which the lists are put in context and explained, or the title is changed to List of Allies of World War II. Of the two, changing it into a list would be easiest and possibly most appropriate. SilkTork *^YES! 18:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I would prefer the first option, that of improving the article construction, over the renaming to "List of . . .". On a separate note, kudes to you, SilkTork, for the lede revamp! Excellent edits! Your note on the deletion of "Four Policemen", about this taking place about 1941 when the UN came about, gives a feel that it should be reincluded somehow in the last paragraph of the lede. I'll see if I can come up with something acceptable.

— ^.`^) Paine Ellsworth ^diss`cuss (^^`. 23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Roosevelt's phrase, of course, did not come after the war. He coined the phrase during the war, and it symbolized his conception of a peaceful postwar world.
PPS. Okay, I added it, and I was going to use the same reference source as found in the Four Policemen article, but it was a dead link. So I'm still looking for a reliable source.

(Found one 05:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC))

Nazi-Soviet parade photo

Could anybody explain me a relevance of this picture to this concrete article? I am asking because the article contains just very basic photos depicting major leaders of the Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If noone explain me why this picture is relevant for the article, I'll remove it.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Paul, the picture is there to reflect not well known fact of Nazi-Soviet alliance during the invasion of Poland in 1939. I think it should stay. Also, give some thought as far as Tuvia ad Mongolia as members of the Allies , because these countries were not independent at the time and were recognised as independent only by the USSR and each other. The list should contain ONLY states that were fully independent. Thanks--Jacurek (talk) 05:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You probably noticed that the article contains no photos reflecting well known, or not well known facts about the Allies. Therefore, the picture must reflect some really outstanding event to be included into the article. A military parade in Brest cannot be even compared with the Big Three's meeting. With regards to Nazi-Soviet cooperation, the links you introduced already give a reader all needed information, so I see no reason to spoil the article's structure by adding a photo poorly connected with the main article's subject.

With regards to Mongolia and Tuva, again, the British dominions (e.g. Dominion of Newfoundland) were not recognized as an independent state at all. Nevertheless, Newfoundland is in the article. BTW, we already discussed this question, you know what my arguments are, you proposed no counter-arguments, and it is a little bit strange that you deleted Mongolia and Tuva without providing new arguments. It is not correct.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, look right before the lead of this article: ""This article is about the independent states that comprised the Allies.."" Tuvia and Mongolia were not independent and were not recognized by anybody but the USSR therefore they can not be included here. I don't know much about Newfoundland but perhaps it should be removed from the list also. Going back to the photo, I have no big objections if you want to remove the photo but please do not change Nazi Germany to Axis because Soviet Union was in agreement as far as an attack on Poland and other states in the area with the Nazi Germany ONLY and not other Axis states such as Italy or Japan. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, we have to be consistent. If even British dominions are named explicitly, Tuva and Mongolia should also be named. Remember, during those time majority of present day's states were colonies, so the number of really independent states was not so large. Were Tuva or Mongolia someone's colonies in 1939-45?

I agree that the fact that the USSR was almost the Germany's ally during 1939-41 is shamy. In addition, it was an outstanding Stalin's stupidity to consider a possibility of any kind of Nazi-Soviet alliance, because, had the four power Axis be victorious (and it would be victorious for sure) the next Japanese and Germany's victim would be the USSR. Therefore, your addition is generally correct (although something, probably, needs modification). My only concern was the photo.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul, O.K. let's do one thing at the time and start again with Free France because I have noticed that you reinserted that information. Free France or Free French Forces were NOT an independent state. It was an organization of French soldiers created by de Gaulle's and based in London, England similar to the Polish Forces in the West. Having Free France listed as an independent country that joined the Allies is completely wrong. Same with Tuvia, Mongolia etc., really Paul I don't have energy or desire to argue about it anymore but please give it another thought or please ask for a third opinion.

P.S. We will move on later to Soviet-German cooperation/alliance in 1939 which opened the way to WW2. Thanks and all the best.--Jacurek (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, WP is not a democracy, so a third opinion may help to find a way from impasse, not to establish truth. We both want to find truth, so we are quite able to do that by ourselves. My point is that after defeat France became a Vichy puppet state, so most French colonies appeared under a pro-Axis country's jurisdiction. However, some colonies, e.g. Cameroun and French Equatorial Africa decided to support Free French. In that sense, Free French may be considered a separate belligerent, similar to Poland: although Poland was conquered, it never surrendered and it's government in exile continued fight (along with numerous troops fighting in different theatres). The only difference between Vichy pupper regime and Free French was that the former controlled a part of continental French territory (although it was just a visibility of control), and after Germany occupied France completely, both Vichy and Free French controlled just different parts of French colonial empire. Therefore, I conclude that Free French had all traits of independent state: government, territory, and armed forces (and, by contrast to Vichy, was really independent). Did I convince you?

