Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:13, 23 April 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Allies of World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 2 months

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Asian / South Pacific / British / Canadian / Chinese / European / French / North America / Russian & Soviet / United States / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force British military history task force Canadian military history task force Chinese military history task force European military history task force French military history task force North American military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United Kingdom High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Soviet Union: Military High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Soviet Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Soviet UnionWikipedia:WikiProject Soviet UnionTemplate:WikiProject Soviet UnionSoviet Union High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PolandWikipedia:WikiProject PolandTemplate:WikiProject PolandPoland Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China: History High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Czech Republic Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Czech RepublicWikipedia:WikiProject Czech RepublicTemplate:WikiProject Czech RepublicCzech Republic Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Slovakia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovakia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Slovakia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SlovakiaWikipedia:WikiProject SlovakiaTemplate:WikiProject SlovakiaSlovakia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations: United Nations Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations (assessed as Top-importance). Power in international relations (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Power in international relations, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Power in international relationsWikipedia:WikiProject Power in international relationsTemplate:WikiProject Power in international relationsPower in international relations Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. France High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mexico High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contents of the Grand Alliance (World War II) page were merged into Allies of World War II on 1 April 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Soviet Union should be mentioned before the United States in the introduction rather than after. 103.59.198.83 (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Changes such as this tend to be contentious, and you've provided no reasoning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Usage of the term Cypriot

Why is it "Greek Cypriots and Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Cyprus" instead of simply "Cypriots" or "Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots" or "Greek-speaking and Turkish-speaking inhabitants of Cyprus"? 95.143.62.54 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Date Soviet Union joined Allies

Hello all

I have corrected this date to July 1941, with an explanation. The Soviet Union didn't automatically "join" the allies the moment it was attacked by Germany, it joined them when a formal military agreement was signed with the leading allied power at the time, which was the UK. The Anglo-Soviet agreement therefore marks the date that the Soviet Union joined the allies. This is consistent with the wording of the rest of the article. The first sentence states that the Allies "were an international military coalition" and a "military coalition" is defined as " a group that temporarily agrees to work together in order to achieve a common goal." You can't have a military coalition without some form of formal agreement and the agreement that formally attached the Soviet Union to the other allied powers was the Anglo-Soviet agreement (given that the UK was the only major power formally at war with the Axis at that time). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I already responded on my talk page, and I respond here.

If we are too focused on formal alliances, we face an obvious problem: there were no Allies after the fall of France till 22th of June, 1941, because the United Kingdom was fighting alone (I write "United Kingdom, not "Great Britain", which is important in this case). Furthermore, the coalition that was fighting with the Axis from September 1939 till June 1940 was the remnant of Entente cordiale, former Triple Entente (the WWI time formation). It ceased to exist after fall of France, and a new alliance formalized after 22th of June, 1941 and then extended after 7th of December, 1941.

Therefore, if we will be too formal, we should speak about different alliances during different periods of WWII.

The most logical solution would be to focus on real military activity: who declared war on whom. If two states declared was on the same opponent, they should be considered de facto allies. The war between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany started in June 1941, which means it became the Ally in June.

You made a bold edit, which is ok, and I reverted you, which is ok too. You explained your edit on the talk page, it is also ok, all three steps are the parts of the normal BRD cycle. But you reverted my revert, which is not ok. It would be more correct in you self-reverted, and we come to some consensus on the talk page first.

Deal? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

This article and other articles on WWI and WWII focus on formal alliances and we should strive for consistency within articles. The Soviet Union should not be treated as an exception. The Allies continued to exist as a formal grouping after the defeat of France in 1940. The first inter-allied war conference was in early June 1941 and included the UK, its Dominions, and the governments-in-exile of Poland and other nations. So there was a formal grouping of allies which the Soviet Union joined in July 1941. One problem with your concept of de facto allies is that the Soviet Union jointly invaded Poland with Germany in 1939, so by your definition wouldn't it have been one of the Axis powers?. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 01:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Alas, that approach is not working: if signing of some agreement is considered as a criterion, then it should be 1904 for Britain and France. No alliance was signed in September 1939.

I am ready to continue this discussion, but you should self-revert first. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Which RS give this date? Slatersteven (talk) 09:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What are the sources for the current information you reverted to? They are entirely unsourced assertions which are contrary to the body of the article, which states: "In June 1941, Hitler broke the non-aggression agreement with Stalin and Axis forces invaded the Soviet Union, which consequently declared war on Germany and its allies. Britain agreed to an alliance with the Soviet Union in July, with both nations committing to assisting one another by any means, and to never negotiate a separate peace." To be an ally, you need an alliance. That's what the word means. Just being invaded by one country doesn't automatically make you an ally of a third country. Some degree of political, military and strategic cooperation is required for nations to become allies in the natural meaning of the word. When Churchill gave his first speech to the nation on 22 June 1941, after Barbarossa, he offered the Soviets military cooperation but pointedly said that Communism was indistinguishable from the worst excesses of Nazism. He also refused to call the Soviets allies (on the advice of cabinet and the military). Cabinet was subsequently split on the question of whether the UK should even assist the Soviets. It took weeks of internal political haggling and external diplomacy before the UK and the Soviets reached an agreement on 12 July to form a military alliance. There are many sources which support this. I suggest you read Martin Kitchen, "Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union during the Second World War," The Historical Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1987), pp. 415-436. For a Russian perspective, try "The Origins of the Cold War: Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance." Gabriel Gorodetsky, The Russian Review, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1988), pp. 145-170. I realise I should have added my sources before I made the initial changes and I apologise for this. But the issue should be properly discussed and sourced with a view to reaching a broad consensus. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 11:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

We are familiar with these sources. They do not address my previous argument. I reiterate it.

For Britain and France, the the infobox shows the date "From September 1939", i.e. the date they entered the war. No alliance was signed in 1939 between France and Britain.

In contrast, you propose July 1941 for the USSR. In other words, whereas the declaration of the war on/by the Axis is used as a start date for France and Britain, the date of signing the alliance is used for the USSR. That is illogical and inconsistent, and it presents the whole WWII as the war between Britain (and her allies) and the Axis.

If we use your approach, for Britain and France, the date should be 1904 (the date when France and Britain officially became allies): they did not formalise their alliance in Sept 1939.

However, that would lead to a confusion, because in that case, the infobox creates a wrong impression that the Allies were just an extension of Triple Entente (minis Russia, plus the USSR). That is wrong. The Allies were a totally different alliance, and many members of this alliance joined the war first, and formalized their relations with other Allies later. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

You haven't picked a good counter argument. What I said was, "Some degree of political, military and strategic cooperation is required for nations to become allies in the natural meaning of the word." The UK and France had a high degree of formalised consultation in September 1939. They consulted with each other before each signed written guarantees to aid Poland if it were invaded. They consulted with each other before they declared war on Germany. And after the invasion the military cooperation was formalised on 12 September 1939 by the formation of the Anglo-French Supreme War Council. So in September 1939 the UK and France were allies in a formal sense. They referred to each other as the Allies. Churchill pointedly did not refer to the Soviet Union as an ally until July. By the way, 1904 was the Entente Cordiale signed before WWI. Are you sure you aren't getting your wars confused? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. July is a more reliable date, primarily due to the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. Being invaded by Nazi Germany did not automatically make the USSR an ally of the United Kingdom and other countries with which the UK was allied; it certainly was not before it was attacked (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact ,Soviet invasion of Poland). After Operation Barbarossa started, Stalin could have chosen not to enter into an agreement and not to cooperate at all with the UK and other allied countries or even to have attacked the UK and its allies. In short, the USSR became a combatant in the Second World War in June 1941 September 1939 upon its invasion of Poland (effectively in a secret alliance with Nazi Germany) and switched sides to become one of the Allies in July 1941 after it was invaded by Nazi Germany in June 1941. Whizz40 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the definition of the term "The Allies"? "The allies of Great Britain"? Where did you take it from? The lede defines it as "an international military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939–1945) to oppose the Axis powers". It doesn't say that the UK was a core of this coalition. Britannica says that the Allies were big countries (Britain, USSR, USA) that opposed to Germany and other Axis states, and it also says: Other countries that had been, or came to be, allied by treaty to one or more of those powers were also called Allies. In other words, the main trait of the major Ally was not signing of some alliance with Britain, but the very fact of joining the war with Germany or Japan. The US became the Ally immediately after they declared war on Japan. Similarly, USSR became the Ally immediately after it became officially at war with Nazi Germany.

With regard to ostensible joining the WWII by the USSR in 1939, neither Britain nor France considered the USSR as a combatant. Poland hadn't declared war on the USSR either (they probably considered that, but Britain and France objected to that). If some country was considered a neutral country by all parties, it would be ridiculous to retrospectively (after 80 years) claim it was a combatant. This is an example of a totally unjustified historical revisionism.

Please, show me a source that says that an Ally was considered an Ally only after signing an alliance with another Ally.

And, please, explain me the following: since fall of France till June 1941, Britain (and her dominions) was the only Ally. How do you imagine the alliance composed of a single member?

Following your logic, British Commonwealth ceased to be the Ally after fall of France, and it became an Ally only after signing the alliance with the USSR. Do you realize how ridiculous is this logic? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:50, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Aemilius Adolphin: You write: "The UK and France had a high degree of formalised consultation in September 1939." That is correct. However, I am not sure what conclusion do you draw from that. Does it mean that they became the Allies only after the formation of the Anglo-French Supreme War Council? I think, that is not what you want to say. They are considered the Allies since Sept 3, when they declared war on Germany. Not since 1904, when Entente Cordiale was signed. And, no, I do not confuse anything: Britain and France remained the allies after WWI, so no additional military alliance was required between them. They didn't sign any alliance before WWII because they already were the allies.

I doubt you will be able to find any good source that claims that France and Britain became the Allies on 12 Sept 1939. They already had been the allies. That means, for some reason, you are advocating a selective approach: you arbitrarily select one criterion for Britain and France (these two countries are considered the Allies after they declared war on Germany), and another criterion for USSR (it is considered an ally after signing some treaty with Britain). By the way, what treaty was signed in July 1941? Do you mean the joint agreement signed on 12 July by Molotov and Scripps? It was not an alliance at all, it was just a preliminary agreement. The real alliance was signed only in 1942 (the same is true for the US). Following your formal approach, we should write that both USA and USSR became the Allies only in 1942, after the Grand Alliance was signed.

Again, your redundant formalism is on brink of OR.

Please, provide a source saying that the Allies were those countries that signed an alliance with Britain. Without such a source (and a proof that it reflect a majority viewpoint) all your claims are just your own creativity. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I've already given two sources. You have given none. Please stop bludgeoning and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I checked these sources, as well as "Molotov, the Making of the Grand Alliance and the Second Front 1939-1942" by Derek Watson (Europe-Asia Studies , Jan., 2002, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Jan., 2002), pp. 51-85), and I don't see how they support your claim.

Your first source says:

"Churchill took up Stalin's suggestion but there was strong opposition within the cabinet to a treaty which, it was feared, might meet with an unfavourable reception from public opinion. There was also a principled objection to Churchill's idea that the treaty should say something of post-war frontiers and the United States ambassador, Winant, was vehement in his opposition to this proposal. The prime minister came round to the view that it was best to avoid all political questions and to concentrate on fighting the war, and no mention of a pact was made in the reply which he sent to Stalin.23 The result of these exchanges was a declaration signed by Cripps and Molotov which in rather bizarre Russian-English stated that both powers would 'render to each other assistance of all kinds in present war against Hitlerite Germany' "

In other words, the Cripps-Molotow agreement was by no means an alliance (for an alliance implies some common vision of teh post-war future), and Britain was doing her best to demonstrate that it was not. I would say, Atlantic chapter was more an alliance then the Cripps-Molotov agreement. Following your logic, the US should be considered the Ally before Pearl Harbor.

In addition, please, explain, which treaty was signed between the US and UK in 1941? The Atlantic Charter was signed earlier, other agreements (Casablanca, Tehran etc) took place later. Some minor agreements signed in December 1941 were technical, and they cannot be considered as any full scale alliance. If no adequate response from you will be obtained, I am going to revert your edits per OR. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

They weren't my edits. You are engaging in Budgeoning Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process. I think you need to calm down and wait to see what others think. You can ask for a RfC or a third party opinion if you wish. But you haven't grasped what I and @Whizz40 are saying. The issue isn't necessarily a formal alliance, but some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation is necessary for two nations to become allies in the ordinary English meaning of the word. I have already explained at length that the UK and France had a high level of diplomatic and military cooperation against Germany in September 1939. That made them allies. No one has said otherwise and I don't understand why you keep bringing this red herring up. But the Soviet Union is a different kettle of fish. There was no high level diplomatic and/or military cooperation the moment Nazi Germany invaded Russia. Churchill gave a speech that day in which he made a vague offer of cooperation but pointedly refused to call the Soviet Union an ally. Both sides were distrustful of each other and rather prickly negotiations were conducted over the next weeks. It didn't help that Stalin was missing in action over this period and wasn't giving a clear direction to the Soviet leadership. An agreement was finally reached on 12 July. That's when they became allies. I understand you disagree, but you really should step back now and let others have their say. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT "They weren't my edits," it is an obviously a false claim: these three edits ( and , were yours. And you were opposed by TWO other users, me and Slatersteven.

I see that you provided a source that ostensibly supports you claim. The quote provided by you says:

"On the political front, the Soviet Union and Great Britain had signed an agreement in Moscow on July 12, 1941. Requested by Stalin as a sign of cooperation, it provided for mutual assistance and an understanding not to negotiate or conclude an armistice or peace except by mutual consent. Soviet insistence on such an agreement presumably reflected their suspicion of Great Britain, though there is no evidence that either party to it ever ceased to have its doubt about the loyalty of the other if attractive alternatives were thought to be available."

I have no idea how this quote supports the claim that Soviet Union joined the Allies by signing this agreement. WP:NOR says: Articles must not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves.

In connection to that, I am wondering where did you find in this source the claim that USSR joined the Allies on 12 July 1941.

Furthermore, according to your own words, Churchill initially refused to call the USSR an ally. However, your own source (Martin Kitchen) calls the Cripps-Molotov agreement signed on 12 July 1941 "a declaration", and there is no indication the author claimed that these two power became the allies on 12 of July.

And, finally, I still see no proof of your claim that the Ally is a power that was considered as an ally by the UK. Such a British-centered approach does not reflect the majority POV, and it seems that is a piece of OR.

___________________________________

You are making false claims by saying that the edits, which you obviously made, were made not by you.

You are introducing original research into the article, because it seems the source added by you does not support your claim.

You are accusing me of improper behaviour, although it is you who violates our policy.

I think it is you who should stop.

WRT "not grasping something", you were absolutely right when you said that "some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation is necessary for two nations to become allies in the ordinary English meaning of the word." That is exactly what I am saying. However, that argument undermines your own point. Indeed:

• there was extensive cooperation between France and Britain before September 1939, but the infobox says they became the Allies only in Sept 1939 (i.e. when they became co-belligerents);
• the US and UK extensively cooperated before Pearl Harbor, but the infobox says the US became the Ally only in Dec 1941 (i.e. when the US became co-belligerents).

In both cases, the date is not the date when "some degree of diplomatic and/or military cooperation" was established, but these dates are the dates when they became co-belligerents. Therefore, I am wondering why you are attempting to apply different rules to different countries.

Your own arguments undermine your position. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I came to a conclusion that the main Aemilius Adolphin's point ("The Soviet Union didn't automatically "join" the allies the moment it was attacked by Germany, it joined them when a formal military agreement was signed with the leading allied power at the time, which was the UK.") is a pure British-centered OR. The Allies was not a group of countries allied with the UK. Even this Misplaced Pages article says otherwise. Aemilius Adolphin should edit the lede first, and to convince us to support that change, and only after that the change of dates may be possible. Furthermore, Aemilius Adolphin's logic contradicts to what we know about the Allies: they grouped not around Britain, but around the Atlantic charter. Some of them (Britain, USSR) became co-belligerents before signing the charter, some of them (e.g. the US) - after that. Therefore, the date in the infobox must reflect the moment when each country declared a war with the Axis. Everything else is either confusing of it is OR.--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You aren't making any sense. The allies existed before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The first inter-allied conference was in June 1941. The Atlantic Charter wasn't until August. So if the Allies were those who gathered around the Atlantic charter, then the Soviet Union wasn't an ally because it didn't sign the Atlantic charter. You are undermining your own justification for your preferred dates in the infobox. Please take a break and let others comment. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 07:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

"The allies existed before Germany invaded the Soviet Union. The first inter-allied conference was in June 1941." Is it supposed to mean that we should put "June 1941" above British and French flags in the infobox? Come on, that is ridiculous: France and Britain were the allies long before September 1939, however the infobox says "Sept 1939" (the date of beginning of their co-belligerence).

"So if the Allies were those who gathered around the Atlantic charter, then the Soviet Union wasn't an ally because it didn't sign the Atlantic charter." Yes, that sounds reasonable. However, if we apply this principle universally, then all other powers should be considered the Allies only after the date they signed the Charter. I would support this approach, but that makes the dates in the infobox redundant (most powers signed the Charter simultaneously). Paul Siebert (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, in contrast to you, I am making a perfect sense. The process of formation of the huge coalition that was later dubbed "the Allies" was long and gradual. It includes several agreements about mutual assistance, joint declarations, the Atlantic charter etc. However, it is hard to name the date after which the Alliance was formed. Just re-read Gorodetsky or Kitchen (your own sources) and find a quote where these authors say the Alliance was established. There is no such a date. Moreover, there may be significant disagreement among different authors about that, so you task is not only to provide a source, but also to demonstrate that your source express a majority view. Therefore, your approach is deeply flawed.

In contrast, the starting date of co-belligerence is pretty well defined (the date of de facto start of hostilities or the date of war declaration). That means my approach is absolutely non-controversial and verifiable. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

It does seme easier and more verifiable to use the date of entry into the war. Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I fixed that.

In addition, the Aemilius Adolphin's edits were misleading. The edit in the lede implied that German invasion of USSR started in July (" joined the Allies in July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union"), and the date in the infobox was linked to the Operation Barbarossa, which started in June, not July.

Similarly, the start date for the UK is linked to the British declaration of war on Germany, and American starting date is linked to Pearl harbor.

That means, the article in general uses the date of entry into the war as the date.

Frankly, the amount of time and efforts needed to explain so obvious things to Aemilius Adolphin is becoming unacceptably high. Any further attempt to implement a totally new concept (the date of signing an alliance with Britain instead of the current concept: the date of entry into the war) without obtaining consensus on the talk page will be considered as disruptive. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

For the Soviet Union, that would be September 1939 when they attacked Poland. For China that would be 1937, the date of the second Sino-Japanese war. So it isn't as simple as you think. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

China is a tricky case: it didn't declare a war on Japan in 1937 because the US insisted on that: that would prevent the US from providing military aid to China. Therefore, China's "non-belligerence" was a secret of Polichinelle for all contemporaries.

In contrast, neither Britain nor France declared a war on USSR in 1939. Soviet Union didn't declare a war on Poland, and Poland didn't declare a war on USSR either.

Therefore, if we assume (as majority of sources do) that declaration of a war on Germany or Japan was considered a moment when some power become the Ally, everything looks pretty simple. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

A declaration of war and an entry into war are two different phenomena, having nothing to do with each other. Germany has never declared war on Poland. Poland did not declare war on Germany either (why should it?), but no RS claims that there was no war between Poland and Germany. A declaration of war is simply a diplomatic courtesy, used relatively rarely. In modern conflicts, very rarely. Often, allied states simply communicate to the attacking side that they are at war as of a given moment due to the aggressor's actions, above all if they do not intend to take military action in the near future. This is how Poland 'declared war' on Japan, for example.