PS. I believe it would be correct to mention Polish government in exile among the Allies.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Finland

Given that Finland signed an armistice in September 1944, then fought the Germans from that date until April 1945 in the Lapland War, even formally declaring war on Germany on March 3rd, 1945 and making the declaration retro-active to Sept. 15, 1944, shouldn't Finland be listed as an ally from September 1944? --Martintg (talk) 05:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you are absolutely right. I would say the dates for joining the Allies should be shown explicitly for every country, because the way the joining the Allies is described in the article is somewhat misleading: for instance, a reader may conclude that there was a direct connection between D-Day and Finland's switching the sides. This is a pure post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

PS. Probably, it would be better to change the article's structure to

Initial Allies (Poland, the UK, France)
Countries that joined the allies in 1939
Cointries that joined the Allies in 1940, etc.

This would be more encyclopedic and accurate. --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand your concern, however I think these events are easily recognised milestones (at least in the English speaking world) in the timeline of WW2. I don't see that they imply some kind of cause and effect relationship between the milestone and the subsequent events. --Martintg (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Independence or not

I really don't get the reason why it is necessary for a participant has to be independent since two of them already broke that rule. It also doesn't feel right in the historical context since there was no requirement to become an allied power in that war. I think the more logical criteria would be listed among those who signed the Declaration by United Nations, which is pretty much similar to the list, and any additional allied participant would have to be listed under one of those states.--23prootie (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks that the list contains not only independent countries anymore and pretty much anything goes.--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If that's your opinion, fine! But it's not anything goes. Apart from my own understanding and the background of my country, I'm also basing the list on the articles World War II casualties (those with a million) and Declaration by United Nations.--23prootie (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The aim is consistency and there needs to be some kind of criteria. The "independence" criteria was intended, as far as I can tell, to prevent double counting. Note that the 15 Soviet republics were all nominally sovereign republics, but it would not be appropriate to list all fifteen individually here, as they were collectively known as the USSR. Your suggestion is interesting, how would this list in the article change if we applied your criteria?--Martintg (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you were following closely, I was editing the article to fit my criteria (with the specific intention of keeping India and the Philippines on the article seperate from the US or UK), so if my suggestion is followed the article might stay the same.--23prootie (talk) 21:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually agree on not double counting (even though France and Yugoslavia previously were) but I'm not sure if it has to be about independence precisely. The problem with this is that it excludes Asian colonies that did major contributions but are excluded because they were not independent at the time so I highly suggest avoiding that criteria. About the Soviet republics, maybe they should be listed based on participation and contribution. The Baltic states did a lot so did Ukraine and Belarus so they should be considered (even as a note).--23prootie (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Anything goes now 23prootie. Unfortunately this article lost it's purpose. It was originally created to list INDEPENDENT countries that compromised the Allies. In my opinion you can go ahead now, list all the Soviet Republics and US individual States if you want, and since Free France is there also you can list other military units or organizations including Polish Underground State and the German Anti-Nazi resistance. Regards.--Jacurek (talk) 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you here, 23prootie even includes French Indochina, which was administered by Vichy France, which was aligned with Nazi Germany. --Martintg (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This article is already a BIG MESS and there is more nonsense to come. I tagged it for an expert attention because I can't argue anymore about Free France being a country and other nonsense like French Indochina being a member of the Alliance or Belarus doing "a lot" for the Alliance. We shall leave it up to the experts because no arguments will get to some editors who were involved in the discussion.--Jacurek (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sticking with the inclusion of French Indochina here, despite its complexities. First of all, Japan annexed it despite a supposedly Axis (Vichy France) administration. Then there's the presence of the left-leaning Viet Cong, which is anti-French and anti-Japanese so it's probably pro-Soviet. But I guess this article claries everything clearly showing the colony (and Vietnam) as part of the allies. And it's too extreme to add every U.S. state so where did that suggestion came from?--23prootie (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This is rather tenuous to include French Indochina here, Second French Indochina Campaign clarifies "Emperor Bao Dai complied in Vietnam and collaborated with the Japanese", and why wouldn't he? The Japanese had just driven out the French colonialists. --Martintg (talk) 22:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Because he didn't want a colonizer to replace another (follow this thread here and here). Wow, I didn't realize that including them would be so thorny... (I thought only the Viet Cong were relevant faction there.) Fine I'll remove French Indochina (I don't get how a major combatant not be considered as an Allied or an Axis power.--23prootie (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The aim is consistency and there needs to be some kind of criteria." Although I agree with that, we have to maintain a balance between consistency and common sense. There is no need to list Soviet republics, both for formal and real reasons (formal reason was that they weren't independent politically, they had a right of secession, but couldn't declare a war on anyone. The USA's states had even no right of secession, btw. Real reason was that all Soviet Republics (except Moldavia and the Baltic republic) were more or less unified organism that fought as a single state; I believe, the same can be said about the USA). However, by omitting Tuva and Mongolia, for instance, our consistence goes against a common sense, because, since officially neither Tuva or Mongolia were not a Soviet republic we therefore declare that these two nations didn't participate in WWII! That is ridiculous because these countries' help to the USSR, and, therefore, their military contribution was much greater than that of fully independent, but purely formal Allies (like many Latin American signatories of the UN declaration).
Similarly, if we remove Free France, we therefore claim that all French citizens, all territories controlled by the Third Republic and its armed forces passed under the Vichy's control after defeat of France. Again, that is in a direct contradiction with common sense.
I like consistency, and I always support changes that makes an article more consistent, provided that, but only provided that it is not contrary to common sense.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC) PS. I believe, the article must include primarily independent states. However, in some (exceptional) cases exceptions can be made and appropriate footnotes (explaining a reason for this exception) should be added.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, I admire your patience..good luck.--Jacurek (talk) 02:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Hawaii and Alaska has been added separately, in that case Northern Territory should be added to Australia too, since it had a similar status as Hawaii and Alaska, and like Hawaii, was directly attacked by the Japanese. Perhaps we should also add New Guinea, all the Pacific Islands and all the French and British colonies in Africa too? --Martintg (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Both Hawaii and Alaska were not yet admitted to the United States at the time of the war so they could be listed separately since they already had a constitution and a functioning government at the time, similar to Newfoundland and Puerto Rico. With regards to colonies, they should be treated on a case-to-case basis depending on their contributions to the war effort. I mean, how could you ignore the Dutch East Indies actions during the conflict?--23prootie (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't get how Hawaii is like the Northern Territory. It's more like Tuva to me.--23prootie (talk) 12:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