The Soviet Union entered the Second World War in 1939 as the aggressor party, in close consultation and coordination with Nazi Germany. To claim otherwise is to promote ahistorical theories. Marcelus (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

You have already expressed your view many times. Currently we have a properly sourced statement which shows that the Soviet Union joined the allies when it reached an agreement for military cooperation with Britain on 12 July 1941. I have reverted to this version. You will need to find a source which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it. This ignores the history of what actually happened after the attack. As I said, please let other have their say and we will go with whatever consensus emerges. And merely entering hostilies without some degree of military, strategic and political cooperation isn't as uncontroversial as you think. For example, China entered the war against Japan in 1937. So the date China became an ally would be 1937 under your preferred option. The Soviet Union entered the war in 1939. So they were one of the Axis Powers in 1939? They certainly asked Nazi Germany to join the Tripartite Pact. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

You provided a source that says that Molotov and Cripps signed a declaration on July 12, 1941, but this source does not say that the USSR joined the Allies by signing that declaration. Therefore, your statement is not properly sourced.

WRT " You will need to find a source which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it", that was not hard at all. In a couple of mouse clicks, I found multiple sources:

"After Hitler's attack on the Soviet Union, Stalin abandoned his attitude of pro-Axis neutrality and joined the Allies" (Jan T. Gross. A Note on the Nature of Soviet Totalitarianism. Soviet Studies, Jul., 1982, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Jul., 1982), pp. 367-376.)

"When Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, Stalin joined the Allies." ()

"After the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies in fighting the Nazis". (S Langford. Katyn: The Memory. - Politics, Bureaucracy & Justice, 2012

The German army invaded the Soviet Union in the infamous Operation Barbarossa of June 1941, promptly ending the 1939 neutrality pact. Following the invasion, Stalin joined Britain against the Axis" (Lior Sternfeld “Poland Is Not Lost While We Still Live”: The Making of Polish Iran, 1941–45. Jewish Social Studies Vol. 23, No. 3 (Spring/Summer 2018), pp. 101-127.

In contrast, there are just 13 sources that mention Molotov and Cripps in a context of "joined the Allies". Incidentally, one of the sources from that list says:

"However, the main disagreement was about the Soviet Union, before and definitely after it was invaded on 22 June 1941 and joined the Allies" ,

and says nothing about the Molotov-Cripps declaration. Other sources say nothing about that declaration either.

I am restoring the stable version, which is fully supported with reliable sources. You are persistently trying to introduce your own OR. Please stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

In addition, I moved the citation from the lede to the article's body. That is in accordance with MOS:LEADCITE.

Actually, if the claim that USSR ostensibly joined the Allies in July is non-controversial, then no citation is needed per MOS. If it is controversial, we need to discuss it additionally in the article's body and NOT introduce into the lede and infobox. In both case, the citation was misplaced. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT " For example, China entered the war against Japan in 1937. So the date China became an ally would be 1937 under your preferred option," that is a bad example. There is no consensus among scholars about the WWII start date. Majority of authors believe that SSJW was a separate conflict that merged with WWII only after Japan attacked the US and UK on Dec 1941. In any event, China could not be an Ally in 1937, because the Axis had not formalized by that time. By the moment SSJW started, the only formal agreements were Pact of steel (which didn't involve Japan) and Anti-Comintern pact (which was directed primarily against USSR). Therefore it would be impossible to speak about the Allies ("a military coalition formed during the Second World War (1939–1945) to oppose the Axis powers"), because no Axis existed in 1937. Paul Siebert (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have restored the correctly sourced version and have added a second source. Please stop deleting sourced information and replacing it with unsourced information. The Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in June and in July the Soviets signed a military and political alliance with the UK which was the leading Allied power. That's when they became allies. The sources you have put here on the talk page simply state that the Soviet Union became an ally after the German invasion. I agree. The Anglo-Soviet agreement was after the German invasion. You also state that there are "only" 13 sources which state that the alliance was formed by the Anglo-Soviet agreement. That seems quite a lot of sources to me. I have no desire to engage in an edit war. I am happy for you to refer this to an independent third opinion and I undertake to abide by whatever that opinion is. I am also happy to compromise on the wording. Would you accept, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in June-July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement." Making the date June-July would be acceptable to me as it would reflect the time taken to reach an agreement due to the mutual suspicion between the parties. Also please note that the lead should be properly sourced just like the rest of the article, especially when there is an obvious disagreement between editors. "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Lead section Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't work like this.

You asked me to provide sources which explicity states that the Soviet Union joined the allies the moment Germany invaded it, and I provided several sources. Now you put forward a new argument, namely that the source saying that the USSR became the Ally after Germany invasion does not necessarily imply that it became the Ally immediately after that.

Ok, if you approach the dispute so formally, I cam respond in the same vein. Please, provide a source saying that the USSR joined the Allies not after German invasion, but as a result of signing the Molovov-Cripps agreement. In addition, I would like to see sources (multiple sources) saying that this declaration was not a declaration, but a full scale military alliance.

Furthermore, I would like to see a source saying that the Ally is the power that signed an alliance with Britain.

Until those sources have been presented, all your claims are just your original research. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, your reference to MOS undermines your position. If your claim (that Britain was a core Ally) is likely to be challenged, then it hardly can be presented as a fact, just as one out of several POVs. But if that is the case, why do you present it as the only POV? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This may be relevant. Please, read it if you are going to continue this dispute. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Now you are just making up stuff I didn't write and asking people whether it is reliably sourced. The sentence you removed from the article was this: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in July 1941, after the German invasion of the Soviet Union and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:24, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I am NOT making any stuff up. If we omit a non-controversial part, your sentence said:

"The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies in July 1941, after of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement."

You provided the sources that, as ALL participants of the RSN discussion concluded, does not support your text.

You continue to advocate the views that are not explicitly stated in the sources that you are using. This is original research. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are blaming me in your own sins. This is a false information: the July declaration was by no means an alliance. You introduced a false information into Misplaced Pages. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Aemilius Adolphin. The sources you cite simply state that the Soviet Union ended up in the Allied camp after the German attack, which took place in June 1941. None of them claim that the German invasion was equivalent to being in the Allied camp. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which the Soviet Union continued the war against Germany completely separate from the Western powers, without the need to coordinate the fight within a single alliance. (This would probably have been the case had the SU not been on the brink of disaster after a few weeks). Marcelus (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is only one part of AA's argument. AA says that USSR didn't join the Allies on June 22, but it did join the Allies on July 12, when Molotov and Cripps signed the declaration. The latter statement is not supported by the sources cited by AA.

Frankly speaking, I also agree that it would be incorrect to claim that on 22th for June 1941 the USSR automatically joined the Allies. However, if we use more formal criteria (e.g. signing of some agreement), then we have a problem. If "the Allies" refers to some formal military alliance, then Molotov-Cripps declaration cannot be considered as alliance (and had never been considered as such by historians). If this declaration was an alliance, then why Anglo-Soviet Treaty of 1942 was signed? If we accept AA's approach, we must write that USSR became the Ally only in 1942, which, obviously, not what historians say.

Furthermore, can anybody tell the exact date when the Grand Alliance was formed? When exactly the US, UK and USSR became full scale allies? I am not sure we can name some concrete document signed by all parties that marked the beginning of the Grand Alliance.

If the starting date is signing of declaration of United Nations, then all parties became the Allies simultaneously, and there is no need in footnotes at all.

If the starting date is the Atlantic charter, then the US should be considered the Ally before Pearl Harbor (which contradicts to the majority viewpoint).

I would go even further: the date of formation of the Axis is also unclear. "The Axis" is some umbrella term, and, for example, Finland is considered the Axis power, but it, in contrast to Romania or Hungary, never signed the main Axis treaty. Just think, in September 1939, Britain and France didn't declare war on the Axis: they declared war on Germany only. The Tripartite Pact was signed later, on 27 September 1940.

During WWII, both of the opposing alliances were in a process of formation even after the was officially started. Therefore, the standard approach of historians is: the countries joined the war first and formalized the alliance later. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

First and foremost, the 'Allies' were not a military alliance in the classical sense, but an agreement by several states to fight together against Nazi Germany. It was formed in 1939 and developed and changed its shape throughout the war. You have rightly pointed out that neither of these two categories, 'Allies' and 'Axis', is clearly defined, but this is not a problem, just a historical fact. The treaty of 12 July 1941 was the first agreement between the USSR and the UK clearly declaring joint struggle against Nazi Germany. Marcelus (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

- "First and foremost, the 'Allies' were not a military alliance in the classical sense" Absolutely correct.

- "but an agreement by several states to fight together against Nazi Germany" Wrong. Not "Germany", but "The Axis": the US joined the war not because of Germany.

- " It was formed in 1939 and developed and changed its shape throughout the war." Your "developed and changed" included a complete dissolution of the Anglo-French alliance after fall of France. Without France, the Allies included only the British Crown and dominions. It was hardly an alliance.

- "You have rightly pointed out that neither of these two categories, 'Allies' and 'Axis', is clearly defined, but this is not a problem, just a historical fact." We both rightly point that. The difference between us is that we draw different conclusions from that fact. I maintain that, as soon as "the Allies" is not a strictly defined and formal term, the attempt to link it to some formal bilateral agreement is intrinsically flawed and ahistorical.

The actual course of events was as follows: the powers that later would be called "the Allies" declared a war on one or several Axis countries, thereby becoming a de facto ally of "the Allies", and only after that the alliance was formalized. As another user correctly noted, it fully formalized only by signing the Declaration of United Nations, and if we want to be formal, we should use the date of its signing as a start date (which I would oppose to). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The name Allies is also used to refer to the powers that have been fighting only Nazi Germany since 1939. Do not impose your definition not based on WP:RS.

After the fall of France, the Allies included other non-British fighting nations (for example Poland), also soon after Free France joined the fight.

No, the Allies define the powers fighting against the Axis powers jointly or at least in agreement or coordination; on June 22, the Soviet Union had no such thing with any of the Allied powers. Marcelus (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Gabriel, Gorodetsky (1988). "The Origins of the Cold War. Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance". The Russian Review. 47 (2): 155. Churchill's famous speech of 22 June was directed to varying quarters and

   brilliantly concealed his determination to avoid a genuine association. Churchill had readily bowed to a request by both the Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Office not to refer to the Russians as allies. {{cite journal}}: line feed character in |quote= at position 74 (help)

2. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (2005). A World at Arms, a global history of World War II (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 284–5. ISBN 9780521853163. On the political front, the Soviet Union and Great Britain had signed an agreement in Moscow on July 12, 1941. Requested by Stalin as a sign of cooperation, it provided for mutual assistance and an understanding not to negotiate or conclude an armistice or peace except by mutual consent. Soviet insistence on such an agreement presumably reflected their suspicion of Great Britain, though there is no evidence that either party to it ever ceased to have its doubt about the loyalty of the other if attractive alternatives were thought to be available.
3. Woodward, Llewellyn (1962). British Foreign Policy in the Second World War. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 162–3. He replied on July 10 that Stalin had accepted 'an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany.' ...The agreement was signed on July 12.

British Ceylon

British Ceylon should be added to the list of combatants. There are many Ceylon soldiers fought and died in WW2 for the British Empire Kevin.pathirage (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfair for China to be placed in "Other allied combatants"

Been fighting the Japs since 1931/1937. Of course they were pretty ineffective, but they suffered massive casualties. All this just to be an "Other"? Alexysun (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC) RS call the big three the big three. That is why they are separate. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Philippines

There are only 25 allies of United Nations in the list but Philippines is also included which will be added as the 26th member 2001:4453:6D1:BA00:6830:3BE2:304:D6C8 (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

It would make sense to remove all British colonies/territories from "Other Allied Combatant States" as they all belong to the United Kingdom. Also, this same change was done on the "Allies of World War I" page already, probably due to the same reason I stated before. JellyGamery (talk) 02:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, between the first and second WWs, Statute of Westminster was signed. It made British dominions almost independent. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. Yes, I am aware that British Dominions were considered independent states. Although it's still unclear to me why India and Southern Rhodesia are both still listed, as they are both colonies and distinct from the rest of the British Dominions in terms of autonomy. I don't mean to make a big deal out of these minor details, it's just that I visit both Allied Power pages often and the inconsistencies between them kind of bother me. JellyGamery (talk) 04:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, for me it is also unclear. India was not a dominion, it was ruled by British Crown. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: It's not quite clear to me what you have agreed on. If the British Dominions were independent enough to be considered distinct participants, and they did participate, should they not be listed in the infobox? I agree that it might be somewhat inaccurate to list India / British Raj as an independent combatant, but I would argue there is some encyclopedic value to the explicit mention of such a large country in the list. I would suggest including the participating British Dominions, and perhaps changing the listing of India to British Raj, which might be slightly more accurate while still delivering important information. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I can see now that I was mistaken about the British Dominions. I suppose now I would agree that the British Dominions should be kept, as among the world they were considered as independent entities. However, I would say it would make sense for India to be removed just as Southern Rhodesia, as it's really the only outlier on the info box and every other colony of the European powers is not listed. JellyGamery (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

RfC Date Soviet Union joined the Allies

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies be changed to July 1941. Alternatively, should it be changed to June-July 1941? Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Statement. The article currently states that the Soviet Union joined the allies in June 1941 (that is, immediately after Operation Barbarossa.) An alternative date is the signing of the Anglo-Soviet agreement. Most general sources are vague, stating only that the Soviet Union joined the Allies "after" Germany attacked it in June 1941. Detailed studies of Anglo-Soviet relations focus more on the weeks of mutual suspicion between the UK and the Soviet Union before they reached a formal agreement on cooperation against Nazi Germany on 12 July 1941. I favour the 12 July date because the Soviet Union did not become an ally of the UK and its allies the moment it was attacked by Germany. Some degree of formalised military, strategic and political cooperation is required for countries to become allies in the ordinary English sense of the word. Alternatively, I would be happy with a ranged date of June-July 1941 as this gives an indication of the three weeks of tricky negotiations before the countries reached an agreement to cooperate with each other. It is also relevant that the UK consulted with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ before concluding an agreement with Stalin. Relevant sources include Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• JuneAs this is the date they entered the war, against Germany. Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• June. For other two main belligerents (Britain and USA), the infobox uses the date they entered the war. What is the reason for using a different criterion for the USSR?

Additional arguments against July are as follows:

1. It is unclear why the date of signing a preliminary bilateral agreement is considered as the date of joining a multilateral alliance.

2. It is unclear what sources support July. The sources provided by AA do not support this date. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

• July Being invaded by Nazi Germany did not automatically make the USSR an ally of the United Kingdom and other countries with which the UK was allied; it certainly was not before it was attacked (Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, Soviet invasion of Poland). After Operation Barbarossa started, Stalin could have chosen not to enter into an agreement and not to cooperate at all with the UK and other allied countries or even to have attacked the UK and its allies. In short, the USSR became a combatant in the Second World War in June 1941 September 1939 upon its invasion of Poland (effectively in a secret alliance with Nazi Germany) and switched sides in June, after being attached by Nazi Germany, and became one of the Allies in July upon signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. The reason for the different criterion for the USSR as compared to the UK and USA is that those two countries were always allied and always on the same side; that is not true for the USSR so criteria in addition to the date they became a combatant against Nazi Germany are necessary. Whizz40 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• June, with comment that the entry was formalized by the July agreement. Common English usage includes the usage that the U.S. enterred the war against Japan on December 7, 1941, though the actual declaration was later. Russia and Britain were fighting a common enemy, with or withour formal papers.Mwinog2777 (talk) 17:14, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
• July. I have moved my previous statement here to make it clear that it is my contribution to the discussion. Most general sources are vague, stating only that the Soviet Union joined the Allies "after" Germany attacked it in June 1941. Detailed studies of Anglo-Soviet relations focus more on the weeks of mutual suspicion between the UK and the Soviet Union before they reached a formal agreement on cooperation against Nazi Germany on 12 July 1941. I favour the 12 July date because the Soviet Union did not become an ally of the UK and its allies the moment it was attacked by Germany. Some degree of formalised military, strategic and political cooperation is required for countries to become allies in the ordinary English sense of the word. Alternatively, I would be happy with a ranged date of June-July 1941 as this gives an indication of the three weeks of tricky negotiations before the countries reached an agreement to cooperate with each other. It is also relevant that the UK consulted with the US, Canada, Australia and NZ before concluding an agreement with Stalin. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• June I don't think July is significant. The British did not sign a formal treaty of alliance with the Soviet Union until May 1942, and the US not until June 1942. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:11, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• July, on 12 July 1942, the first agreement was reached between the UK and the Soviet Union to support each other in the fight against Nazi Germany. Marcelus (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• June The history books I've read commonly note that the Axis invasion of the USSR on 22 June 1941 brought the Soviets into the war on the Allied side. The paperwork to make the alignment official came later. For instance, Winston Churchill, famously, gave a speech on 22 June 1941 in which he pledged to support the USSR ("It follows, therefore, that we shall give whatever help we can to Russia and to the Russian people. We shall appeal to all our friends and Allies in every part of the world to take the same course and pursue it as we shall, faithfully and steadfastly to the end"), and historians generally note that he saw the Soviet Union as an ally from that point forward. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• July. We don’t say that Austria and Czechoslovakia automatically became Allies when Germany invaded them, do we? Hitler may have pushed the USSR out of the Axis camp, but it remained up to Stalin and the Western Allies to make it one of them. (The USSR had already become a combatant in September 1939, throwing off the facile logic of some of the other rationales for June votes.)  —Michael Z. 14:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  We do not say that Austria and Czechoslovakia automatically became Allies when Germany invaded them for an obvious reason: Austria had never been the Ally, and Czechoslovakia didn't declare war on Germany.

  You incorrectly assumed that we claim that USSR or USA joined the Allies when they were attacked by Germany of Japan, accordingly. That is wrong. They joined the Allies when they declared a war on these powers. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Cz-Sl. was maybe not a good example. How about Albania?

  I am unconvinced by your logic. USSR did not join the Axis when it signed Molotov–Ribbentrop, nor when it entered the war against Poland, did it? We know that because Stalin tried to join the Axis but was rebuffed by Hitler. USSR was aligned with Axis until attacked, then aligned with Allies by circumstances, until it actually became one.

  But if you insist on defining membership more loosely, I can be convinced to list USSR as Axis member up to June and Ally after that.  —Michael Z. 15:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Both Czechoslovakia and Austria are definitely bad examples. Austria was annexed and ceased to exist. The annexation was recognized] by many Western powers (but not by USSR). This annexation was declared as null and void only in 1943, when Moscow declaration was signed.

  Czechoslovakia declared no war on Germany in 1939, so it was not considered as a belligerent. Later, when her governvent in exile signed Declaration of United Nations, she joined the Allies.

  WRT Albania, I am not sure this article mentions it at all, except the mention of retroactive recognition of it as an "Associated Power" in 1946. (Communist partisans should be left beyond the scope) But is it sufficient to claim that Albania joined the Allies when it was occupied by Italy? Such a creativity would be a classical OR.

  Anyway, you forgot about the most important argument: so far, no sources have been presented that state that USSR joined the Allies specifically because Molotov and Cripps signed their declaration.

  Just think: we are voting for two options, one of which is not supported by reliable sources. That is a blatant violation of our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  WRT "USSR did not join the Axis when it signed Molotov–Ribbentrop", you forgot that:

  • There was no Axis by that time, but Anti-Comintern pact and Pact of Steel were already in force. These pacts were directed against USSR, and they remained in force.
  • The non-secret part of MRP was just a non-aggression treaty (similar treaty was signed, and remained in force during almost the whole WWII, between Japan and USSR).
  • The secret protocol stipulated no joint actions, it just defined "spheres of interest". If you compare it with, e.g. British guarantees to Poland (which was a formal reason why Britain joined the war), the obligations were clearly outlined.