Please note that I have reported 23prootie (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing in this article at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Nick-D (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, because this article is seriously flawed now it needs to be reverted to the version from a couple days ago and then we have to really decide about few issues we can't agree on such as inclusion or not of Free France (not a country), Tuvia etc. Best.--Jacurek (talk) 08:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: "this article is seriously flawed now" Dear Jacurek, you have to concede that some part of responsibility for that rests with you, because you started to implement the criteria for inclusion/exclusion too literally. Of course, you did that hoping to improve the article, however, as your edits started to contradict with a common sense, the result was the opposite.
Again, I believe, everything can be fixed if we all agreed that history is too complex thing to fit into a couple of simple formulae.
Cheers,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, don't blame me for this mess. The criteria was there - INDEPENDENT states - Free France and Tuvia were not independent...or not even a state (Free France). It was you who wanted to be flexible on the criteria which was already in place , not me.--Jacurek (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I didn't blame you in flexibility. On the contrary, as I already wrote, the mess was (partially) an indirect result of too straightforward, or too nonflexible implementation of the above criterion (that is vague, btw. During WWII time, membership in various bureaucratic organisations, or signing some declarations was not sufficient to be independent. In addition, since most minor countries were influenced by larger countries/empires, it is hard to determine a threshold of such an influence after we can speak about loss of independence.)
Second, this criterion is not a policy, it was set by some WP editor, and we are quite able to circumvent it when and where it goes against common sense.
Thirdly, in connection to common sense, you didn't respond my argument: Tuva and Mongolia formally didn't belong to the USSR, therefore, by removing them from the list we claim that these two nations didn't participate in WWII, that is an obvious nonsense, because their contribution was greater than that of many fully independent states. This is a pure example of consistency vs common sense controversy, and it is you who should be credited for that.