  In 1939, it was Nazi propaganda, who tried to present MRP as an alliance. Thus, the Nazi film about "join parade in Brest" combined the events that happened in two different days (during the first day, German troops left Brest, and Krivoshein was one out of few Soviet representatives), whereas the Soviet troops entered the city on the next day). In contrast, Soviet authorities were much more cautious. If you read, e.g. Gorodetsky (the source from the below list), you may find that British officials also considered USSR as a neutral power during 1939-41. Actually, the idea that the USSR was a Nazi ally is exactly what Nazi propaganda was trying to convince people during the first two years of the war. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. Axis had been in use since the Italo-German protocol of October 23, 1936; so you are wrong saying that there was no axis by that time

  2. The RMP was never a simple non-aggression pact, it involved the division of Central and Eastern Europe and cooperation in its partition; moreover, it was followed by friendship, border and trade treaties. Comparing the RMP to treaties with Japan is a complete misrepresentation of basic facts.

  3. Joint actions occurred, primarily during the joint invasion of Poland.

  4. The March 1939 guarantees to Poland were not the reason for the UK's entry into the war. The reason was the British-Polish military alliance of August 1939. Same goes for France.

  5. Virtually everything you say about the parade in Brest is untrue. The city surrendered to the Germans on September 17, Soviet troops also entered the city on September 18; on September 22 there was a ceremonial handover of the city to the Soviets combined with a parade. The German troops then left Brest.

  This is the second time I have caught you spreading inaccuracies on a talk pages. I would ask you to stop such practices.

  Being an ally does not imply deep love and bragging about it to the whole world. No one claims that the Soviets and the Nazis ignited a sincere love for each other. It would not be the first and last alliance resulting from a community of interests or political necessity, the Soviets were obviously ashamed of their close contacts with the Germans, it does not mean that there were none. Marcelus (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  Re 1. The Italo-German protocol didn't involve Japan. That means after Pearl Harbor the two main theaters of war wouldn't have merged into WWII. The US would remain neutral in the European conflict.

  Re 2. "it involved the division of Central and Eastern Europe and cooperation in its partition" It involved partition, but not cooperation: it literally said "Germany may do whatever it wants, but it should not cress the Bug river etc."

  " it was followed by friendship, border and trade treaties" Yes, but that period quickly ended. Occupation of the Baltic states was considered as a hostile act by Germany, and they started preparation for Barbarossa. USSR - Germany "friendship" during that short period can be compared with the UK-US friendship before 1941. We do not consider the US the Ally before Pearl harbor.

  3. "Joint actions occurred, primarily during the joint invasion of Poland." I know just one example of cooperation: Germany requested some Soviet radio stations to broadcast some key words, but they explained that that needed for "aeronautical experiments".

  4. "The March 1939 guarantees to Poland were not the reason for the UK's entry into the war. The reason was the British-Polish military alliance of August 1939." This "alliance" is called "British guarantees" No other alliance was signed. In addition, that agreement guaranteed Polish independence, but not territorial integrity, so had Hitler taken just Danzig, Britain would probably not have to declare a war.

  5. "Virtually everything you say about the parade in Brest is untrue. The city surrendered to the Germans on September 17, Soviet troops also entered the city on September 18" A BBC article (unfortunately, I found it only in Russian, but google can translate it) says that this question is controversial. Krivoshein says that Wehrmacht marched from the town, and Red Army entered it, but these events were consecutive, not concurrent. I didn't find much information about it, and I agree that Krivoshein had reasons to conceal the fact of participation in a joint parade.

  The problem, however, is that no photos are available where German and Soviet troops are shown together: we see either German troops marching near German officers or Soviet troops marching near Soviet soldiers, similar to what the BBC article shows. The photo of Krivoshein and Guderian is the only photo from that parade where Soviet and German military are together. That reinforces my doubts in a validity of the claim that the parade was joint. German propaganda did its best to present it as a joint parade, but it failed to film or photograph Soviet and German military marching together or immediately after each other.

  That confirms Krivoshein's claim, although indirectly. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. That's irrelevant. Axis existed way before 1939.

  2. Irrelevant how long it lasted.

  3. Not true. The radio station in Minsk began broadcasting navigation signals, needed by the Luftwaffe conducting air operations over Poland, as early as 1 September.

  4. Not true. On 25 August the UK and Poland entered into a full-fledged military alliance. The alliance is at least a bilateral treaty, the guarantees are unilateral; the UK made such guarantees to Poland on 31 March 1939. The March 31 guarantees did not cover the Gdańsk area, the 25 August alliance clearly stated that in the event of German military action in the Gdańsk area the UK would support Poland. (I don't know how is that relevant here, but nonetheless you aren't correct).

  5. Stop repeating ahistorical distortions. RS clearly identify the September 22 parade in Brest as a joint parade, besides that many photos show German and Soviet participants in the parade. Moreover, German and Soviet commanders receive the parading troops together. Everything you say about the parade is not true. I would ask you not to spread false information in the Misplaced Pages space. The content you are promoting is disturbing. Marcelus (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, the "joint parade" story is an indication of a desperate lack of any serious evidences of Nazi-Soviet cooperation during invasion of Poland. This parade seems to be almost the only evidence of cooperation. That means the claim that there was a cooperation has little factual support. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:41, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. "Axis existed way before 1939" I assume under "Axis" you mean this anti-soviet alliance?

  2. "Irrelevant how long it lasted" Why?

  3. "Not true. The radio station in Minsk began broadcasting navigation signals, needed by the Luftwaffe conducting air operations over Poland" The true reason was not explained to the Soviet authorities by Germans. And the station was not allowed to broadcast the whole list of key words, just the word "Minsk". Actually, one has to have a very strong imagination to call it "cooperation". If that is the example of cooperation, then there was virtually no cooperation between Moscow and Berlin during the pivotal days of German invasion.

  4. "On 25 August the UK and Poland entered into a full-fledged military alliance." Anglo-Polish alliance has a secret protocol that limited its scope with Germany only. I agree that it is hardly relevant.

  5. I am not "repeating ahistorical distortions". I presented the source (BBC), which says the "parade" story is controversial. If you believe BBC is engaged in ahistorical distortion, that is your problem, not mine. :"Everything you say about the parade is not true." That is a very strong claim that needs a strong evidence.

  "German and Soviet commanders receive the parading troops together." Partially correct. Several photos exist that show Guderian and Krivoshein receive the German parading troops together. I also found one photo showing a group of the Red Army military standing near the tribune with Guderian and Krivoshein. However, no photos exist that shows show Guderian and Krivoshein who receive the Red Army parading troops together.

  In general, it seems that the "joint parade" story is a very poorly studied topic. I found no serious analysis of that issue in good sources. Some amateur historians performed a more detailed analysis, but these sources do not meet our quality standards, so we cannot use them. However, since WP:NOR not apply to talk pages, I can talk about that without restrictions.

  Let me reiterate it: no documentary proof existes that Guderian and Krivoshein were receiving parading Red Army troops." I am ready to reconsider my view is you present me such evidences.

  One way or the another, the attention to this "joint parade" demonstrates the desperate lack of other evidences for "collaboration". Paul Siebert (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. By Axis I mean Axis; it was used first to describe the Italo-German alliance of 1936.

  2. Because it doesn't change the fact that this alliance existed. Because it is irrelevant to the question of its existence or not. Generally, it confirms that such an agreement existed. Besides, the assessment of whether it was long or not is subjective.

  3. Not true. It was an official request from the Luftwaffe command handed over by the counsellor of the German embassy in Moscow, Gustav Hilger, together with the information about the start of military action against Poland and the incorporation of Danzig into the Reich. Two signals "Richard Wilhelm 1.0" and "Minsk" were transmitted. This was an invaluable aid of a military nature to the Germans.

  5. You wrote incorrectly that Soviet troops entered the city after the German troops had left it. In fact, the first Soviet troops entered Brest on 18 September, the day after the Germans. It is also untrue that the footage from Brest do not show parading Soviet troops.

  The juxtaposition of "parade" and "Торжественный Марш" (solemn march) is fundamentally false. Since there is no fundamental difference between the two terms, the use of one or the other changes nothing in the perception and meaning of the event itself. Marcelus (talk) 08:25, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. The problem with just Italo-German alliance is that it would never lead to a World war: Japan was beyond the scope, and the US would never joined the war against Germany after Pearl Hoabor.

  2. "it doesn't change the fact that this alliance existed" which "alliance"?

  3. It was explained that the broadcast was needed for "aeronautical experiments", and Soviet authorities approved broadcasting of "Minsk" only.

  5. I didn't mean that. Of course they were already stationed in the city, however, there was no joint marching. The German troops marched near tribune where Guderian and Krivoshein were standing, and after that the German flag was replaced with the Soviet flag. A standard procedure of a peaceful transfer of some territory from one party to another.

  Anyway, that is really not interesting. If a joint parade is an indication of allied relationships, then most NATO countries were the allies of Russia (they participated in several victory parades on 9th of May in Moscow).

  Paul Siebert (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. Irrelevant.

  2. Germano-Soviet of 1939.

  3. Irrelevant.

  5. Irrelevant. Parade is a symbol of joint invasion and partition of Polish territory. Marcelus (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. Then your original argument is irrelevant too.

  2. A military alliance is supposed to put some joint obligations and declare some common political goals. The fact that some sources, colloquially, refer to MRP as an alliance do not allow us to claim that Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were true allies in 1939-41, and that they were treated as such by Britain, France and the US.

  Just answer a simple question: if the USSR was an ally of Germany, why hadn't it declared a war on Britain or France in 1939? Anticipating your possible arguments, the question about a a declaration of a war on Japan by the USSR after Pearl Harbor was a subject of a joint discussion among the Allies, and they agreed that it would be in interest of all Allies if the USSR focused its efforts on the European theatre.

  3. Why? The term "aggression" is pretty well defined in an international law, and broadcasting is not included.

  5. We are not discussing symbols here. And we do not draw our own conclusions from symbols. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. No; you claimed that there was no Axis by that time, which is factually wrong.

  2. The Polish-British alliance was only valid in relation to German aggression. Your acknowledgement that the RS call the MRP an "alliance" essentially ends the discussion on whether we can use the term.

  3. Not true.

  5. No we not, we use RS, which calls Brest events as joint Soviet-German parade of victory. Marcelus (talk) 14:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. "Te Axis" is a poorly defined term. It has different meanings. If we assume that the Axis is something that was called as such by at least one person, then yes, the Axis already existed in 1937. However, if under "The Axis" we mean the alliance that eventually lead to the WWII (which involved the US), then the true Axis was formed only in 1940.

  2. You are answering to a different question. Just re-read my question.

  3. The term "aggression" was analyzed in details, for examople, by Malksoo, who proved that annexation of the Baltic states by the USSR was an aggression. Just read what IS included into the term "aggression", and what isn't.

  5. Again, some sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  1. Not true; the WW2 started in 1939

  The rest of the point was already answered in details, no sense in repeating myself. Marcelus (talk) 14:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  On September 1939, noone knew that the war between Poland and Germany was a World war II.

  Remember, the war was declared by France and UK on Germany only. Did they declare a war on Italy? Did Italy declared a war on Britain or the UK? In reality, even Italy declared a war on France and Britain only on 10th of May, 1940.

  Until that date, the war was waged between Germany and Poland, the UK and France ONLY.

  Japan was neutral (except her separate war with China and USSR).

  Romania was neutral.

  Hungary was neutral.

  Italy was neutral.

  (A future Axis menber) Finland and (a future Ally) Soviet Union waged a separate war, which ended with a peace.

  How all of that is consistent with your claim that the Axis existed since 1937?

  Compare it with the events that happened after Pearl Harbor. Immediately after teh attack of Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared a war on the US, because there was a true military alliance between Germany and Japan. That is what the word "Alliance" mean.

  It is strange that I have to explain to you so simple things. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  Irrelevant. WW2 started on Sep 1, 1939. That's what vast majority of RS is saying. The rest is just your speculation. Marcelus (talk) 19:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure if this source is RS, but it says the term "World War II" was introduced by Roosevelt in 1941.

  Yes, modern historians agree that WWII started on September 1, 1939. However, in 1939 people didn't know the Phony war or a conflict in East Asia are the parts of a future WWII.

  The rest of my post contains no speculations, it contains only historical facts. Do you deny that in 1939, all future Axis members except Germany were neutral? Do you deny the fact that in the first half of 1939, during the Triple Alliance negotiations, Romania was considered (by USSR, UK and France) as one of potential victims of German aggression? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:56, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think we can close this topic on the conclusion that, according to RS, WW2 began on September 1, 1939, and that is relevant to us. Marcelus (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think that we both (as well as everybody on this talk page) agree that WWII started on 1st of September, 1939.

  However, I cannot understand how can it help us to resolve the dispute. How dose it confirm your thesis that the USSR became the Ally by signing a bilateral technical agreement with Britain? Paul Siebert (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

• No, we should not name any of these dates. Yes, we might say "in June", but then we must add de facto because one needs to conclude some formal mutual agreements to became an ally de juro. Anglo-Soviet Agreement was only one of them. That was a process. My very best wishes (talk) 17:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
• July. It is important to make the difference between "joining the allies" or waging war against Germany. As such, the Signing of The Anglo-Soviet agreement is the day the Soviet Union joins the allies, the day Operation Barbarossa begins is the day the Soviet Union turns against Germany. There's a difference; If Country A waged a war with Coalition B, Country C could declare war on Country A without thereby joining Coalition B. As such, with this specific formulation, it is clear that the SU did not automatically join the Allies when being attacked by Germany.CarolingianCitizen (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  That must be based on some sources. What sources say that? (A hint: the sources ##1-3 in the list below do not say that). Paul Siebert (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

  On second thought, the Anglo-Soviet Agreement is not the best solution after all. That being said, the start of Operation Barbarrossa certainly isnt either, which is what I wanted to state in the first place earlier. Two solutions I've seen so far, "the Soviet Union joins the allies in fighting the Nazis" as an event or "in June" as a (vague) date, strike me as the best ways ro resolve this. CarolingianCitizen (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think the problem is the wording "joined the Allies" followed by a specific date, which is simply too neat for a complicated process. What would you think about, "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and formally joined the Allies soon after." The source I gave below shows that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was a formal alliance with the UK and its dominions. However, there was a later separate agreement with Poland. Also we can change the info box for the Soviet Union to read "at war with Germany from June 1941", Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: There was never a written, tripartite agreement officially establishing an alliance between the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom. Their alliance was formed de facto immediately after the German invasion, through the three superpowers joining the battle against Germany and commencing attempts at military co-ordination, as well as mutual assistance in information and matériel. In the absence of such a document, the article can only offer the date of 1 January 1942, when the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and China signed the document known as the Declaration by United Nations, with 22 more nations, including the Soviet Union, adding their repesentatives' signatures the next days. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  It's impossible, WP:RS are using the term Allies for the period of an entire WW2. Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Before January 1942, they refer to the Big Three members as de facto allies. At least, that is what majority WP:RS say. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

This RfC was incorrectly formulated

WP:RFCBRIEF says that the RfC statement should be neutral and brief. The statement we are discussing is neither neutral nor brief. The user who initiated this RfC clearly states the PoV they are advocating. Furthermore, it contains a factually incorrect sentences. Thus, it says:

"An alternative date is the signing of the Anglo-Soviet agreement."

However, there is no evidence that this POV is expressed by reliable sources. This RSN discussion is leaning to a conclusion that the source cited in this RfC does not support the claim that USSR joined the Allies in July. I propose to speedy close this RfC as poorly formulated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The question: "Should the date the Soviet Union joined the Allies be changed to July 1941. Alternatively, should it be changed to June-July 1941?" is the neutral question. Underneath it I have given a separate personal statement. I am allowed to do this. There is no need to try to shut down discussion. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but before starting the RfC, you should have to make sure your sources support the option 2. In reality, they are not, so you de facto propose us to violate our policy. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion

How about giving both dates followed by a footnote explaining that "sources differ"? I find arguments of both sides summarized above compelling. The readers may do so as well. (The only question is whether both viewpoints are equally DUE in sources). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Piotrus, sourced do not differ. The sources presented by AA do not say that USSR became the Ally on July 12, 1941. That is the conclusion drawn by AA from sources that do not explicitly say that. That was confirmed in the RSN discussion that I initiated few hours before AA started this RfC. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Common sense, I'd indeed expect most sources to use the June date. So no sources at all support the July version? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

So far, the discussion unanimously concluded that the third source doesn't support this claim.

I am sure if someone starts the RSN discussions about other two sources, the conclusion will be the same, but I don't think we need that forum shopping. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

A solution

This is a solution: the footnotes show the date when each member of the Big Three de facto joined the war. To avoid ambiguity, I just fixed the wording to make that fact more clear. I believe that resolved the dispute: we may endlessly argue when exactly the UK, the US or the USSR became the Allied de iure, but the moment they de facto joined the war is indisputable and non-controversial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You shouldn't make any changes to this aspect of the article or infobox while the matter is still under discussion. A consensus needs to be reached. That said, I think your proposal has merit. One problem is that the Soviet Union was at war when they invaded Poland and Finland. For the Soviet Union, it would be better to say "at war with Germany since June 1941". The lead also should be changed to: "The Soviet Union joined the allies after it was invaded by Germany in June 1941 and signed the Angl-Soviet agreement in July." Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the infobox concept is as follows: for the Big Three, the official start of belligerence is shown. For Britain it is September 1939 (the month it declared a war on Germany), for the US it is Dec 1941 (the moth when they declared a war on Japan and Germany), and for the Soviet Union it is the month when the war started between it and Germany. Everything is logical, I just specified the wording without changing the concept.

WRT "shouldn't make any changes", as I explained it to you, before starting your RfC, you should have to make sure reliable sources support your idea. You de facto propose other users to chose between the non-controversial statement found in many reliable sources and your own idea, which is not found even in the sources selected by you.

WRT " One problem is that the Soviet Union was at war when they invaded Poland and Finland." At war with whom? With a future Axis member (Finland)? Remember, Finland had never been the Ally before 1944. With regard to Poland, no war was declared on/by the USSR as a result of invasion of Poland. Meanwhile, the three dates listed in the infobox are the months the members of the Big Three officially declared a war on Nazi Germany.

Therefore "one problem" you are talking about is not a problem at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT " it would be better to say "at war with Germany since June 1941"" No. It was at war with the whole European Axis (including Finland and except Bulgaria), and de facto even with Spain. Some of the Axis powers (e.g. Romania and Hungary) waged a war almost exclusively against USSR. Actually, you are too focused on Britain, and you forgot that Romania alone deployed more troops on the Eastern Front than Britain had in North Africa.

WRT "The lead also should be changed to: "The Soviet Union joined the allies after it was invaded by Germany in June 1941 and signed the Angl-Soviet agreement in July."" What is the reason for focusing on the Molotov-Cripps declaration? Actually, RSs do not pay so much attention to it. It was by no means an alliance, and after USSR (and then the US) joined the war, Britain stopped to play a central role in it. Majority sources describe formation of the Grand Alliance not as a process of joining the alliance with Britain by the USSR and, later, the US, but as a de novo formation of a totally new alliance. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The Soviet Union was at war with Poland. It invaded Poland in 1939 and Poland never surrendered. The Polish government in exile was the officially recognised Polish Government. It only reached limited agreements with the Soviet Union in July and August 1941 at Churchill's insistence. Why the focus on the Anglo-Soviet agreement? I've explained it above as have several others. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Did Poland declare a war on the USSR? If yes, when did the state of war between these two powers ceased? I assume it ceased, because it is hard to imagine that Polish government in exile was still at war with the USSR after June 1941.