I will not repeat my other arguments, my only comment is that maintaining that "Free France and Tuvia were not independent" without providing new argument, as well as repeated refusal to address my new arguments is not a good way to come to any consensus.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pauld, I said everything I think about it already and I will not change my mind. I strongly believe that I'm right but I will respect the decision of the majority of the editors once there is one. Right now there is no clear majority on either side...just mess. Free France was not a country and Tuvia and Mongolia were not independent. If you think they should be included in that list then go ahead but remove "independent states" from the lead. That is all.--Jacurek (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be right if your arguments are flawed. When I start a discussion I am always prepared to accept the opponent's point of view when his arguments are stronger. Just repeating that "I will not change my mind" is not an argument. You should either quite a discussion (and editing), or provide new arguments.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul...please..."I will not change my mind" was not my argument. All my arguments are above on the talk page and yes I will not change my mind as far as what I think about it. Please do not manipulate my comments into something else. Regards--Jacurek (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dear Jacurek, I don't propose you to change your mind. However, if I, for instance, have no arguments to support my opinion, I stop discussion and cease to express my opinion on that concrete subject. That does not necesserily mean that I changed my mind. That means that since I have nothing reasonable to say, I have no right to subtract others wrom their work.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Paul, will you stop this recrimination, you have to accept some responsibility too. Free France is not even a "state", let alone an "independent state", it is a movement. This argument "therefore, by removing them from the list we claim that these two nations didn't participate in WWII" makes no sense, we already have an article Participants in World War II, and the Free French Forces can be mention in that article. This article is about the allies and the section clearly states "independent states" as the criteria for inclusion. --Martintg (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounds reasonable. I'll try to think about that and answer a little bit later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

India

The article records India as joining the war at the UN declaration in 1942. This is certainly not the case as Indian troops fought in many 1941 theatres. India signed the declaration, but then so did Britain, and it certainly joined the war before then ;-) I would assume that India joined when Britain did, as is the case with Newfoundland. Does anyone have any reason to dispute this? DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If I am not wrong, Indian Empire was an official part of British Empire. India, along with Crown colonies, automatically joined the war along with British Empire i.e. on Sept 3, 1939. By contrast, British dominions didn't join the war automatically, therefore, they participation should be mentioned explicitly.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the fence on whether to move India up or to keep it where it is now. Yes, it did join the war along with the British empire but by signing the declaration, it gets a say on the events of the war. When it signed the treaty, it was treated less of a colony and more of dominion so when it signed the treaty, it joined the Allies on its own.--23prootie (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see a citation on that. In any case, the current state of affairs is misleading, and might lead people to believe that India took no part until 1942. Doubly misleading to say that the "British Raj" joined in 1942. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia

I'm adding Ethiopia at the very to since it had a significant yet understated contribution to the war. I also find Haile Selassie's speech as chilling.--23prootie (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ethiopia again

I really find it strange that pretty much every other country with the exemption of Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, gets removed from the top. Weird. Anyway. I'll explain my side then I'm going to edit. First of Ethiopia gets the prestige position of becoming sandwiched between France and Poland because the Abyssinia (Ethiopia) Crisis was one of the reasons that led to the start of the war since it led to the collapse of the League of Nations. Read the article. Countries that got invaded should also be listed especially if they had some sort of resistance afterward (i.e. Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Egypt, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway, the Philippines, and Yugoslavia.) Mexico and Brazil are listed to add a Latin American worldview (considering that they are the only ones who contributed greatly among those countries). India is listed for a colonial perspective. while the former Axis (Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, and Finland) are added to balance it all out.--23prootie (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

^ "United Nations Security Council: Official Records: First Year, First Series, First Meeting". Retrieved 2007-02-26.
^ A Step Forward Time Magazine Monday, Nov. 28, 1949
^ In 1949 the state of war was modified but not suspended since "the U.S. wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a U.S. force in Western Germany"
^ Spreading Hesitation Time Magazine Monday, Feb. 07, 1955

[UNSC-FIRST-MEETING-1] "United Nations Security Council: Official Records: First Year, First Series, First Meeting". Retrieved 2007-02-26.

[2] A Step Forward Time Magazine Monday, Nov. 28, 1949

[3] In 1949 the state of war was modified but not suspended since "the U.S. wants to retain a legal basis for keeping a U.S. force in Western Germany"

[4] Spreading Hesitation Time Magazine Monday, Feb. 07, 1955

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]