Please, show me sources saying when Poland declared a war on the USSR, and when they signed a peace after Barbarossa started. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT your explanations, they are totally unsatisfactory, and they are not based on what RS say. In addition, keeping in mind that the RSN discussion concluded the source #3 does not support your idea, it should be removed from the list. Actually the same arguments are equally applicable to other two, so it would be correct to remove them from the list too. I can ask the question at the RSN about these two sources, but if I do that, I'll look like an idiot: the users at RSN may conclude I really believe in what I am asking. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"It only reached limited agreements with the Soviet Union in July and August 1941 at Churchill's insistence. " As far as I know, the position of Soviet government was that Polish state ceased to exist in September 1939, so one of the reasons why the agreement with "London Poles" was hard to achieve was that Soviet government didn't recognise "London Poles" as a legitimate government of Poland. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

On 1 September 1939, the USSR took aggressive action against Poland in agreement with Germany, losing its status as a neutral state. On 17 September it undertook open aggression against Poland, entering its territory. On 30 July 1941, diplomatic relations between Poland and the USSR were restored and normalised, and the USSR cancelled previous agreements with Germany, both countries declaring a joint struggle against Nazi Germany. From this point on, the Soviets recognised the Polish government in exile as the only legitimate government. Marcelus (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

On 1 September 1939, the USSR took NO aggressive actions (an no actions whatsoever). On September 1, even Britain hadn't joined the war yet: the UK declared a war later.

WRT the Polish government, the question is when and by whom a war was declared on the USSR in 1939 (except Finland, which had never been the Ally).

For the UK and US, the infobox shows the month they officially entered the war on the Allied side. What is the reason to change the rules for the USSR? I got no adequate answer so far. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

On 1 September, the USSR began broadcasting navigation signals to the German air force, that's an agressive action and open support for German invaders. Subsequently, Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor. The USSR entered the Second World War on 17 September 1939. Official declarations of war are irrelevant because they are a diplomatic courtesy, very rarely used. I don't understand your fixation on them. You need to answer why Poland would have to declare war on the Soviet Union? Why do you expect this from a victim of aggression? Marcelus (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Broadcasting the word "Minsk" is an aggressive action? Are you serious?

"Subsequently, Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor." Incorrect. It was a de facto aggression, and it is currently described as such, but the USSR never openly assumed the role of an aggressor (its stance was that the Polish state ostensibly ceased to exist). Importantly, Britain and France never declared a war on the USSR, and they convinced Poland not to do that either. The reason was that they did not want provoke the Soviet Union to become a true ally of Germany. That means they didn't consider USSR as a German ally. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Guiding the military aircraft of a third country is an aggressive action. The fact that the Soviet Union did not assume the role of aggressor is irrelevant. Likewise, the fact that Poland did not declare war on the Soviets (I repeat again, the victim of aggression does not have to declare war on the aggressor) is also irrelevant. In general, political declarations, dictated by political interests, often aimed at concealing true intentions and misrepresenting facts, are irrelevant.

What matters to us is what actually happened. Marcelus (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Look, you are changing your arguments on fly.

• on 13:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC) you write: "Soviet troops entered Polish territory militarily, openly assuming the role of aggressor"
• on 14:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC) you claimed that "The fact that the Soviet Union did not assume the role of aggressor is irrelevant. "

In other words, you initially claimed that the USSR openly assumed the role of aggressor, and almost immediately after that you claim that it didn't. If you so easily change your own argumentation, then I refuse to accept it seriously too.

WRT "What matters to us is what actually happened" No. You are free to write and publish your own monograph in the history of WWII, where you may express your own views. Here, on Misplaced Pages pages, the only thing that matters is what scholars think on that matter. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My first comment referred to the fact that the USSR objectively became the aggressor. Not only in the colloquial sense of the word, but also in the legal sense of the word, their actions fulfilled the definition of an aggressor (most notably the Convention on the Definition of Assault, signed on 3 July 1933, but not only).

It is true that the Soviets never called themselves that, I never denied it. But it is irrelevant to us what Soviet propaganda claimed. I apologise for the imprecise wording. Marcelus (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Noone argues that the USSR was a de facto aggressor. The question is if it was a German ally, and if it was considered as such by France and UK.

Not only the Soviets never called themselves as an aggressor, the Western Allies didn't call it as such. The list of sources that ostensibly support your POV includes Gorodetsky. But have you bothered to read him? Gorodetsky says that in 1939-41:

""The Soviet Union," it was often repeated in 1939-41, "is a potential enemy rather than a potential ally.""

"The Russians, obsessed by the idea of a German-British reconciliation, persisted in seeking balanced relations with both Britain and Germany throughout 1939-41"

In other words, Gorodetsky clearly says that both UK and USSR saw themselves as potential enemies, they both feared that their vis-a-vis might become the German ally. That is totally inconsistent with what you say. Gorodetsly's views directly contradict to what you say. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

RS confirm that the USSR carried out the aggression against Poland in agreement with Germany in 1939. This is relevant. You can add the remaining political context in the article, there is no objection to it. Marcelus (talk) 07:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I still cannot understand what relation does it have to the subject of the discussion. I argue that the formation of the Allies was a gradual process, but this alliance was forming not by joining Britain: a common approach is that each major Allied power joined the war first, and only after that the multilateral alliance was formalized. That is true for the US, for ROC, for the USSR. Why should we reject this approach specifically for the USSR? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

USSR entered war in Sep 1939. That's why the version proposed by you is unacceptable. Marcelus (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT "broadcasting", I found the source. It is the archival document АВП СССР, ф. 06, оп. 1, п. 7, д. 74. The text can be found here. The original text (which can be easily translated) says:

"4. Хильгер просил также передать Вам просьбу начальника генштаба германских военно-воздушных сил (прилагается) {{***** He публикуется. В ней речь шла о просьбе, чтобы радиостанция в Минске в свободное от передачи время передавала для срочных воздухоплавательных опытов непрерывную линию с вкрапленными позывными знаками: «Рихард Вильгельм 1.0», а кроме того, во время передачи своей программы по возможности часто слово «Минск». Из резолюции В. М. Молотова на документе следует, что было дано согласие передавать только слово «Минск»."

That request was made on 1th pf September, in 11:00.

From the same document, you can see that Germany officially notified Soviet government about the beginning of the war with Poland in 13:00.

All of that does not look like allied relationships. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

This document confirms the fact of military cooperation in the aggression against Poland as early as 1 September. Marcelus (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

If you think that broadcasting of the word "Minsk" is a military activity, then how do you describe a massive counter-attack of the future Axis member that started on August and ended with a cease fire agreement only on 15th of September? Paul Siebert (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Please try to stay on topic. Marcelus (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is it irrelevant? You argue that the Axis existed since 1936. If that was the case, why do you emphasize one instance of de facto hostilities and disregard another instance of much more intense (in terms of the losses sustained by both parties) hostilities?

If the Axis existed by Sept 1939, then my argument is totally relevant. It is irrelevant only if we agree that there was no military alliance between Japan and Germany in 1939. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

The answer is: WP:RS Marcelus (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS do not say the USSR became the Ally as a result of signing the Molotov-Cripps agreement. The conclusions made during the RSN discussion about Woodward are equally applicable to other two sources. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Can users please read wp:or and wp:v sources must explicitly say something. Slatersteven (talk) 14:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks.

And, I also would like to point everybody's attention at the following.

We are actually discussing two different ideas:

1. USSR was a separate case because of its actions against Poland.

2. The UK was a central Allied power, and a power may be considered an Ally only after it signed an alliance with the UK.

These two concepts are totally independent, and the latter is not supported by reliable sources at all. Paul Siebert (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your first point. Your second point mixes up two things. a) Yes, the UK was the main Allied power before the Soviet Union joined the Allies. b) No one is saying that a power must sign an Alliance with the UK to be considered an ally. In this case, however, the Anglo-Soviet Agreement marked the date the Soviet Union officially joined the Allies (given that the UK consulted with the Dominions before signng it). There was no significant cooperation between the UK and the Soviets against Germany before the Anglo-Soviet agreement. After the Agreement there was a joint military operation in Iran and the Soviet Union attended the Second Inter-Allied War Conference.

As I said before, I would support a compromise:

1) In the info box under the Big Three I would support the wording:

United Kingdom (at war with Germany from Sep 1939)

Soviet Union (at war with Germany from June 1941)

United States (at war with Axis from December 1941)

2) In the lead I would support the wording: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, joined the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941 and the signing of the Anglo-Soviet Agreement in July."

Looking at the responses to the specific questions posed in the RfC, this statement would seem to cover the concerns of all parties. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

No. That is factually incorrect. Please, read sources before making your proposals.

On Sept 1939, Britain declared a war on Germany only, because no Axis existed by that time.

On June 1941, the USSR was officially at war with the whole Axis except Japan and Bulgaria, which included Romania, Hungary, Finland, Croatia, Slovakia, Germany and Italy.

On Dec 1941 the US joined the war, and they were officially at war with the whole Axis except Finland and, probably (I have to check it) some small European Axis members.

Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the infpbox must be succinct: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."

Therefore, the version that you reverted ("at war since (or from) ...") better serves the infobox goals and, in contrast to your proposal, it contains no factual errors. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

WRT our #2, I object to usage of the dates of signing any bilateral agreements as the starting date for Allied/Axis membership. We should use either war declaration date or (which is less preferable) the date of signing/joining multilateral agreements (e.g. the Declaration of the United Nations). Paul Siebert (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop repeating false information that Axis didn't exist in 1939, it was created in 1936. Marcelus (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

If the Axis existed since 1936, then the USSR was de facto at war with the Axis since 1939. That directly follows from your speculations. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant. Just your speculations. Again: WP:RS Marcelus (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

That the USSR was de facto at war with Japan is not my speculation, it is a fact.

That Japan was a signatory of Anti-Comintern pact is also a fact.

That Battle of Khalkhin Gol ended in 15th of September, 1939 is also a fact.

Where do you see any speculation here?

And why all of that is irrelevant?

By making unsubstantiated claims that your opponent's view are irrelevant, you are by no means making your point more valid. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no time, nor place for historical dispute, the discussion is already very long; no WP:RS indicates that because of the conflict with Japan Soviet Union was part of the Allies. Unless you are able to prove otherwise, bringing up Khalkhin Gol again will be considered as WP:EXHAUST by me. Marcelus (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

... and majority RS do not indicate that because of the conflict with Poland the Soviet Union was part of the Axis. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

States of war exist between states, not necessarily alliances.  —Michael Z. 23:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but what relation does it have to this discussion? Please, explain. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Additional source for 12 July date

A couple of editors have asked for more reliable sources to support a 12 July 1941 date for the Soviet Union joining the allies. This one quotes Churchill as fixing the Anglo-Soviet agreement as the date the Soviets joined the Allies. "As the Soviet Union persisted in opposing the German forces and the anticipated attack on Britain failed to materialise, the press tentatively began to posit Russia as an ally. This frame was consolidated with the 12 July signing of the Anglo-Russian War Pact and Churchill’s confirmation that ‘‘IT IS, OF COURSE, AN ALLIANCE AND THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE ARE NOW OUR ALLIES’’ (Daily Mirror, July 16, 1941). The press embraced the new title for the USSR and shifted the focus from exploiting the situation for Britain’s benefit to helping ‘‘our Ally’’." Claire Knight, "The Making of the Soviet Ally in the British Wartime Popular Press." p. 483. It's available through the Misplaced Pages Library, but I couldn't make the link work.

(Marcelus , please sign your above post.) This is the only source so far. And it is not an additional source, for other three sources cited here do not support your claim.

And this is a quote from a primary source. The author (Knight) is not discussing the Alliance, she is discussing a perception of the USSR in a British popular press. Knight seems to express no opinion on the subject, she just quotes Churchill. We are not allowed to use primary sources for drawing conclusions from them. If you disagree, go to WP:RSN and ask.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Claire Knight is a reliable secondary source. Secondary sources use and quote primary sources. That's what makes them secondary sources. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the RSN discussion? All what had been said there is equally applicable to Knight. When a scholar quotes a primary source, it does not necessarily mean they endorse it. All what we can write based on Knight is that Churchill called the Soviet Union "the Ally" on 12th of July. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This source obviously supports the statement that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was an alliance and that it made the UK and the Soviet Union officially allies. Did you read the whole article I linked or just the one quote I extracted? Please read the whole article. Here is another quote from it: "For nearly four years prior to the onset of the Cold War, the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-USSR) was fêted wholeheartedly by the British popular press. This approbation was an expression of enthusiasm not for Communism, but for a military partner allied under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement of 1941-45." (Op Cit p. 476) The author in a reliable secondary source is clearly stating as a fact that the Soviet Union became an ally of the UK under the Anglo-Soviet Agreement. This is not surpising given that Churchill said so himself (p. 483). Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Here is the link again for everyone's convenience. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

AA, that is becoming disruptive. The RSN discussion came to an unanimous conclusion that this source cannot be used for that purpose. And yours "This source obviously supports the statement that the Anglo-Soviet agreement was an alliance and that it made the UK and the Soviet Union officially allies" is a form of an utter disrespect to the opinion of other users.

Please, stop it. Paul Siebert (talk) 13:24, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There is no RSN dicussion about this source. Your link points to an entirely different source and an entirely different set of questions which you made up yourself. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but isn't your major idea that:

• The USSR joined the Allies not as a result of Barbarossa, but as a result of signining a declaration by Molotov and Cripps,
• the Soviet Union should be considered the Ally NOT at the moment it declared a war on Germany and its allies, it was the the Anglo-Soviet Agreement which marked the date when the Soviet Union officially joined the Allies?

That is exactly what I asked.

And the source is not "entirely different", it is the source from your list (#3) Paul Siebert (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Don't change info box until RfC is completed

I have reverted the info box to the stable version at the time the RfC began. Please don't change it until consensus is reached. If you think you can improve it, please discuss it here and seek consensus. Also please confine the discussions here to the questions posed in the RfC. Thank you.

@Aemilius Adolphin: First, don't forget to sigh your posts.

Second, our guidelines say: Do not disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point. You reverted the wording that is an improvement: it is less ambiguous, but the dates and links were not affected. The subject of the RfC is not about the concrete wording, but about the core idea: instead of the date of war declaration (which currently is the common principle for all three major Allies), you proposed to change the principle specifically for the USSR. Only this idea is the subject of the RfC. Therefore, I don't see what prevents us from working on other aspects. The reason for your revert is not legitimate. Please, self-revert.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, I reverted to the stable version which existed prior to the RfC. It is only your opinion that the wording added without consensus is an improvement. 2 editors objected to it. The correct procedure was for you to first canvas your idea for an improvement on the talk page and seek consensus for it. There is obviously no consensus for it yet, but one might emerge if you let the discussion take its course. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 02:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for compromise, staw poll

Could interested editors please indicate whether they support the following suggestions for a compromise. I suggested it to one or two editors above but it seems to have got lost in discussion over marginal issues.

Info box

Under the big three, we change the text to:

United Kingdom: at war with Germany from Sep 1939

Soviet Union: at war with Germany from Jun 1941

United States: at war with Axis from Dec 1941

Footnotes can be used to clarify this if necessary (as is the case with other Allies listed in the info box).

Lead

We change the relevant sentence to: "The Soviet Union, which initially had a nonaggression pact with Germany and participated in its invasion of Poland, fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months."

Please indicate Yes or No if you agree to these proposed changes. Please give a one line statement if you wish to clarify. Please do not engage in a lengthy discussion of side issues. There is room for that above. Please do not try to bludgeon the discussion. Thank you. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:23, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this proposition Marcelus (talk) 23:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. How about something like “which initially had an understanding with Germany to divide up Eastern Europe”?  —Michael Z. 00:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No.

The proposed infobox is factually incorrect. The USSR was at war not with Germany, but with "The Axis" (except Japan). In particular, it was at war with some states (Romania, Hungary, Finland), which were fighting almost exclusively with the USSR.

Furthermore, "United Kingdom: at war with Germany from Sep 1939" is also misleading, because it creates a false impression that the UK never fought against Japan. In general, this proposal goes against MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE (too many details, too confusing and too inaccurate). Interestingly, I already explained that above.

The uncontroversial version is the one you reverted. And that version was in agreement with MOS. It should be:

• "United Kingdom: at war from Sep 1939" (later, the UK would declare a war on Italy, Japan etc, but that belongs to the article, not the infobox)
• "Soviet Union: at war from Jun 1941" (the USSR didn't declare a war on Japan until Aug 1945, but that is explained in teh article)
• "United States: at war from Dec 1941" (in this case "with the Axis" is redundant).

Next, "fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months" is too vague in non-concrete. Actually all future Allies "formalised their alliance in the following months", specifically, by signing the Declaration of the United Nations. A proposed lede presents the USSR as some exceptional case, which is incorrect.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the most precise wording would be not "fought on the side of the Allies after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, and formalised the alliance in the following months", but just "since June 1941 bore the major brunt of the war against the European Axis". There is no need to mention any formal agreement with Britain at all, for 80% of all hostilities in the European theater had moved to the Eastern Front after 22th of June. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

As I explained to you earlier, the statement that the Soviet Union was at war from Dec 1941 is untrue, because the Soviet Union entered the war in September 1939. The fact that you keep repeating this untrue information leads one to believe that you are deliberately seeking to distort historical facts. I ask you to stop such actions. Marcelus (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants. Please provide an opinion on this compromise proposal if you wish. @Slatersteven, @Whizz40, @Mwinog2777, @Hawkeye7, @Nick-D, @My very best wishes, @CarolingianCitizen, @The Gnome, @Piotrus Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

References

1. Gabriel, Gorodetsky (1988). "The Origins of the Cold War. Stalin, Churchill and the Formation of the Grand Alliance". The Russian Review. 47 (2): 155. Churchill's famous speech of 22 June was directed to varying quarters and brilliantly concealed his determination to avoid a genuine association. Churchill had readily bowed to a request by both the Chiefs of Staff and the Foreign Office not to refer to the Russians as allies.
2. Weinberg, Gerhard L. (2005). A World at Arms, a global history of World War II (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 284–5. ISBN 9780521853163. On the political front, the Soviet Union and Great Britain had signed an agreement in Moscow on July 12, 1941. Requested by Stalin as a sign of cooperation, it provided for mutual assistance and an understanding not to negotiate or conclude an armistice or peace except by mutual consent. Soviet insistence on such an agreement presumably reflected their suspicion of Great Britain, though there is no evidence that either party to it ever ceased to have its doubt about the loyalty of the other if attractive alternatives were thought to be available.
3. Woodward, Llewellyn (1962). British Foreign Policy in the Second World War. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. pp. 162–3. He replied on July 10 that Stalin had accepted 'an agreement for joint action between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the government of the U.S.S.R. in the war against Germany.' ...The agreement was signed on July 12.

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history articles
• Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force articles
• C-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• C-Class Canadian military history articles
• Canadian military history task force articles
• C-Class Chinese military history articles
• Chinese military history task force articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• C-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• C-Class Russian, Soviet and CIS military history articles
• Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force articles
• C-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• C-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles
• C-Class United Kingdom articles
• High-importance United Kingdom articles
• WikiProject United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Soviet Union articles
• High-importance Soviet Union articles
• WikiProject Soviet Union articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class United States History articles
• Unknown-importance United States History articles
• WikiProject United States History articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Poland articles
• Mid-importance Poland articles
• WikiProject Poland articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• C-Class Chinese history articles
• High-importance Chinese history articles
• WikiProject Chinese history articles
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• High-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class Czech Republic articles
• Mid-importance Czech Republic articles
• All WikiProject Czech Republic pages
• C-Class Slovakia articles
• Mid-importance Slovakia articles
• All WikiProject Slovakia pages
• C-Class International relations articles
• Top-importance International relations articles
• C-Class United Nations articles
• Top-importance United Nations articles
• WikiProject United Nations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• C-Class France articles
• High-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages
• C-Class Mexico articles
• High-importance Mexico articles
• WikiProject Mexico articles
• Czech Republic articles with deprecated tags
• Slovakia articles with deprecated tags
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment